[FlamingDuck]

In case you didn't hear, a man in Virginia shot and killed at least 33 people, including himself, as well as injuring at least 15 more. The shootings occurred at a co-ed dorm and a classroom. He was reported to be a young Asian man, but he carried no identification, so they don't know much else. This is the worst shooting in US history, and it begs the question, what could have prevented it? If you want to know more, just go to practically any news site. Why do people do things like this?

[Split Infinity]

There was obviously something wrong with him.

[Golden Djinn13]

I still find it odd how they don't know who the guy is. I doubt he was a student though, they probably would have identified if he was.

[PDM]

He got tired of the hackers in 1.6.

"U CAN'T HADSHOT ME HERE CAN U!!!!!"

[Saturos S.]

He was a student, I think, it was on the new this evening here.
There's a memorial over there 'bout now and Bush is coming.

I guess this is another example why it's bad idea that everyone can buy a gun who wants to.

[Golden Djinn13]

I just got the information that he was a 23 year old South Korean student at the school. His name was Cho Seung-Hui. Supposedly they described him as a loner that wrote things in english class that were "disturbing". He was sent to the schools guidance counselor, and put on depression meds.

He soon became "violent" and "erratic", and left a note before he went on the rampage, but they still don't know exactly what made him do it. Thats all the info I could get on this.

[Wiflewood]

Probably depressed, suicidal, drunk, drugged up, wanted to go out with a bang and take as many people with him as he could. He didn't need to think about the consequences of his actions cos he knew he'd be dead.

Sad.

[Hotshot101]

Most likely depressed, because he shot his own girlfriend.

[Shikonaurum]

It truly was a tragedy; I'm not approving of the media overhype of this situation, labeling it with titles such as "massacre" when it could have just as easily been called a shooting. It seems like such a ploy for viewers, NBC's title of "Virginia Tech Massacre." It's not to say that I don't sympathize with those who lived through the tragedy, but the fact that NBC is putting on a one-hour special doesn't seem to get across as pity. They report on sixty people dying in Iraq if those Iraqis are lucky, but let it be local, and then people flock to the news and let the news cater to those.

That's just my thought about media coverage.

How terrifying.

And pinning blame on the administration so quickly... It's really a sad state of affairs.

[Platinum Sun]

I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but I have to say this:

You want to talk sad state of affairs? My mom asked me to stop playing Diablo II. Know why? People are starting to blame Halo for this! This is just like when people blamed Columbine on Doom 3. Both claims are rediculous. You can't shoot yourself in Doom 3 and the Virginia Tech guy didn't stick even one person with a plasma grenade. Did it ever occur to anyone that people go on shooting rampages because they're crazy? Ok, offensive video game rant over. As you were.

[Golden Legacy]

Shikonaurum, on Apr 17 2007, 07:24 PM, said:

It truly was a tragedy; I'm not approving of the media overhype of this situation, labeling it with titles such as "massacre" when it could have just as easily been called a shooting. It seems like such a ploy for viewers, NBC's title of "Virginia Tech Massacre." It's not to say that I don't sympathize with those who lived through the tragedy, but the fact that NBC is putting on a one-hour special doesn't seem to get across as pity. They report on sixty people dying in Iraq if those Iraqis are lucky, but let it be local, and then people flock to the news and let the news cater to those.

That's just my thought about media coverage.

How terrifying.

And pinning blame on the administration so quickly... It's really a sad state of affairs.

Very good, deep views on the manner, I respect you for it. I do agree that the media actually "enjoys" big events such as this, as it gives them plenty of time to fill up their slots in a time when "new news" might be difficult to find.

It appears the student had been planning the attack - yesterday morning, before going to the class where the first shootings took place, he locked both entrances to the building where he shot his first victims.


The administration has also been accused of doing too little too late to inform the university's student population when the first attack happened - by the time they informed everyone, via e-mail, the second range of shooting had occurred, also including his suicide.

[Hotshot101]

Platinum Sun, on Apr 17 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but I have to say this:

You want to talk sad state of affairs? My mom asked me to stop playing Diablo II. Know why? People are starting to blame Halo for this! This is just like when people blamed Columbine on Doom 3. Both claims are rediculous. You can't shoot yourself in Doom 3 and the Virginia Tech guy didn't stick even one person with a plasma grenade. Did it ever occur to anyone that people go on shooting rampages because they're crazy? Ok, offensive video game rant over. As you were.

Well I gotta agree with you. The only people who get this stuff from video games are crazy themselves. This shoot was really sickening for me. I just can't help, but feel bad for the families that lost those students and the students that survived; they lost friends and mabye even family members. The worse thing is they have off the rest of this week to think about it

[Platinum Sun]

If it were you, would you rather deal with your grief at the school where they were killed?

[Toasty]

Personally, I'd be scared as hell to go back there for a while. It'd give me nightmares just walking through the halls.

By the way, he injured somewhere around 25-30, and shot 32 (not including himself).

What I don't get, is how he was able to kill so many. Usually they're stopped after the first handful of shots, or don't bother carrying clips with them. Where were the guards?

And the Virginia Tech place had a no guns rule. Even if you went throught the right channels, had a gun licence, had a clean background, and were trained in the use of a handgun, you couldn't carry one in. Now with that, you can look at it two ways. 1) It's good because the fewer the guns, the less chance of a shooting. Or 2) Bad, because since those who are responsible with a handgun can't carry one in, there are fewer people to ward off shootings like this. Also, if you keep the good citizens from having guns, then who are the ones who'll have them? The unresponsible lawbrekers because they'll carry them illegally, whereas the responsible will have left them at home etc. to respect the rule.

Personally, I'd say it should be allowed as long as you're triple checked in everything and are considered responsible.

[PDM]

Golden Djinn13, on Apr 17 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

I just got the information that he was a 23 year old South Korean student at the school. His name was Cho Seung-Hui. Supposedly they described him as a loner that wrote things in english class that were "disturbing". He was sent to the schools guidance counselor, and put on depression meds.

He soon became "violent" and "erratic", and left a note before he went on the rampage, but they still don't know exactly what made him do it. Thats all the info I could get on this.

Sue the medical company!

[Platinum Sun]

Mr.T, on Apr 17 2007, 10:04 PM, said:

Personally, I'd be scared as hell to go back there for a while. It'd give me nightmares just walking through the halls.

By the way, he injured somewhere around 25-30, and shot 32 (not including himself).

What I don't get, is how he was able to kill so many. Usually they're stopped after the first handful of shots, or don't bother carrying clips with them. Where were the guards?

And the Virginia Tech place had a no guns rule. Even if you went throught the right channels, had a gun licence, had a clean background, and were trained in the use of a handgun, you couldn't carry one in. Now with that, you can look at it two ways. 1) It's good because the fewer the guns, the less chance of a shooting. Or 2) Bad, because since those who are responsible with a handgun can't carry one in, there are fewer people to ward off shootings like this. Also, if you keep the good citizens from having guns, then who are the ones who'll have them? The unresponsible lawbrekers because they'll carry them illegally, whereas the responsible will have left them at home etc. to respect the rule.

Personally, I'd say it should be allowed as long as you're triple checked in everything and are considered responsible.

Typically if you're the type that goes on a murderous rampage, you have a certain contempt for authority that makes regulations completely useless. The magnitude of the deaths had a lot to do with the fact that the no-gun rule extended to faculty, staff, and yes, even some security personell. (A big WTF to that!) Also, the shooter chained up the doors of several escape routes, forcing paniced mobs into his line of fire.

[Hotshot101]

Platinum Sun, on Apr 17 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

If it were you, would you rather deal with your grief at the school where they were killed?

Well I would probaly be more on my class then the death. It doesn't free my mind to really think about it. Since they are off they are really free to think.

[FlamingDuck]

Mr. T, a no guns restriction is a good thing. If you are going to commit a crime, you'd just sneak a gun on anyway. So if everyone who doesn't plan on using a gun carries one, things could escalate in an argument or something, ending in one person whipping out a gun, etc. I think it's a good idea.

And yes, Jack Thompson is blaming video games on this. About 4 hours after the shooting. I shall finish this little rant later.

[Hotshot101]

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 07:36 AM, said:

Mr. T, a no guns restriction is a good thing.

I am not exactly sure about that. Texas has the lowest crime rate in the US and they have no gun restrictions at all.

[Wiflewood]

Well for a country where any random Joe can walk into a shop and buy a gun, I don't agree with people saying it couldn't have been prevented.

[Saturos S.]

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Mr. T, a no guns restriction is a good thing. If you are going to commit a crime, you'd just sneak a gun on anyway. So if everyone who doesn't plan on using a gun carries one, things could escalate in an argument or something, ending in one person whipping out a gun, etc. I think it's a good idea.

This guy was on anti-deprissants, he probably wouldn't have been able to get a gun if it was restricted. Getting a gun when restricted means it has to be smuggled into the country or out of some police office. You need to know the people.

In that state of mind you won't be able to do that.

...

Mind you, Europe without guns everywhere makes me feel safer then knowing my neighbour could have one.

[Split Infinity]

Mr.T, on Apr 18 2007, 01:04 PM, said:

Personally, I'd be scared as hell to go back there for a while. It'd give me nightmares just walking through the halls.

By the way, he injured somewhere around 25-30, and shot 32 (not including himself).

What I don't get, is how he was able to kill so many. Usually they're stopped after the first handful of shots, or don't bother carrying clips with them. Where were the guards?

And the Virginia Tech place had a no guns rule. Even if you went throught the right channels, had a gun licence, had a clean background, and were trained in the use of a handgun, you couldn't carry one in. Now with that, you can look at it two ways. 1) It's good because the fewer the guns, the less chance of a shooting. Or 2) Bad, because since those who are responsible with a handgun can't carry one in, there are fewer people to ward off shootings like this. Also, if you keep the good citizens from having guns, then who are the ones who'll have them? The unresponsible lawbrekers because they'll carry them illegally, whereas the responsible will have left them at home etc. to respect the rule.

Personally, I'd say it should be allowed as long as you're triple checked in everything and are considered responsible.

Therefore, we should all equip ourselves with miniature nukes in case of an attack from Pakistan, correct? The third most common reason for teen violence is availability of guns. They are not a method of self-defence. They are designed to kill. If somebody came up to you and put a muzzle to your head, you're not seriously going to reach for your own, are you?

[Platinum Sun]

That's the thing, the VT shooter never put a gun to anyone's head and said "BLAAA! I'm going to shoot you!" He just whipped out a gun and went postal on everyone in range. That's the kind of guy that can be taken out with guess what? A gun.

[Eugine]

Yea, but PS... without a gun, would he have been able to do that? I say no guns. I prefer the normal beat em' up with your fist fights all the time.

(Shows who's man also ^^)

But damn, I was watching the victims, all of them seemed like promising adults, and very educated. The world just lost 32 (33 maybe...) great minds.

[Golden Djinn13]

I just read an article about how a student (At the University of Colorado) was arrested for feeling sympathy for the gunman at V. Tech. He said some things that were kind of odd, but at the same time they weren't really anything to take seriously. This makes me think of how security might be changed on college campuses to prevent things like this from happening again.

[Wiflewood]

Having a "Gun in case of an argument" is just stupid. Over here, not even the police carry guns round with them; theres no need. If no-one can get a gun, then no-one needs a gun.

In America, since everyone can get a gun, then people seem to think everyone needs a gun to 'protect' themselves. If they're not available in the first place then no-one would need them to 'protect' themselves either.

I keep putting the word 'protect' in inverted commas because I honestly think that the amount of usage you're going to get out of it for good is pretty much zero. If someones training a gun on you they're not going to let you get your own gun out to 'protect' yourself, you're gonna be dead long before then.

If you use the argument that you could use your gun to help stop crimes such as this one, (Platinum sun) you're also wrong. I doubt many of the gun owners in America have special training or are particularly good shots. Even if they get within range of a crazed gunman without being shot (highly unlikely) then they're either gonna miss and just draw attention to themselves (and end up getting shot anyway) or hit someone other than the gunman.

A gun owner isn't a hero; leave it to the police; it's their job.

The rest of the time the gun is sitting at home for any depressed/drunk teenage offspring to steal to commit suicide or 'settle' an argument at school.

[Platinum Sun]

Eugine, on Apr 18 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

Yea, but PS... without a gun, would he have been able to do that? I say no guns. I prefer the normal beat em' up with your fist fights all the time.

Virginia Tech had a no gun policy, but he had a gun anyway. That's the flaw in the plan. Crazy people can come shoot the place up because they don't respect the rules. Then innocent people that do respect the rules get killed because they're not allowed to defend themselves. If a no gun policy actually worked then it wouldn't be a problem. However, as this shooting demonstrates, gun-free campuses create dorms full of sitting ducks.

[Wiflewood]

Platinum Sun, on Apr 18 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

Virginia Tech had a no gun policy, but he had a gun anyway. That's the flaw in the plan. Crazy people can come shoot the place up because they don't respect the rules. Then innocent people that do respect the rules get killed because they're not allowed to defend themselves. If a no gun policy actually worked then it wouldn't be a problem. However, as this shooting demonstrates, gun-free campuses create dorms full of sitting ducks.

Ah of course. If everyone carried a gun on campus, everywhere would be a much safer place. Never mind the fact that anyone would be able to start threatening anyone for anything. Disputes would be solved with guns instead of words, and it would make identifying a perpetrator of a gun crime such as this one virtually impossible.

EDIT: Crazy people can come and "shoot the place up" anywhere at anytime no matter what policies; people anything like that. Having everyone carry a gun isn't going to stop that.

[Platinum Sun]

Wiflewood, on Apr 18 2007, 05:12 PM, said:

EDIT: Crazy people can come and "shoot the place up" anywhere at anytime no matter what policies; people anything like that. Having everyone carry a gun isn't going to stop that.

EXACTLY! So what's the point of having a gun policy?

I'm not even going to adress your attacks on the Second Amendment because you have no idea what its like over here and are in no position to say any of that.

[Wiflewood]

Platinum Sun, on Apr 18 2007, 11:22 PM, said:

EXACTLY! So what's the point of having a gun policy?

I'm not even going to adress your attacks on the Second Amendment because you have no idea what its like over here and are in no position to say any of that.

'Smy opinion isn't it? true that I don't really know the ins and outs of American culture, but I can't see how everyone having the power to kill people with the flick of a finger is good for national security.

*ahem* but I'm off to bed. But this is not over! we shall continue it tomorrow!

[Platinum Sun]

Sweet dreams. I know you'll sleep well. You (apparently) live in a very safe place. To be honest. I was stunned when you said that your police officers don't have guns. If we took the guns away from our cops, they would all be killed inside a week and the nation would be plunged into a state of anarchy. I too have moral qualms with the second amendment, (Most people fail to mention that the second amendment starts with "To maintain a well armored militia" which illustrates how incredibly outdated it is.) but I've also lived here long enough to know that nothing can be done. Pulling the plug on the right to bear arms would not only cause massive public outrage in all corners of the country, it would give a big boost to the gun-smuggling industry. I live in a very safe neighborhood, (Mostly because this town has ~120 people) and I still wouldn't feel as secure as you do without knowing that we can have guns to fight back with.

[FlamingDuck]

Platinum Sun, on Apr 18 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

To be honest. I was stunned when you said that your police officers don't have guns. If we took the guns away from our cops, they would all be killed inside a week and the nation would be plunged into a state of anarchy.

That's a little bit of an exaggeration there. Most police officers say that they've never drawn their gun. Unless you're an inner city cop who busts up gangs, you aren't going to really use your gun, or get killed without it.

Someone said that this would spark gun control controversies, and I see that they were right. However, I'm more concerned with the "blame game". People are blaming the university, gun control laws, and even video games for this. I mean, Jack Thompson managed to get on Fox and say that Counter Strike and the like were to blame for this. This was before the identity of the killer was released. Seriously, WTF? Have some respect, maybe wait a day or two before using a tragedy to push your own agenda.

As for gun restrictions, I think that maybe non--lethal alternatives, like tazers, should be used more, and that gun use should decrease. Now I know that that is not very likely, but it would be nice. As a more realistic solution...I don't know. I'm sort of pushing for no guns at all, but it does lend a certain amount of security to know that you can protet yourself, but still...I think the likelyhood of using a gun for a decent cause is far less than having it used for something criminal. What are the chances of walking down the street, seeing someone being mugged, realizing that you have your handy-dandy pistol with you, whipping it out and hold the mugger at gunpoint? Even for home ssecurity, it will most likely never be used, and if it is, it might only be useful some of the time. If both sides have a gun, then you're in a bit of a standoff until someone backs down or is shot. And if your homeowner, it'll pretty tough to back down when holding a gun. And I don't believe that killing someone is nearly as easy as some things make it out to be, unless your crazy. In which case, you're pretty much screwed anyway.

[Platinum Sun]

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

That's a little bit of an exaggeration there. Most police officers say that they've never drawn their gun. Unless you're an inner city cop who busts up gangs, you aren't going to really use your gun, or get killed without it.

Correct. That was an exaggeration, but it made my point. And even cops that have never drawn their gun probably don't want it taken away from them. Even if you've never needed it for 4 years, it only takes one incident to get a cop killed.

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

Seriously, WTF? Have some respect, maybe wait a day or two before using a tragedy to push your own agenda.

Agreed, but there's little that anyone can do about that.

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

As for gun restrictions, I think that maybe non--lethal alternatives, like tazers, should be used more, and that gun use should decrease. Now I know that that is not very likely, but it would be nice.

Yeah, lots of things would be nice, but you know what? Life sucks and God hates us. Bring a gun.

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

What are the chances of walking down the street, seeing someone being mugged, realizing that you have your handy-dandy pistol with you, whipping it out and hold the mugger at gunpoint?

I wouldn't condone that. A gun should only be used in response to an assailant with a gun.

FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:

Even for home security, it will most likely never be used, and if it is, it might only be useful some of the time. If both sides have a gun, then you're in a bit of a standoff until someone backs down or is shot. And if your homeowner, it'll pretty tough to back down when holding a gun.

Better than only one side having a gun, and you invariably getting shot.

[Eugine]

I agree with PS argument a-bit more over Wiffle, but both has its negatives.

Have it against the law so that everyone except law officers are able to carry a gun? Maybe if everyone was law abiding, this would have been possible but, unfortunately, not everyone is. So those who wants a gun, will get one, no matter what. Plus with so much guns the market, it's even worse. This'll leave the law-abiding folks defenseless, and easier to take out.

Have it so that everyone of age can carry a gun? Like Wiffle said, guns can be the new fists. But then, it can give a surviving chance for situations like this here.

This is a complicated topic.

[Wiflewood]

Just a few facts to move the argument along:

Over here, its illegal to carry any weapon with you at all.

Although some specialised cops are trained to use guns, you don't see them a lot, only when they're called out for a specific job. Normal cops walking around have batons, but not guns.

Read in the paper today that you're more than 5 times more likely to be a victim of gun crime in the U.S than Britain.


However, I am getting to see Plat's point of view. I don't agree at all that everyone should have guns, but I do see the logic that a complete abolition of guns all in one go would have some negative side effects

[PDM]

Dog the bounty hunter uses mace!

[Saturos S.]

There was this special on some government program about the American view on the gun policy.

It seems that they have the feeling they need to protect themselves more then us Europeans because they still have some kind of pioneer's mentality in them.

...

That's the only part I remember, I went to off to.... somewhere else so I didn't catch the rest of the reasons.

[Golden Djinn13]

Im gonna step of the gun control argument for a while. :)

More news on the gunman was released, after he sent videos and pictures to NBC studios about what he was planning on doing. He supposedly was supposedly picked on in High School, and probably even earlier than that. The only new reports on him is that he NEVER talked. Thats all the news they could get on him, I guess.

[Shikonaurum]

The gunman. How terrifying, really, the message and the photos the package contained. I find it somewhat peculiar, however, that they should stress that "That's what the gunman was doing during the two hour lull," as if it was a major breakthrough to make him sound heartless or something. Sure, killing two people and then strolling to the post office sounds rather macabre, but isn't it the same thing as going to the post office and then killing the same amount of people?

Perhaps I'm being far too cynical for this subject; terribly sorry about that.

The fact that nobody could force the gunman to go into counseling really manages to ask the question about "What could have been done?" Rather than actually looking at what can be considered Virginia Tech's ineptitude, can't we look at the person himself? With no counseling and no reasonable means for intervention, nothing wrong on the surface except for the fact that people said that "he could make a school shooter someday..."

Virginia Tech is going to become the safest school in existence for a bit of time, but I'm not sure if it's going to be at the expense of huge fits of persecution out of paranoia alone.

About gun control: Logistically, anything we recommend won't work. People like their guns. It'd be great to assume that if I don't shoot you, you won't shoot me. Or that we can wage it through online games. But... sadly, no. I'll give more thought to actual proposals later.

... How about, to increase airport security, instead of checking for guns, we give every passenger a gun? Seriously. Nobody act suspicious and you won't get hurt. That's almost the policy these days anyway.

[Platinum Sun]

Shikonaurum, on Apr 19 2007, 06:28 PM, said:

How about, to increase airport security, instead of checking for guns, we give every passenger a gun? Seriously. Nobody act suspicious and you won't get hurt. That's almost the policy these days anyway.

That, sadly, is the most reasonable plan I've heard thus far. At least only a few people would get shot instead of the whole plane getting hijacked and killing hundreds.

[Toasty]

About the whole gun thing.

1) The whole "if no one can get a gun no one needs one" thing is pointless. People will ALWAYS be able to get a gun, the only difference would be getting one illegally vs. legally. Therefore, if you're thuroughly screened, you should be allowed to have a gun on campus.

2) Not everyone can get a gun. You must be 18 or older to have a gun, you must carry a licence with you when carrying the gun, and you must be a certified gun owner (goes hand-in-hand with the licence). Also, the owner of the store selling the guns has the right to deny anyone the right to own a gun if the buyer seems drunk, uneasy, or otherwise suspicious. Apparently the VT shooter didn't match any of those criteria, so the store clerk who sold it to him thought everything was okay. The shooter even bought the gun legally.

3) Being allowed to carry a gun to school won't result in stand-off's if the school properly and thuroughly screens the people who are asking to carry in a gun. That would include getting good grades (usually straight A students aren't the type to go all rambo in a school), not taking any mind altering medications (anti-depressants), not having a history of drug abuse, etc. If that is done, then more than likely things will be safer.

4) School guards should have guns on them. 'Nuff said. Period.

5) Allowing every passenger on a plane to have guns isn't exactly the best idea since sliced bread. (i.e. imagine an angry four year old with a pistol. :) )



I'm done for now I guess.

[PDM]

http://www.lolitron.org/2007/04/17/jack-th...-tech-shooting/


VIDEO GAMES !!!

[Wiflewood]

Platinum Sun, on Apr 20 2007, 12:33 AM, said:

That, sadly, is the most reasonable plan I've heard thus far. At least only a few people would get shot instead of the whole plane getting hijacked and killing hundreds.

Because obviously even if the pilot gets shot the plane will land safely if the terrorists are dead...

[Platinum Sun]

The idea is to kill the terrorists before they get to the pilot. But even if they don't, the auto pilot will take the plane to the airport it's supposed to go to. The terminal can talk surviving passengers through a landing if anyone that knows how to fly a plane is dead. It can be done. The most likely scenario is that the landing gear gets crumpled and the plane gets smashed up, maybe overshoot the tarmac a little on braking, but everyone will live.

[Golden Djinn13]

PDM, on Apr 20 2007, 01:44 AM, said:

http://www.lolitron.org/2007/04/17/jack-th...-tech-shooting/
VIDEO GAMES !!!

I love how they call him an "expert" on school shootings. Leave it to Thompson to get even more media attention on this, instead of sympathy for the victims. ;)

[Toasty]

He gives gamers a bad name, and that's an understatement. Because of him, a lot of people think that just because you play videogames, you're a bad person. Or worse yet, that even if you've only played videogames for one minute in your entire life, that you're gonna go on some crazy ass killing spree.

Basically, he's never played videogames, and doesn't realise that only the insecure can be persuaded by them. Heck, the killers that play videogames only rehearse with them, which means that they planned on going Rambo before they picked up a controller. The more likely culprit would be TV and Movies, but you don't see anyone pointing fingers at hollywood.

[Someone Else]

That's Fox News for you.

Seriously, Thompson takes what's otherwise a great cause (keeping violent or raunchy games away from children) and completely rolls it up into a gimmick to further his career. But we've talked about this before!

[Split Infinity]

Quote

1) The whole "if no one can get a gun no one needs one" thing is pointless. People will ALWAYS be able to get a gun, the only difference would be getting one illegally vs. legally. Therefore, if you're thuroughly screened, you should be allowed to have a gun on campus.

If the government imposed tough measures on a no-guns policy, the likelyhood of a firearm coming under ownership of an individual would be greatly reduced. Do you realise that the USA has one of the highest gun death rates of any country? I wonder why.

Quote

2) Not everyone can get a gun. You must be 18 or older to have a gun, you must carry a licence with you when carrying the gun, and you must be a certified gun owner (goes hand-in-hand with the licence). Also, the owner of the store selling the guns has the right to deny anyone the right to own a gun if the buyer seems drunk, uneasy, or otherwise suspicious. Apparently the VT shooter didn't match any of those criteria, so the store clerk who sold it to him thought everything was okay. The shooter even bought the gun legally.

It's not that difficult for a legally bought gun to change hands.

Quote

3) Being allowed to carry a gun to school won't result in stand-off's if the school properly and thuroughly screens the people who are asking to carry in a gun. That would include getting good grades (usually straight A students aren't the type to go all rambo in a school), not taking any mind altering medications (anti-depressants), not having a history of drug abuse, etc. If that is done, then more than likely things will be safer.

Why the hell would a student need a gun on campus? You're supposed to be studying!

Quote

4) School guards should have guns on them. 'Nuff said. Period.

They should be the only ones.

Quote

5) Allowing every passenger on a plane to have guns isn't exactly the best idea since sliced bread. (i.e. imagine an angry four year old with a pistol. ;) )

He was kidding.

Quote

I'm done for now I guess.

Hooray!

[Eugine]

Well yea, I agree with Split. Having anyone/everyone with a gun on campus, isn't really smart imo.
Atleast on campus it's easier to bar entrance of guns, rather than off-campus.

[Split Infinity]

They could try inserting chips into commercially available guns to alert checking devices, for example: hotels, banks, aiports, etc.

[Toasty]

Guns will soon be equipped with chips that allow only the owner to shoot it. It'll be used mostly by police though.

Split, (good) students need guns on campus to protect themselves incase this kind of thing happens. I'll bet you a large sum that if a select few students were allowed to carry pistols, the death toll would be significantly less.

I knew he was joking Split. Like I've said many times, sarcasm.

Course it isn't dificult for a gun to change hands. Except in most cases you'd have to steal it from that person, and because he'd have the gun in his hands, he'd likely threaten the perp with it.

The US has a high death rate from guns because guns are available illegally on the streets. That's where most of the shooters get there guns. Sometimes, like in this case, they'll get them legally, but as for gangs who have them or other people intending to misuse them, they get them from street vendors. Guns will always be available, strict policy or no. The only thing that changes is whether you get 'em legally or not.

In most cases, the guards should be the only ones, yes. But if you make owning guns illegal to the public, who will have the guns? The bad guys. And the good guys will be defenseles because they don't want to break the law to buy/steal/carry one illegally. Basically, ban guns from a school and the only people left with 'em are the kids who'll be doing the shooting. Bad scenario there IMO.

[Eugine]

Quote

Guns will soon be equipped with chips that allow only the owner to shoot it. It'll be used mostly by police though.

Any links? I'm fascinated with how it'll work.

[Split Infinity]

Fingerprints, I believe.

Quote

Split, (good) students need guns on campus to protect themselves incase this kind of thing happens. I'll bet you a large sum that if a select few students were allowed to carry pistols, the death toll would be significantly less.

Are you kidding me? Guns in the hands of hundreds of stressed-out teens?

[Toasty]

Split, not hundreds, only a few. And those few (like I've stated before) will be thuroughly screened.

Eugine, here's an article that gives a description of it. I can't find a better source, and this one just puts it down. I first read it in a Popular Mechanics Magazine, but I can't find it on their website.

[Split Infinity]

So they're going to be compromising the safety of the entire school just because they have intelligent students? Hire guards, for Chrissake.

[TheEnglishman]

Mr.T, on Apr 21 2007, 02:25 AM, said:

He gives gamers a bad name, and that's an understatement. Because of him, a lot of people think that just because you play videogames, you're a bad person. Or worse yet, that even if you've only played videogames for one minute in your entire life, that you're gonna go on some crazy ass killing spree.

Basically, he's never played videogames, and doesn't realise that only the insecure can be persuaded by them. Heck, the killers that play videogames only rehearse with them, which means that they planned on going Rambo before they picked up a controller. The more likely culprit would be TV and Movies, but you don't see anyone pointing fingers at hollywood.

It sounds like the shooter's video was inspired by some sort of Korean film, so I find it unfair that Jack Thompson just says 'Oh it was video games again. They're evil, etc' when there isn't any real proof that it was.

[Wiflewood]

Split Infinity, on Apr 21 2007, 06:17 AM, said:

So they're going to be compromising the safety of the entire school just because they have intelligent students? Hire guards, for Chrissake.

Agreed. And what if none of these smart, "thoroughly screened" students want the guns? Its not fair on them for the college to say "You lot are going to have to have guns and protect people if need be" and give them a responsibility they don't want. And if you ask for volunteers to be these 'student guards', you'lll most likely attract the wrong sort of people.

[Split Infinity]

Another good point. There is a big difference between an intelligent person and smart person. One has brains, the other has sense. Back the original point, guns should be forbidden in public buildings at all times. In untrained hands, they are nothing but a threat.

[Eugine]

Japan, is a country to worship with gun control policies. Japan has one the lowest gun related deaths in the world in terms of its population. Last year there were only 53 known shootings, not deaths in all of Japan last year; and to even make things look better, most were organised gang violence.

Recently, the major of the Japanese city of Nagasaki, died from gunshots, and this was a shock to the entire country of Japan. Why? Japan is just not known for gun voilence, or violence on a whole. Only 5 politicians have been killed since WWII.

How they do it? They simply make owning a gun illegal to any civilian in Japan. Most Japanese die without even touching any form of firearm their entire life. Of course special cases applies, but obtaining one is tiresome, and most say isn't worth the time.
The government itself isn't fully armed, especially in comparison to the Western police force. Most policie believe Martial Arts is the best way to deal with crimes. Of course they do carry guns, but only use it as last resort.
A simple "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords", law has caused Japan to become the model country for gun control. Most are wondering why other countries aren't atleast imitating the law.
And mind you, a country can go from extreme gun voilence to a modern day Japan day level. Japan did it. Japan was a violent country in the imperial days.

This basically adds to my point that no guns at all = best law imo.

Sources:
Washington Times
Japanese Gun Control

[Toasty]

Split Infinity, on Apr 21 2007, 04:05 AM, said:

Another good point. There is a big difference between an intelligent person and smart person. One has brains, the other has sense. Back the original point, guns should be forbidden in public buildings at all times. In untrained hands, they are nothing but a threat.

You don't get it.

The students wouldn't be forced to. If they wanted to, they would need to be thuroughly screened, and would have to have a 3.0 or higher GPA. No one would be forced to, and like I've said many times before, the screening would include a grade check.

And of course they should have guards, but unless they want to go bankrupt, they can't hire enough guards to cover the entire university 24 hours a day. That's why students who want to bring a gun to school should be allowed to, but only after being thuroughly screened. They would be given a card with their picture, name, and a special PIN to identify them and their gun. That way, only people who had been cleared would be able to enter the school with a gun.

Do you understand now?

[Split Infinity]

Why go through so much trouble when you could just ban guns altogether? The school shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars just because of a few paranoid teens.

[Toasty]

Because Split, like I've said before, even if you ban guns people will still be able to get them illegally. That means that all the bad people have guns, and all the good citizens are defenseless. Virginia Tech had a no guns policy (which extended to the guards), so NO ONE could have a gun on the premises. Look where it got them? If guns were allowed (but only to an extent as previously stated), then mabey some of those students that were killed might still be alive, because mabey someone who would've had a gun at that time might've been able to stop the perp with it.

[Split Infinity]

So guards with guns = bad. But students with guns = responsible. Right?

[Golden Djinn13]

I'm gonna have to side with Split on this case. Just have the school guards carry guns. It really isn't that difficult.

[Eugine]

Also, I'd like to point out how terrible gun violence is in USA. Here's the statistics pointed out by NY Times. Link

... And way to go for ignoring my Japanese gun control point. Compare the NY times statistics to Japan's 53 shooting, and you'd see how terrible it is in USA.
Oh, btw, although the year difference is different (2004 USA, 2007 Japan), I'd like to point out gun violence increased since 2004 in USA.

Downsides of the image:
Not the best representation.
Doesn't take into consideration self-defense.

[Split Infinity]

Why does it draw attention to black people?

[Eugine]

I personally find it more biased towards white deaths, but it's your conclusion ^__^. But anyway, lets talk about the bigger picture here?

Age 17 and younger 4 deaths
1 black man murdered daily
1 white man murdered ~daily
0.5 female dies daily
1 other deaths.
~1:1 black, white

Age 18-25 17 deaths
6 black men murdered
1 woman murdered
4 white men suicide
6 other deaths
6:4, black:white

Age 26-39 21 deaths
6 black men murdered
4 white men murdered
1 woman suicides
7 white men suicides
3 other deaths
6:11, black:white

Over age 40 39 deaths
4 women suicides
2 women murdered
3 white men murdered
2 black men murdered
25 white men suicide
+3 other gun deaths

2:28, black:white

Overall:
15:44, black:white

(It doesn't mention women, black suicide because it's very small)