Virginia Tech Shooting Currently estimated dead: 33
#1
Posted 16 April 2007 - 06:48 PM
#3
Posted 16 April 2007 - 06:55 PM
#4
Posted 16 April 2007 - 06:57 PM
"U CAN'T HADSHOT ME HERE CAN U!!!!!"
#5
Posted 17 April 2007 - 12:31 PM
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.
#6
Posted 17 April 2007 - 01:05 PM
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.
#7
Posted 17 April 2007 - 03:01 PM
Sad.
#9
Posted 17 April 2007 - 05:24 PM
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.
#10
Posted 17 April 2007 - 05:45 PM
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.
#11
Posted 17 April 2007 - 06:47 PM
Shikonaurum, on Apr 17 2007, 07:24 PM, said:
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.
#12
Posted 17 April 2007 - 06:53 PM
Platinum Sun, on Apr 17 2007, 07:45 PM, said:
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
#13
Posted 17 April 2007 - 07:07 PM
#14
Posted 17 April 2007 - 09:04 PM
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.
#15
Posted 17 April 2007 - 09:07 PM
Golden Djinn13, on Apr 17 2007, 12:05 PM, said:
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!
#16
Posted 17 April 2007 - 09:12 PM
Mr.T, on Apr 17 2007, 10:04 PM, said:
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.
#18
Posted 18 April 2007 - 05:36 AM
And yes, Jack Thompson is blaming video games on this. About 4 hours after the shooting. I shall finish this little rant later.
#20
Posted 18 April 2007 - 12:20 PM
#21
Posted 18 April 2007 - 01:35 PM
FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 01:36 PM, said:
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.
#22
Posted 18 April 2007 - 02:59 PM
Mr.T, on Apr 18 2007, 01:04 PM, said:
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?
#23
Posted 18 April 2007 - 03:12 PM
#24
Posted 18 April 2007 - 03:38 PM
(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.
#25
Posted 18 April 2007 - 03:54 PM
#26
Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:02 PM
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.
#27
Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:04 PM
Eugine, on Apr 18 2007, 04:38 PM, said:
#28
Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:12 PM
Platinum Sun, on Apr 18 2007, 11:04 PM, said:
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.
#29
Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:22 PM
Wiflewood, on Apr 18 2007, 05:12 PM, said:
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.
#30
Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:30 PM
Platinum Sun, on Apr 18 2007, 11:22 PM, said:
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!
#31
Posted 18 April 2007 - 04:39 PM
#32
Posted 18 April 2007 - 06:41 PM
Platinum Sun, on Apr 18 2007, 05:39 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.
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.
#33
Posted 18 April 2007 - 07:05 PM
FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:
FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:
FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:
FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:
FlamingDuck, on Apr 18 2007, 08:41 PM, said:
#34
Posted 18 April 2007 - 08:12 PM
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.
#35
Posted 19 April 2007 - 01:10 AM
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
#37
Posted 19 April 2007 - 10:07 AM
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.
#38
Posted 19 April 2007 - 01:13 PM
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.
#39
Posted 19 April 2007 - 04:28 PM
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.
#40
Posted 19 April 2007 - 05:33 PM
Shikonaurum, on Apr 19 2007, 06:28 PM, said:
#41
Posted 19 April 2007 - 09:02 PM
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.
#43
Posted 20 April 2007 - 09:41 AM
Platinum Sun, on Apr 20 2007, 12:33 AM, said:
Because obviously even if the pilot gets shot the plane will land safely if the terrorists are dead...
#44
Posted 20 April 2007 - 01:05 PM
#45
Posted 20 April 2007 - 06:25 PM
PDM, on Apr 20 2007, 01:44 AM, said:
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. ;)
#46
Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:25 PM
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.
#47
Posted 20 April 2007 - 09:14 PM
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!
#48
Posted 20 April 2007 - 09:21 PM
Quote
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
It's not that difficult for a legally bought gun to change hands.
Quote
Why the hell would a student need a gun on campus? You're supposed to be studying!
Quote
They should be the only ones.
Quote
He was kidding.
Quote
Hooray!
#49
Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:15 PM
Atleast on campus it's easier to bar entrance of guns, rather than off-campus.
#50
Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:17 PM
#51
Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:43 PM
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.
#52
Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:48 PM
Quote
Any links? I'm fascinated with how it'll work.
#53
Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:51 PM
Quote
Are you kidding me? Guns in the hands of hundreds of stressed-out teens?
#54
Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:14 PM
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.
#55
Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:17 PM
#56
Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:35 AM
Mr.T, on Apr 21 2007, 02:25 AM, said:
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.
#57
Posted 21 April 2007 - 03:09 AM
Split Infinity, on Apr 21 2007, 06:17 AM, said:
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.
#58
Posted 21 April 2007 - 05:05 AM
#59
Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:10 PM
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
#60
Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:38 PM
Split Infinity, on Apr 21 2007, 04:05 AM, said:
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?
#61
Posted 23 April 2007 - 03:51 AM
#62
Posted 23 April 2007 - 04:24 AM
#63
Posted 23 April 2007 - 01:47 PM
#64
Posted 23 April 2007 - 04:28 PM
#65
Posted 24 April 2007 - 12:17 PM
... 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.
#67
Posted 24 April 2007 - 05:35 PM
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)