Shootings in US schools

[ColinEssex]

Well I was just watching the 10pm news on the Beeb - their top story is the 160 odd dead in Baghdad thanks to the USA. The American 32 has [at last] dropped from the top story.

At least the Beeb gets its priorities right. I doubt if US TV will even mention the Iraqi dead, it'll be so full of it's own [comparatively] insignificant student massacre

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Where's the justice for the latest victims, and why the hell should we keep feeling so much sorrow for them when America buries its head in the sand and pays homage to an old scrap of paper

The US pro gun lobby is so great that even the prez is scared to do the right thing (but oddly sends thousand to their death in a war for oil). Gun control is a vote loser for any candidate, so it'll never change.
The US will always have many of it's citizens packing some sort of gun, ready to kill. Why else carry or own a gun?

Col

 

[Pauldohert]

Why imagine? Correct me if I'm wrong but during the unfortunate explosions in the London subway, no guns were used (or toothbrushes) and at least 52 died.

Correct me if I am wrong - I reckon they could have killed more had guns been freely available to them. There were four separate attacks so an average death count of 13 per attacker , less than 32 by my maths. So terrorists with training and backing in Pakistan by Bin Laden et al, were not capable of being as lethal as a lone nut on a university campus in the US.

There was a subsequent attack were the inventive explosives failed to go off so noone was killed - in that example too, guns manufactured with quality control by major corporations would have caused a bigger death toll.

I could also point out that guns would have done nothing to prevent the first attack.

Why with all these options available to him why did Cho Seung-hui choose guns not fertilizer based explosives, or his hammer, or a knife or a toothbrush? If someone pro guns, could provide an answer to that I would be very pleased to know.

Even if other tools were as effective or more effective - the argument that some other tool could be used is stupid, lets make cocaine legal, after all people are inventive and could easily use heroine to get off their face instead. Dumb!

 

[Mile-O]

Perhaps I should have my airplane taken away from me as well, because 2 airplanes crashed into a prominent New York City structure 5-1/2 years ago. Over 3,000 killed with no guns. In fact, they were indrectly killed with knives (boxcutters). Or maybe the Oklahoma City bombing killing over 100 people, and in that case neither a gun nor a knife was used in that. Or the London subway bombings - again no guns. Tokyo. All of them had higher death tolls than the VT incident. And none of them used guns.

You can not seriously compare any of these events with the shootings at Virginia Tech. One, all of the above were acts of terrorism; two, all involved a number of people working together to achieve death; and three, all cases were for a cause the conspirators believed in, no matter how obscene we find it. A lone gunman acting alone on a spree kill is neither an act of terrorism, the work of a group, or for any cause.

When you understand gun ownership then maybe you will be qualified to discuss the ramifications.

This is a false syllogism. What you are saying here is that:

You own a gun.
A gun owner is qualified to discuss ramifications.
Therefore you are qualified to discuss ramifications.
​

It's false because discussing the ramifications of gun ownership requires no qualification. I, as a person who does not own a gun, have every right to discuss the ramifications of gun ownership. It's an tete-a-tete of opinions and nothing more.

My own opinions on gun ownership are that they are not necessary and, given that the Second Amendment was a change to the existing constitution, it is not above being amended again to something more responsible. After all, when the change came into effect all those years ago, it required the common American to form militias to defend the fledgling nation. Now, as the biggest army in the world, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, is no longer required given that it's doubtful any nation would dare and invade those shores.

 

[Bodisathva]

...Why with all these options available to him why did Cho Seung-hui choose guns not fertilizer based explosives, or his hammer, or a knife or a toothbrush? If someone pro guns, could provide an answer to that I would be very pleased to know...

Stupidity? Mental instability? Paranoia? Chemical Imbalance? The guy was a complete and certifiable whack-job. He mailed a video, pics, and rants to NBC before he went off, outlining his intentions and "manifesto". This is not someone who randomly picked up a gun because it was convenient and managed this amount of carnage because of the weapons he "stumbled" upon, it was pre-meditated, thought out, planned, and staged. The short answer is that the guy was just plain crazy. I would not be surprised if someone as disturbed would have attempted to kill people with a used condom and a soup spoon

There was an incident of road rage in MD last week that escalated from the usual one-finger-salute to vehicle-A pulling directly into the path of vehicle B and locking up the brakes. Vehicle-B swerved, flipped, went off the road and into a patch of trees, killing both occupants. Obviously, the car was not intended to kill people, but in this case that's exactly what it was used to do It does not mean the car, manufacturer, or dealer are responsible for the actions of the driver.

I think you should also temper your argument with the distinction between "pro-guns", "gun-control", and "gun-ban". Despite what the local misanthropes might lead you to believe, the general consensus of American citizens is NOT that guns should be freely available to anyone at anytime, but that their purchase should be controlled and examined and that complete background checks should be completed prior to sale (which did occur in this case, btw). You also need to understand that what is more frightening than the stray nutter that slips though the cracks and obtains a gun is any government that fears weapons in the hands of it's citizens.

Which leads us back to my original argument that you so conveniently ignored... it is not the guns, it the person. Fix the person, the gun argument is irrelevant.

 

[Mile-O]

their [guns] purchase should be controlled and examined and that complete background checks should be completed prior to sale (which did occur in this case, btw).

I was watching an ITV interview with the guy who owns the Roanoke Arms store where Cho bought the gun. In response to a question on mental health, the guy said that Cho ticked the box to say he had no history of poor mental health. Then asked if that was all, the store owner said yes.

 

[Bodisathva]

You can not seriously compare any of these events with the shootings at Virginia Tech. One, all of the above were acts of terrorism; two, all involved a number of people working together to achieve death;

The more that comes out about the VT incident and the twisted nature of the gunman, I would actually submit that due to it's pre-meditated and planned nature, it would actally qualify as an act of domestic terrorism. According to the US Department of Defense, terrorism is

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

...and from the clip I saw on the news this morning, he wanted to punish people for what he saw as social crimes.

..Now, as the biggest army in the world, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, is no longer required given that it's doubtful any nation would dare and invade those shores.

Last I heard, the largest army in the world belonged to China...

And I wouldn't be so certain of the last part either, but that's just my lone opinion.

But I will agree that you have the right to discuss gun ownership even if you don't have a gun...I'll not concede that you can determine intent or motivation for others, though.

 

[Bodisathva]

I was watching an ITV interview with the guy who owns the Roanoke Arms store where Cho bought the gun. In response to a question on mental health, the guy said that Cho ticked the box to say he had no history of poor mental health. Then asked if that was all, the store owner said yes.

But that's not the end of the check. During the wait period, the applicant's background is screened and double checked. Although Cho was institutionalized, he had gone willingly, which, since it was not institutionalization at the demand of law enforcement, didn't show up on the check. That scared the hell out of me.

 

[Pauldohert]

Stupidity? Mental instability? Paranoia? Chemical Imbalance? The guy was a complete and certifiable whack-job. He mailed a video, pics, and rants to NBC before he went off, outlining his intentions and "manifesto". This is not someone who randomly picked up a gun because it was convenient and managed this amount of carnage because of the weapons he "stumbled" upon, it was pre-meditated, thought out, planned, and staged. The short answer is that the guy was just plain crazy. I would not be surprised if someone as disturbed would have attempted to kill people with a used condom and a soup spoon

If thats not an argument for him not to have had easy access to guns I don't know what is.

Which leads us back to my original argument that you so conveniently ignored... it is not the guns, it the person. Fix the person, the gun argument is irrelevant.

How do you propose to fix all these people, can you even spot all the ones that need fixing? You are going to get a Nobel prize in medicine, peace, economics etc if you can do that and prevent gun crimes.

Since I really don't fancy your chances - it would be easier to ban guns!

 

[Bodisathva]

..Since I really don't fancy your chances ..

easy there, Bub...

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied – it chains us all, irrevocably."

 

[dan-cat]

Fix the person, the gun argument is irrelevant.

This argument is just so poor. Different people react to stress, mental disturbance in different ways. Some implode, some explode, some thrive on it, some seem immune to it etc etc. There's no 'fix' for it.

There was no stable thought process going through this guy's head. His reaction was one of anguish and violence, so he examined his environment to see how best he could express it. Hand guns are easy to use, accessible, portable, efficient and above all EXPRESSIVE. What do you think all the pouting was about in those videos?

These arguments about toothbrushes and knives are just plain silly. If Steven Seagal went nuts then maybe it's relevant. However people are not marching into our schools/colleges with toothbrushes are they, they're using guns! Saying that this is co-incidence is just plain fantasy.

We got a very sick kid who was never committed even though he was classed as suicidal. We got gun shops selling guns to people with recent bad mental health problems. We got colleges not monitoring their known suicidal students.

Now can someone please explain to me how the environment does not take a hand in this?

 

[Bodisathva]

...Now can someone please explain to me how the environment does not take a hand in this?

he was upset about global warming, too?

 

[ColinEssex]

I've been reading through the threads. The Americans are grasping at straws to protect their gun loving life, by equating it to radical acts of terrorism etc. The British are questioning whether time is right for a change - or is it too late?
We hear (on the BBC news) that it took 30 mins for this chap to arm himself, the only check was to see if he had a criminal record.

Why are there no Americans here who can say - yes, the law needs to be changed?

Every day there are 86 (average) people killed in the USA by guns. Thats a jumbo jet full every 5 days. Why is this so different? because 32 of the 86 happened in the same place?

When the funerals are all done and America has finished "grieving" it will be business as usual, nothing will change and pretty soon another person will want to be the next mass killer - will buy a gun and do the same.

There was some American chap on who said all the kids should have had guns to protect themselves - why not? lets get the USA back to the O.K. corral days

160 Iraqi's killed in one act, did that get on the US TV?

Col

 

[KenHigg]

The laws need to be changed -

Edit: Yes we saw the Iraq news -

 

[ColinEssex]

The laws need to be changed -

Edit: Yes we saw the Iraq news -

Ok. At the risk of angering you again for daring to ask questions

1) would you give up your guns totally if the government asked for voluntary de-arming?

2) What's worse 32 US people killed by a crazed killer? - or 160 Iraqi's killed by a crazed killer?

3) Why do the 32 get masses of airplay when the 160 get a mention as a lower story?

Col

 

[Pauldohert]

What is the purpose of owning a gun in the US?

When are you lawfully allowed to use it to shoot someone else?

 

[KenHigg]

Ok. At the risk of angering you again for daring to ask questions

1) would you give up your guns totally if the government asked for voluntary de-arming?

2) What's worse 32 US people killed by a crazed killer? - or 160 Iraqi's killed by a crazed killer?

3) Why do the 32 get masses of airplay when the 160 get a mention as a lower story?

Col

1. No
2. They're both bad.
3. 32 don't get killed every day in this manner in the town next door while they've been killing each other in the middle east for as long as I can remember - Just my best guess...

 

[KenHigg]

What is the purpose of owning a gun in the US?

When are you lawfully allowed to use it to shoot someone else?

1. Depends on the owner I suppose.
2. Self defense - ?

 

[Pauldohert]

What I mean is whats the argument for a normal law abiding person to have a gun?

And what kind of threat do you need to be under to legally justify the use of a gun.

 

[Bodisathva]

What I mean is whats the argument for a normal law abiding person to have a gun?

Hunting, collecting, protection...

And what kind of threat do you need to be under to legally justify the use of a gun.

Fear of imminent death of self or the safety of your family


EDIT: upon further consideration, I would like to point out that normal, law-abiding citizens are not the ones shooting people...