Cops Shot Far Rockaway Teen 11 Times
Video: New School Students, Comrades Toss Trash Pre-Arrest
Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Turkey Cruelty Ad Nixed By NBC
Would You Be Comfortable Locked On A Train With A Murderer?
Update: WNBC reports that Cho Seung Hui sent a "box containing a manifesto of sorts, photographs and other material" (including videos) to NBC News. NBC News received it today and president Steve Capus turned the box over the FBI, but MSNBC says that the box was sent between the two shootings.
The package included a long, “rambling, manifesto-like statement embedded with a series of photographs,” Capus said. The material is “hard-to-follow ... disturbing, very disturbing — very angry, profanity-laced,” he said.NBC News anchor Brian Williams writes on his Daily Nightly blog, "NBC News has indeed received what I would call a "multimedia manifesto" from the gunman. We received it today, and immediately handed it over to Federal law enforcement authorities. We are still going over our own copy -- its a lot of material -- we are talking with law enforcement, our own standards people -- and Pete Williams, our Justice Correspondent, will join me live on the broadcast to go through the material."It does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does include “vague references,” including “things like ‘This didn’t have to happen,’ ” Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.
Capus said gloved NBC security personnel handled the package very carefully as soon as it arrived. The network immediately called the FBI and turned it over.
The package bore a U.S. Postal Service stamp recording that it had been received at a Virginia post office at 9:01 a.m. ET Monday, about an hour and 45 minutes after Cho shot two people in the West Ambler Johnston residence hall on the Virginia Tech campus and shortly before Cho entered Norris Hall, where he killed 30 more people.
“We probably would have received the mail earlier had it not been that he had the wrong address and ZIP code,” Capus said.
There is currently a prayer vigil outside City Hall for the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting (until 5:30PM) and funeral services for one of the victims, engineering professor Liviu Librescu, is were held in Brooklyn today.
Previous:
As the Virginia Tech community, state of Virginia, and rest of the country reels and begins to heal from Monday's tragic shooting, questions about gun laws are coming to the forefront. ABC News reported that the owner of Roanoke Firearms, where Cho Seung Hui purchased a gun, said this was the fifth time a gun he sold has been used in a homicide. While Cho was able to buy a gun easily due to his clean record, Mayor Bloomberg's campaign against illegal guns (which includes stores that sell them illegally) is getting more attention.
Last year, the administration's gun stings, in states such as Virginia, showed dealers willing to sell guns to people who don't fill out paperwork - instead, someone else fills out the paperwork for them. Baruch College's David Birdsell, dean of the School of Public Affairs, tells the NY Sun, "When you have an attack that gets this kind of attention that victimizes young people in what should be a safe environment, people think about safety and availability of guns. For all the most horrific and tragic reasons, it will help Mayor Bloomberg's campaign."
The counterargument from gun rights-groups is that if students were armed, then situations like this could be avoided, a sentiment echoed by an Asian Virginia Tech student - and gun collector - who spoke to ABC News about initial suspicions that he was the shooter. Mayor Bloomberg will be in NJ today to discuss Mayors Against Illegal Guns, but the Politcker reports that his comments have only been that the situation was a tragedy and that he's continuing to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals." The statement on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website from Mayor Bloomberg and Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino reads, "The rampage at Virginia Tech is a heinous crime that has shaken the whole nation. The families of all those affected are in our hearts and in our prayers."
All the reports suggest that many people were aware of Cho's isolated and anti-social behavior.
Roommates noted he barely spoke, and Cho apparently had a history of stalking women. A professor even tried to help him - from the Times:
Lucinda Roy, who taught Mr. Cho in a poetry workshop in the fall of 2005, said that in October of that year he submitted a piece of writing that was so disturbing that she contacted the campus police, counseling services, student affairs and officials in her department. Ms. Roy described the writing as a “veiled threat rather than something explicit.”Roy added that she spoke to campus police and other resources, who said that they couldn't really do much more. The Washington Post writes that Cho shunned the help. Speculation about motives and mental health also continues as the police gather and examine more evidence.University officials told her that she could drop Mr. Cho from the class. Or, they said, she could tutor him individually, and she agreed to do so three times from October to December 2005. During those sessions, she said in an interview, he always wore sunglasses and a baseball cap pulled low.
“He seemed to be crying behind his sunglasses,” she said.
Ms. Roy said she had been so nervous about taking him on as an individual student that she worked out a code with her assistant: if she mentioned the name of a dead professor, her assistant would know it was time to call security.
Parents of Virginia Tech students want the campus police chief to resign, as it turns out the two hour delay in letting students know about the shootings was due to what the Times headlines a "bad lead" - the boyfriend (who attends another college) of one of the first victims was known to go to the gun firing range. Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine has asked a former state police superintendent to lead the investigation, but Virginia Tech's procedures have raised questions for other colleges. The Columbia Spectator notes that now uniformed security will swipe ID cards instead of students and has an editorial asking Columbia president Lee Bollinger to provide a response plan. The question of counseling and how much support a college can provide will also likely enter the debate.
More: The President attended Virginia Tech's convocation and said, "In this time of anguish, I hope you know that people all over this country are thinking about you, and asking God to provide comfort for all who have been affected." The Roanoke Times covers the vigil held at Virginia Tech's Drillfield. The NY Times has an interactive feature showing the victims of the shooting.
Photograph of a candlelight vigil at the Virginia Tech campus from Virginia Tech's Hokie Sports
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Gun laws might have reduced the bloodshed but the student was still mentally ill. He may have chosen to stab a victim or two like that girl at Harvard that murdered her roommate. Or maybe he'd take the Timothy McVeigh route.
The only thing VT's gun ban did was ensure that Cho had a bunch of easy targets.
"The counterargument from gun rights-groups is that if students were armed, then situations like this could be avoided..."
Yeah, if everyone on a college campus were armed, its hard to imagine anything bad happening. :roll:
Moronic.
I don't see anyone complaining about the guns used to kill the more than 30 young American Soldiers killed this week?
This was the work of a crazed individual, gun or no gun, nothing will stop him. He could of used a car to run people down, it's not uncommon.
He did not have a rap sheet up the wazoo, he went to college, lived in a nice suburb, had 2 parents who worked hard. How can you know a person like this would commit this type of crime, you can't.
in other words, people snap. Wasn't it on Star Trek where it was mentioned the human body is one of the most unreliable organisms? or words to that effect.
Let's keep this all in perspective and not go Minority Report.
You can't kill over 30 people with a knife or a car, folks. Some weapons just don't belong in the hands of the public. I'm sure you agree that's true for nukes, M-1 tanks and grenades, why not for automatic weapons or 30 bullet clip pistols?
So a SUV travelling 40 mph would not kill any students at the Drillfield in VT? Cars killed many a pedestrians and bicyclists in this city alone and will kill more.
If he didn't have guns, he'll use something else and it would still be a tragedy.
30 round mags means nothing, you'll just buy more 10-15 round mags to make it up. What's the difference? nothing.
The guy snapped, our brains go haywire once in a while.
"He did not have a rap sheet up the wazoo, he went to college, lived in a nice suburb, had 2 parents who worked hard. How can you know a person like this would commit this type of crime, you can't.
in other words, people snap."
which is exactly the reason why PEOPLE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO BUY GUNS
someone should be playing freebird over the PA system with this here light hoisting downhome gathering -
Here's a nice compromise that should satisfy those gun-toting 2nd Amendment purists:
The only guns that should be available to the public are antique 18th century muzzle-loading muskets :)
there's no campaign to illegalize cars, airplanes, knives, fertilizer etc.
gunsgunsguns, moronic is thinking that illegalizing guns decreases violence. look into the economics and read up on the stats. examples are everywhere. proofproofproof. guns are illegal in nyc, legal in vt & nh. who has more shooting deaths? target the heart of the problem, not the constitution. don't be selective about the civil liberties you defend. moronic is throwing away liberty for a false sense of security. hmmm, this sounds familiar.
Actually it's pretty easy to get a Curio and Relic FFL. I think the firearm is at least 50 years old, usually stuff made before 1946.
"economist" you want proof via stats? look at europe. as for your argument that ny has more shooting deaths despite the guns being harder to obtain here, thats a completely idiotic and oversimplified (the result of your simple mind no doubt) joke of an argument. did you even read the posting? guns are easily obtained eslewhere and brought here, both legally and illegally. i could go to VA right now and buy a gun, and bring it back to nyc and start blasting, or sell it to a 16 year old if i wanted to. we need nationwide federal gun control. guns should be sold by shops that are federally regulated. you need to sign your name in a federal registry every time you by sudafed, but you can stroll into walmart and buy hollow point ammunition without anyone batting an eye. thats fucking retarded. and i suspect you might be too.
why not for automatic weapons or 30 bullet clip pistols
Automatic weapons ARE illegal. Don't you know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic????
The fact is that Cho bought his gun legally under current gun laws within the state.
However, gun laws could be strengthen to help avoid these type of incidents and gun violence in general.
1) While not legally stricting a person's right to purchase a firearm, create a watch-list for potential "problems". For example, the Virginia Tech police requests to the State of Virginia that Cho Seung Hui on the watchlist after his demonstrated anti-social behavior. When Cho Seung does buy a gun, the VA Tech police are notified. Same thing with a psychiatrist and mental patient, or a local police department and a couple who have had a history of domestic disturbences without any arrests.
2) States are required to inform the home states of any out-of-state invididuals buying firearms within a 24 hour period, coupled with laws that require people to register firearms even if purchased out-of-state within a 24 hour period [if none are already on the books]. So if a New York City resident buys 20 guns in Pennsylvania or Georgia or whereever, the NYPD know about and can send a task force to the purchaser's residence to double-check the purchases were for legitimate purposes. It seems as laws currently stand, there's more documentation to sell and transfer automobiles than for firearms.
3) Annual audits of gun sales at gun shops with some kind of point system to fine and close stores who have consistently sold firearms through straw purchases or without proper paperwork.
4) Require some sort of test or training course to purchase a firearm. Shouldn't firearms have at least the same requirements as purchasing an automobile or obtaining a drivers license.
Chris Rock said it best: make the bullets cost $500 each and you won't have gun violence problems.
If the firearm was manufactured prior to 1846 or is a modern copy of a firearm from that period then there is no restriction whatsoever on purchase and transfer. This is why K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and just about every sporting-goods store outside of NYC sells .50 calibre black powder pistols over the counter. As to the stupid argument that Joe Public can't be trusted with a firearm and only the police should be armed, I just point to our NYPD. The organization that happily hires mob hit-men, sociopaths, people that can't distinguish between a wallet and a pistol, and such "Safety Sams" as the officer that had to discharge his weapon 30 times at a target within 15 feet and only hit with 3 rounds. I'll trust myself and my neighbors here in Crown Heights with firearms over the NYPD any day of the week thank you.
You can't kill over 30 people with a knife or a car
You can't kill 30 people with a car? Bullshit. Go to an open plaza and drop the pedal.
Anyway, how about bombs? McVeigh killed over a hundred. Individual bombers killed 50 in London.
This guy in Virginia was nuts. To think he wouldn't have found a way to kill people is naive at best. If he had used a knife to girl the girl and the RA this wouldn't have made the news because it was only two people - just like most gun deaths are individual murders like domestic disputes.
there's no campaign to illegalize cars, airplanes, knives, fertilizer etc.
I suggest you read a little more. While they aren't trying make fertilizer illegal there are people that want to make it more difficult for non-farmers to buy it any sufficient quantity. In effect, you would need a license to buy it. And I believe it was the UK that was looking into restricting the sale of large knives.
Typical for someone to ignore the constitution when it come to firearms, but becomes outraged when Bush or the gov't takes away our "freedoms".
which is exactly the reason why PEOPLE SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO BUY GUNS
You expect the government to defend you. Lots of other people don't and vehemently disagree with you. If someone breaks into your house or apartment with a gun, the NYPD can't do anything to help you. You're dead. Making that gun illegal (which it already is) doesn't make you any less dead. If you had your own legal weapon, at least you have a chance.
you need to sign your name in a federal registry every time you by sudafed, but you can stroll into walmart and buy hollow point ammunition without anyone batting an eye. thats fucking retarded. and i suspect you might be too.
Pointing out an asinine law as an example to make a point about why we need a different law is fucking retarded, too. And Britain consistently tops the US in violent crime. Simply because you kill someone with a knife instead of a gun doesn't make them any less dead.
Chris Rock said it best: make the bullets cost $500 each and you won't have gun violence problems.
No, then you have home-made bullets.
Here's a tip for everyone. If you want to be taken seriously, don't reference "Star Trek" in your arguments.
When I was travelling abroad, I was asked on three separate occasions by other travelers I met (some european, some asian, some pacific rim) how many guns I owned, as their understanding of America is that everyone owns guns. At the time, I found it laughable, because I've never owned a gun, no one in my family beyond my WWII vet grandfather owned a gun, none of my friends or their families owned guns, and none of my traveling companions owned guns. But when events like this happen and the issue of gun control comes up, I begin to understand why they assume all Americans own guns. Why are we so obsessed with guns and weapons in this country? How can we honestly justify a constitutional right to own devices made exclusively for killing? Are we paranoid? Insecure? It's a tough issue to flesh out because the discussions on gun control in urban centers like New York (where I live now) and rural areas like New Hampshire (where I grew up) are so completely different. But, ultimately, what is the real loss if Americans can't own firearms? Has gun control in England made everyone less safe, eroded liberties and encouraged the state to oppress its citizens? I just don't see how we can continue to justify the pro-gun argument in this day and age.
Typical for someone to ignore the constitution when it come to firearms, but becomes outraged when Bush or the gov't takes away our "freedoms".
Bears repeating.
I don't see anyone complaining about the guns used to kill the more than 30 young American Soldiers killed this week?
This was the work of a crazed individual, gun or no gun, nothing will stop him. He could of used a car to run people down, it's not uncommon.
He did not have a rap sheet up the wazoo, he went to college, lived in a nice suburb, had 2 parents who worked hard. How can you know a person like this would commit this type of crime, you can't.
in other words, people snap. Wasn't it on Star Trek where it was mentioned the human body is one of the most unreliable organisms? or words to that effect.
Let's keep this all in perspective and not go Minority Report.
[4] Posted by: meanwhile bak in irak | April 18, 2007 11:13 AM
__________________________________________
He snapped last year and the woman kept speaking up.
I disagree with you. All of the warning signs were there. It is common knowledge in psychiatry that when men are suicidal they harm other people and themselves. Woman tend to, simply, kill themselves, a story for another blog another day. The local police thought in 2005 that he was sucicidal. The English teacher turned his writings over to the local police because she thought his thoughts were too dark. She even told Cho that she would go to counciling with him. He refused her by not making a decision. That is extreme for an instructor. She saw something profound. Also, two woman called police to complain about his totally weird behavior and the messages he sent them over and over. He was a loner, quiet, alway complaining, never happy and on medication.
Those are big enough signs for me to lock him up until he is mature enough to handle what is going on in society.
Men need to step aside when woman are airing their concerns. If you notice the people who were in a position to take action were men. They dropped the ball everytime. Probably because Cho was a man and they don't know how to deal with their own species when there is an emotional crisis.
How can we honestly justify a constitutional right to own devices made exclusively for killing?
Because it's part of the founding document of our country. How can we justify a criminal trial and acquittal of a guy who killed 5 people? How can we justify freedom of speech for the KKK? You have a right to be secure in your property. The country is full of people who want to take that right away from you.
[And Britain consistently tops the US in violent crime.]
Tom, where in the hell did you find those statistics? Please site the source.
SP, what's with the personal attacks? take a breath.
you conveniently limited your research to europe? nice try. what about canada? afterall, that's a much more realistic comparison given the proximity, landscapes and rural populations. i'm sure you watched m.moore's docs too. does it sound like a good idea to restrict access to innocent people so that only the criminal underground will arm themselves? hmm, maybe that's why it's written into our constitution. do you think a federal registry would have stopped this nut-job? then why are you jumping at the opportunity to curb our rights? i don't have a problem with registry, but it's clear your goal is to banish guns over your own values.
calling my stats oversimplified is pretty ironic don't you think? i mean, given that you're the one willing to toss constitutional rights based on presumptions which are quite easy to refute. blaming the tool instead of the person IS oversimplified. he could have mixed up a bomb from kitchen ingredients. ran down the street with a machete. crashed a truck into a cafe. hijacked a plane...
Murders in the UK last year 859, Switzerland 69, Japan 637, Spain 494, the United States 12,658. And some morons actually suggest the solution is...more guns! Either they're being dishonest, are suicidally stupid or simply don't care. It is disgusting that we are still having this so called debate. We lost 3 times as many citizens to murder at home last year as soldiers in 4 years of combat in Iraq. More guns indeed.
"Britain consistently tops the US in violent crime" -- I'd like to point out to this poster that there's a world of difference between a punch in the nose at the local pub and a bullet between the eyes. Don't believe me, just look at the numbers dead.
Please, I urge all of you to read this book:
Williams, Robert Franklin. Negroes With Guns, Wayne State University Press, c1998. ISBN 0-8143-2714-1.
It is in the CUNY lib. system and available at Revolution Books. Williams was an early leader in the civil rights movement who advocated for gun rights as a way to ensure equal rights. That is what it boils down to, the reason we have a 2nd amendment is to insure that we always have the rest of them. Our founding fathers knew that government can not be trusted, so they enshrined in our founding document the idea that the people will always have access to the weaponry needed to defeat the army and overthrow corrupt leaders. The NRA was founded right here in NY to arm and protect blacks against the KKK. Learn your history folks, not the tripe that the elites in this nation want you to believe so they can continue to subjugate you.
Typical for someone to ignore the constitution when it come to firearms, but becomes outraged when Bush or the gov't takes away our "freedoms".
It bears saying that your and guns are scary's argument works the same the other way around...playing down our "freedoms" while insisting we all stay well armed. Same hypocrisy, same BS.
@Bill, you forgot to account for VAST diffs. in population size. What are the daeths per 100,000 citizens? That will give a more realistic statistic.
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
0.0279271 per 1,000 people in the USA (Rank #9)
0.00102579 per 1,000 people in the UK (Rank #32)
nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
Typical for someone to ignore the constitution when it come to firearms, but becomes outraged when Bush or the gov't takes away our "freedoms".
Yes, because a bunch of people with pistols and little-to-no arms training is exactly the well-regulated militia of which the Constitution speaks.
"in 1993 there were about four hundred thousand crimes committed with guns, there were approximately 2.5 million crimes in which victims used guns for self-protection."
all you constitution revisers need to read some of the work of dr. gary kleck before you rely on your 'common sense' to alter the fabric of this country. don't worry, you can still be an ultra-liberal democrat AND defend your constitutional rights.
#27 that list has little to do with guns being legal. again, see canada. did it ever dawn on you that there are deeper root causes than access to certain weapons?
@Bill, also you cite Switzerland where every male over 18 has to keep his assault rifle and ammunition at home at the ready to defend Swiss neutrality. The Swiss population is very well armed.
So scared.
So so so so scared.
A frightened nation cries out for more guns.
this incident is symptomatic of the culture of violence in our country; the dilapidated mental health system; propagation of isolationism through poor education systems; parental reliance on TV, internet, and other mindless entertainment; and in general the deterioration of healthy families (all politics aside).
Virginia Tech had a no guns policy. Anyone entering the campus had to leave his guns with the campus police.
And that right there is the problem with gun control. The only ones who follow the rules are the law abiding citizens. Criminals and wackos don't. Never have, never will.
Every time you hear of a horrible crime where the victim suffered for hours or even just minutes while waiting for the police, try too think about what you could do besides just waiting for the cops to come rescue you. More than one study have shown that those who take an active effort in self defense in home invasions have a much greater survival rate than those who don't.
One group of students at VT survived by barricading the door. The attacker even tried busting through and even had his torso almost through. The kids pushed back and he went to kill others. I know it's hard to think clearly in situations like that, but I just wish that somebody had thought of smashing a chair over his head when he was pushing his way in.
l0b0t,
on bill's behalf, i provided you with per-capita stats between the uk and usa. care to comment?
Re: l0b0t
Your story about the founding of the NRA is complete bullshit. A good story, but BS. Ultimately, we shouldn't focus completely on how he killed everyone with a gun, but rather the fact that he wanted to just go shoot up a campus. America is just an expecially violent country.
@ l0b0t
UK population 60 million, ours is 5 times that at 300 million. Yet we had 14 times the number of murders. Or take Spain, pop. 40 million, about 1/7 the US, but with 1/25 the number of murders. The math is simple and horrifying. Does anyone truly believe this is because we don't have enough guns?
Murders with firearms by country:
#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 8,259
#5 Mexico: 3,589
#6 Zimbabwe: 598
#7 Germany: 384
#8 Belarus: 331
#9 Czech Republic: 213
#10 Ukraine: 173
#11 Poland: 166
#12 Canada: 165
#13 Costa Rica: 126
#14 Slovakia: 117
#15 Spain: 97
#16 Uruguay: 84
#17 Portugal: 84
#18 Lithuania: 83
#19 Bulgaria: 63
#20 United Kingdom: 62
#21 Australia: 59
#22 Hungary: 44
#23 Switzerland: 40
#24 Latvia: 30
#25 Macedonia: 26
#26 Estonia: 21
#27 Moldova: 20
#28 Azerbaijan: 18
#29 Denmark: 14
#30 Ireland: 12
#31 Slovenia: 12
#32 New Zealand: 7
The cops at VT initially had the wrong suspect in custody. I shudder to think what would have happened had the campus been filled with guns. If cops couldn't identify the right suspect immediately, what makes anyone think that scared 18-year-olds would have been able to aim straight and make the right decisions?
I guess you could make the argument that armed security officers at each campus building might have made a difference, but armed students would have resulted in absolute chaos and a bigger tragedy.
jmchez, the problem is: Arming the Students may create even more situations like this one.
"smashing a chair over his head when he was pushing his way in."?
Great. Another Armchair Hero...
guns guns guns, people people people, guns and people together, guns and people apart, laws laws laws, some people want more guns, some people want less guns, stats stats stats, greed greed greed, money money money, people want money, people sell guns, people buy guns, some people don't want some other people to buy guns, stats stats stats and more stats, more blogs blogs blogs, retort retort retorts on blogs, people give guns a bad name, guns give people a bad name, people give people a bad name, guns don't give a f**k, more people more problems, when you have no people, no problems (didn't Mao say that?) but there'll always be people, someone like you maybe reading this bored out at work where you're surrounded by other boring and bored people, you live in gun happy America, you can always move, or rob all the gun stores and throw them all into a river, but you'll probably be shot because people will think you're crazy, any maybe you are, they are too -
www.theonion.com/content/node/29036
#41 and #42, did you cross-reference which of those countries have legal guns? many of those countries below your beloved UK have fewer firearm murders per capita and still, guns are legal. so your point is?? the correlation?? where's that 'simple math'?
People want college kids to carry guns for self-protection? You're insane! College kids are too young to understand the full consequences of most serious situations. Actual research has proven that. Anecdotally, look at all the times college kids trash streets in near-riots after Final Four or other events, even though they're in full view of TV cameras. And seeing as how even highly trained soldiers get confused in chaotic situations and make fatal mistakes (Pat Tillman, anyone?), what makes you think a campus saturated with untrained kids and guns wouldn't devolve into the OK Corral when the shooting starts? The omnipresence of guns hasn't stopped warring factions in Eritrea or even between gangs or rappers.
And you just have to love the standard argument promulgated by all the gun nuts about how we need to have guns in case the government ever turns against us. Name one first-world country with much stricter gun control laws where the poor, gunless masses suddenly became oppressed. Meanwhile, look at all the places like Bosnia and South Africa, where the unarmed public WAS able to overthrow despotic governments.
are you seriously so dense, economist?
the correlation is the number of guns - natch! the more guns you have, per capita, the more murders you can expect.
simple as that.
A simple law of statistics states that correlation is not the same as causation.
I'm sure most of you would see the problem in this analogy:
The United States has a high rate of fire-arms deaths. The United States also has one of the largest percentage of weekly church-goers. Therefore, it's clear that religion causes people to shoot other people.
Can we just accept that violent crime is a complicated matter with >many
A simple law of statistics states that correlation is not the same as causation.
I'm sure most of you would see the problem in this analogy:
The United States has a high rate of fire-arms deaths. The United States also has one of the largest percentage of weekly church-goers. Therefore, it's clear that religion causes people to shoot other people.
Can we just accept that violent crime is a complicated matter with >many
Would someone please enlighten me on why it's necessary to have semi-automatic weapons available to mentally ill people at all times? Granted, I have limited experience with firearms, but I do enjoy shooting from time to time. The recoil and power in a rifle or handgun is sobering enough without imagining untrained psychos having access to pretty much anything they want so as to "preserve" our freedoms.
Why do gun nuts get their little pink panties in a bunch over a waiting period for semi-automatic weapons? Why would you need one immediately? Did you stop to consider that the carnage would have been lessened without the aid of something semi-automatic? Also, if he'd had two regular 22 pistols, for instance, then maybe there would have been time for some of the students to react by jumping him (though in no way am I implying they "should" have done so - this is just speculation).
As for the whole "Ismail Ax" thing....Maybe it is an acronym. "I shall make....."
guns nuts like to argue that they are fighting to preserve our freedoms which we "liberals" do not appreciate enough, as if they are great believers in individual rights, when in fact they are sociopaths who want nothing more than to hole themselves up in a compound, praying that someone will give them the opportunity to blow them away.
they like to cite the 2nd amendment and say they simply wish to uphold the constitution, yet this was not in the original constitution's text, it was an AMENDMENT, meaning, the constitution is a changing thing, it changes by amendment according to the context of present times and as needed by society. the founding fathers saw the need for flexibility in government and thus included the possibility to make amendments as needed. the 2nd amendment is outdated, and should be abolished.
the fact is gun nuts dont want any government. they are at their roots anti-society and anti-government. they dont believe in individual human or civil rights, since rights imply laws and their enforcement through government. all their justifications are just smoke and mirrors bullshit, whether they are spouting them off consciously of this or not. most are hypocrites and liars who know full well what their true agenda is.
they are for the most part angry bigoted men of all races and nationalities, many with small penises, who hate themselves for their self-repressed homosexuality; they were bullied as kids, and live their lives in frustration, waiting for the opportunity to be wronged again in such a manner that they can get their jollies by satisfying their blood lust.
the unfortunate kid who went on this rampage most likely fits the description in all ways, as 99.9% of all gun nuts do.
#44
Did you read the part where I said how I understood how difficult it is to act in stressful situations? How about the part where I said I only wished that it had happened. Do you disagree that had somebody smashed his head it would have been a good thing?
As for stopping a violent rampage with guns, read Glenn Reynolds in the daily news:
"In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 fromhis truck and ran to the scene. In February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun."
The WSJ repeats the same but with the beauty of a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
#48, seems you hate people who disagree with you as much as the constitution. sorry, i'm not an idoit. dense. a gun-nut. blah blah blah.
as previously stated, all men in switzerland are armed. that would be higher per-capita gun ownership than us. alaska has a much higher ownership rate than virginia and fewer murders. country by country, state by state, your "more guns=more murders" formula simply does not work. who's being dense? you can't just pick and choose stats to support your argument.
brightliner. i'm not advocating gun-ownership or 'more guns'. waiting periods aren't a problem. in this instance though, guns were illegal for professors as well. is it that hard to imagine the difference that could have made? it doesn't matter if you don't share the concern for survival in the face of catastrophe or fed, state or local govt gone amok or simply losing control (riots, natural disaster fallout, wmd fallout....), but frankly that doesn't give you reason to take away constitutional rights. what exactly are you advocating anyway? and what does it have to do with the shooting at vt?
Sigh. I was hoping this conversation wouldn't turn into a shouting match. Sigh. Quite unfortunate. America can't sit down and talk about this problem without everyone's head exploding.
:(
jmchez,
It's easy for a columnist to cherry-pick a few good outcomes. How many more bad outcomes are there that he neglects to mention? Say, accidental discharges. Not just children playing around with guns, but what about the FBI agent that was accidentally shot and killed a couple of weeks ago, not by a child but by a trained fellow agent?
You think Thomas Jefferson is infallible? Historical documents show that Jefferson not only owned slaves, he bought and sold them, he questioned the mental capacity of blacks in general and he was against the formal education of women.
#55 (How impersonal is that??) Sure I read it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, You wrote:
Aren't you saying you wish someone opened the door while the gunman was shooting thru it? With at least Two handguns? Could they have struck at him with the Door closed?IMO, I think the ones blocking the door thought clearly.
While the Appalachian Law School is a good example of a good outcome, I think arming students in general is a bad idea.
Also, as Glen Reynolds wrote: "when a student retrieved a gun from his car" not from his person. Glen Reynolds also properly noted "it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun". Many Cops keep an off duty sidearm as they are Police officers 24/7.
In this case, tragically, the hallway was barricaded by chains. Had there been an off duty officer at VT, likely he'd have his firearm too.
all your arguments don't make any sense. Cho got his gun legally cause he was just weird, not criminal. Anybody who has a gun legally who goes off the deep end can kill anybody. Suppose a law abiding citizen gets his family massacred and goes apeshit, he has 5 guns and uses them at a later time. How do you test for that? If you remove all guns then you lose the right to bear arms against a totalitarian government that can have absolute power. You in essence give up your right to revolt against the government and give up anarchy. so either way you are screwed. The man was a human lightning strike. Some crazy will kill more people in a peaceful setting later on in 5-10 years. That's the absolute truth. there is nothing you can do about it. The only thing you can do is have a better siren alert system but even that is no guarantee. If you ever watch Nature documentaries you'll see chimpanzees eat other chimpanzees young. Does it make sense? no. Is it crazy? it's nature. People die. You can't stop crazy. You can post a sentry in every classroom and you'd give up the essence of freedom. The price you pay for freedom is no guarantees.
#57
I don't have a citation but I remember reading that there are more self defense cases with good results than accidental deaths by firearms. I'm just too tired to google it right now.
As for Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin and the rest for that matter; Many liberal gun control proponents are very fond of quoting him in separation of church and state matters. It really doesn't matter. We all quote the ideas that we agree with and disregard the ones that don't. It's just that quoting the likes of Franklin, Jefferson or Mark Twain and Winston Churchill makes any argument sound so much more polished than our own inadequate words could.
Umm, kids, can we just agree that guns are BAD? Mm'kay?
While we vociferously debate gun control in this country (which I believe is a good debate to be having), can we maybe agree that THIS person should not have had a gun? If you've been following updates to the story today (as I have, through CNN.com), you'll know that he's been investigated for stalking (two separate complaints in 2005, I believe), and that, in a court order, he was declared an emminent danger to others. He was also, at one time, admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
61: Mr. Mackey. Guns aren't bad at all. George washington, ben franklin and the founding fathers all used guns to build america. FDR and Winston Churchill used guns to fight the nazis. We'll probably need guns to fight skynet in the year 2088. Guns are bad in the wrong hands and who has a gun is all relative. Eye of the beholder, my friend. Guns are bad if they kill your baby, but if your baby was Hitler reincarnated it was good. People who can't use their minds scare me most of all. All this "Ban guns!" or "More guns!" bullshit is stupid. If we ban guns it's saying that We don't trust in humanity and if we produce more guns it's saying that humanity betrayed itself.
Wake up people. life is short. that's how it is. Just live and emjoy it while you can until Hurricane X washes you away, Earthquake X destroys your house, Terrorist X rapes your parents, Disease X takes away your legs, and Killer X blows away your grandchildren. Hold onto your false comforts and gods and feel "safe". Cause that's all you can do.
[59] Posted by: Jojo | April 18, 2007 3:59 PM all your arguments don't make any sense. Cho got his gun legally cause he was just weird, not criminal.
_______________________________
Wrong he was a criminal long before he purchased the gun. He had not acted on his hatred yet. That is why people get extra time for premeditated crimes. Being weird is not his issue. He was having problems long before he got to college. College was the straw that broke the camals back.
He purchased a gun because he wanted to kill people not because he was weird.
To throw Cho a bone. There are "weird" rich kids on college campuses that can piss you off. But he didn't get the memo about "thou shall not kill." Cho was a rich kid, but his parents obviously didn't treat him like one. He thought that he was different.
Ham: are you a nut? "Wrong he was a criminal long before he purchased the gun. He had not acted on his hatred yet"- this could be anybody. According to your argument, if a worker had fantasies of killing his boss he's a criminal. this could be anybody in the known universe. I guess you are in favor of the thought police.
"Say, accidental discharges."
the last numbers i have, from 2003, indicate 703 accidental deaths from firearms. (this is separated from suicides, which was around 10k, and murders involving firearms, also around 10k for that same year iirc)
as a *totally useless* but interesting side-by-side, there are an estimated 225-250 million guns in the united states. there are an estimated 240 million automobiles and 43,788 accidental deaths. (source: National Safety Council. Report on Injuries in America, 2003.
www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm.)
even factoring in murders and suicides, you're still only around half the amount of car deaths. what does this mean? well, not very much for day to day life. driving and firearms are two very separate things (i'd probably be more in favor of heavier barriers to car driving than firearms, actually, since it takes some skill to use a gun.)
of course the main question here, which is "how do you prevent crazy selfish jerkoffs from mudering and otherwise harming others?" isn't to be found in statistics by and large. CHL laws don't have much of an impact on crime rates positively (with some small exceptions) and they certainly don't increase crime rates (CHL holders are almost absurdly law-abiding, for obvious reasons.)
"they are for the most part angry bigoted men of all races and nationalities, many with small penises, who hate themselves for their self-repressed homosexuality; they were bullied as kids, and live their lives in frustration, waiting for the opportunity to be wronged again in such a manner that they can get their jollies by satisfying their blood lust."
you'd be very interested to see a survey of gun owners, particularly by race and gender and income levels. (hint, it's a bit more diverse than you think!) consider that rural blacks own guns at a far higher rate than urban blacks, but have a far lower rate of crime victimization - clearly something else is going on than merely access to a gun.
or not. this whole "debate" is dominated by fear - a fear of crime and a fear of violence, and very few fearful people are able to make compelling, rational cases for anything. and guns are treated totemically by many people, which does not help anyone.
consider the above again - there are more guns than cars. and as ownership rates rose, the crime rate fell over the past 40 years.
or in other words, there is no magic bullet.
har har.
moderation: i don't think anyone would really disagree to the idea that cho should not have had a gun, but i don't think there was (or is) a good/practical/not completely unfair way to deny him access.
its a real shame, however, that people are politicizing this tragedy to justify their policy preferences instead of mourning the victims of a senseless crime.
no, s.d. i didn't write that. but you're right, they acted smartly by blocking the door. however, if a professor in the room were armed, he could have ended the incident right there.
perhaps throwing out constitutional rights in the midst of a traumatic moment isn't wise. remember the patriot act?
brightliner, more children are killed playing in swimming pools than with guns. you aren't really advocating disarming the FBI are you? and as for the founding fathers, yes, they had their dark personal sides, but they wrote a strong constitution and declaration on which this country is based. don't mix the two.
You think Thomas Jefferson is infallible? Historical documents show that Jefferson not only owned slaves, he bought and sold them, he questioned the mental capacity of blacks in general and he was against the formal education of women.
This is an asinine argument. Everyone who makes it shows they have very little grasp on whatever issue they are arguing it. You can't pass moral judgements against people who lived 250 years ago. You live by the rules of your time.
And your "murders per thousand" list is only useful when crossed up with a "murders" list. If 1000 people in the US die by gunshot and 100 people in the UK die by gunshot, but 900 people die by stabbing, it doesn't really matter, does it?
And I'm not going to do your research for you. But five minutes on google and you should find plenty of statistics that tell you that, internationally, we're not even in the top ten for violent crimes worldwide.
Ham: are you a nut? "Wrong he was a criminal long before he purchased the gun. He had not acted on his hatred yet"- this could be anybody. According to your argument, if a worker had fantasies of killing his boss he's a criminal. this could be anybody in the known universe. I guess you are in favor of the thought police.
[65] Posted by: Jojo | April 18, 2007 4:50 PM
_______________________
Stay with me on this answer. Don't go off on a tangent.
Fact, OJ Simpson's dreams were used as part of the Prosecution. They said because he had dreamnt of killing his wife was enough to make the other accusation possible.
Think deeper. He became his thoughts which means he had met his doom long before April 2007. He just hadn't carried them (his thoughts) to the fullest extent.
Try not to get so caught up in seperating the act from the intent.
"WHATEVER A MAN THINKETH SO IT HE....."
Jesus Christ said that.
economist, #55 was (In my browser anyway!) jmchez.
;)
tom you're a fucking idiot.
i found some statistics that flush your lamebrained theory down the toilet. keep your dumbassed opinions to yourself or do some fucking research and get me some data.
also, the point is GUN violence not knife violence.
get data or shut the fuck up.
thank you,
goodnight.
Ham: I wouldn't want you on my jury. don't you know you can only use that in regards to a crime committed. What you want is pre-crime. and sadly, only Tom Cruise can do that in a science fiction movie called "minority report" directed by steven spielberg. And guess what? that system too was flawed. Dude, I hope you aren't a teacher or a person of influence over more impressionable youths.
NBC is SO happy right now.
To all the gun nuts on here. Is there a link on the teensfornra dot com website to Gothamist?
Anyhow I own guns and appreciate the LICENSE I have that says I'm not some maniac. All you "guns for everyone" supporters are indirectly responsible for every one of those 30 something people. Every. Damn. One.
will wrote "moderation: i don't think anyone would really disagree to the idea that cho should not have had a gun, but i don't think there was (or is) a good/practical/not completely unfair way to deny him access."
How about "if you have been declared a danger to others by a court of law you don't get a gun"; as he had been. If you allow for appeal hearings on individual cases, that sounds like a pretty fair stipulation to me.
This is not necessarily a case of hindsight being 20/20. He had a history with mental institutions, complaints of being a stalking, and court orders against him. What would he have had to do for some of you people to not allow him to buy a gun?
#58, I worked at a place where we were constantly doing post event accident analysis. Not to recriminate but to find out how to behave should something like that happen again. I'm not Monday morning quaterbacking or being ana armchair hero. I'm just trying to think logicallly. Granted logical thinking is in short supply when people are threatened. However, time and time again, it's been proven that, hard as it may be, those who think logically tend to survive while does who panic don't.
In a gunman vs a group scenario, if the gunman is coming through the door, he's already self-constrained. The worse thing the group can do is shy away and run to the back of the room. Tha's getting cornered with no way out. If enough people stand to the side of the door, the gunman has no choice but to give his back to one side or the other. Even if he comes in hands with guns first he is presenting a vulnerable target.
Unfortunately trained individuals are hard to come by in high school or college campuses. However, saying "I will not criticize the victims" does nothing to guard yourself against a similar scenario.
Again, knowing or having learned what to do does not mean you will follow on the training (I've seen enough skydiving students panic at the last minute) but it is better than never having thought of it.
#58, I worked at a place where we were constantly doing post event accident analysis. Not to recriminate but to find out how to behave should something like that happen again. I'm not Monday morning quaterbacking or being ana armchair hero. I'm just trying to think logicallly. Granted logical thinking is in short supply when people are threatened. However, time and time again, it's been proven that, hard as it may be, those who think logically tend to survive while does who panic don't.
In a gunman vs a group scenario, if the gunman is coming through the door, he's already self-constrained. The worse thing the group can do is shy away and run to the back of the room. Tha's getting cornered with no way out. If enough people stand to the side of the door, the gunman has no choice but to give his back to one side or the other. Even if he comes in hands with guns first he is presenting a vulnerable target.
Unfortunately trained individuals are hard to come by in high school or college campuses. However, saying "I will not criticize the victims" does nothing to guard yourself against a similar scenario.
Again, knowing or having learned what to do does not mean you will follow on the training (I've seen enough skydiving students panic at the last minute) but it is better than never having thought of it.
#58, I worked at a place where we were constantly doing post event accident analysis. Not to recriminate but to find out how to behave should something like that happen again. I'm not Monday morning quaterbacking or being ana armchair hero. I'm just trying to think logicallly. Granted logical thinking is in short supply when people are threatened. However, time and time again, it's been proven that, hard as it may be, those who think logically tend to survive while does who panic don't.
In a gunman vs a group scenario, if the gunman is coming through the door, he's already self-constrained. The worse thing the group can do is shy away and run to the back of the room. Tha's getting cornered with no way out. If enough people stand to the side of the door, the gunman has no choice but to give his back to one side or the other. Even if he comes in hands with guns first he is presenting a vulnerable target.
Unfortunately trained individuals are hard to come by in high school or college campuses. However, saying "I will not criticize the victims" does nothing to guard yourself against a similar scenario.
Again, knowing or having learned what to do does not mean you will follow on the training (I've seen enough skydiving students panic at the last minute) but it is better than never having thought of it.
#58, I worked at a place where we were constantly doing post event accident analysis. Not to recriminate but to find out how to behave should something like that happen again. I'm not Monday morning quaterbacking or being ana armchair hero. I'm just trying to think logicallly. Granted logical thinking is in short supply when people are threatened. However, time and time again, it's been proven that, hard as it may be, those who think logically tend to survive while does who panic don't.
In a gunman vs a group scenario, if the gunman is coming through the door, he's already self-constrained. The worse thing the group can do is shy away and run to the back of the room. Tha's getting cornered with no way out. If enough people stand to the side of the door, the gunman has no choice but to give his back to one side or the other. Even if he comes in hands with guns first he is presenting a vulnerable target.
Unfortunately trained individuals are hard to come by in high school or college campuses. However, saying "I will not criticize the victims" does nothing to guard yourself against a similar scenario.
Again, knowing or having learned what to do does not mean you will follow on the training (I've seen enough skydiving students panic at the last minute) but it is better than never having thought of it.
Agreed #74
NBC Execs must be rubbing out a few batches right about now after reading those mailings they got from the gunman. Hell I'll be watching Brian Williams tonight def.
#58, I worked at a place where we were constantly doing post event accident analysis. Not to recriminate but to find out how to behave should something like that happen again. I'm not Monday morning quaterbacking or being an armchair hero. I'm just trying to think logically. Granted logical thinking is in short supply when people are threatened. However, time and time again, it's been proven that, hard as it may be, those who think logically tend to survive while does who panic don't.
In a gunman vs a group scenario, if the gunman is coming through the door, he's already self-constrained. The worse thing the group can do is shy away and run to the back of the room. Tha's getting cornered with no way out. If enough people stand to the side of the door, the gunman has no choice but to give his back to one side or the other. Even if he comes in hands with guns first he is presenting a vulnerable target.
Unfortunately trained individuals are hard to come by in high school or college campuses. However, saying "I will not criticize the victims" does nothing to guard yourself against a similar scenario.
Again, knowing or having learned what to do does not mean you will follow on the training (I've seen enough skydiving students panic at the last minute) but it is better than never having thought of it.
My apologies for the repeat posts. It was a mistake. I'm sorry. I wish I could delete them.
With reference to the Times' piece on the victims above. Has anyone noticed how much more we (and I notice this in myself) reactively want to know all the news about the killer and who he was? We all want to know who this was and how he could do it. We want him to be psychotic rather than evil. Though I suppose he could be both.
Getting to know the victims, on the other hand, feels too painful... and it is. The Times' interactive makes my heart absolutely sick. It reminds me of that paper's portrayal of every single 9/11 victim. Opening the paper every day in those months after 9/11 was an absolute trial, having the dead looking back at you, their sometimes ordinary lives bared for all... something about that ordinariness made it even harder to bear. And the promise of youth and the even greater randomness of this crime makes facing the victims still harder, in some ways, than 9/11. But I would encourage everyone to take a look.
I just have to add one factual note. People say "If he hadn't had guns, he couldn't have murdered all those people." Yes, he could have. It's called arson. And he had chains for the doors, remember? He could have trapped people. The Happy Land arson in 1990 killed 87 people. The fire at "The Station" (the Great White nightclub fire in Rhode Island) killed 100. If you really want to kill lots of people, arson is the way to go, unfortunately. And banning matches and flammable material isn't exactly practical.
I was going to post the same thing earlier JD. I hope some of the posters here have had a chance to go home tonight and flip on the news to see this guy's video. He was fucking nuts.
And I'll say it again. Comparing murder rates across countries is somewhat meaningless if you don't even try to think about the social fabric of the country. The US has real problems with income and wealth inequality. Lots of violence is created by this: domestic violence, robbery, drug crime, etc. Maybe out European friends simply cut down on the violence through Socialism. Canada has as many guns percapita as the US and fewer murders per capita.
Here is a modest proposal: Instead of adopting a particular line, rent Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."
As per John Nichols...
Here is a modest proposal: Instead of adopting a particular line, rent Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."
Why? For a primer in deceptive editing?
It's looking more and more like VT is going to have a really bad name.
One of the victims was from Westtown, NY in Western Orange County.
People on the left put too much of the blame for crime and misery on guns. Simply banning guns won't end violence, poverty, and hopelessness in the inner city, BUT it would certainly make some things marginally better.
Too many people on the right refuse to admit this last point. Face it, righties and NRA freaks, if it was more difficult to get a gun, things like THIS would not happen, not to this extent. Stop being so ideological and admit that easy access to guns FACILITATED this tragedy, not CAUSED, but FACILITATED.
Does that mean we should ban most guns? Perhaps. But we also have to remember that banning guns won't solve everything...
In fact, if we really want to reduce crime, legalizing drugs would go a lot further than banning guns. Much of the violence in cities is over business-related disputes (territory, control of supply chains, etc.) and violence is one of the only way to solve business disputes in the drug economy today. Regulation and legalization would help...
I find it offensive and irresponsible that the media is posting the final video of the VT killer. I'm actually really disgusted by their irresonsible coverage and greed. The publicity of this video and the infamy being granted to this individual may likely inspire "copycat" killers who want the notoriety and fame.
Why is (the media) giving the killer a platform? Instead of publicizing their last words and creating a cult of notoriety, the media should condemn and shun them. I feel that NBC is exploiting this tragedy for profit and greed at the expense of the innocent victims who have lost their lives.
It turns out that NBC was sent the killers last testimonial tape and instead of turning it over the original evidence to authourities to ask what they should do in regards to the greater good of society they turned over a copy to the police and at the same time released it through all their media outlets insuring that they would not get scooped on irrecoverable evidence and in case the police told them not to release it they wouldn't be liable as they released it at the same time they gave it to authorities cause you know the police would advise them not to release this material at all. The other networks just followed suit and now you've got crazy creepy guy infesting the minds of impressionable young troubled youths who are probably glorifying him in their minds. It turns out Cho was inspired by the "martyr" deaths of the columbine guys. Who will Cho inspire? nice going NBC. You've turned into Foxnews. I'm gonna stop watching these guys too.
He was really mentally ill. Pretty sad. His videos are rambling and don't make much sense.
The post office clerk put the time of mailing at 9:01 AM. Can you imagine if he went to a NYC post office? he'll be there all morning and he may go postal at the postal office and forget about his original mission.
If other students have guns, then this won't happen ?
How would you know if the other gun owners won't join him in a killing spree ?
Gun makers didn't play video games
The current young kids do, and
want it to happen in Real life.
What's more exciting than playing the game for real ?
Hi,
Great blog!
I like the office view!
If you have time, please submit the view to my new blog: www.viewfromoffice.com and in return I’ll include a link to your blog!
Thanks!
i wonder what his ipod playlist is
It's 2007, you savages. If I was in charge we'd totally ban guns. Ok maybe some permits for hunting.. but hunting only. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. How do we even know that the framers weren't specifically talking about states militias? I doubt they'd be thrilled with automatic weapons being available to most anyone who tries head enough to get one. Ban guns. But it'll never happen because this country is barbaric and full of gun-totin' yahoo dipshits.
You gun-nutz are bizarre. "If you burned a building down you could kill 30 people" or "if you drove a car through a crowded plaza you oculd kill 30 people". Fawk, you people are dense. Maybe if the stars were all aligned and your killhappy karma was shining that day could you use these methods to kill dozens. However, REALITY dictates that using a gun to do it is MUCH EASIER.
Where are all these gun nutzos posting from? Its like the NRA fan club is reading gothamist.
Maybe... **Maybe** if a couple of the kids were strapped, it wouldve saved lives that day. But the rest of the time, when they're doing whippets in the quad, and stumbling around campus getting pissed that someone looked funny, having a gun is more likely to do more harm than good..
Ham: I wouldn't want you on my jury. don't you know you can only use that in regards to a crime committed. What you want is pre-crime. and sadly, only Tom Cruise can do that in a science fiction movie called "minority report" directed by steven spielberg. And guess what? that system too was flawed. Dude, I hope you aren't a teacher or a person of influence over more impressionable youths.
[73] Posted by: Jojo | April 18, 2007 5:22 PM
_____________________________________________
I hope that you have more time in life to become a clear thinker. No wonder we have problems in the world. People like you think that everyone acts or "snaps" out of the blue. Most good deed and bad deeds are premeditated.
That is why we have terms like: "Criminal Intent;" "Premeditated Murder;" "Acting in Concert;" "Criminal Minds" The act is not serperate from the act. Yes if you are "studying" and making plans with thoughts of killing your boss then you are a person with "Criminal Tendancies." "Criminal intentions." If you obsess on the the idea you will become your thoughts which are criminalistic. Of course we can not put you in jail for thinking it. But we can put you in jail if you talk about it out loud. We can have you executed if you go through with your thoughts.
I rest my case. The offense rests!!!!!
First of all, Stop trying to use this shooting to further the whole "Gun law" crusade ! It wouldn't have mattered anyway ! This kid was intent on ending the lives of as many students as he could regardless of the outcome ! You all heard the guy that sold him his weapon, He didn't look, Or act suspiciously . He didn't have a criminal record, He waited the required [30]day period for his weapons . It just sad that this was something that was in the making from a longtime in this kids world . Unfortunately, You have people in this world that can't seem to fit in and use that hatred of others as a vehicle for their twisted deeds . You can't weed them out of society and you can't really identify them in the general public . It could have been a co worker, The driver that always seemed a little off at times, Anybody . You can semanticize this particular case "Every way till Sunday", & you will still come to the same conclusion .
Some of you dingleheads make it sound so easy - oh just plant guns in their hands and none of this would have happened. These are students you morons, not Navy SEALs or SWAT commandos. What the heck do they know about combat with guns? Heck they'd probably piss their pants in the split second it takes to register everything. It's very easy to talk about this and this scenario, but until you've been suddenly startled by a crazed gunman with a .22 up your butt, you won't ever know how you'll react.
Furthermore, fighting fire with more fire is never the answer.
30 day period huh? That's Virginia's idea of a "restriction"? Laughable. You gun-nuts have no grounding in reality. Try licensing gun-owners and having records of what guns are out there, wondernuts. Those are real gun laws.
"It's 2007, you savages. If I was in charge we'd totally ban guns. Ok maybe some permits for hunting.. but hunting only. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. How do we even know that the framers weren't specifically talking about states militias? I doubt they'd be thrilled with automatic weapons being available to most anyone who tries head enough to get one. Ban guns. But it'll never happen because this country is barbaric and full of gun-totin' yahoo dipshits."
from the punching myself in the brain department, i'll reiterate that despite the massive increase in private gun ownership - something along the lines of 40 to 50% of households in the u.s. report having at least one firearm in them - and the amount of guns - 225 to 250 million - crime rates rose and fell.
the other point is that you're making a great case for the patriot act - fuck the constitution, we're at war!
bart: you make a very good point about "what ifs" in cases like these.
however"fighting fire with fire" sometimes stops a massacre before it really gets going. even if you take the lowest defensive gun usage survey numbers - 27,000 (contrasted with 70k, 200k and 2.5 million at the top range) - and you even then throw out half of them just for shits and giggles, you're left with around the same number of DGU's as there are gun homicides in the u.s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham (pearl river, miss; stopped by assistant principal)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wurst (edinboro, pa; stopped by restaurant owner from across the school)
You right-wing-gun-nutties like to quote obscure articles where someone with a gun actually stopped a crime. Those happen once for every 10,000 actual shootings? Irrelevant.
So how many of you rabid anti-gunners have actually held and fired a firearm before?
Just wonderin', here.
Hey , A month ago Texas passed a law allowing citizens to actually shoot anyone tresspassing on their property & of course for anything else , to this day their has not been one murder in 33 days in Texas since the law was passed .
So i would think responsible people can handle a gun law like this in order to protect it's property & possesions.
If their is a gun ban on Americans , we will be in huge trouble as the Bush administration will find a way to threaten our freedoms & attempt to take away hat is ours. The government has been chipping away at the constitution for 50 years & the laws that are coming out since the fraud of 9-11-2001 (a total inside job in every sense of the word) are not for the terrorists , they are for us ,that's right you& I & everyone you know , these laws affect everyone sometime each & every day since they've been passed , The Patriot Act & The Military Commissions Act .
Once they crash the dollar & come to take your home , you will wish you had a gun , believe me.
Sounds a little far fetched right ??
Think about it or do the research yourself , we are in big trouble unless RON PAUL is voted in as our president , he is the only one left who is for the people of our land & he will get rid of the scum who are controlling our lives .
We have a right 2 keep and bear arms, taking that away, would lead 2 more murders, i am fully educated on this topic, as i have done reports on this topic. givng out only hunting linces, would be unconstititutional. conclead carry, means less murders b/c criminals have no idea, of who has a guna dn who doesnt and about 1/10 shootings r stopped /c some1 else had a gun. not 1/10000, 1/10 r stopped. 2ED AMENDMENT RULES ADN DONT U EVER TAKE IT AWAY U FOWL MOUTHED, UNEDUCATED LIBERALS!!!