View Full Version : Single biggest shooting incident in US History
Jeemag_USA
16-Apr-07, 21:42
I don't know if this is hitting all the news in the UK or not yet, I couldn't believe my eyes as I switched on the TV here in Indiana this afternoon.
At The University of Virginia Tech, a shooting incident took place in a student dorm at 7.15am here this morning, one person was shot dead and another wounded. The police were investigating the incident, normally under these circumstances a school is locked down and put on high alert, buildings are evacuated and the area is cleared, but this was not doneand now people are asking questions why?
Some two hours later, the gunman was still on campus and went on to shoot another 40+ people, there are mixed figures but the death toll is now believed to be 31 people dead including the gunman and some 20 or so wounded. No details of the gunman are released and no motive is being ruled out including terrorism. I can only assume the person had an automatic weapon for death and destruction on this scale, I find it hard to believe it was only one person.
Can't imagin what the families are thinking right now as most bodies have not been identified, makes me sick to my stomach, its unbeilevable, this is one of the top Universities in the USA, it defies belief! :(
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html
celtic 302
16-Apr-07, 21:49
i saw it on my computer, but then again i am on AOL. It is an absolutly terrible incident and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones. However im not ashamed to say that im glad the killer shot himself, and i hope he burns in hell
Jeemag_USA
16-Apr-07, 21:50
i saw it on my computer, but then again i am on AOL. It is an absolutly terrible incident and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones. However im not ashamed to say that im glad the killer shot himself, and i hope he burns in hell
It is not yet clear wether the shooter was killed by police or killed himself according to all news agencies in the USA. No details have been released about the gunman.
celtic 302
16-Apr-07, 21:53
OK. I read that he had killed himself. However ur probably right, that no confirmation is avaiable on that yet
Humerous Vegetable
16-Apr-07, 22:14
It's a truely horrible incident, but it's something that's bound to happen when anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be, can walk into a store and buy whatever gun they want. There seems to be no control whatsoever over gun ownership and use, just because it was written into their constitution a couple of hundred years ago.
Very tragic, and sympathies to the people and families involved.
At the risk of being controversial at a time like this, this is certainly not the first time this has happened, and with the current US gun laws unfortunately this will not be the last.
I echo everyone's sympathies to the families. Unfortunately, these things aren't restricted to the US, Scotland has had its share of these tragedies, remember Dunblane?
I saw a wee bit of the story on sky but for some reason the sound went off. It conjures up all sorts of questions in your head.
how horrible is it.. about the massacre at virgina tech today!
32 students killed.. Lord knows how many injured.. and then the gunman killing himself.
what goes thru someones mind.. what must they be thinking to go on a rampage like that?
all my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those young people!
j4bberw0ck
16-Apr-07, 23:29
It's a truely horrible incident, but it's something that's bound to happen when anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be, can walk into a store and buy whatever gun they want. There seems to be no control whatsoever over gun ownership and use, just because it was written into their constitution a couple of hundred years ago.
It is an appalling incident, but I notice that in 2004 some 52000 "operators" of different classes of motor vehicles were involved in fatal accidents. I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of cars to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
Neither have I noticed pressure for making alocohol sales illegal or controlled, despite alcohol abuse being directly responsible for 47000 deaths in the USA (2001) - 19000 as a result of alcohol intoxication (excluding accident and homicides) and 28000 as a result of long term abuse.
I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of alcohol to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
So come one, folks. Let's start looking at the individuals, not the guns or the cars or the alcohol. I notice also that gun control laws passed here post-Dunblane and Hungerford have done nothing at all to reduce gun crime.
j4bberw0ck
16-Apr-07, 23:31
I saw a wee bit of the story on sky but for some reason the sound went off. It conjures up all sorts of questions in your head.
Other channels were similarly affected so I think on balance you can relax and think "atmospheric conditions" :lol:
Jeemag_USA
16-Apr-07, 23:56
Well the problem is not strictly the gun laws, America does have firearms legislation, it is enforced when it can be but the main problem is because it is acceptable to keep a weapon for your own personal protection it means that there is a hige amount of guns in stock in the country, and as corruption goes people get them out of that stock and move them into illegal circles. I personally abhor the amount of guns in this country, but on the whole I am sure if you look at the stats in this country, many of the guns used in serious gang shootings or mass murder are not even legal to be in this country (automatic pistols, uzi's etc). It is a serious situation but not one easily dealt with. The problem is not that its easy to buy a weapon legally, its that its too easy to buy one illegaly.
Its not something I brought up to debate about, its just so shocking I wasn't sure if it would have hit the nes fully over there yet, the death toll is now at 33, which surpasses the highest known mass murder on criminal record by 10 I believe in the USA.
But it does back up something I have always believe is ignored, for a country that wants to fight a war on terrorism they fail to deal with the fact acts of terrorism happen acroos the USA every day, when anyone willfully kills or causes violence to another then it strikes fear and it is nothing less than terror. There are over 2 million people in american prison for violent crime, most using firearms.
The most worrying aspect for me being a parent in America is the lockdown situation, every school, college and public building has a lockdown proceduer in America, even if a violent situation is happening within a 5 to 10 mile radius, schools and other public places can be locked down, people accounted for and securtiy or police officers deployed. This did not happen until more than two hours after the first killing, it won't bring anyone back but someone has to answer for that, that University should have been evacuated immediately after the first killing.
Well the problem is not strictly the gun laws, America does have firearms legislation, it is enforced when it can be but the main problem is because it is acceptable to keep a weapon for your own personal protection .
I could be wrong but I looked into it a loooonnnngggg time ago but I thought the oft quoted 2nd amendment was the right to carry arms was in defense of the country.
Jeemag_USA
17-Apr-07, 01:16
I could be wrong but I looked into it a loooonnnngggg time ago but I thought the oft quoted 2nd amendment was the right to carry arms was in defense of the country.
Yes, and your point is??
I am well aware of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Ammendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
I don't recall anyone disputing or mentioning it so what is your point? And why did you put a stop after protection, that is not the whole sentence, don't misquote people and make an argument out of something that is not there. Every country has gun laws and firearm legislation including the USA, its not the case that legally you can just walk into a store hand over $100 and walk out with a gun. Several forms of identification are required and paperwork has to be filled out, just like acquiring a firearms certificate in the UK. So why are you bringing up the second ammendment?
©Amethyst
17-Apr-07, 08:21
I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of cars to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of alcohol to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
I don't think that it's got anything to do with the above! It's the principle of one man KILLING others! I just dont get how people can do this!
The ITV news last night mentioned that the two he shot early on were his ex and the man she was seeing. Jealousy is an awful thing but this is beyond terrible.
If people want to drive powerful cars, fine. If people want to drink alcohol, fine... just not together - as with if people want to own a gun, I don't see a problem with that. One of my best friends has a gun - for clay pigeon shooting! Not for shooting another person!!
I don't think the problem in America is totally with their gun laws, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is their mentality as well. I believe that Canadians have 3 times as many guns per capita as the US with a fraction of gun deaths per capita as the US.
j4bberw0ck
17-Apr-07, 09:30
I don't think that it's got anything to do with the above! It's the principle of one man KILLING others! I just dont get how people can do this!
That was rather my point; that cursing the ready availability of guns in the US is a pointless exercise as (a) it's people who kill, and (b) that gun control laws in the UK have done nothing to stop the flow of illegal weapons onto the streets here. In fact the police seem ready to admit that there have never been more guns on the streets.
Also (and in no way am I trying to suggest that this wasn't a horrendous event) people generally have a maladjusted idea of the statistical significance of numbers - look at the people who play the lottery, or buy Premium Bonds. 33 people dead (32 of them innocent bystanders) is less than a quarter of the number killed daily in cars in the US and about a quarter of those who die as a result of alcohol abuse (and yes, <sigh>, I Googled the figures, without apology. What else is such a resource for, if not to use?).
In a country of 260 million people, things will happen. Knee-jerk reactions gain nothing. The real questions are surely why, a gunman having shot two people, the campus wasn't immediately locked down at 0715, and how he managed to wander from one part of the campus to another to shoot another 30 people two hours later?
I suspect there may be people looking for new jobs once an inquest determines what happened.
One of my best friends has a gun - for clay pigeon shooting! Not for shooting another person!!Me, too. And it is a fact in the UK that legally held and licensed guns are associated with some of the most law-abiding people in the land. Always was the case, even pre-Hungerford and pre-Dunblane.
j4bberw0ck
17-Apr-07, 09:33
It is their mentality as well. I believe that Canadians have 3 times as many guns per capita as the US with a fraction of gun deaths per capita as the US.
Interesting point - and of course the Swiss manage to combine one of the highest rates of hard drug addiction in Europe with a law requiring every able-bodied man(?) person (?) to have in their home a military-spec firearm and ammunition. And you don't hear too much about atrocities in Switzerland.
What I can not understand is that the first 2 victims were shot 2 hours before the other 30odd. How did this happen. I know I am no police officer etc but I just can't believe it at all it is so sad.
According to the BBC report last night there are 200 million guns in private ownership in the US.
And apparently the administration allowed the bill to ban the sale of automatic weapons, which was brought in by the previous encumbents, to slip last year. The NRA is a powerful lobby and the mindset of some of its members is a little scary.
This is a terrible event but it won't change the situation one iota regarding guns.
Switzerland does have the occasional murder using firearms. But the situation there is that the citizens only have access to a sealed box of ammo - they can't stockpile ammo as someone in the US might be able to do.
I believe they have a different attitude to firearms as well.
The lockdown seemed to go wrong due to the police initially thinking the shooter had left the area after the first shooting. The two buildings are about 1/4 of a mile apart so it looks like he committed the first murders then made a form of escape, only to end up at the second site. Two hours for the shooter, trying to hide from police, to make it across the campus might fit?
Lockdown is a contentious, and fairly recently introduced, option - cordoning the suspect and evacuating everyone possible from the scene is the other option.
In a large building where it is hard to initially track a suspect, locking innocent victims into the same 'space' just provides the suspect with a supply of possible hostages and yet more victims.
Time to rethink lockdown?.....
It is really awful - all those poor families. I still cry when I think about the bairns at Dunblane - what is happening to the world?
Humerous Vegetable
17-Apr-07, 13:56
It is an appalling incident, but I notice that in 2004 some 52000 "operators" of different classes of motor vehicles were involved in fatal accidents. I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of cars to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
Neither have I noticed pressure for making alocohol sales illegal or controlled, despite alcohol abuse being directly responsible for 47000 deaths in the USA (2001) - 19000 as a result of alcohol intoxication (excluding accident and homicides) and 28000 as a result of long term abuse.
I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of alcohol to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
So come one, folks. Let's start looking at the individuals, not the guns or the cars or the alcohol. I notice also that gun control laws passed here post-Dunblane and Hungerford have done nothing at all to reduce gun crime.
I'm sorry, but that's a vey lame and specious line of reasoning. The purpose of a car (or train or plane) is transportation, however many deaths may result from undertaking a journey. The only purpose of a gun is to cause injury or death, whether to a clay pigeon, a real pigeon or a human being. The purpose of the Hydro Board is to supply electricity, not to cause people to be electrocuted. What is the justification for selling something over the counter to anyone who wants it, something that's only purpose is to cause injury or death?
I would like to say that my feeling go out to those families that have lost loved ones in this horrendous shooting however the words" right to bare arms" and the freedom of all americans has not helped with this...After the collumbine massacres you could still walk into the local bank and buy a shotgun.I am sorry but unless this stupid law changes then the americans are going to have to live with this and many more gun crimes in america....
I'm sorry, but that's a vey lame and specious line of reasoning. The purpose of a car (or train or plane) is transportation, however many deaths may result from undertaking a journey. The only purpose of a gun is to cause injury or death, whether to a clay pigeon, a real pigeon or a human being. The purpose of the Hydro Board is to supply electricity, not to cause people to be electrocuted. What is the justification for selling something over the counter to anyone who wants it, something that's only purpose is to cause injury or death?
I agree with jw0ck that of course it's the individual pulling the trigger who's reponsible for any shooting causing injury or death.
But I do think, along with Humerous Vegetable, that guns are entirely different from cars and alcohol, because their purpose is essentially to maim or to kill. People may argue that they're a deterrent, and have a use in self-defence, but unless you're a police officer or a member of the forces, I'm not at all convinced by that reasoning.
In my kitchen I have a fine selection of knives, kept well -sharpened. I could, if I felt so inclined, possibly use them to injure or kill an animal or another human being. The difference between my kitchen knives and my keeping a gun in the house, is that a gun would have no useful and innocent purpose.
j4bberw0ck
17-Apr-07, 15:10
I'm sorry, but that's a vey lame and specious line of reasoning. The purpose of a car (or train or plane) is transportation, however many deaths may result from undertaking a journey. The only purpose of a gun is to cause injury or death, whether to a clay pigeon, a real pigeon or a human being. The purpose of the Hydro Board is to supply electricity, not to cause people to be electrocuted. What is the justification for selling something over the counter to anyone who wants it, something that's only purpose is to cause injury or death?
I'd quibble with "specious" of course, but in America at any rate, the right to bear arms is unquestioned by the majority. There's some fringe argument maybe about whether automatic weapons are justifiable, but since the reason is defence of the country (originally) why not? Arguing about whether it's right or wrong that people can buy these things in America is a nonsense unless you happen to be American, in America.
The original purpose of the means of injury or death - like whether it was supposed to be transport, for instance - is wholly irrelevant. Think about tobacco consumption - it has no function other than as a mild neurotoxin. The purpose of alcohol is intoxication. The purpose of thalidomide was to prevent nausea, but when its side effects became known it was banned. To stick to your line of reasoning with cars and trains and planes would have women taking thalidomide to prevent nausea, regardless of whether they knew the risks.
The original purpose of the means of injury or death - like whether it was supposed to be transport, for instance - is wholly irrelevant. Think about tobacco consumption - it has no function other than as a mild neurotoxin. The purpose of alcohol is intoxication. The purpose of thalidomide was to prevent nausea, but when its side effects became known it was banned. To stick to your line of reasoning with cars and trains and planes would have women taking thalidomide to prevent nausea, regardless of whether they knew the risks.
I know this post's in reply to Humerous Veg....but I must say you've lost me here jw0ck:roll:
....the purpose of cars, trains, planes, tobacco, alcohol and indeed thalidomide, is not to kill or injure! The reason to have a knife (to return briefly to my kitchen knives, above) can also be entirely innocent, although a knife can have the potential to kill or injure if that's what the person holding it intends to do. Carrying a knife in public isn't justified of course...it stops being an implement and becomes a "weapon".
The purpose of a gun, i.e. the reason why it is made in the first place, is to kill or injure. I think there's quite a difference there. :confused
Swords and knives were made to kill.
Bows and arrows were made to kill.
Guns were made to kill.
Gunpowder was made to kill.
Since then they have found other 'uses' such as sport or pleasure.
Target shooting.
Archery.
Fencing.
Fireworks.
A car sat in a garage will kill no-one until a person gets behind the wheel and starts the engine.
Likewise a gun, knive or bow will kill no-one until a mentally/emotionally disturbed person picks it up.(Or someone is foolish enough to leave a loaded weapon lying around where kids can access it...)
While I have a problem with the levels of casual gun ownership (or outdated principles behind the right to bear arms) in the US, many gun owners in the UK who proved they were responsible users of firearms (gun clubs etc) were closed down overnight after Hungerford.
And since then ever tighter controls have not reduced the level of gun crime in the UK.
And teenagers seem to be getting stabbed to death on a weekly basis now.
I have to ask is the shoot 'em up video games, which seem to be graphically violent to my old eyes, responsible in some part for the trend of violence amongst the youths of today?
In these games to blast away at your target and no-one really gets hurt, but does it blur the lines of reality in the heads of the kids who go out and commit these crimes?
There is something strange about the events – and I’m not talking about one person going on a shooting rampage. Last night on Sky News, it was about 2130hrs out here, so about 1930hrs in the UK, they had some interviews/phone links with some students on the campus and were fishing for info – the two calls I heard said that they were told the shooter was an “Asian”. About 5 minutes later there was a still photo displayed of a policeman with an Asian youth (looked Korean to me), the youth was on the ground, the cop with his knee in the small of the guys back trying to cuff him – the Asian youths head was lifted off the ground and he had a grimace on his face……..he was alive. Now I am not sure if this is the same Asian youth as has been reported as the shooter (they do look alike)……..but I have not seen the picture displayed at all today.
I have noticed these kind of things a couple of times in the past on Sky – one that sticks in my mind was after the shooting of Jill Dando, mid-way through the afternoon they reported a significant lead, in the case and it was linked to gangland killings in Eire, as Dando had been doing some investigative work on the Veronica Guerelin case – we were told that a report would follow………..it was never mentioned again. Then just after the September 11th 2001 attacks – it must have been the same day as I traveled out here on the 12th, there was an American on (can’t remember who he was) and he stated that the US would declare war on terrorism, this would result in attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea…..and they would be in that order!!! I have never seen this report again.
Humerous Vegetable
17-Apr-07, 16:43
I'd quibble with "specious" of course, but in America at any rate, the right to bear arms is unquestioned by the majority. There's some fringe argument maybe about whether automatic weapons are justifiable, but since the reason is defence of the country (originally) why not? Arguing about whether it's right or wrong that people can buy these things in America is a nonsense unless you happen to be American, in America.
The original purpose of the means of injury or death - like whether it was supposed to be transport, for instance - is wholly irrelevant. Think about tobacco consumption - it has no function other than as a mild neurotoxin. The purpose of alcohol is intoxication. The purpose of thalidomide was to prevent nausea, but when its side effects became known it was banned. To stick to your line of reasoning with cars and trains and planes would have women taking thalidomide to prevent nausea, regardless of whether they knew the risks.
I think you've shot yourself in the foot here, which is quite appropriate really. No drugs are designed to cause injury or death. All drugs carry side-effects, including Aspirin and Paracetamol. Once the side-effects outweigh the beneficial, therapeutic effects they are withdrawn from general use. I don't remember anyone saying "Oh dear, guns hurt people, lets withdraw them from general use". More like " Guns hurt people, lets have bigger and better ones so we can hurt more people more quickly".
Yes, it does appear that the majority of US citizens favour the right to hold weapons, but then they must live with the consequences of that.
I did see some reference to the "Asian dorms" or something this morning on Fox News ( I believe).
I would say that anyone leaving the building will be considered a suspect so the picture you refer to (which I have also seen) may just be a case of a kid escaping but being detained in case he was the shooter.
The image may also have been removed to protect the individual from any unwanted media attention?
And here is the shooter....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6563565.stm
Yes, and your point is??
I am well aware of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Ammendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)
I don't recall anyone disputing or mentioning it so what is your point? And why did you put a stop after protection, that is not the whole sentence, don't misquote people and make an argument out of something that is not there. Every country has gun laws and firearm legislation including the USA, its not the case that legally you can just walk into a store hand over $100 and walk out with a gun. Several forms of identification are required and paperwork has to be filled out, just like acquiring a firearms certificate in the UK. So why are you bringing up the second ammendment?
Who is making an arguement are you ok? You seem a bit tense there.
I wasn't being critical at all. My point was, and it was a long time ago that I looked it up, that the general perception that people have the right to arms isn't actually the case but it is brought forward to keep legislation more relaxed than else where.
Legislation can be different state to state as well from what I understand. Is it true as the BBC was saying this morning that in some states you can buy a gun at a gun show with all the paper work?
I have to ask is the shoot 'em up video games, which seem to be graphically violent to my old eyes, responsible in some part for the trend of violence amongst the youths of today?
In these games to blast away at your target and no-one really gets hurt, but does it blur the lines of reality in the heads of the kids who go out and commit these crimes?
There are other factors I am sure but that is a very good point.
I realise there are other factors, but the sense that these kids are going through these buildings (Columbine and VA Tech) with firearms as if it is some video game makes me wonder.
I have never had the desire to play these games but I have seen them and have viewed the 'action' - just as violent TV and films have been blamed in the past for some events, I strongly suspect that after months of being shut in their rooms playing these games, kids are going to be affected...
I realise there are other factors, but the sense that these kids are going through these buildings (Columbine and VA Tech) with firearms as if it is some video game makes me wonder.
I have never had the desire to play these games but I have seen them and have viewed the 'action' - just as violent TV and films have been blamed in the past for some events, I strongly suspect that after months of being shut in their rooms playing these games, kids are going to be affected...
Have you ever seen kids for the hour or two after they have come off them?
©Amethyst
17-Apr-07, 18:05
The only purpose of a gun is to cause injury or death
Unless you're vegetarian - next time you tuck into a nice juicy vennison steak and think, 'this is delicious!'...
Remember, it's a gun that enabled you to eat it safely!
©Amethyst
17-Apr-07, 18:10
I realise there are other factors, but the sense that these kids are going through these buildings (Columbine and VA Tech) with firearms as if it is some video game makes me wonder.
I have never had the desire to play these games but I have seen them and have viewed the 'action' - just as violent TV and films have been blamed in the past for some events, I strongly suspect that after months of being shut in their rooms playing these games, kids are going to be affected...
Is there scienific proof that video games are somehow 'mind altering' so as to make people think that killing others is okay?
I like playing video games - but they don't affect me.
My youngest brother has recently completed God of War... yet once he's played a game like that he'll say something like, 'that was fun, can I make a sandwich?'
I'm not saying that games are good or from my last post that guns are good... just saying they all have their advantages.
Next we'll be debating whether or not it's right to read classic fairy tales to our children. Oh, wait... haven't we done that already?
Besides, why are we discussing gun laws when this student probably wasn't legally carrying that gun?
Have you all forgotten that people are suffering? And it's not just the ones that were injured that have to deal with the pain of seeing their friends being murdered... that pain could stay with them and scar them deeply for the rest of their lives!
Who knows the cause? Whatever it is sad. Innocent victims yet again!! Our thoughts go across the miles to all those affected by this and to all other innocent victims of violence at home and abroad.
Who knows the cause? Whatever it is sad. Innocent victims yet again!! Our thoughts go across the miles to all those affected by this and to all other innocent victims of violence at home and abroad.
Yes lets not forget those who suffer the equivalent of two such massacres a day every day, all loss of innocent life through violence is a tragedy.
Well done fred - wondered when you would steer this towards your pet topic...
©Amethyst,
I am not saying that everyone who plays games on their X-Box or Wii or Playstation turns into a homicidal maniac but these games have definately become more gory IMO. And as the graphics become even better they may well blur the line between fantasy and reality...
The ability to switch off from 'game mode' and think about a sarnie might not be an option for some gamers...
Just as playing "British & Jerries" as a kid did not turn me into a Hun hating Tommy - we invariably went and kicked a football around after we had laid down our wooden guns.
George Brims
17-Apr-07, 22:41
I
The ITV news last night mentioned that the two he shot early on were his ex and the man she was seeing.
Then ITN News should be ashamed of themselves, for that is an unconfirmed rumour. Whether the girl was an ex or not has not yet been confirmed, but the authorities have stated that the man shot was not romantically involved with her. He was a student who was a warden of the dormitory.
Also they stated quite early on yesterday that the lad pinned down on the lawn was just a bystander who was grabbed during the confusion. At that point the description of the shooter hadn't come out, but of course once it did it was all the more obvious why they might have grabbed that lad as a precaution. He was released pretty soon afterwards and the police stated quite firmly he had nothing to do with it.
j4bberw0ck
17-Apr-07, 23:00
I think you've shot yourself in the foot here, which is quite appropriate really
Apologies for the delay in replying, but work, evening meetings, etc...... and no, not really, I haven't shot my self in the foot. You just haven't thought it through logically. From a philosophical standpoint, the means by which a death is caused is surely secondary to the fact of the death, unless you can show that the postmortem condition is somehow different - in other words, that those dead at the point of a gun are somehow differently dead to those killed in car accidents or by drug overdose, or whatever.
The loss is no less great, and the pain of those left behind no less deserving of respect.
If the young man who shot these students had stolen a car and driven into 30 Virginia Tech students at high speed, killing them all, would that somehow be less reprehensible because the car wasn't conceived as a means of killing? The people who conceived the automatic weapon may very well have had in mind that they were designing something to kill people with great efficiency, but probably didn't have it in mind that some nutter would get hold of one and use it on innocent people.
It so happens that in the culture of the US, the right to bear arms allows the possession of certain types of weapon not legally available here. It so happens that the laws of Virginia (according to the TV news) are particularly lax in that respect. But that's their choice, and as you say:
Yes, it does appear that the majority of US citizens favour the right to hold weapons, but then they must live with the consequences of that.
As they do, and as the majority are evidently happy to do. Therefore people who live in a different culture should examine that before they make bald statements about the ease with which people can get guns, and particularly before they make judgements about a place where gun ownership is commonplace.
After all, Americans tolerate our right to have a comparatively lousy health service, which impacts on many more lives daily than their gun laws do in their own country. That's why they go home when they're ill.
This was the simple point I was trying to make earlier and if I didn't make it well enough, I apologise.
j4bberw0ck
17-Apr-07, 23:02
I must say you've lost me here jw0ck:roll:
Sorry, Angela. Hope I've explained better this time.
George Brims
17-Apr-07, 23:23
After all, Americans tolerate our right to have a comparatively lousy health service, which impacts on many more lives daily than their gun laws do in their own country. That's why they go home when they're ill.
The difference being that Britain's "comparatively lousy health service" is available to everyone, while tens of millions of Americans are not covered. The ones who "go home when they're ill" probably have health cover if they can afford to be over in Britain. And BTW a lot of Americans are going to India for operations they can't afford at home.
There is so much guess-work and totally unfounded speculation about this incident that there is no sense in trying to draw any sensible conclusions for the present.
In the last 30 minutes there has been an official announcement that reports which have been circulating that the parents of the gunman had committed suicide are completely incorrect and that they are alive and well and being spoken to by Law Enforcement Agents.
If stories as false as that are circulating I wonder how much else has been wrongly reported in the frenzy to find somebody, apart from the gunman, to place some blame on.
The difference being that Britain's "comparatively lousy health service" is available to everyone, while tens of millions of Americans are not covered. The ones who "go home when they're ill" probably have health cover if they can afford to be over in Britain. And BTW a lot of Americans are going to India for operations they can't afford at home.
Goerge, I love it when the targets of abuse hit back and do it well and informed, keep it up
George Brims
17-Apr-07, 23:43
Hmmm - here's a wee check on the accuracy of the "press", if you can call them that. 12 or more hours after the identity of the gunman is released, The Sun says " a 24-year-old Chinese man who arrived in the US a year ago on a student visa" - actually a 23 year old Korean who had been in the US since 1992 and was a permanent resident. They have a stack of other details wrong as well, most of which they could have got right by simply watching TV. Pitiful.
Jeemag_USA
17-Apr-07, 23:47
Well I live here, and for those that do not know, I work in the field in telecommunications covering a whole University Campus and the more I read the news about this the more I can't believe what I am reading.
So the kid is on a green card, like me, and because he has no criminal offence, he can legally buy a Glock. Who in the hell needs a Glock, for what possible reason could you really need to have a Glock for protection, I mean if you shoot someone in the arm its going to go through the arm, the chest and through the other arm . Thats just ludicrous. Why didn't they just hand him a Desert Eagle and some hollow points? I know it doesn't matter what type of gun it is, they all can kill, but a Glock is a ruthless stopper, he had two of them, no wonder he managed to do so much destruction.
The TV stations were on our campus today, doing little interviews with the officers, asking them what they thought and how to make this campus safe and so on. Most campuses in the USA of a certain size have their own police force, they are regular police officers who patrol the campus only. I think our force is about 20 strong and they are always around day and night, they do a good job, but knowing most of them as I do, I am certain there is no way they are prepared for that kind of thing.
I have already had to explain to a few poeple at work today in conversations about having guns, they will never make me understand because I grew up in a place where we just don't have them. I am tired of hearing people using the same old worn out excuse, its not guns that kill people, people kill people. Sorry, people with guns, kill people WITH GUNS. You can run from someone with a knife and get lucky, you have a certain chance of survival in a car accident or avoiding a car as your walking. But you turn round to the barrel of a Glock and your numbers up. People who sell ludicrous weapons to people kill people!
George Brims
18-Apr-07, 00:01
Actually he had one Glock 9mm and one Walther .22. Not that it makes any difference (did you know a .22 is just as likely to kill you as a 357 magnum?). Actually given how high a proportion of the people he shot were killed, I wonder if he was using some kind of extra-nasty ammunition. Other than hunting or target shooting (a popular sport in Caithness) there's not much call to own a gun if you ask me. But the culture here is so ingrained with the idea that it's not only OK to own one, but almost compulsory.
Our campus sent out a message today saying they are holding a big exercise, so not to get frightened at seeing armed troops as well as police and ambulances.
rockchick
18-Apr-07, 00:15
It is an appalling incident, but I notice that in 2004 some 52000 "operators" of different classes of motor vehicles were involved in fatal accidents. I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of cars to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
Neither have I noticed pressure for making alocohol sales illegal or controlled, despite alcohol abuse being directly responsible for 47000 deaths in the USA (2001) - 19000 as a result of alcohol intoxication (excluding accident and homicides) and 28000 as a result of long term abuse.
I haven't seen anyone protesting the easy availability of alcohol to "anyone with enough money, no matter how deranged they might be".
There's a big difference between deaths caused by cars or alcohol, and guns. Cars are designed for transportation, while alcohol is a legal recreational drug. Their misuse is an aberration in their designed use.
Hand-guns have only one purpose, to kill. "Does what it says on the tin".
There is no reason for anyone too need to own a hand-gun, and mis-use of them is criminal.
I have already had to explain to a few poeple at work today in conversations about having guns, they will never make me understand because I grew up in a place where we just don't have them. I am tired of hearing people using the same old worn out excuse, its not guns that kill people, people kill people. Sorry, people with guns, kill people WITH GUNS. You can run from someone with a knife and get lucky, you have a certain chance of survival in a car accident or avoiding a car as your walking. But you turn round to the barrel of a Glock and your numbers up. People who sell ludicrous weapons to people kill people!
It's husbands who go home from work early in the middle of the afternoon that kill people.
Jeemag_USA
18-Apr-07, 00:47
It's husbands who go home from work early in the middle of the afternoon that kill people.
You got me there Fred [lol] But I didn't do it I swear, they were someone elses gloves ;)
j4bberw0ck
18-Apr-07, 09:00
The difference being that Britain's "comparatively lousy health service" is available to everyone, while tens of millions of Americans are not covered.
This isn't a debate for this thread but I trust you'll note carefully that I didn't claim that US healthcare is a model for the world, either. Just that Americans who (as you say) can afford to travel and so (like as not) can afford health insurance - or more to the point, who have an employer paying some or all of their health insurance - exercise a choice in favour of a higher standard of care and treatment (and a lower chance of contracting MRSA!).
I notice also that gun control laws passed here post-Dunblane and Hungerford have done nothing at all to reduce gun crime.
Who can say if the banning of handguns made any difference, as a non-event is non recordable.................. but - how many more of those type of tradgedies do you suffer before doing something.
Let's face it ..... if the government of the day did nothing, and there was a similar incident in the following six months (and copycat incidents do occur) - there would be a national outcry and the government would be out on their ear.
To the people that lost their guns because of that, I have one thing to say................ "Find a new hobby"
After all, Americans tolerate our right to have a comparatively lousy health service, which impacts on many more lives daily than their gun laws do in their own country. That's why they go home when they're ill.
This was the simple point I was trying to make earlier and if I didn't make it well enough, I apologise.
I don't see it as tolerating anything. That implies that people can change it, but choose not to. Americans have no input to our health service, just as we have no input to their gun laws.
All each can do is learn from each other's situation.
America's health provision is good if you can afford it, I suppose.
Oh - do I have to shave me head to make a "bald statement" ;)
j4bberw0ck
18-Apr-07, 15:12
I don't see it as tolerating anything. That implies that people can change it, but choose not to. Americans have no input to our health service, just as we have no input to their gun laws.
To quote Churchill (the insurance advert dog, not the politician :lol:): "Absolootely cooorrect"!
That was indeed my point - maybe I'm not losing my touch after all! - with the use in an ironic sense of the word "tolerate" - as in they don't feel the need, for instance, to instigate regime change or anything here because we have a lousy health service, and we shouldn't feel the need to change things over there just because we happen to think their gun laws are a little, ah, liberal.
Oh - do I have to shave me head to make a "bald statement"
Not for much longer, my boy. Now you're GS-ing, baldness will surely follow as night follows day [lol] . All the rest of 'em are on the way, anyhow!
Blazing Sporrans
18-Apr-07, 21:14
Who in the hell needs a Glock, for what possible reason could you really need to have a Glock for protection...
I know it doesn't matter what type of gun it is, they all can kill, but a Glock is a ruthless stopper...
The simple fact here is that a Glock is no more deadly than any other 9mm gun - it merely discharges the ammunition that maims and kills. True, it does it more reliably than many other 9mm SLP's however that is one of the reasons that it is the weapon of choice for a huge number of law enforcement agencies the world over. And if I remember correctly, Bobby Kennedy was shot with a .22 handgun...
Personally I rejoice that I live in a country where most handguns are illegal. I'll go to my grave remembering that Dr Mick North said that his daughter (Sophie) had a right to life that was greater than anyone's right to possess a handgun, and IMHO there has never been a more true sentence spoken anywhere.
danc1ngwitch
18-Apr-07, 21:26
For the families, i feel.
The terror and the pain, I cannot begin to imagine.
So sorry for the loss of life, may the man responsible pay the price.
Jeemag_USA
18-Apr-07, 22:10
The simple fact here is that a Glock is no more deadly than any other 9mm gun - it merely discharges the ammunition that maims and kills. True, it does it more reliably than many other 9mm SLP's however that is one of the reasons that it is the weapon of choice for a huge number of law enforcement agencies the world over. And if I remember correctly, Bobby Kennedy was shot with a .22 handgun...
Personally I rejoice that I live in a country where most handguns are illegal. I'll go to my grave remembering that Dr Mick North said that his daughter (Sophie) had a right to life that was greater than anyone's right to possess a handgun, and IMHO there has never been a more true sentence spoken anywhere.
I did say it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is to avoid people arguing about types of gun. ;)
Your average affordable bottom of the range 9mm gun normally does not have the same capacity as a Glock, all 9mm Glock holding 9mm Luger ammo have the ability to hold up to 33 bullet clips, so there is less reloading to be done and more ability to kill in numbers before being rushed by someone.
Blazing Sporrans
19-Apr-07, 03:47
Your average affordable bottom of the range 9mm gun normally does not have the same capacity as a Glock, all 9mm Glock holding 9mm Luger ammo have the ability to hold up to 33 bullet clips, so there is less reloading to be done and more ability to kill in numbers before being rushed by someone.
Sorry for the pedantry Jeemag, however by my recollection, the Glock G19, (which is the best selling Glock handgun and that used by Scots police) has a clip that holds only 17 rounds. This magazine fits in the full length of the handgrip, as in most SLP's and is also fairly average in terms of capacity. However the G18, which is the only Glock handgun that can also fire in fully automatic mode, led to the development and availability of the 33 round magazine, which looks rather bizarre as it sticks out well below the handgrip. The fully automatic action led to the requirement (?) for more ammunition. It's rather a weird looking bit of kit and outside of the security industry in the US, only the real gun nuts go for it.
Considering I don't like or approve of them, I don't really know why I read a book on the development of the Glock handgun - it must have been a slow couple of days at the Ponderosa... or maybe I somehow felt that I might understand the gun thing a bit better - but I never did reach that point :confused
I am sure that the friends and relatives of those people who were killed will be extremely anxious to know exactly which model of gun was used to slaughter the people they knew.
9mm or .22 - they both kill. In fact even the humble air pistol can kill.
I am appalled at the lax attitude of the gun shop owner who sold the weapon - and no doubt I'll be told that it's the problem of the people of the US so we should keep our noses out - but they need to wake up to the ridiculous ease at which guns can be bought. If they insist on holding dear the right to bear arms then maybe they need to make that right a little harder to obtain?
His pathetic reply that the tragedy might not have happened if the 25,000 students on campus had access to firearms is unbelievable!.....
And I say that as someone who has used firearms of many types and has taken part in shooting competitions, and not just as Google expert....
Blazing Sporrans
19-Apr-07, 17:44
I am sure that the friends and relatives of those people who were killed will be extremely anxious to know exactly which model of gun was used to slaughter the people they knew.
The point I'd been trying to make was that all handguns are killers - there is nothing more devastating about the Glock than say the Browning 9mm or any other 9mm SLP. As I've said, I don't approve of handguns amongst the general population, I was just trying to clear up what I perceived to be a misconception. I also thought that I might be writing in the relative safety of the Caithnes.org environment, where it was my presumption that I was unlikely to impact directly or offend anyone involved in the Virginia Tech atrocity. If I did offend anyone I humbly apologise - those that know me best will attest that pedantry is in my nature, hence my post! If I didn't offend then I can only ask were you tired and grouchy at that unsociable time of the morning Jaws - you're normally a tad more tolerant?
Blazing Sporrans
19-Apr-07, 17:55
His pathetic reply that the tragedy might not have happened if the 25,000 students on campus had access to firearms is unbelievable!.....Couldn't agree more MP, however the process of overturning a Constitutional amendment is horrendously complicated and the level of voting consent required makes it unlikely in the extreme, no matter how desirable the people might find it after another high-profile shooting incident. The high profile and massive funding afforded to the NRA means that they fight from a position of overwhelming advantage in a society that seems to perceive gun ownership as almost mandatory. With regard to the comment of the gun store owner, I heard exactly the same argument trotted out a couple of weeks ago when watching a documentary about Columbine. It's obviously a well-rehearsed ditty for the pro-gun lobby.. :( :(
"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it" is one of my favourites....
"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it" is one of my favourites....
If a mad gunman entered your house, what would you reach for first to protect your family, the phone or the gun?
Well as I don't have a gun I guess I'd have to throw the phone at him....
Blazing Sporrans
19-Apr-07, 20:07
Thankfully, we don't live in a society where mad gunmen entering your house is much of a problem.... I think emb123's problem with invading mice is just about the worst we have to tolerate!
Thankfully, we don'y live in a society where mad gunmen entering your house is much of a problem.... I think emb123's problem with invading mice is just about the worst we have to tolerate!
Yes but in the US things would be different. Any gun leglislation that will be passed by Government will have the effect of taking guns away from those that won't use them maliciously, in other words, only law abiders who use them for personal defence will hand in their weapons. A mad gunman knowing full well that a house is undefended will not think twice about attacking it. It is very easy for us to sit here in relative safety from guns and judge.
Blazing Sporrans
19-Apr-07, 20:48
I try not to pontificate on another country's laws, rights and practices, I merely speak about issue as I perceive them. The United States has an estimated 200,000,000+ guns in circulation and that is their problem to deal with. If they tolerate that as a society, then so be it, that is their right and I don't question or challenge that. All I do say is that I'm grateful that I live in a country where handguns are, in the main, illegal and we don't have a plethora of mad gunmen bursting into houses up and down the country...
I try not to pontificate on another country's laws, rights and practices, I merely speak about issue as I perceive them. The United States has an estimated 200,000,000+ guns in circulation and that is their problem to deal with. If they tolerate that as a society, then so be it, that is their right and I don't question or challenge that. All I do say is that I'm grateful that I live in a country where handguns are, in the main, illegal and we don't have a plethora of mad gunmen bursting into houses up and down the country...
This thread is about a crime in the US.
Blazing Sporrans
19-Apr-07, 21:04
Rheg, I'm unsure where this is going or even what your responses are supposed to be about! All threads on here meander to some degree, you know that as well as anyone.
Yes but in the US things would be different. Any gun leglislation that will be passed by Government will have the effect of taking guns away from those that won't use them maliciously, in other words, only law abiders who use them for personal defence will hand in their weapons. A mad gunman knowing full well that a house is undefended will not think twice about attacking it. It is very easy for us to sit here in relative safety from guns and judge.
I have often wondered what about the US makes it different. As someone earlier pointed out Canada has more guns per ca pita, Switzerland manages, what is it about the US?
It is very easy for us to sit here in relative safety from guns and judge.
Right now it seems like the UK is more of a knife culture. Many kids have said they carry a knife because they are afraid that they will be under-protected without one, knowing that other kids are carrying one.
No doubt, in time, that will become kids carrying guns because they fear that others are "packing heat"
Knives or guns, they both kill and the only difference is the scale in which they can take lives. In this particular case, we are looking at a deeply disturbed individual who would have killed by some method or another. What needs to be addressed is why he was already known to have mental problems but was able to carry on without any intervention being taken.
I would, however, question to what level a citizen needs to arm themselves in the name of self defence? There seems to be an anomaly between the amount of firepower needed to protect your home and that required to carry out a massacre. Unless you are trapped in a scenario akin to that in Assault on Precinct 13, surely a modest handgun is sufficient.
I remember a report on Newsnight in the early 80's about a USA Bounty Hunter/Debt Collector called Tiny Boyles. A no-nonsense Biker type, built like a brick cackhouse, he carried a shotgun for blowing open doors and a rifle. A bit concerned that Tiny was sorely under-armed, the reporter questioned whether he should carry more weapons, to which Tiny replied:-
"Well I have an automatic rifle here, carries 30 bullets per clip and I have a spare clip. Now that's 60 shots. If that ain't enough to see me out of trouble, then I'm either a piss-poor shot or I'm in a whole lotta crap!!"
I also remember in the movie "Bowling for Colombine" that Michael Moore opened an account with a bank and qualified for a free rifle. A bit different from the Parker Pen or Carriage Clock that is so popular in the UK!!
Rheg, I'm unsure where this is going or even what your responses are supposed to be about! All threads on here meander to some degree, you know that as well as anyone.
Well, my question (regarding if you were to grab a gun or a phone when a mad gunman entered you're property) was asked in the context that a gunman was realistically entering. In some parts of the world this is a real fear or realistic situation that a person can face. I felt you just trivialised the scenario by saying we don't need to worry about that because we don't have many guns in this country. Since the crime was committed in the US with lots of guns then my scenario is very pertinent.
...Any gun leglislation that will be passed by Government will have the effect of taking guns away from those that won't use them maliciously, in other words, only law abiders who use them for personal defence will hand in their weapons. A mad gunman knowing full well that a house is undefended will not think twice about attacking it. It is very easy for us to sit here in relative safety from guns and judge.
You mean like what has happened in the UK?.....
Well, my question (regarding if you were to grab a gun or a phone when a mad gunman entered you're property) was asked in the context that a gunman was realistically entering. In some parts of the world this is a real fear or realistic situation that a person can face.
For what it is worth, if I lived in the US I might be tempted to keep a handgun in the house. I have friends in the US and they do - for the same reason I would. The chances are that anyone breaking in may be armed and in that case it's better to have a gun and not need it....
Double standards maybe. I mean I have knives in the house here. I have a nice weighty 6 D cell Maglite. I have a furry exocet sleeping in the hall. All weapons of a sort. It's just upping the ante...:roll:
Then ITN News should be ashamed of themselves, for that is an unconfirmed rumour. Whether the girl was an ex or not has not yet been confirmed, but the authorities have stated that the man shot was not romantically involved with her. He was a student who was a warden of the dormitory.
Also they stated quite early on yesterday that the lad pinned down on the lawn was just a bystander who was grabbed during the confusion. At that point the description of the shooter hadn't come out, but of course once it did it was all the more obvious why they might have grabbed that lad as a precaution. He was released pretty soon afterwards and the police stated quite firmly he had nothing to do with it.
There is the problem though. I assume that you know they reported an unconfirmed rumour because you watched ITN or another newscast.
News is news, and people want to know things. To keep people watching they have to report something or people switch off.
I am willing to guess most of us saw that report more than once, and the chances are on more than one channel or in more than one newspaper.
We are looking for some new fact and so are they.
In this day and age if nothing new is being reported or speculated people wont watch. We and they become victims of their own success.
Blazing Sporrans
20-Apr-07, 17:31
Well, my question (regarding if you were to grab a gun or a phone when a mad gunman entered you're property) was asked in the context that a gunman was realistically entering. In some parts of the world this is a real fear or realistic situation that a person can face. I felt you just trivialised the scenario by saying we don't need to worry about that because we don't have many guns in this country. Since the crime was committed in the US with lots of guns then my scenario is very pertinent.
I would most certainly never trivialise the human tragedy of an incident like Virginia Tech - what you read is my expressed relief that I don't live in a society where gun ownership is such a huge part of the culture and psyche. Yet I do live in an area where firearm and shotgun ownership is prevalent. I was once told that the Highlands of Scotland had the highest gun ownership per head of population in the whole of the UK, however I don't know how accurate that information is or was (having been told that some 20 years ago). I can understand the perceived need for guns in a largely rural environment, where the farming and crofting community almost always had access to some sort of firearm. What I see in the US is a totally different attitude towards fireams and gun ownership and the perceived need to possess a gun of any sort in any conurbation or other non-rural environment. I understand the argument that many law-abiding citizens possess firearms for their own safety, however it doesn't mean to say that I approve of it on any level. Having read up a little on the requirements for constitutional amendment in the US, I know it's nigh-on impossible that even an atrocity such as Virginia Tech will sway public opinion sufficiently to have the second amendment fundamentally altered.
I'll always wax lyrical about the quality of life in the Highlands, as opposed to living in London where crime rates are so much higher (especially for undetected crime), but that doesn't mean that in doing so I trivialise lives lost in the current spate of gang-related stabbings. Frankly, I'd have hoped that you'd seen enough of my postings in other threads on here to realise that such activity is not in my nature. :(
I would most certainly never trivialise the human tragedy of an incident like Virginia Tech - what you read is my expressed relief that I don't live in a society where gun ownership is such a huge part of the culture and psyche. Yet I do live in an area where firearm and shotgun ownership is prevalent. I was once told that the Highlands of Scotland had the highest gun ownership per head of population in the whole of the UK, however I don't know how accurate that information is or was (having been told that some 20 years ago). I can understand the perceived need for guns in a largely rural environment, where the farming and crofting community almost always had access to some sort of firearm. What I see in the US is a totally different attitude towards fireams and gun ownership and the perceived need to possess a gun of any sort in any conurbation or other non-rural environment. I understand the argument that many law-abiding citizens possess firearms for their own safety, however it doesn't mean to say that I approve of it on any level. Having read up a little on the requirements for constitutional amendment in the US, I know it's nigh-on impossible that even an atrocity such as Virginia Tech will sway public opinion sufficiently to have the second amendment fundamentally altered.
I'll always wax lyrical about the quality of life in the Highlands, as opposed to living in London where crime rates are so much higher (especially for undetected crime), but that doesn't mean that in doing so I trivialise lives lost in the current spate of gang-related stabbings. Frankly, I'd have hoped that you'd seen enough of my postings in other threads on here to realise that such activity is not in my nature. :(
I understand your post fully, but, the question of gun ownership in the USA is self-feeding. Basically the bad guys have guns therefore the good guys have to have bigger or better. I agree their constitution is archaic but I see no way out for them. When all said and done, us limeys achieve/effect absolutely nothing upon any political occupant of the most powerful body on Earth. We had the fortune to pass our first laws of offensive weapons in the post napoleonic wars then an update in the 1950s, etc. The US never had that outer influence and it has got to the malignant cancer stage, so the best we can do is sit back and sanctimoniously say 'We told you so!'.
I just hope we are not too soft here.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.