31 dead in USA Unversity shooting

[Yi-Long]

I agree with the 'handguns/weapons should be banned' opinions, but you're wrong about these tragedies not happening anymore, or less severe. Pretty much all of these schoolshootings have been premeditated.

I'm not saying it could never happen. Just that it's far less likely if the perpetrators didn't have access to legal guns. It's much harder to kill 26 people with a bag of knives. So why take the risk of arming them with automatic weapons? In each case in America the guns were same as those legally sold in stores. The UK ban reduces the risk and the likelihood of maximum fatalities.

It's sad to see idiots like Jack Thompson and Dr. Phil already blaming videogames again. The bodies of these students are barely dead or here these guys are already to take advantage of the drama to push their own personal agendas. Sick.

You can't blame videogames outright... but studies have proven they can be damaging to some young people as they encourage violent interaction. YOU control who lives and dies. By comparison movies and music are passive experiences.

EDIT: Re. Bombs. You can't really ban the household components that go into making a bomb so the point is moot. I've never tried to suggest you can stop a massacre from ever happening... but by banning guns you can reduce the means and opportunity.

And once again, you manage to completely miss the points I'm trying to make.

And I'm not gonna bother re-explaining it to ya.

And about the studies with videogames. There are AT LEAST as many studies which have shown that videogames have absolutely NO effect on kids, as in making them more aggresive or whatever. In fact, one of the most recent studies showed that kids with 'hyper' would actually come down from their restless 'high' when they would sit down and play some games, including violent games.
I believe pretty much all of the recents tests in this area have shown the same conclusion: videogames do not make people more aggresive or violent.

[Yi-Long]

Who's Dr. Phil?

He's bald Oprah with a moustache.

[Shingster]

Then surely that would mean arms held by a militia? Why does Billy Bob from Texas need a 9mm in 2007? Times have changed since "the constitution" (the American equivilent of the Bible and Quoran put together) was written.

Well I think Linn's comments are self explanatory Mark. The important point Linn made is that the right to bear arms means against Government/Foriegn Invaders, who certainly wouldn't be attacking citizens with revolvers! The automatics and heavy artillery are supposed to be available for appropriate defence against the increased threats that higher technology brings - no matter how absurd the idea is (and I do think the right to bear arms is an absurdly paranoid one)!

A society filled with guns is a society on the constant verge of chaos and it'll just be a matter of time before the next campus tragedy.

I think that's a gross overstatement, as Grim pointed out Canada has an awful lot of guns and I'd hardly call their society "on the verge of chaos".

Besides, as Linn quite rightly pointed out, if you were to suddenly slap a firearm ban on the American populace, who would it serve? I mean really, do you expect all the gang bangers, muggers, pimps and loony hermit nationalists to simply pop over to the local police station and hand in their guns like good citizens? I agree that incidents like Dunblane and this new tragedy are as bad as they are because of lunatics having easy access to the right kind of weaponry; but really, would a ban on handguns in america cut them off from a relatively easy source of firearms? There are countless millions of handguns in circulation right now in the US, the whole idea of "Gun Control" is a pipedream!

To blame all of America's violent crimes on the lax gun laws while completely disregarding the social, racial and political history of the nation is remarkably shortsighted. There are numerous factors running through American history that go a long way to explaining the current crime rates: Racial segregation, The Cold War (culminating with the Cuban Missile Crisis), and the media's obsession with violent crime (which was probably the best point Michael Moore made in Bowling for Columbine) to name a few of the big ones.

[EvaUnit02]

Who's Dr. Phil?

Wow, that boulder that you're living under must be very large indeed.

[Markgway]

And once again, you manage to completely miss the points I'm trying to make.

Maybe you just don't have a point?

And I'm not gonna bother re-explaining it to ya.

I'll survive.

There are AT LEAST as many studies which have shown that videogames have absolutely NO effect on kids, as in making them more aggresive or whatever. In fact, one of the most recent studies showed that kids with 'hyper' would actually come down from their restless 'high' when they would sit down and play some games, including violent games.
I believe pretty much all of the recents tests in this area have shown the same conclusion: videogames do not make people more aggresive or violent.

I find that hard to believe... To say violent videogames have NO effect is as ridiculous as saying it affects EVERYONE. What I'm saying is that studies have shown it CAN affect kids not that it will absolutely.

[tom2681]

Re: Videogames:
IMO:

Violent videogames are an indispensable tool for kids of all ages.

Let's face it: we humans are a violent race. It's in our genetic makeup.
We NEED to rape, murder and cut people to shreds.
Thankfully most of us have a conscience that allows us to remain peaceful for a while, but it doesn't solve the problem.
We need an outlet for all that rage and primeval madness.

Violent videogames allow us to maime and kill without actually harming anyone.
They make us LESS violent.

It's just common sense.

[Markgway]

Well I think Linn's comments are self explanatory Mark. The important point Linn made is that the right to bear arms means against Government/Foriegn Invaders, who certainly wouldn't be attacking citizens with revolvers!

Well then every country would surely have that right? Who's going to sit by whilst aggressive foreigners invade? There's the Military and the Police to take care of major threats, so why does average Joe need to own a gun? And I sure as hell don't see how any of this translates to any person being able to buy 9mms, Uzis and, my favourite, AK-47s. The guns that were used in the campus massacre were legally bought in a store. As far as I'm concerned the storeowners and manufacturers should be prosecuted for manslaughter. How they can live with themsleves in beyond me.

The automatics and heavy artillery are supposed to be available for appropriate defence against the increased threats that higher technology brings - no matter how absurd the idea is (and I do think the right to bear arms is an absurdly paranoid one)!

Then if it's absurd shouldn't it be changed? When "the constitution" was written automatic weapons didn't exist. The authors never envisaged any fool being able to purchase automatic weapons. Back then people rode horses and kept rifles with buckshot for hunting. What do you need an AK 47 to hunt for?

I think that's a gross overstatement, as Grim pointed out Canada has an awful lot of guns and I'd hardly call their society "on the verge of chaos".

That is a fair argument - why is America so much worse than Canada? - but it doesn't really affect whether a country should have freely-available guns. I would say Canada shouldn't either - regardless of their superior record.

Besides, as Linn quite rightly pointed out, if you were to suddenly slap a firearm ban on the American populace, who would it serve? I mean really, do you expect all the gang bangers, muggers, pimps and loony hermit nationalists to simply pop over to the local police station and hand in their guns like good citizens?

No, but you start by example. You have the Police armed, no need for private citizens to be. It wouldn't work overnight, but in time society would change as all those NRA bastards would die off.

I agree that incidents like Dunblane and this new tragedy are as bad as they are because of lunatics having easy access to the right kind of weaponry; but really, would a ban on handguns in america cut them off from a relatively easy source of firearms? There are countless millions of handguns in circulation right now in the US, the whole idea of "Gun Control" is a pipedream!

And why are there millions of handguns in America - more than one per person? Because of the laws. You don't improve society by doing nothing and hoping for the best. You make buying, selling and possession of guns illegal. Start now and save future generations.

To blame all of America's violent crimes on the lax gun laws while completely disregarding the social, racial and political history of the nation is remarkably shortsighted.

Which is why I never did. What I said that was the availability of legal guns makes things worse. How can you argue with that? Sometimes I think people argue with me purely for the sake of it. Maybe I'm being paranoid now??

[grim_tales]

Tom, you are a very scary person

[bradavon]

OMG I didn't realise it this bad:

"The massacre at Virginia Tech was the 19th shooting on an educational premises in the last 10 years in America"

http://news.uk.msn.com/virginia_campus_ ... _shot.aspx

It's an interesting article going on to say the same problem is happening in the UK. I disagree sure we have a gun crime problem but we don't have the culture America has, that is the BIG difference and why I believe mass killings will be much fewer and further between.

I always took the "right to bear arms" to mean the right for a country to defend itself at time of war not for every fucking yahoo to be able to buy a hand cannon in Walmart.

Tom's argument is illogical. Allow guns because it's the people kill? Well why not allow people to carry rocket launchers and grenades too? They don't kill. It's the people who pull the pin. Where do you draw the line with that sort of idiocy? The sole purpose of guns is to kill. Plain and simple. And until America faces up to this fact these tragedies will happen time and time again.

I couldn't agree more with everything you've said.

[bradavon]

Okay taking away for a second you have your right to defend yourself I fail to remotely understand why it is EVER legal to sell anything more than a hunting rifle or a hand gun.

There is absolutely no reason in anyway shape or form anyone other than the police (and then it's dubious) or military need a machine gun. They're designed specifically for mass murder.

Why are such automatic weapons for sale? Anywhere? I can't work it out.

Moving to debate.

[Yi-Long]

Okay taking away for a second you have your right to defend yourself I fail to remotely understand why it is EVER legal to sell anything more than a hunting rifle or a hand gun.

There is absolutely no reason in anyway shape or form anyone other than the police (and then it's dubious) or military need a machine gun. They're designed specifically for mass murder.

Why are such automatic weapons for sale? Anywhere? I can't work it out.

Moving to debate.

As I said before, I agree that gunds should be banned, or at least controlled.

But as for you asking why it's necessary for them to be allowed to buy a machinegun or an uzi or whatever, the weapon-lobby and other pro-gun people will probably use the excuse ;' well... if you get attacked by 20 people, you'll need a machine gun or an uzi to be able to defend ourselfs... which is our right!'.

Again, I don't agree with that at all. I explained my stance on weapons in my 1st post. But I can imagine THEM using that excuse in order to keep it legal to buy these extreme weapons.

It's a tragedy, but these things will happen now and again. There are messed up people out there, everywhere... and some we only know about untill it's too late.
There are lots of things we can blame, like parents, schoolsystems, society, religion, etc etc... but in the end, it all comes down to one thing: The person himself (or herself). How (s)he reacts to all these outside influences, how (s)he copes with her problems, if (s)he seeks helps, if (s)he gets that help, etc etc. It's usually a chain of events that's hard to predict the outcome of, especially when lots of these people that 'snap' are usually 'loners' who have trouble communicating with others.

This guy went out and did it. I can ASSURE you that there are (at least) tens of thousands troubled teens out there coping with depression and suicidal thoughts etc... and some of those might snap as well.

I'm sure the next coming weeks/months we'll have all the newsreports about schools reporting about students who they suspect having these thoughts or are portraying 'disturbing behaviour' etc. Just think back to all the craziness after Columbine, where young kids were expelled for playing cops and robbers etc...
After that, everything will slowly get back to normal, teens will be teens again, shutting other teens out while trying to be popular themselfs, and in a few years time we'll have another tragedy like this.

You can't stop it. You can ban everything in the world: religion, books, TV, games, movies, rockmusic, weapons etc... and the next day a guy will come along who blows up the whole school cause he was depressed AND bored out of his minddddddddddd. The only way you can try preventing it is if all parents would care and love and listen to their kids. And schools would care about them. And fellow students would care about eachother, and everyone would just get along and would feel part of a big huge large loving community, where there are no outsiders and everyone accepts eachother etc etc.

That will never happen though.

You will continue to have bad parents. You will continue to have bad, unfair schools , schoolsystems and burned out teachers, you will keep having kids excluding other kids because of how they look or act or whatever. We'll keep having kids feeling left out, depressed, suicidal, and going mental.

I know it's hard to say or hear, but it is a part of reality which we will have to accept that we cant rule it out from happening. It's gonna keep happening.

And Mark. Don't bother trying to read it and responding to it. You will just misunderstand my words again.

[Shingster]

Well then every country would surely have that right? Who's going to sit by whilst aggressive foreigners invade?

I don't think either Linn or myself pointed this out to justify the right to bear arms' place on the bill of rights. We were just explaining the true purpose of the amendment in light of comments like this one from your latest post:

What do you need an AK 47 to hunt for?

Which suggests you're ignoring what the 2nd amendment is about. It has nothing to do with hunting at all, and it doesn't have any defined constraints on era or technology.

No, but you start by example. You have the Police armed, no need for private citizens to be. It wouldn't work overnight, but in time society would change as all those NRA bastards would die off.

Again you're just reading people's comments and "conveniently" sidestepping the point. The point I was making here is that, while you'd expect the regular citizens to comply with harsher gun laws, you cannot expect the same from the people that we need protecting against: the criminals.

And why are there millions of handguns in America - more than one per person? Because of the laws.

This is certainly an obvious statement, but I take it you're arguing that without tighter gun production laws then guns will always be flooding the market. While theoretically this is a good point that suggests tighter gun production laws would make a big difference, in actuality it doesn't prove anything, because violent gun crimes in america are committed by only a small percentage of the number of guns currently in circulation. In other words, even if the production of guns were stopped today and law abiding citizens handed in their weapons, there would still be a huge pool of illegal firearms out there. Certainly enough to ensure the US would still have a very serious gun crime problem.

There are so many guns in circulation, and gun culture is so ingrained into the American pysche that the idea of implementing a widespread ban on firearms is not unlike the prohibtion of Alcohol in the 1920s - and we all know how that turned out!

Which is why I never did. What I said that was the availability of legal guns makes things worse. How can you argue with that? Sometimes I think people argue with me purely for the sake of it. Maybe I'm being paranoid now??

I can argue with that because those issues I raised have a lot more to do with the violent gun crime rates in America and why incidents like the University shooting happen so frequently over there than cranking out a half-arsed "ban all the guns and stop the rot!" rant.

[Markgway]

Which suggests you're ignoring what the 2nd amendment is about. It has nothing to do with hunting at all, and it doesn't have any defined constraints on era or technology.

Not as written, but did the authors know how society and technology would develop? Of course they didn't. They wrote the constitution based on that time. Are you saying it could never change once written? If you're right then why don't politicians realise that the constitution was written over 200 years ago and that the 2nd ammendment is not relevant today as it perhaps once was. To simply say it was written and can therefore never be altered is ludicrous. Laws are meant to be updated and progressive. Imagine if all UK laws stayed the same: we'd still have slaves and decapitations.

Again you're just reading people's comments and "conveniently" sidestepping the point. The point I was making here is that, while you'd expect the regular citizens to comply with harsher gun laws, you cannot expect the same from the people that we need protecting against: the criminals.

So because criminals have (wouldbe) illegal arms everyone should? Criminals in the UK have guns- so why can't I to defend myself? That's American logic. You iscolate the criminals and create a society that says guns are wrong, using guns is wrong. It won't rid the country of guns, but it can only help reduce the number (drastically I would suggest). Right now how do you tell a criminal it's wrong to possess a gun when every granny and grandpa from Washington to Idaho has a shed full of 'em. It's the worst hypocracy.

In other words, even if the production of guns were stopped today and law abiding citizens handed in their weapons, there would still be a huge pool of illegal firearms out there. Certainly enough to ensure the US would still have a very serious gun crime problem.

For a time... yes. But is that any reason not to try? No.

There are so many guns in circulation, and gun culture is so ingrained into the American pysche that the idea of implementing a widespread ban on firearms is not unlike the prohibtion of Alcohol in the 1920s - and we all know how that turned out!

If what you're saying is true then America must be one majorly sick society. In a way you're far more cyncial than I on this subject. You're saying that there's no hope for them. I think there is... just that it will take time and a set of politicians with the balls to do something other than bomb towelheads.

I can argue with that because those issues I raised have a lot more to do with the violent gun crime rates in America and why incidents like the University shooting happen so frequently over there than cranking out a half-arsed "ban all the guns and stop the rot!" rant.

It must be me............ Let me get this straight............ You're saying that making guns illegal would not reduce the number of guns in America... and therefore not prevent the likelihood of any further tragedies. You think my "rant" is "half-arsed"? So is your do nothing policy flat-arsed?

[grim_tales]

I think what Shingster is saying is that even if guns were made illegal, people who wanted them would find a way to get them illegally (hence the comparison with prohibition and illegal speakeasies in the 20's and 30's). But banning the sale of guns would stop the flow I think. It would be a start!
It would also help if guns weren't glamourised by (sorry for bringing this back) *some* rap/R&B singers IMO and other media.
I agree it is right for a country to defend itself in times of war - but if you are alone in your house and someone attacks you you should be able to defend yourself IMO (OK not shoot and kill).
But isn't it a students right to be able to go to school/college and learn in a safe, secure environment and then come home? Isn't that more important than some guy's right to shoot people?

[Yi-Long]

It would also help if guns weren't glamourised by (sorry for bringing this back) *some* rap/R&B singers IMO and other media.

I dont think banning videoclips would prevent schoolshootings. Yeah, rapvideo's occasionally glamourize gun-possesion, but even if all music-videos were about The Teletubbies picking flowers for eachothers, there would still be many many people going out to get guns. And teens as well. It's been that way ever since the weapons were introduced, where the young kids would get a gun and learn to shoot etc.
A gun means power, independce, protection, etc. In THEIR culture at least. It's an American 'item'.

Talking of videoclips.
This guy was repeatedly listening to a song from a Christian band.
Imagine if it had been a Marylyn Manson song. The news would be all over it. Imagine if it had been arabic music, we wouldnt hear the end of it. What if this guy had been a shy muslim who as angry at the world, instead of a shy korean guy... !?

Anyway, this guy listened repeatedly to Christian music, so I guess now the music COULDNT have been influencing his actions... even though he listened to it almost possesively!? Nah... it's christian music, it's OK... it must have been something else (!)

Here's a nice article btw:
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/featu ... ature=2165

[slasher13]

we wouldnt hear the end of it. What if this guy had been a shy muslim who as angry at the world, instead of a shy korean guy... !?

Ahem
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/wo ... tml?page=2
http://blog.t1production.com/spin-va-ma ... ist-attack

Oh dear

[Yi-Long]

Wow... amazing.

The 2nd article also mentions him 'hating' christianity, but he was constantly listening to a christian popsong... (?)

Anyway, it's all well weird. They're gonna spin this on the muslims again somehow. Incredible.

[Shingster]

oops i've mistakenly deleted my post editting te bugger! Recovering it now.

[Yi-Long]

I dont understand why people are still trying to explain stuff to Mark when he repeatedly misunderstands everything we say? Seriously, why bother!?

[grim_tales]

I agree with Mark though about one thing - America keeps going on about the "right to bear arms" - surely then every country should have that right

[Yi-Long]

I agree with Mark though about one thing - America keeps going on about the "right to bear arms" - surely then every country should have that right

You mean, as in nuclear weapons and a strong militairy!? Sure. I've never understood why America and Israel are allowed huge armies and big dangerous weapons, and when another country builds THEIR army or weaponry, America reacts outraged and starts threatening. :N Who are THEY to tell others what they can and cant do!?
Ah well... it's a whole other discussion, so we'll just leave it at that...

[grim_tales]

I didn't mean nukes per se I meant the "right" for the Average Joe to have a fun at home for protection, but the argument is the same, yeah.

[Shingster]

Hehe, I had to rewrite this bleedin post in the end, so might as well post it anew!

Not as written, but did the authors know how society and technology would develop? Of course they didn't. They wrote the constitution based on that time. Are you saying it could never change once written? If you're right then why don't politicians realise that the constitution was written over 200 years ago and that the 2nd amendment is not relevant today as it perhaps once was. To simply say it was written and can therefore never be altered is ludicrous. Laws are meant to be updated and progressive. Imagine if all UK laws stayed the same: we'd still have slaves and decapitations.

Sweet baby Jesus Mark, you have a unique talent for completely misinterpreting people's comments! At what point in this thread have I ever suggested that the constitution of the United States cannot be changed? As I have repeated over and over again, I was merely explaining what the 2nd amendment means and not justifying it!

For a time... yes. But is that any reason not to try? No.

But the majority of Americans out there aren't ready to drop the 2nd amendment from the bill of rights and coming up with a new one. Why cause major political upheaval and widespread dissent amongst the populace when a ban on guns is not going to have a major effect any time within the distant future? Also, have you given any thought to the immense lay offs that would arise from a firearm ban (not to mention the profit margins of all those general stores that would now be faced with a whole bunch of stock they can’t sell)? It would have an immediate, seriously negative impact on some of America’s biggest industries! Finally, let’s not forget the extremely strong possibility that a ban on firearms would in fact increase the number of gun related crimes, when the carjackers, muggers, and armed robbers realise that there's less armed victims out there to prey on anymore. (Which was Linn's original point back on page 1).

If what you're saying is true then America must be one majorly sick society. In a way you're far more cyncial than I on this subject. You're saying that there's no hope for them. I think there is... just that it will take time and a set of politicians with the balls to do something other than bomb towelheads.

No, what I'm saying is that strict Gun Control would not necessarily have a major affect on violent crime rates in America. At the moment I believe the majority of gun related deaths each year come from suicide by private gun owners, so if there was an outright ban on firearms tomorrow and all these private citizens handed in their guns then maybe it would have an immediate impact on the number of gun related deaths as a whole (then again, with the widespread affect it would have on American industry with layoffs and what not, you'd expect a big boost to the suicides rate to result from that!). But either way, I think it wouldn't have much impact on the number of gun related crimes, because as I have already said; there are so many guns currently in circulation in the U.S that there are more than enough guns to fuel America’s excessive violent crime rate. America needs to go through a long period of social reform to completely change the air of paranoia that is deeply ingrained into the American way of life. Then, maybe some point in the future a ban on firearms would actually make a difference. Right now with the current social and political climate in America, I seriously think it wouldn't. In fact, I think it would probably make thinks worse.

It must be me............ Let me get this straight............ You're saying that making guns illegal would not reduce the number of guns in America... and therefore not prevent the likelihood of any further tragedies. You think my "rant" is "half-arsed"? So is your do nothing policy flat-arsed?

Sigh it is you, we seriously need a "bashing head against a brick wall" smiley for these forums!

I'm gonna repeat myself one more time, and if you don't get my point then there's no hope for you I'm afraid:

I'm saying that there are so many guns currently in circulation right now that the number of gun related crimes each year are only committed with a small percentage of the total guns out there. In other words, while a total ban on firearms would gradually reduce the number of guns in the U.S.A (obviously), there are more than enough guns going around on the "illegal market" to fuel the same high rate of violent gun crime that is currently plaguing America for many years to come.

I agree with Mark though about one thing - America keeps going on about the "right to bear arms" - surely then every country should have that right

I really don't think the American government or its civiliians are losing any sleep worrying whether Czechoslovakians are protected against their government or not!

[Yi-Long]

I didn't mean nukes per se I meant the "right" for the Average Joe to have a fun at home for protection, but the argument is the same, yeah.

Actually, the argument is a bit different. Here in Holland, we have strict guncontrol laws, so there arent many guns around (although that seems to slowly change, where more and more people get guns)

I do feel it should stay banned here. If every average joe can get a gun, than it just increases the chance of average joe robbing a liquer store or killing someone over a misunderstanding.
I dont feel that because the americans have the right, WE should have it. It's a whole other society.

I'm not saying that as soon as everyone here in holland has access to guns, people will start shooting eachother up... but I just feel there's no immediate reason for people needing to own guns.

[grim_tales]

I meant "Gun" not "fun" sorry
Yeah Shingster, but if US and Israel can have guns/nukes, why can't Iran? N. Korea?