Bullets 'n' Babes

At least 31 people have been killed and 10 injured after a gunman went on the rampage at the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia, US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6560685.stm

When will the US government do something to stop this? Make guns less "cool"? Isn't it time many American's were taught it's not necessary to own a gun? George W Bush was apparently horrified, well do something about it you imbecile.

Isn't this the third in a year? There were the killings in the Amish area not to long ago. I'm sure there was another.

It's in the constitution... blah blah arse...............

I am sure it was the government trying to make out the Iraq/Iran people are evil again and its all one big lie and was done by the US Army.











Well thats the kind of shit people on this forum ussually say

romerojpg wrote:I am sure it was the government trying to make out the Iraq/Iran people are evil again and its all one big lie and was done by the US Army.

Only if your name is Lost Dragon

Markgway wrote:It's in the constitution... blah blah arse...............

Yeah that is very troublesome.

The constitution was written hundreds of years ago when times were very different, it was not even directly referring to ever American's right to own a gun, in particular. You'd think with all these constant killings the government would have a re-think. At least our government does that to an extent. I really hope the British police never hold guns.

On the one hand the government is horrified but on another they advocate owning a gun and not only that make it so easy. You don't even need a license in some States.

What do guns have to do with killing ?
You don't need a gun to kill 30 people (although it helps).

As the saying goes:
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

This is the kind of "tragedy" that can't be avoided, IMO.

Who is this shooter BTW ?
I don't see any info on him.

that was random attack on LD brad, and not really necessary, especially as hes not here to defend himself.

i watched it on sky news, and terrible tragedy, it seems its always the kids who suffer, columbine, dumblane, the amish killings.

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.

Yeah Mark makes an interesting point...

They all feel that they have to protect themselves from something.
They won't give up on guns that easily.

"From my Cold Dead Hands"



I am suprised some of the stundens were not carying guns and had a pop or two back at the killer.

Romero: Don't make light when 31 innocent people are dead. Brutally murdered in cold blood.

Charlton Heston make be a Hollywood Legend but he's also an absolute arsehole.

Make light?

thats a laff, tell that to the people in other threads when they insult thousands killed.


I am not making light of anything. I think its all pathetic to be honest.

Markgway wrote: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.

Actually, the right to bear arms specifically talks about locals, not the government. It has nothing to do with the country itself, it's so it's citizens can defend themselves against the leaders of a country (or invaders) if they choose to impose their will on the populence without process. It goes back to the fears of the people at the time when the constitution was made. IMO, it would be a much LARGER mistake to change anything now. Do people here die from guns? Certainly. But considering the amount of guns in the US, to suddenly try to take them away from the populance this large (and on such a scale) would cause something that would make what happened today look like a Christmas parade. Considering the amount of guns in the US, it's actually pretty "impressive" that this hasn't happened many times in the past.

It's porn's fault.

tom2681 wrote:What do guns have to do with killing ?
You don't need a gun to kill 30 people (although it helps).

As the saying goes:
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

This is the kind of "tragedy" that can't be avoided, IMO.

Who is this shooter BTW ?
I don't see any info on him.

Yeah, I know what you mean Tom - say I had a gun, it doesn't mean I will want to shoot anyone with it. But if a guy wants to kill somebody, a gun is a pretty efficient way to do it as guns ARE designed to kill/hurt people
Thomas Hamilton (the Dunblane shootist) had a gun - Government's answer = ban handguns. But the guy was also mentally ill (he had schizophrenia IIRC). If he hadn't had a gun, maybe people would have been hurt, but not as easily The fact he wasn't in a fit mental state is important too.
Guns do kill people, using the "It's a tool" logic, well, you should ban kitchen knives because people could take those and go and stab someone

thelostdragon wrote:It's porn's fault.

If that was the case, Mark would be a mass-murderer by now...

Yi-Long wrote:

thelostdragon wrote:It's porn's fault.

If that was the case, Mark would be a mass-murderer by now...

...and you would've been one long before him, since you're Dutch.

EvaUnit02 wrote:

Yi-Long wrote:

thelostdragon wrote:It's porn's fault.

If that was the case, Mark would be a mass-murderer by now...

...and you would've been one long before him, since you're Dutch.

We grow up on porn: we're immune to it.

Linn wrote:Actually, the right to bear arms specifically talks about locals, not the government. It has nothing to do with the country itself, it's so it's citizens can defend themselves against the leaders of a country (or invaders) if they choose to impose their will on the populence without process. It goes back to the fears of the people at the time when the constitution was made.

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. I refuse to believe the intelligent men who wrote the document forsaw how society would turn out. Too many right-wingers today still have this John Wayne-Wild West attitude to guns like good Christian citizens are out hunting Buffalo or defending the homestead from Apache. 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.

IMO, it would be a much LARGER mistake to change anything now. Do people here die from guns? Certainly. But considering the amount of guns in the US, to suddenly try to take them away from the populance this large (and on such a scale) would cause something that would make what happened today look like a Christmas parade. Considering the amount of guns in the US, it's actually pretty "impressive" that this hasn't happened many times in the past.

Well, I can't share your optomisim over your country's gun record, and I imagine very few non-Republicans would. To refuse to change (ie. do nothing) when you live in a country where the average person can buy a gun in a supermarket is blind and ignorant. You say that there would be massive reaction to a gun ban? What does that tell you about how sick America's obsession with gun culture is? It's not about self-defence, that would at least be understable, it's somethng much deeper and more disturbing as epitomised by Chuck Heston's "cold dead hand" speech. If America wants to move forward and stop tragedies like this from happening again then guns must be banned. Bush says he cares... just not enough to upset his buddies and do anything about it.

grim_tales wrote:Thomas Hamilton (the Dunblane shootist) had a gun - Government's answer = ban handguns. But the guy was also mentally ill (he had schizophrenia IIRC). If he hadn't had a gun, maybe people would have been hurt, but not as easily The fact he wasn't in a fit mental state is important too. Guns do kill people, using the "It's a tool" logic, well, you should ban kitchen knives because people could take those and go and stab someone

If that sick fuck Thomas Hamilton hadn't had access to those (then legal) guns those children would still be alive today. Yes, you can kill with a knife, but you think he would've managed to butcher 26 kids before being stopped? The teachers would have had a chance to fight him off and the kids run away. With a bag of guns they had none. Knives can serve a purpose other than killing. What possible purpose to guns serve? The British government did something about guns after the massacre and took the correct stance by restricting the ownership of guns. If they had done nothing then maybe we would have seen a repeat from some other loon with a grudge?

Markgway wrote:

grim_tales wrote:Thomas Hamilton (the Dunblane shootist) had a gun - Government's answer = ban handguns. But the guy was also mentally ill (he had schizophrenia IIRC). If he hadn't had a gun, maybe people would have been hurt, but not as easily The fact he wasn't in a fit mental state is important too. Guns do kill people, using the "It's a tool" logic, well, you should ban kitchen knives because people could take those and go and stab someone

If that sick fuck Thomas Hamilton hadn't had access to those (then legal) guns those children would still be alive today. Yes, you can kill with a knife, but you think he would've managed to butcher 26 kids before being stopped? The teachers would have had a chance to fight him off and the kids run away. With a bag of guns they had none. Knives can serve a purpose other than killing. What possible purpose to guns serve? The British government did something about guns after the massacre and took the correct stance by restricting the ownership of guns. If they had done nothing then maybe we would have seen a repeat from some other loon with a grudge?

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.
As in: The murderer planned on killing as many people as possible in 1 go.

So since this was premeditated, and if they wouldnt have access to guns, they would NOT try it with a knife, but they'd go on the web and would learn how to make a bomb or multiple bombs. Very simple.

Banning handguns WOULD prevent people getting killed by accident (kids playing, guy's messing around, etc... and it would prevent people being murdered spontanious (guy says something about your mother/wife/whatever, you have a gun and a short fuse, and you blow him away. If you dont have the gun, you'll punch the guy and that's it.

So in those circumstances gun-control would prevent many deaths. But in the case of these school-tragedies, where these assholes are INTENT on killing as many people as possible, they would just find another way to reach their goal, as in making bombs or whatever.

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.

I agree with you Mark, don't understand so why so many US people think they have to own a gun However consider that in Canada, the amount of guns is about the same and the murder rate is far less. Does that say something about the people (more intelligent)?
Re: The handguns thing, I thought at the time they banned BB guns as well (ie toy guns). It's similar to recent banning of replica samurai swords as they "could be dangerous" yet real samurai swords remained on sale.

Huh?

Fair point about knives though, anyway a knife ban would be harder to enforce than a gun one - where do you draw the line between say, a household knife and those which could be used to harm people?

Yi I agree with you, if a guy has the intent to kill, he will find ways to do it, gun or no guns.

Yi-Long wrote: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.

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.

That is an interesting point, but I still feel that is a cop-out, A way for people to blame something. Before Videogame, wasn't video blamed for killing people, eg Child Play 3 with James Bulger (sp?) (Even though that scene wasn't in the film).

Who's Dr. Phil?