BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

OK everyone, we know HOW he did it. He used guns

But WHY DID HE DO IT????????????????????????????????????????

This is not in his defense, but pertains to his situation.

The answer is not in psychosis or the "manifesto" or the serotonin reuptake inhibitors or the violent Korean movie or his pathological shyness due to a brain malformation....no


Love never found him, Love never saved him.



He probably died a virgin.

George Carlin said imagine the last guy, The guy who has it worse in some regard than everyone else on earth.

Imagine the guy who admires a girl from afar and she takes him to court for stalking and then he text messages another girl and she gets a court order to stop or the last girl who got a restraining order..3 strikes and he's out.
Having nowhere else to go except a crazy embarrased internal revenge he goes postal.

OK this scenario is somewhat tongue in cheek, but for a really shy person who tries awkwardly 3 times to reach out to a girl, until he has to invent a girlfriend to limit the other guys' ridicule and each time he tried to date, he was taken to court.

That is some kind of luck only the "last guy" could have.
This is not in his defense, but rather, his possible situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM

Amen Cap'n.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:01 AM

So, if Rodney King had pulled out a gun he would have been saved a beating, eh? The cops would have said, "Oh, sorry sir - we realise now that you are a responsible american. Have a nice day!"
Honestly, 'gun-owner', you really are a terrific ambassador for arseholes. God help America if you are a typical example/

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:47 AM

"Americans were effectively disarmed by the gun control act of 1968."

Number of firearms in the US:          223 Million
(Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime, 7/95, from ATF data)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:44 AM

If we act RIGHT NOW with stricter gun laws we will notice the effect in the relativly short time it will take all the new guns on the streets now to rust rust away into an unusable artifact.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:32 AM

Americans were effectively disarmed by the gun control act of 1968. Large portions of it were literally translated from Hitler's gun control act. The one he enacted before he began cleansing German society of homosexuals, the educated, and other "undesirables." Under the 1968/86 gun control act, you cannot own a machine gun unless you pay ruinous fees and agree to numerous self-restrictions.

The one way to ensure in America that you are not threatened by guns is to commit a crime with one. Mandatory jail time. Gun laws are abundant and are strictly enforced by police like the Rodney King beaters. Giving away your right to bear arms will put you at the mercy of police like that AND at the mercy of criminals who are always going to have guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 09:10 AM

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended in 1986, it is presently a Federal felony, punishable by a five year prison term and a $250,000 fine, for a convicted felon to be in possession of an assault weapon. That law covers all felons -- convicted by a state, country, municipal or Federal court. It covers any firearm that any Member of Congress could possibly define as an assault weapon.

If a criminal in possession of an assault weapon is involved in the drug trade, or has three prior felony convictions on his record, the law calls for him to serve a mandatory 15 years in Federal prison, and pay up to a $250,000 fine. That's for simple possession of an assault weapon. It is a crime for a felon or drug dealer to be in the same room with an assault weapon.

The use of an assault weapon by a convicted felon in commission of a crime is also a five year Federal felony, and could also bring a $250,000 fine. It covers guns with large magazine capacities. The alteration of a semiautomatic assault weapon into a full-auto machine-gun is a ten year Federal felony with a $250,000 fine. Possession of an untaxed, unregistered fully automatic firearm is a 10 year Federal felony, with a $250,000 fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:56 AM

"My sources tell me you are incorrect in saying that ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning fully automatic weapons. It is quite difficult to get a permit, expensive, and you have to be willing to submit to very restrictive conditions--but it is possible."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i.e., parts to make machine guns).

Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms.

Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation).
....

Prohibited the sale of parts or "conversion kits" - used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=1968&menu=gvr

____________________________________________________________________

Actually, it IS possible to obtain the VERY restricted permits to own fully automatic weapons- BUT NOT for "ordinary citizens". Police units, and museums are permitted to apply for the class three permits.


Of copurse, that is like the law in Montgomery County, MD- The Police are REQUIRED to take your application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon ( with fee and fingerprinting, and a backgroun check) - But unless you are a police officer, you will never have it acted upon- they have to take the application, but are not required to ever issue the permit, or give any reasons for not doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 04:49 AM

I'd go further and say that anyone who feels they *need* to keep a gun because it makes them *safer* or *stronger* or *superior* in some way, has a psychological problem anyway, and is probably the least suitable person to be allowed one. And there seem to be a lot of them around in the US.

(Farmers are excepted from this, of course).

I've never had a gun, never will have one. I feel perfectly safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 04:41 AM

Another good reason for removing guns from circulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Wordsmith
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 04:18 AM

Which is basically what the VT shooter said in the first video I saw broadcast on NBC the night of the day it was received. I do feel it is an issue of self-esteem, as well as mental illness, that motivates these senseless killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 04:08 AM

Amos quoted a very good point of view, "What I've concluded from decades of working with murderers and rapists and every kind of violent criminal," he said, "is that an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one's manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act."

I would add that the use of a firearm makes it much easier for those with low self-esteem (cowards) to perform acts of violence. When you use a weapon, you are placing an object between you and the victim which makes it easier than using your fists or other parts of your body.

Depending on the weapon (club, knife, gun, etc.), the person assaulting the victim has an opportunity to distance himself accordingly. The criminal is able to avoid or deny personal responsibility or risk any harm to himself. With a gun, you don't even have to make contact. Its the perfect weapon for a coward.

A person who is mentally unbalanced can say to himself, I didn't feel anything, therefore I didn't do it. It wasn't me, it was someone else that made me pull the trigger. Its their fault for making me do this.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:19 AM

"With backlash growing against media organizations for repeatedly broadcasting video clips of the Virginia Tech killer, major U.S. networks on Thursday said they would drastically limit the use of the footage.

NBC News — which received the package of videos and documents — and its cable outlet MSNBC said in a news release that it would limit the use of the images to not more than 10 per cent of its airtime."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:43 AM

If indeed that is the case, then the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor aspect SHOULD be looked at.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:35 AM

I know Kaczinski and the Amish school shooter were on the drugs. The writer of the piece is reputable and does his research. I'm sure he's accurate. Harris & Klebold...at least one of them was on an SSRI. I think that was Paxil or Luvox. I'm sure a name-by-name search of the killers would confirm the statement. Probably turn up many, many more too.

And this is really insidious because the makers of these drugs wrote the legislation to force mandatory psychological testing on all school kids. Tests will turn up "problems" and there will be a pill for every problem. These SSRI drugs will be over-prescribed, the kids will play violent point-of-view video games, and then if they become too stressed by teasing or tests or whatever, they'll just act out one of the games. Bad, bad drugs. And it's the DRUGS that should be the focus of the media attention, not the guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:30 PM

"Jeff Weise, the Red Lake High School killer was on prozac , "Unabomber" Ted Kaczinski, Michael McDermott, John Hinckley, Jr., Byran Uyesugi, Mark David Chapman and Charles Carl Roberts IV, the Amish school killer, were all on SSRI psychotropic drugs."

Is there any proof for that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:04 PM

Now this is interesting--

Jeff Weise, the Red Lake High School killer was on prozac , "Unabomber" Ted Kaczinski, Michael McDermott, John Hinckley, Jr., Byran Uyesugi, Mark David Chapman and Charles Carl Roberts IV, the Amish school killer, were all on SSRI psychotropic drugs.

Since these deadly drugs are prevalent in almost all mass shooting incidents, where is the call to ban prozac? Why is the knee-jerk reaction always to attack the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to self-defense...

On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said, "The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an 'extensive testing and experimentation' program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens 'at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign."

One such victim of these experiments was Cathy O'Brien, who immediately after the shootings re-iterated the revelations in her latest book, that Blacksburg Virginia is a central location for mind control programs that are still ongoing today....

Either way you cut it, Seung-Hui Cho was a victim of brainwashing and mind control. The right questions are not being asked and the finger of blame is being pointed in the wrong direction, ensuring that another tragedy like the VA Tech Massacre is almost guaranteed.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/va_tech_shooter_was_mind_controlled_assassin.htm

So, we're being misdirected. The politicians and media make guns the issue instead of the brain-rotting drugs. The "New Freedom Initiative" was written by the drug companies and made law by the federal govt, and the goal of the New Freedom Initiative is to get half of America's school children on these hallucinogenic, hypnotic drugs. They permanently destroy your child's brain chemistry, and they are always involved in these school shooting cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:35 PM

BB--

I suspect, that as often seems to happen, you are overstating the case. My sources tell me you are incorrect in saying that ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning fully automatic weapons. It is quite difficult to get a permit, expensive, and you have to be willing to submit to very restrictive conditions--but it is possible.

Given your track record, I'm afraid I will have to take the word of my main source--who has no ax to grind--over your assertions. Unless you can provide written proof--with source.

Even if you can come up with such a source, it's a side issue.



Obviously nobody will try to take away semi-automatic rifles.   But the main question seems to me why the general public should have easy access to semi-automatic pistols.

I'm sorry--the convenience of those who like to shoot pistols at shooting ranges may just have to take second place to the worthwhile goal of cutting down on easy access to semi-automatic pistols. Sport shooters can use rifles--or revolvers.

We need a convincing argument from the pro-gun group as to the necessity of easily concealed semi-automatic weapons--or semi-automatic pistols at all for the general public-- weapons which are all too easy to use to settle arguments--and are used for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,gun owner
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM

I heard an interesting statement today. Someone pointed out that the shootings at Virginia Tech occurred on a campus WHERE A GUN BAN WAS IN EFFECT. So how can anyone conclude from this incident that guns should be banned elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM

"The biggest obstacles for guns to get into DC are the bridges. "

It is against the PRESENT laws to bring any gun into DC. Are you saying that by passing more laws, the criminals will suddenly decide to obey them?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM

"The FACT is that gun laws are weak in Virginia and tight in DC."

Yet crime is higher in DC, with the tight gun laws, and lower in Virginia, with the weak gun laws.

I can more easily justify making the laws WEAKER in DC to lower the crime rate than you can justify making the ones in Virginia stronger ( which, from all indication past amnd present would increase the crime rate).


"" "We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', ..."

Why?? There is presently a perfectly good definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:48 PM

The biggest obstacles for guns to get into DC are the bridges.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM

Gun laws make it really difficult for honest folks to get guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM

"Or are you saying that there needs to be ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT LAWS??????" Yep...and some STRONGER laws too!

and, your 1 & 2 are nitpicking, semantic avoidance of my points. The FACT is that gun laws are weak in Virginia and tight in DC.

and part 2...let's just truncate it, so that you can't twist the point with my careless use of an example. (too bad I don't know more gun lore, so I could have used the PROPER example)

" "We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', ..."

better?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:57 PM

BillD,

You state:
"so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s."

1. Someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. ALREADY prohibited by the 1968 gun laws.

2. "We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s."

Straw man argument- Since AK-47 are fully automatic, they are prohibited to ALL of us at the present time. So, how can kids ( Who are prohibited by the 1968 Gun Laws from owning firearms) get them "easy, or otherwise?

Or are you saying that there needs to be ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT LAWS??????

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:54 PM

"I just don't think that every type of gun needs to be purchased at a moments notice. "

So the kid goes into the store and says, "Please give me 15 jujubes, three pieces of bubble go\um, eight honeymoons and 25 tubes of airplane glue.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:17 PM

"butt-stupid gun-head fools"

That is just mean knee jerk rehtoric !



i think you meant "gun-stupid butt-head FOOLS"

which is a kinder gentler and more truthful rhetoric

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:03 PM

beardedbruce, sir: I count 13-19, depending on your reading, posts debating the gun laws BEFORE your suggestion that the subject matter be limited....and even more before my comment which you quote. *I* did not "(make) this thread into a gun/anti-gun debate."

But YOU, once again, offer up a straw man refutation of my points, presuming to compare a theoretical ban on free speech to THIS situation.

Mick...I will agree with you one one thing...*IF*, as is likely, private ownership of a wide variety of firearms is to continue, we desperately need a comprehensive, nation-wide computer system with databases of not only LEGAL owners, but of those judged NOT to be trusted with firearms.

Now, as a working idea, I think that it might be a good idea to rule that ALL firearms permits are to expire, in say, two years, and that ALL owners must re-apply within that period, with severe penalties for anyone found with unregistered guns after that. And VERY severe penalties for anyone found abusing the gun laws...either in sales or use.

Further, in my opinion, we need ONE set of laws, so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s....and must PROVE why they need certain types of clips!

Those are just quick brainstorming ....there might be more.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:44 PM

As far as gun control goes I keep thinking that the faster the gun shoots the longer you should have to wait to buy one. A black powder muzzle loading rifle for instence - 1 or 2 days. A 9MM pistol such as the one used in this event - 90 days. I have no problem with folks wanting to own guns. I just don't think that every type of gun needs to be purchased at a moments notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM

"There are nearly 200 million firearms in private hands in the U.S., and more than 30,000 people — nearly 10 times the total number of Americans who have died in Iraq — are killed by those guns each year."

This in a country where virtually anyone can have as many guns as he or she wishes.

There are less than 100 homicides by shooting per annum in the UK, where strong gun controls exist. <100/60m*300m = <500 should be the number for the US. Instead it's >60 times that number.

Very few UK residents will ever see a gun, except in the hands of the armed forces/police ARUs. Only a very tiny minority will ever handle one.

Why don't these butt-stupid gun-head fools see the correlation? How can they continue with their denials?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:21 PM

You are to be applauded for wanting to bring peace. If you are sincere in that, and I believe you are, work on things that will truly change things for peace. The facts just don't support the contention that gun control will do that. There was no inference in my earlier post. It was very straightforward.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:17 PM

Fair enough, Mick, yes, he could have chosen another way, but it seemed inferred he would have found guns some way by your earlier sentence in that paragraph "The weapons used to commit violent crime are usually obtained illegally." I don't give a damn if I am right as long as whatever I work on brings about a change for peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:11 PM

Actually, kat, you need to sharpen up your reading before making a point. What I said was,

But my opinion is that he was psychotic and would have found another way to make his point.

I know you want to be right, but I didn't say the other way was with a gun. As I have said before in this debate, it is very easy to fill the trunk of a car with fertilizer, and with some kero and a few ingredients, make a bomb capable of killing a great many people. A psychotic such as Cho, with decent computer skills, and a premeditated devotion to carry out this act, could have carried off his killing very easily. Should we ban fertilizer?

This man was committed to doing what he did. He chose guns as his weapons. Were those not available to him (as they shouldn't have been if the instant check system worked properly) he surely would have found another method to address his perceived grievances.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:46 AM

Ron D,

You state:
"Yet again, why does anybody other than police need semi-automatic or automatic weapons?"


Since no-one other than police ARE allowed to have fully automatic weapons, I presume you bring them up just to confuse the issue.

As for semi-automatic ones, there are presently laws in place which limit the number of rounds in a clip that can be made or imported from the time of the law on.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:44 AM

"...But a close look at the patterns of murderous violence in the U.S. reveals some remarkable consistencies, wherever the individual atrocities may have occurred. In case after case, decade after decade, the killers have been shown to be young men riddled with shame and humiliation, often bitterly misogynistic and homophobic, who have decided that the way to assert their faltering sense of manhood and get the respect they have been denied is to go out and shoot somebody.

Dr. James Gilligan, who has spent many years studying violence as a prison psychiatrist in Massachusetts, and as a professor at Harvard and now at N.Y.U., believes that some debilitating combination of misogyny and homophobia is a "central component" in much, if not most, of the worst forms of violence in this country.

"What I've concluded from decades of working with murderers and rapists and every kind of violent criminal," he said, "is that an underlying factor that is virtually always present to one degree or another is a feeling that one has to prove one's manhood, and that the way to do that, to gain the respect that has been lost, is to commit a violent act."

Violence is commonly resorted to as the antidote to the disturbing emotions raised by the widespread hostility toward women in our society and the pathological fear of so many men that they aren't quite tough enough, masculine enough — in short, that they might have homosexual tendencies.

In a culture that is relentless in equating violence with masculinity, "it is tremendously tempting," said Dr. Gilligan, "to use violence as a means of trying to shore up one's sense of masculine self-esteem."

The Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui, was reported to have stalked female classmates and to have leaned under tables to take inappropriate photos of women. A former roommate told CNN that Mr. Cho once claimed to have seen "promiscuity" when he looked into the eyes of a woman on campus.

Charles Whitman was often portrayed as the sunny all-American boy. But he had been court-martialed in the Marines, was struggling as a college student and apparently had been suffering from depression. He told a psychiatrist that he absolutely hated his father, but he started his murderous spree by killing his wife and his mother.

The confluence of feelings of inadequacy, psychosexual turmoil and the easy availability of guns has resulted in a staggering volume of murders in this country.

There are nearly 200 million firearms in private hands in the U.S., and more than 30,000 people — nearly 10 times the total number of Americans who have died in Iraq — are killed by those guns each year. In 1966 Americans were being killed by guns at the rate of 17,000 a year. An article in The Times examining such "rampages" as the Charles Whitman shootings said:

"Whatever the motivation, it seems clear that the way is made easier by the fact that guns of all sorts are readily available to Americans of all shades of morality and mentality."

....

(From a TImes column on the recent shootings)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:43 AM

Today the religious nutter side of the killer is being parsed.
Mental illness, drugs, religion, guns, loner, predjudice

none of it is an excuse, just ingredients in a recipe for disaster
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/vtechsplash2_neff.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:34 AM

BollD,

The founding fathers were interseted in a FREE PRESS- They had no idea about the internet where a lie could sprerad around the world in a few minutes.

I guess there should not be any right to free speech, unless it is on public corners, or done on a hand-powered press.

Yes, we could make the whole world a lot safer- all we need to do is have an absolute dictatorship and remove anything that might be dangerous. I do not wish such a situation.

And YOU were the one who said:"I see the pleas to limit this thread to 'sympathy' etc., but obviously that's not going to happen. I doubt any of the victim's families are going to be reading this.)" and made this thread into a gun/anti-gun debate. Most of those who were discussing it had agreed it was not the time, nor the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM

Big Mick is right
The problem was that the Virginia gun law is different than the Massachusettes gun law.
In Massachusettes Cho would not have been given a gun because they have an extensive police review and vetting system. A policeman has to sign off on the request based on all available records.

In VA only a search for felony convictions is made;

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:23 AM

All badness IS a form of mental illness, Bob. That's where it comes from. Complete sanity is the desire and ability to postulate optimum solutions to the problems of broad survival for self and others. This is a theoretical optimum from which we all, to one degree or another, fall short (except for Little Hawk).

The big question is, how does the random oppression of life in the material universe (gravity, force, heat, things banging into each other) become internalized in the individual to bring about "badness"?

What do you think "badness" is, and how do you think it comes about? What kind of decisions would a person have to make, in order to become "bad" in your Manichean notebook, and why would he/she make them?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:20 AM

Mick, ya can't have it both ways. First you say he couldn't have gotten the guns if all the agencies and authorities had communicated well with one another, then you say he would have gotten guns no matter of if it was illegally or not. I don't think any of us can state such absolutes, either way. We were not there, we don't know what judgements went on or not...how in the world can we be so sure of what would be without first-hand knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:15 AM

Bill, we cross posted. While it is true that there was no legal way to hold Cho, if the agencies were talking to each other, if (in this age of incredibly powerful computers)the system had recorded this young man's mental problems, then he would not have been able to purchase the firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:11 AM

Once again, friend Ron, you folks try to shift the premise. This isn't about why I need semi automatic weapons. I already have them. It is about why you should be allowed to take them away. I purchased them and use them in a completely legal way. They are stored safely, all in my home know the appropriate safety rules. You folks toss the term "semi automatic" out as if it were a perjorative. A shotgun used for rabbit hunting is often a semi automatic. A 30-06 hunting rifle can be a semi automatic and an assault weapon, even though it is the most common weapon used in hunting for large game. Any firearm, including a revolver, can fire as many times as you pull the trigger. I own weapons like these, I teach all in my family to use them safely. We have been hunters and fishermen for generations in my family. It, along with camping, boating, canoeing and hiking, are part of our families heritage and culture.

The most important point in this debate, IMO, is that the weapons owned by the huge majority of law abiding gun owners are not the weapons that are used to commit violent crime. The weapons used to commit violent crime are usually obtained illegally. You want to know what happened at VT? The various agencies weren't talking to each other. This kid had been evaluated by pro's as a danger to himself and others. If the system were working properly, he would never have gotten those weapons. But my opinion is that he was psychotic and would have found another way to make his point.

I would believe you are all sincere if you were attacking the real problem. But you are not. You are simply using the lame old tactic of attacking the visible scab and not treating the infection under that scab. It makes us feel good. But it won't stop these horrible tragedies.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Desdemona
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM

There's no way of looking at this tragedy that can make any sense of it. Clearly the young man was deeply disturbed, and there's no profit at this point in dwelling on "how things might have been different" unless it leads to concrete changes that might prevent similar disasters in the future.

I see that the University is going to award the students who were killed posthumous degrees in their fields of study. I think that's a very nice gesture; with commencement only weeks away, it's hard to fathom what an emotional occasion it will be...so sad.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

It has been explained in tedious detail the last 2 days WHY, even after Cho was identified as having problems AND been temporarily held and counseled, that there was no legal means to hold an adult longer than 48 hours without either his consent or a direct threat or specific identifiable danger!!
   He had acted weird...he had NOT attacked anyone or threatened to do so.

Should laws be changed? Maybe so...THEN we will be hearing all the complaints about how 'weird' people are being harassed unfairly and held in institutions against their will. We can't have it both ways...


I do not know the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:51 AM

"I find it interesting that posters on this thread after branding all gun owners as murderers and blood thirsty killers now start defending the youth who actually did kill people."


I see no evidence to support that observation.
jeez guest, what else have we done to you?


I would not be surprised if Cho troll the killer might have communicated annonymously on the web, since he rarely talked in real life.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:20 AM

Kaleea, excellent point. Too many do forget that!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:00 AM

(And of course the US military will have access to them)--we're talking about civilians here.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 08:59 AM

Yet again, why does anybody other than police need semi-automatic or automatic weapons?

Waiting for answers from the pro-gun posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: GUEST,Bob
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 04:53 AM

Thank you akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 02:58 AM

Nice and personal once again!

Don't blame Bob, who makes his point with sincerity.

Blame the social services who failed to pick out this young man and the society which allowed him to gain access to automatic weapons.

Some people just can't wait to turn on anyone who expresses opinions which are in the least "controversial"......Ake