US school shootings

[Guest]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people.

Television is designed for entertainment.
Cellphones are used for text messaging etc.
Knives are used for eating and cooking.

I thought you knew this.

Television was designed to promote the Aryan superiority during the 1932 Olympics in Berlin.
Cellphones were designed to improve US armed forces communications post-Vietnam.
Knives were invented as an improvement over nails and teeth.

And the one you forgot,

The Internet was designed as a way of connecting Defence computer networks across the USA.

You were spot on about guns, though.

but a gun is pretty freakin handy when youre staring down a wild boar while taking a walk thru the woods.

Quite off topic, but if you're walking through boar territory you only have yourself to blame if you get attacked/killed.

Best not to go anywhere where there's the remotest possibility of encountering a dangerous animal and your very life may be at risk, then.

[Obfleur]

Television was designed to promote the Aryan superiority during the 1932 Olympics in Berlin.
Cellphones were designed to improve US armed forces communications post-Vietnam.
Knives were invented as an improvement over nails and teeth.

And the one you forgot,

The Internet was designed as a way of connecting Defence computer networks across the USA.

They're not used for those kind of things now though.
So yeah, moving on.

Best not to go anywhere where there's the remotest possibility of encountering a dangerous animal and your very life may be at risk, then.

It's one thing if you take a stroll through the woods and a boar attacks you out of nowhere, and everybody's like "OH ****, there was a boar here? That's never happened before".
It's a whole other thing if you say "Well, I'm gonna go take a walk in the woods *grabs shotgun and a small nuclear device, since there's a ****load of boars in the woods and everybody knows about it* See you in a bit!"
Then you're just an idiot and deserve to die.

[Guest]

Best not to go anywhere where there's the remotest possibility of encountering a dangerous animal and your very life may be at risk, then.

It's one thing if you take a stroll through the woods and a boar attacks you out of nowhere, and everybody's like "OH ****, there was a boar here? That's never happened before".
It's a whole other thing if you say "Well, I'm gonna go take a walk in the woods *grabs shotgun and a small nuclear device, since there's a ****load of boars in the woods and everybody knows about it* See you in a bit!"
Then you're just an idiot and deserve to die.

Way to blow this out of proportion.

I'd stay out of the Arctic Circle. I hear there's polar bears there.

[Obfleur]

Best not to go anywhere where there's the remotest possibility of encountering a dangerous animal and your very life may be at risk, then.

It's one thing if you take a stroll through the woods and a boar attacks you out of nowhere, and everybody's like "OH ****, there was a boar here? That's never happened before".
It's a whole other thing if you say "Well, I'm gonna go take a walk in the woods *grabs shotgun and a small nuclear device, since there's a ****load of boars in the woods and everybody knows about it* See you in a bit!"
Then you're just an idiot and deserve to die.

Way to blow this out of proportion.

I'd stay out of the Arctic Circle. I hear there's polar bears there.

IMO you blew it out of proportion with your "Best not to go anywhere where there's the remotest possibility of encountering a dangerous animal and your very life may be at risk, then." comment.

'Cause you know, the only thing I said was "If you go to boar territory and a boar ruins your **** - well, [composite word including 'f*ck'] you" (Then you basically told me that I should never leave my house (thus blowing everything out of proportion)).

[Blacksword]

Returning to more relevant material...

As to what made the guy do it - reports I've read mentioned that his English prof turned over his creative writing to the school's counselors because it was so disturbing. Couldn't tell if it was made up or the guy's twisted fantasies. In short sounds like he had some serious mental issues.

Pretty much impossible. If it was something directed to someone in particular, he would have killed him/her and thats all. Everything Ive read up to this point indicates he had a grudge with all reality. When things like this happen is not that you think them in the moment or that you can blame one isolated incident, is usually a life of many different things that have joined together, being the last one only the trigger.

Also, for what we know of the guy he was pretty much introverted and a cast away and didnt have the protective factors that could have avoided him to doing these things (a couple of friends to loosen him up, help in any form). He was a timebomb, and there are many like them walking, shouting for help and none to listen or interpret tha signs to help them and avoid these things.

Well from the most recent reports the guy was suicidal and had been institutionalized in the last two years. So I would say he was highly unbalanced, and reports suggest he'd been this way for much of his life. But you are certainly right that he was a time bomb waiting to go off. You don't get much more misanthropic than he was. I don't see why more was not done to get him help or at the very least sequester him where he couldn't do harm to himself or others. People were terrified of him, I mean one of his professors threatened to resign if he wasn't removed from her class due to how threatening he was to the class.

I know, given the abuses that occurred in mental institutions in the past, that care must be taken in decisions to institutionalize people, but this guy needed to be put away. I just can't understand why he wasn't.

[IronHide]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people.

So were knives, spears, swords, cannons and every other object that was used to kill people before guns came around. Whats your point?

[Hot Shot]

Did anyone hear about that box with photos, videos, and written accounts he mailed to NBC headquarters between the two shootings? That guy was so messed up in the head that I doubt psyciatric treatment could've helped him.

[sprunkner]

From this thread I have learned:

1) Boars are some mean-ass *************.

2) Guns don't kill people, but they were made to.

3) Spears, swords, knives and other household objects that were once made to kill people have recently reformed, and,

4) I should never leave my house.

Thank you, Transfans.

[The Last Autobot]

Did anyone hear about that box with photos, videos, and written accounts he mailed to NBC headquarters between the two shootings? That guy was so messed up in the head that I doubt psyciatric treatment could've helped him.

Maybe It wouldnt turn him into Ghandi, but he would have the chance. And you would be surprised how "hopeless" people can turn their life around (or ill could be "handled").

And more importantly the other 33 people would be around.

[Hot Shot]

And more importantly the other 33 people would be around.

33? Another person died? It was 32 only an hour ago.

[Professor Smooth]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people.

So were knives, spears, swords, cannons and every other object that was used to kill people before guns came around. Whats your point?

I am so sick of this argument. The guy would not have killed 32 people with a knife, with a spear, with a sword, or with a cannon. Have you ever tried to stab someone to death? It's not easy. Even if you managed a few slashes on a few people, you would get tired LONG before the 30th body dropped. Same deal with a spear or a sword. With a gun, you squeeze the trigger and someone's dead. What is so difficult about this? People kill people, but guns allow them to kill MORE people.

[sprunkner]

Besides, there's nothing like a well-handled boar spear to put fire in a man's blood. Next best thing after a shield wall and a lusty wench.

[Hot Shot]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people.

So were knives, spears, swords, cannons and every other object that was used to kill people before guns came around. Whats your point?

I am so sick of this argument. The guy would not have killed 32 people with a knife, with a spear, with a sword, or with a cannon. Have you ever tried to stab someone to death? It's not easy. Even if you managed a few slashes on a few people, you would get tired LONG before the 30th body dropped. Same deal with a spear or a sword. With a gun, you squeeze the trigger and someone's dead. What is so difficult about this? People kill people, but guns allow them to kill MORE people.

Well put. Guns are probably second lethal to bombs/grenades or cars or car bombs if you consider them in this catagory. People do kill people, but guns make it a hundred times easier and tempting. Other weapons sometimes involve struggles that can lean to either side, while guns kill the person in its sight most if not all of the time with almost no struggle. Guns were made to be quick, effective killers that make all other hand weapons obsolete. People who think that the death rate wouldn't drop dramatically with a ban on guns is obviously delusional.

[Professor Smooth]

People who think that the death rate wouldn't drop dramatically with a ban on guns is obviously delusional.

Well, I suppose that would mean that the vast majority of your country is delusional.

But hey, the Supreme Court has just banned certain types of abortions. After all, if you guys are going to be running around like its the wild west, you'd best make sure that there are more people being born to keep the numbers up.

[IronHide]

I am so sick of this argument. The guy would not have killed 32 people with a knife, with a spear, with a sword, or with a cannon. Have you ever tried to stab someone to death? It's not easy. Even if you managed a few slashes on a few people, you would get tired LONG before the 30th body dropped. Same deal with a spear or a sword. With a gun, you squeeze the trigger and someone's dead. What is so difficult about this? People kill people, but guns allow them to kill MORE people.

And im sick of people thinking that taking guns away will somehow keep people from killing other people. A gun is a means to an end. You really think that they wont find something else? You think those sick people wont move to bombs? Then what? I'll tell you what, you'll start crying and whining that we dont have enough bomb protection or some other stupid ****. Its easy to see whats wrong when you think you know whats right.

[Professor Smooth]

And im sick of people thinking that taking guns away will somehow keep people from killing other people. A gun is a means to an end. You really think that they wont find something else? You think those sick people wont move to bombs? Then what? I'll tell you what, you'll start crying and whining that we dont have enough bomb protection or some other stupid ****. Its easy to see whats wrong when you think you know whats right.

It will severely cut down on how many people kill other people. Look at how many people are killed in your country every year. Now look at how many of them involved guns. Now take a look at countries like Japan and England that have no guns. Do you see a rather sizable difference there?

Do I think that these sick people won't move on to bombs? For the vast majority of them? YES! There is something of a large jump from "buying a gun and some ammo" and "amassing the components and building a functioning incidiary device."

And what is your argument exactly? People are going to kill each other anyway so we might as well make it easy for them? I'm serious. Is that what you're saying? Oh, they'll just make a bomb and kill people that way so why don't we just let them carry around the "off-switch" for people?

[sprunkner]

No one said it would stop people from killing others if guns were taken away. Just that it's one method that should be more difficult to obtain.

[IronHide]

Do I think that these sick people won't move on to bombs? For the vast majority of them? YES! There is something of a large jump from "buying a gun and some ammo" and "amassing the components and building a functioning incidiary device."

Components?? What components? A PVC pipe and some gunpowder? Come on man, im not talking nuclear devices.

So I want to know how you plan to justify taking away guns from those people who arent complete idiots? Sorry, tough luck, we're taking away your constitutional rights cause some kid who didnt get enough attention decided to be a pussy?

[Hot Shot]

People who think that the death rate wouldn't drop dramatically with a ban on guns is obviously delusional.

Well, I suppose that would mean that the vast majority of your country is delusional.

Not everyone, but yeah, you get my point. I've gotten to the point where I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore because it states that God approves of what the country has become. Don't get me wrong. I am Christian, but I think that a certain country claiming that it is approved by and doing the work of God is like how King George III and other monarchs claimed that they were kings/queens selected to rule by God to do His work. I don't think God wanted the US to invade Iraq for oil, nor did he want King George to oppress the people in the americas. Those claims are borderline blasphamy in my eyes.

Do I think that these sick people won't move on to bombs? For the vast majority of them? YES! There is something of a large jump from "buying a gun and some ammo" and "amassing the components and building a functioning incidiary device."

Components?? What components? A PVC pipe and some gunpowder? Come on man, im not talking nuclear devices.

So I want to know how you plan to justify taking away guns from those people who arent complete idiots? Sorry, tough luck, we're taking away your constitutional rights cause some kid who didnt get enough attention decided to be a pussy?

Oh, come on. Now you're just using extremely unlikely examples. Most gun deaths are from a two second decision whether or not to kill. Bombs are premeditated and need a two minute set-up. That's like saying, "I'm gonna kill you, so can you wait while I light this makeshift dynamite?" Plus, most people that kill others want to LIVE. A bomb will take them with the victim(s). Not to forget that by the time the fuse burns out, the target will be long gone.

Also, what's better? Saving literally millions of lives or a little rule written over 200 years ago?

[Professor Smooth]

Components?? What components? A PVC pipe and some gunpowder? Come on man, im not talking nuclear devices.

So I want to know how you plan to justify taking away guns from those people who arent complete idiots? Sorry, tough luck, we're taking away your constitutional rights cause some kid who didnt get enough attention decided to be a pussy?

The same way I justify not allowing people have certain wild animals kept as pets. In the right hands, I'm sure that a full grown lion is a great pet. However, the risks to public safety are just too great.

The constitution can be legally altered. Also, have you read the 2nd amendment? All of it, not just the last part of the sentence?

I seem to recall another amendment to the constitution. Something about how nobody is to be deprived of life without due process of law. It seems to me that somewhere in the area of 32 people had their constitutional rights violated in that school.

[IronHide]

Oh, come on. Now you're just using extremely unlikely examples. Most gun deaths are from a two second decision whether or not to kill. Bombs are premeditated and need a two minute set-up.

You're outta your damn mind if you think what happened on that campus wasnt premeditated.

Also, there is a large majority of people who own a gun and DONT use it to take a human life. Even the ones who may on occasion (Army, Law Enforcement) know how to handle them. Im willing to bet most US citizens who own a gun know how to use it and use it properly (I.E not using it for murder).

And yes, they did have their rights violated. And the person that did that did it willingly and fully aware of what he was doing. Should the rest of us be punished because of his actions? No.

[Professor Smooth]

You're outta your damn mind if you think what happened on that campus wasnt premeditated.

Also, there is a large majority of people who own a gun and DONT use it to take a human life. Even the ones who may on occasion (Army, Law Enforcement) know how to handle them. Im willing to bet most US citizens who own a gun know how to use it and use it properly (I.E not using it for murder).

And yes, they did have their rights violated. And the person that did that did it willingly and fully aware of what he was doing. Should the rest of us be punished because of his actions? No.

It was extremely premediated. Granted.

There is a large majority of people who own guns that don't use them to take human lives. I'm sure its an overwhelming majority. But then what do they need them for? If you have a handgun and you don't use it to shoot people, then what do you need it for? Target practice? What are you practicing for? What is the "proper" use of a handgun?

Are you saying that you hold your right to have a gun above other people's right to live? I honestly don't see how not being legally able to own a gun is a punishment.

[IronHide]

Sports and Leisure. Thats what they are used for by people who respect that type of power.

The right to live trumps all, thats a no brainer. I dont see why you think it should be a punishment to own a gun. If I want to own a gun and use it for my own personal enjoyment, there should be no penalty for that. I use enjoyment very selectively as to describe using a gun without the intent to take another human life.

[Professor Smooth]

Sports and Leisure. Thats what they are used for by people who respect that type of power.

The right to live trumps all, thats a no brainer. I dont see why you think it should be a punishment to own a gun. If I want to own a gun and use it for my own personal enjoyment, there should be no penalty for that. I use enjoyment very selectively as to describe using a gun without the intent to take another human life.

Sports an leisure...

Believe it or not, you have completely opened my eyes to something that I had missed until now. Sports! Every tough and rugged man wants to be good at sports, right? I mean, what better way to prove your manliness than to excell at a sport! But playing football or basketball, those require a certain level of physical fitness, don't they? You can't sit on the coach with your belly bulging out from under a pile of crisp crumbs, and still play center, now can you? But GUN sports allow the pudgy little bastard who was always chosen last for teams in high school to have a chance to excell at something, right? Even if you're not very good at it, who cares? You've got a gun. Those atheletes who spend all that time in gym prancing around the field in their shorts. Bah. Who cares if they are faster than you, or stronger than you or stronger than you? You could take 'em, because you've got a gun. That guy can hit a ball travelling 150 kilometers per hour, but can he stop a bullet with that wooden bat of his? That guy finished a 50k marathon in 4 hours, but can he outrun a bullet? Hell no. So let them waste their lives training and playing their sports. None of them are so good at them that you couldn't tag them with your gun, right? So you're better than all of them, aren't you. We can't take away your guns because that's all you've got, isn't it? Without those guns, the only "sport" you have ever shown any promise in goes up in smoke. You go from being able to "take" the best atheletes in the world to being just another sad person who has nothing else going for them. I'm just glad you didn't have a gun available to you when you realized that it was the only thing that gave you any power.

[Obfleur]

Guns are specifically designed to kill people.

So were knives, spears, swords, cannons and every other object that was used to kill people before guns came around. Whats your point?

I've never seen a spear shop in my whole life. Haven't seen any cannon shops either. I have seen a sword shop though.
And as I've already said: knives have a different purpose. They are used for cooking, etc.

Guns on the other hand. You guys have gun shops, gun fairs, etc.
Guns are only meant to kill. There is no other use for them. You can't turn off the telly with them. You can't cook with them. You can't wipe your ass with them.

Killing or injuring people with a gun is easy. You can propably hide two guns (or more) inside your jacket.
Killing people with a spear is not easy. And you can't really hide it, since it's ******* big. People will notice.
Cannons might be able to take out a couple of people at once (?), but if some dude rolls up one of these to a school, loads it and starts firing I will ******* salute him. 'Cause that takes some dedication.
Swords are tricky, since they come in different sizes. I am sure there's some way of hiding them in a coat though. But yet again: they aren't really easy to kill people with.
Knives you say? Easy to hide (you can probably hide a total of twenty knives on your body), but when it comes to killing it fails. It's really hard to kill with a knife (= less people will die if some dude goes nuts with a knife).

I'd guess that most people who buy swords and spears are collectors, history buffs, fantasy nerds, etc. They want something cool to put on their wall.
Sure, some dudes are probably thinking "If someone breaks in to my house, I can use it for protection", but nowadays they aren't specifically built for that purpose. They are built for decoration.
And you can't really buy a sword or spear and go "Hey, I'm gonna carry this around for protection. If some asshole starts messing with me, I'll spear his ass!"

A lot of people who buy guns buy them for protection (and yes, I know that there's gun collectors just as well as there's people who collect swords).
Guns are small, so you can carry them in your handbag, in your jeans, your jacket, etc.
People hide guns in their house so they can shoot anybody who comes in.
And that's their main purpose. When people buy a gun they think "If somebody starts some **** with me, I'll shoot them. I'm gonna carry this with me wherever I go", or "If someone breaks in to my house I'll kill them".
Their main purpose is death.
Guns are connected to death.
Swords and spears are connected with collectors, history, etc.

Knives are small, deadly, bla bla bla.
But they have another purpose. A knife is supposed to be used for cooking and a lot of other things. Its main purpose isn't death.

[snarl]

Ob, you're talking bollocks mate.

I've seen loads of people light their fags with a gun:



There's no real point holding this debate, you couldn't convince a gun nut that easily obtainable guns are a significant factor behind the States' high death rate even if you were holding a gun to his head.

They'd probably just start snogging it.

For that reason, I say we should just shoot them. They'd possibly thank you for it.

[Obfleur]

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Lets be clear here.

If that lad couldnt walk into a shop and buy a gun, then 32 people would still be alive right now.

In coloumbine, same deal, the kids had easy access to guns.

the list go on and on...


Its very simple, there is no argument at all, in the slightest way possible. 10000+ people died in the US last year, more will die this year. 30'000 got injured, more will be injured this year.

This shooting in the school will happen again! you cant defend that point of view.

How can you find a moral argument when only in the US do you suffer the same problem over and over and over and over and over and over again?

If I keep banging your head against a wall, will you never tell me to stop?

and finnaly.


Do not bring into the argument that without guns, they would find other means. No they wont, have you actually, like, checked the rest of the western world?

hmm lets see, Knives. nope, i cant find a knife attack that killed 10000 last ppl last year.
Spears, ditto,
Clubs, ditto,
ok, maybe this one. Bombs.
wel [composite word including 'f*ck'] me, get this, only in ******* Iraq does it get close!!!! think about that!

There is no argument, hand guns, automatic weapons etc should be banned. from public use, or at the very least impose similar laws like we do here in the UK. and the rest of europe. there is simply no argument you can post that will save 10'000 lives in the US every year. try it, ill just say 30 kids, your argument instantly fails.

Now, get off your butts, stop treating your backward constitution like its the word of ******* god. at least read it properly. and change the way your country is run.

Seriously, wake up, this 2007, not 1890 in the wild west.

[Blacksword]

I'm going to give some specific examples as to how gun control could have at the very least make this recent tragedy less severe:

from the CBC's Henry Champ
"in 2004, the assault weapons ban enacted by the Bill Clinton administration expired. That expiration included the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, which allow as many as 33 cartridges to be loaded at a time to allow more rapid fire. The pistols used in Norris Hall had those high-capacity clips, which greatly increased Cho Seung-Hui's firepower."

Are you going to tell me that it's your constitutional right to own high capacity magazines, whose only purpose is to allow a gunman to kill a lot of people very quickly without having to reload?

Or how about the fact that in many states, Virginia in particular, you can go to a gun show and by a gun no questions asked: "Even a bill that would have closed a loophole allowing guns to be sold at gun shows without background checks was successfully fought off by the National Rifle Association. Some of these gun shows are often no more that a series of tables in a farmer's yard where gun enthusiasts barter and trade weapons, and where exotic equipment such as silencers, night scopes and assault rifles can change hands."

Now Cho didn't get his Glock from one of these 'gun shows' but with these sorts of events going on any whack job can get a gun. Is it a constitutional right to obtain a gun without having reasonable checks to determine if you're not mentally unbalanced or a criminal?

An you certainly wouldn't want a registry either: "What is known is that when Cho signed his application at the gun shop to buy a Glock 19 handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition, he left blank the question that asked whether he ever been treated or examined for mental illness. There was no registry giving the gun shop owner that information because a registry had been rejected in Congress by pro-gun supporters."

A registry and a waiting period to allow a proper background check would have made it a lot harder for someone with a known history of mental illness who had been reported to the police several times to get a gun.
But that might allow the government to block citizens who must have their right to firearms from buying them... But since there is no registry and Virgina leaves next to no time for a background check, all the gun shop owner had to go on was the fact that "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid." But nah you should let gun shop owners rely on reading people's minds to see if they should have their constitutional right.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Yes I have to agree with this - lets ignore why guns should be banned and focus on the utter stupidity of the US gun laws.

Its clear now that Cho, has a record, has mental illness, had been picked up by police, had stood in front of a Judge.

and the one thing that stopped him from buying a gun was this.

"Do you have a criminal record" yes, or No ? - Cho, being the clever dick he is, and lets be clear here, he out-smarted the US gov. answered. NO.

Well done NRA!

Al-queda, Osama bin Laden himself, and his entire cohort of generals could walk into a store, buy every gun, go on a ******* killing spree, but thats ok...