At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

Steve 41oo wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
How do you commit mass murder with rat poison?

Are you really asking that question?
Yes would you like to answer it?

Put it in food......
Inject people with it......
Poison a water supply.....
I would imagine you could make a rat posion bomb.....

I'm sure if I were even more twisted I could think of several more.

In the links I provided to you there were several examples of ACTUAL instances where people used RP to mass murder people. And severel more where RP was used as a serial murder spree. A simple google link will take you to many more if you're interested.

0 Replies

Quote:

The FACT also remains that if ONE of those students had a deadly hand gun, then this incident would have ended with far fewer deaths.

That is not a FACT it is mere SPECULATION.

The FACT is that ONE of the students DID HAVE a deadly hand gun-

and he shot 32 of his fellows.

If you seriously believe that prevention of incidents like this will be effected by arming teachers students and school children with concealed weapons, then I really do doubt your sanity.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Quote:
The FACT also remains that if ONE of those students had a deadly hand gun, then this incident would have ended with far fewer deaths.

That is not a FACT it is mere SPECULATION.

The FACT is that ONE of the students DID HAVE a deadly hand gun-

and he shot 32 of his fellows.

If you seriously believe that prevention of incidents like this will be effected by arming teachers students and school children with concealed weapons, then I really do doubt your sanity.

The PROBLEM is that ONLY 1 of the students had a gun.

My sanity is fine. I live in the real world where I understand that to protect myself TODAY and those kids in the school THIS week we need to have the same weapons that those who would commit a crime against us have.

I'll repeat because you don't seem to have an answer. There are 240 million guns in the US and WIDE open borders to import more should there ever be a ban. Here's another way of looking at the number that may help illustrate this for you. 240,000,000 guns.

You're right, IF there were not 240,000,000 guns already in the US then this kid would not have used a gun to commit his murder, but that is the worst kind of hypothetical, since IN NO WAY is that the case in America.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
How do you commit mass murder with rat poison?

Are you really asking that question?
Yes would you like to answer it?

Put it in food......
Inject people with it......
Poison a water supply.....
I would imagine you could make a rat posion bomb....

enough of your imaginings.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Quote:
The FACT also remains that if ONE of those students had a deadly hand gun, then this incident would have ended with far fewer deaths.

That is not a FACT it is mere SPECULATION.

The FACT is that ONE of the students DID HAVE a deadly hand gun-

and he shot 32 of his fellows.

If you seriously believe that prevention of incidents like this will be effected by arming teachers students and school children with concealed weapons, then I really do doubt your sanity.

And I did NOT say school CHILDREN as you propose I did. I said these COLLEGE ADULTS over the legal age of 21.

You're being deceptive on purpose becuase you KNOW deep down that my argument is RIGHT. If one OTHER student had a gun the chances are much greater that far fewer than 32 students would have died. You know it. It's like the example a few months/years ago where a guy went into a police station and murdered 2 cops out of the blue, if those cops weren't armed then he probably would have murdered all 10-20 of them, but since cops ARE armed, he only murdered 2.

0 Replies

I'll add that it is a sad state of affairs when the ONLY logical solution to this recent problem that would have worked IS more guns. It's very unfortunate that in the US people feel that crime is a good alternative to the normal way of life. The problem is not guns though, the problem is social; poverty, lack of options, expensive secondary education, racism, public school funding, health care, etc.

Fix those problems and you most of these problems, not all, and maybe not even this one, but most.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

the problem is social; poverty, lack of options, expensive secondary education, racism, public school funding, health care, etc.

Fix those problems and you most of these problems, not all, and maybe not even this one, but most.

I agree. Can we talk about this more?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Quote:
The FACT also remains that if ONE of those students had a deadly hand gun, then this incident would have ended with far fewer deaths.

That is not a FACT it is mere SPECULATION.

The FACT is that ONE of the students DID HAVE a deadly hand gun-

and he shot 32 of his fellows.

If you seriously believe that prevention of incidents like this will be effected by arming teachers students and school children with concealed weapons, then I really do doubt your sanity.

And I did NOT say school CHILDREN as you propose I did. I said these COLLEGE ADULTS over the legal age of 21.

You're being deceptive on purpose becuase you KNOW deep down that my argument is RIGHT. If one OTHER student had a gun the chances are much greater that far fewer than 32 students would have died.

I'm pointing out the flaws in your argument, not resorting to deception. OK so one OTHER student, over 21, well versed in using a hand gun, pulls his weapon and bingo...he turns out to be Chung's accomplice. Its equally valid speculation.

Your argument, in a nutshell seems to be this. Because guns are out there, firearms must be available at all times in case of attack. And if you are alone, you should always carry a gun. Because if you are not armed you are vulnerable. And the most vulnerable in society must arm themselves or have armed guards. So everyone carries a gun, and because of this no one gets shot.

Well why dont you try it?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Well why dont you try it?

When I lived in Arizona I DID. Now that I live in Illinois I CAN'T. And THATs the problem.

0 Replies

steve

Quote:

If you seriously believe that prevention of incidents like this will be effected by arming teachers students and school children with concealed weapons, then I really do doubt your sanity.

. The fact that an unarmed target population, faced by an armed assailant , have NO CHANCES. If one of the teachers were armed, then they would have a chance .
I dont think anyone said arming children ws in the equation, nor was arming students. If a classrrom is to be a safe haven then, at universities, a random population of armed "Class guards " may be a solution.

Perhaps training and arming teachers with tazers. . No, for the time being, while we are in a "disarmament transition period" we should consider armed plain clothes guards who sit in on classes or wander the campus with earphone communications.
This may be neede3d because I fear that the next gunman is already justifying his narcissistic antisocial behavior with the same demented manifesto as Cho. He was obviously one sick kid, and weve not been successful at any kind of interdiction (I still believe that the police's mission statements should be modified to involve interdiction and deviant-behavior psychology).

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Your argument, in a nutshell seems to be this. Because guns are out there, firearms must be available at all times in case of attack. And if you are alone, you should always carry a gun. Because if you are not armed you are vulnerable. And the most vulnerable in society must arm themselves or have armed guards. So everyone carries a gun, and because of this no one gets shot.

Not all firearms, and not to everybody.

The other alternative is a complete round-up of all existing weapons in the US and a completle lockdown of our borders to stop the flow of illegal weapons. If that can EVER happen then great. Somehow I highly doubt it's possible in my lifetime.

I would love to live in a world where there are no guns. I'd truly love it. It would be Utopia. Unfortunately that world does not exist.

0 Replies

Steve is right, and also wrong imo.

If no-one has a gun, then no-one gets shot. But it is impossible to simplify the system down to that, it's way too f*cked up, and there are millions and millions of guns in circulation in the USA.

It would take something like two or three generation to regulate the situation, even if everyone would agree on the best way forward, and they won't agree.

I would like to know, with the information about this man which is coming out today, why it is so easy over there for a dangerous psychopath to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

People can obtain guns in this country, but the need has to be established, and the weapon registered with the Police, and kept in a gun safe. No "licence to carry" is available.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Well why dont you try it?

When I lived in Arizona I DID. Now that I live in Illinois I CAN'T. And THATs the problem.

When I said you I meant plural. Are you saying in Arizona, everyone carries a weapon, and there is no gun crime? Just reading about Cho's video and stuff sent to NBC. Leaving aside the fact that there appears to be gross incompetence on behalf of Virginia Tech police...Cho photographing himself mixing spaghetti and rat poison between poisoning rampages would not be as dramatic as him dressed in combat gear and waving a Glock 9mm in each hand would it?

Sooner or later (and it will be too late for many) Americans will have to change their attitude towards guns. And if you felt good about yourself walking around in Arizona with a concealed handgun, then you my friend are part of the problem.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Steve is right, and also wrong imo.

Right.

We have a quite similar situation here, and 25,000 firearms in our county (330,000 inhabitants) according to the police website; more than 30 million in all Germany (according to the police as of today: they want stricter regulations).

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

TTH wrote:
Who cares what the English Common Law says. We go by the Constitution.

English Common Law is the source of the rights in our Constitution.

This is not necessarily so. Although many of the concepts which underlie our rights as citizens in the Bill of Rights derive from concepts which were embodied in the English common law, the Constitution as promulgated before there were any amendments represents an almost complete departure from previous forms. The militia provides an excellent example, to which i allude because this discussion arises from the Second Amendment, which is itself a reference to a well-regulated militia. Blackstone says that people may have arms for self-defense, according to their condition and station. That is what lead St. George Tucker to comment on Blackstone's Commentaries to the effect that: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." Tucker, at least, recognized that one of the principle points of the Second Amendment is to assure that no one is restricted in their participation in the militia because of what is alleged to be their condition or station. This is something which handgun ownership proponents never like to admit or discuss, because they wish to interpret the amendment as authorizing their ownership of handguns, rather than being a bulwark against privileged particularism in militia membership.

The United States Constitution, and many of its amendments, are significant in political history precisely because they represent important divergences from previous law and governance.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Sooner or later (and it will be too late for many) Americans will have to change their attitude towards guns. And if you felt good about yourself walking around in Arizona with a concealed handgun, then you my friend are part of the problem.

I felt SAFER. I was SAFER.

Based on 2005 crime statistics, violent crime was lower in AZ than it was in IL per 100,000 people.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
No doubt you can build your own hand gun as you can build your own bomb but its a lot easier to buy a 9mm Glock from a shop in Roanoake. I repeat this tragedy would not have happened had he not had EASY ACCESS TO LETHAL WEAPONS. (And the idea that he could have taken captive and killed 30 odd students and teachers with a knife is ludicrous).
No more ludicrous than the thought that a 23 year old college student at a school the size of Virginia Tech needs to go to a store to buy a gun (anymore than he needs to go to a store to get drugs.)Further, any student bright enough to hack VT is bright enough to build a bomb that could dwarf this tragedy. Your contention is ridiculous.

Whereas your point is valid, it is only valid because of the state of the nation in these times with regard to guns. In the recent commentary, i have heard that there are 230,000,000 hand guns in the United States, and i have also heard even larger figures. I'll go with the low-end figure because it is appalling enough. After two hundred years of largely unrestricted gun-ownership, gun-manufacture, and gun-importation and smuggling, it certainly is easy to get your hands on a firearm, and it certainly is easy to get large amounts of ammunition. We live in a society that makes folk heroes of murderous sociopaths like "Wild Bill" Hickok and John Wesley Hardin. We glorify firearms (and before you object that you personally don't, enough do to make it a problem), and so many Americans holler that they need handguns to defend themselves from the criminals who have handguns. So the problem just doesn't get solved.

You also objected that i suggested that we take two hundred years to solve the problem. In fact, i said that it would take a hundred years to begin to get a handle on the problem, not two hundred years, but whether or not it takes one or two centuries, that is not a good reason not to do something. Just because the problem cannot be solved right away is not a good reason not to attempt to solve it. In a society with strict handgun controls, or an outright handgun ban, he would have found it much harder to have gotten two handguns, and much harder to get dozens of rounds of ammunition. At the very least, the scope of the tragedy could have been reduced.

As for those who say he could have used a knife or a bomb, Steve has already pointed out the absurdity of the contention that with a knife he could have murdered on the same scale. He very likely could not have killed on the same scale with a bomb, either, and the materials necessary to make a bomb such as the one used in Oklahoma City were so large in quantity, that the bomber needed a rental truck to get his bomb to the scene.

The point, and it is a good one, is that the scale of the tragedy is a direct product of the ease with which the shooter could get his hands on more than one handgun, and lots of ammunition.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Steve is right, and also wrong imo.

I agree with the first 50% of this... Smile

McTag wrote:

I would like to know, with the information about this man which is coming out today, why it is so easy over there for a dangerous psychopath to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

This is the only point I am making, I'm not saying get rid of all guns or arm everyone. You will always have nutters. And there will always be guns. But allowing nutters to legally buy guns is INSANE.

0 Replies

Quote:

I would like to know, with the information about this man which is coming out today, why it is so easy over there for a dangerous psychopath to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

Because the NRA and extreme gun proponents are so afraid of having their guns taken away they are willing to have dangerous psychopaths buy semi-automatics in order to preserve their precious "right to bear arms."

There are extreme beliefs on both sides of this debate in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with ordinary guns owned by people (perhaps background checks ought to be looked at more closely by congress) but I see no need for those semi-automatics or even more deadly arms being owned by ordinary people unless your job requires it and you are trained for it.

As far people being allowed to carry weapons on government or school property, are we really ready for our kids to be having sanctioned shootouts? Wouldn't that cause more harm than good in general?

Sure occasionally it might work out OK, but to me the potential for things going wrong, far out weighs the likelihood of people not trained in these kinds of dangerous situations where anything can happen being able disarm a person on a rampage.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Guns are available to Americans so that they may defend themselves against criminals, against their own goverment, and against foreign invaders. It's unfortunate that the ability to defend one's person and family also confers the ability to attack innocent people, but it doesn't negate the first right. This stuff has been debated since the Founding Fathers first deliberately inserted recognition of this right into our constitution. Furthermore, the right cannot be repealed, unless the constitution is changed, which I hope doesn't happen.

Background checks of those attempting to purchase guns are a very good thing, but this particular shooter had no criminal record, and I doubt one could ban everyone who'd sought psychiatric help from buying guns.

Nowhere does the constitution confer on you the right to own firearms to protect yourself against criminals. That being noted, the argument that you need handguns for that purpose is one of the reasons that we are unable to do anything about this, in the face of handgun proponents and the inordinately powerful NRA lobby.

As for the contention that we need guns to repel invasions or to protect ourselves from government tyranny, that's about the most absurd of arguments advanced for gun ownership, but particularly for the ownership of handguns. If we are invaded, just how much good do you think you can do with a handgun. If the government comes for you, with officers in body armor and helmets, carrying machine pistols, tear-gas grenade launchers, and riding in armored vehicles, are you going to stop them with your Smith and Wesson? Get real.

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to arm the militia, and to prescribe their training and discipline. The 1903 Dick Act made the organized militias a part of the Federal military establishment as the National Guard, leaving all other "militia members" part of an unorganized militia. The Second Amendment applies to a well regulated militia, and there is no reason to assume that the government cannot use it's powers to regulate the firearms which members of the unorganized militia are allowed to bear. It was the First Congress, by the way, who wrote the Second Amendment, and not the "Founding Fathers." It doesn't require the repeal of the Second Amendment to regulate handguns. All claims that handguns are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, or that they could effectively be used to repel invasions or defy in arms a tyrannical government would be laughably absurd, were it not for tragedies such as this.

As a matter of fact, many states, Virginia included, do restrict gun ownership for those who have been evaluated as a psychiatric risk. Even if that were not true, it's hardly a reasonable argument against implementing such a practice.

0 Replies

At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know