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

maporsche wrote:

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

E.g. Phoenix and Tucson: rates for these cities not only surpass the violent crime rate in other Arizona cities and the rate for the state of Arizona, they are also substantially higher than the violent crime rate for the United States - as is the violent crime of the state, too.

But that just as an aside.

Carrying guns as a kind of criminal prevention seems to be .... well, "an unusual idea" for most Europeans.

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

Linkat wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Linkat wrote:
I would imagine even in Canada that the amoured trucks picking up/ delivering money have hand guns, for example.

I don't know about Canada but over here in Finland and Sweden value transports are unarmed, so as to protect the drivers. Instead hi tech materials and equipment are used to make it as difficult as possible to get to the money and as easy as possible to track it (and thus the criminals). Hold ups do occur, but no one generally gets hurt (in the past five years as far as I know, only one victim, a robber who was shot by the police).

Interesting - I am all for using high tech over guns. I suppose though in my cousins case of a small business, the cost could be too high. If there is a possible feasible solution over guns, I am completely in support of it.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

TTH wrote:
How do you know? Maybe he would have used knives or even a bomb.

Remember, he's been traced now to several bomb threats recently received by the campus community.

He may have contemplated using a knife on his victims, since in one of his papers, he mentions cutting throats side-to-side.

I agree that in this particular case, he would have used another means - however, limiting guns could potentially defer some crimes. I would think that situations like these, however, the individual seems so deranged and focused on his goal, he would find another means.

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.

And just like how a group of terrorists were able to take over a plane with box cutters.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

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.

So, with that out of the way you need to look at other solutions to have stopped this shooting. My solution, either a) allow the teachers/students to conceal carry, or b) allow the teachers to conceal carry, or c) metal detectors at every entrance.

This is the most stupid argument advanced since this incident. Imagine (and it doesn't take very much imagination for this scenario) what would likely occur if you had armed people running around campus when such an incident occurs. Johnny whips out his pistol, someone runs around the corner, and BANG, he's dead. Oh . . . he's not he shooter? Oops, sorry. Another kid runs out of a classroom to escape the shooter, so Johnny cuts him down. Oh . . . he's not the shooter, either? Oops . . . sorry. Johnny runs outside because he hears the siren and wants to direct the police to the scene of the crime. The police see a guy with a gun in his hand, and he goes down in a hail of bullets from people better armed and better trained to use their firearms. What, we killed Johnny, and not the shooter? Oops . . . sorry.

This has got to be the most witless claim that the gun nut lobby is making right now. You may not be a member of the gun nut lobby, but we had a thread making just this claim within a few hours of the news of the shootings. Even experienced gun handlers can make horrible mistakes--when "Wild Bill" Hickok, as a lawman, shot down the saloon owner Phil Coe in Abilene, his deputy came running into the saloon to his aid, and Hickok spun around and shot him dead. Yet you want to claim that a bunch of yops with no experience and no training can run around a large university campus with firearms, and be expected to reliably end such an incident despite that lack of training and experience. What utter tommyrot.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

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.

Well if you have to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona to feel safe, I understand why you moved. (Surely the citizen has the right to feel safe without being armed...isnt that the contract with State or Federal authority? Don't they have an obligation to provide protection for the ordinary law abiding and tax paying citizen? Or is it still the wild west out there?...except of course you must pay the tax regardless)

0 Replies

Summary findings
Victimization

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.

Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, 1993-2005

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.

Nonfatal firearm-related violent victimization rate, 1993-2005

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

Percent of violent crimes involving firearms, 1993-2005

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

For more information about weapons used in homicide see:
- Weapons Section of Homicide Trends in the United States
- State and Local Homicide Trends and Characteristics in Data Online.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96
Compares crime in the United States and England with respect to crime rates (as measured both by victimization surveys and police statistics), conviction rates, incarceration rates, and length of sentences. Crime rates as measured in victim surveys are all higher in England than the United States. Crime rates as measured in police statistics are higher in England for half of the measured crime types. A person committing serious crime in the United States is generally more likely than one in England to be caught, convicted, and incarcerated. Incarceration sentences are also generally longer in the United States than England. 9/98. NCJ 169284

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm

Just some interesting facts.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

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."

You haven't read the thread. This particular case has NOTHING to do with the big-boogyman NRA.

There are, and have been since the 1930s, laws on the books in every state as well as Federal laws, that prohibit the sale of any firearms to anyone that has ever been involuntarily committed to a mental facility.

There are also processes where the people that get the commitment orters and run those facilities are supposed to report who has been committed so that they would be identified if they attempt to buy firearms.

Cho had been involuntarily committed to a mental facility. The courts and/or mental health facilities didn't do their jobs and ensure that his information got into the proper reporting systems. Where, exactly, things broke down has yet to be determined but the fact is that it never got into the NCIC system.

There is, as always, plenty of blame to go around but right now the big onus is on the people that failed to do their jobs and properly report this guy. The background check was done. The guns were purchased from licensed dealers. The "gun industry" did it's job in full compliance with every law we have. The legal and/or medical industries failed to do theirs.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Well if you have to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona to feel safe, I understand why you moved. (Surely the citizen has the right to feel safe without being armed...isnt that the contract with State or Federal authority? Don't they have an obligation to provide protection for the ordinary law abiding and tax paying citizen? Or is it still the wild west out there?...except of course you must pay the tax regardless)

No such right exists anywhere in the U.S. In fact, the prevailing court precedents say that the government (i.e. the police) has no obligation to protect anyone.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Just some interesting facts.

Violent crime - British Crime Survey data

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Well if you have to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona to feel safe, I understand why you moved. (Surely the citizen has the right to feel safe without being armed...isnt that the contract with State or Federal authority? Don't they have an obligation to provide protection for the ordinary law abiding and tax paying citizen? Or is it still the wild west out there?...except of course you must pay the tax regardless)

No such right exists anywhere in the U.S. In fact, the prevailing court precedents say that the government (i.e. the police) has no obligation to protect anyone.

I was about to say the same thing.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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

E.g. Phoenix and Tucson: rates for these cities not only surpass the violent crime rate in other Arizona cities and the rate for the state of Arizona, they are also substantially higher than the violent crime rate for the United States - as is the violent crime of the state, too.

But that just as an aside.

Carrying guns as a kind of criminal prevention seems to be .... well, "an unusual idea" for most Europeans.

It's unusual for Europeans because most of your population is pretty un-armed. Ours isn't.

And as far as your facts about Phoenix/Tucson. No kidding. Every big city has higher crime than the national average. Chicago has higher crime than the national average, and that WITH a FULL BAN on hand guns.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

This is all pure speculation. I seriously doubt he would have had any difficulty obtaining a gun illegally had he been turned down at the store. VERY seriously. Bombs are not difficult to make for anyone who can follow a cake recipe, and rental trucks aren't difficult to get your hands on either. Oklahoma City is a pretty spectacular example... as a suicide bomber wouldn't require nearly that blast to kill as many people as this kid could realistically expect to Rambo style. In an ideal world; I too would like there to be no guns. I do my part by not owning one (though this may change when I get older or wiser or weaker or something).

Regardless of what new legislation is passed; this will come up again. I would agree arming students would likely prove more problematic in retaliation against bullies (not that crazy, unlikely scenario you described). On the other hand; arming Teachers on a volunteer basis, perhaps with a comprehensive training program... sounds pretty sound to me. I see no immediate solution to "bad people have guns" so some evening out of the odds does seem to be in order. Take that Israeli professor who bravely ate bullets so most of his students could escape. Surely he'd have had a 50/50 of taking dude out had he been armed.

Aside: I also think this kid's kill quotient is a highly unlikely anomaly. It is only chance that of all the potential victims, no one or group during the 15 minutes of their fight or flight mechanisms going bananas defaulted to FIGHT! I would assume the lone nut would generally be taken out by a chair or a T-Square or something before dozens lay dead. Worst kind of luck, that.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Based on 2005 crime statistics, violent crime was lower in AZ than it was in IL per 100,000 people.

E.g. Phoenix and Tucson: rates for these cities not only surpass the violent crime rate in other Arizona cities and the rate for the state of Arizona, they are also substantially higher than the violent crime rate for the United States - as is the violent crime of the state, too.

But that just as an aside.

Carrying guns as a kind of criminal prevention seems to be .... well, "an unusual idea" for most Europeans.

It's unusual for Europeans because most of your population is pretty un-armed. Ours isn't.

Having lived in Germany for 4.5 years , I can tell you that it is much more than just a matter of not having firearms. It's been a while since I lived over there but it is an entire quantum shift in mentality as far as what government is, what the government's responsibilities are and what the individuals rigyts and responsibilities are.

Guns, pro or con, are a very minute part of the overall difference in mindset.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Having lived in Germany for 4.5 years , I can tell you that it is much more than just a matter of not having firearms. It's been a while since I lived over there but it is an entire quantum shift in mentality as far as what government is, what the government's responsibilities are and what the individuals rigyts and responsibilities are.

Guns, pro or con, are a very minute part of the overall difference in mindset.

That may be. I've never been to Europe so I really couldn't say for sure, just offering one difference I noticed.

0 Replies

You may call that "mentality". Here, it's called concept/idea of a state.

0 Replies

Media
I am so angry at the Media who are putting ratings before the common good---again.

They have repeatedly been advised by a number of experts not to show the Cho pictures and only carefully reporting on his writings and rantings. They fear the making a martyr of Cho will energize other copycat psychotic potential killers to try to beat Cho's record of 32 kills. When these experts are interviewed on TV, the talking head responds that they make a good point. Then they proceed to do exactly what the experts warned they should not do.

Is this stupidity or do ratings trump everything?

BBB

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Aside: I also think this kid's kill quotient is a highly unlikely anomaly. It is only chance that of all the potential victims, no one or group during the 15 minutes of their fight or flight mechanisms going bananas defaulted to FIGHT! I would assume the lone nut would generally be taken out by a chair or a T-Square or something before dozens lay dead. Worst kind of luck, that.

This is speculation as "pure" as you assert my remarks to have been.

Nevertheless, my point is that the scope of the tragedy could easily have been much smaller had it not been so easy to get handguns and ammunition. This joker pumped off at least 60 rounds, and reports that he shot some victims more than once, and in one case fired several times through a door which had been barricaded against him, suggest that he may have fired 100 or more rounds. It is easy to get a handgun now, because of the character of the firearms situation in the United States. With strict controls, in place over a long period of time, it would not necessarily be as easy or cheap to get one, never mind two, handguns, with a large quantity of ammunition. As for that old professor who held off the gunman until his students escaped, you choose that example to bring out the "if they had been armed" dodge, which has cropped up frequently since this incident. That assumes that he would have been competent to use it effectively and quickly on short notice, which is more pure speculation. Furthermore, the argument advanced by many handgun ownership proponents is that handgun controls doomed these students because they could not defend themselves. That, too, is only speculation, and ignores just how crazy the situation would likely have gotten if there were several shooters rather than just one. How many innocent bystanders would have been killed or wounded by other, armed "innocent bystanders?" How many armed "innocent bystanders" would have been shot down by the police if they arrived to find what would have been apparent to them as multiple shooters? How do you tell the good guys from the bad guy without a score card? Should they wear white hats when they go around with a gun in their pocket? That's really not well-thought-out at all. Having a lot of other armed people around would very likely only have vastly increased the chaos and uncertainty for all involved.

But you're choosing to ignore my central point, which is that this situation arises from unfettered gun use and ownership over a long period of time, and a culture which happens to glorify murderous psychopaths. It will take a long, long time to change that--but the inability to solve the problem immediately is not a good reason not to attempt to solve the problem, even knowing it could take a long, long time.

I'm no fool, though--i understand that likely nothing effective will be done, because handgun owners who are or allege themselves to be "law-abiding citizens" and the NRA represent a powerful lobby, whose particular interest will be to see that nothing is done about the proliferation of handguns.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see no immediate solution to "bad people have guns" so some evening out of the odds does seem to be in order.

And this is the main point surrounding what we should do today to stop these incidents from happening. Arm the teachers if they choose, place plain clothes officers in classrooms or on campus, arm the adult college students if they qualify after taking extra training or psyche exams. Taking away more guns today WILL NOT stop these things from happening for hundreds of years.

Set, while I agree with A LOT of what you are saying, and again, I hope we get there. I REFUSE to be a victim of violent crime. Maybe I'm succumbing to the fear mongering that is our government and news channels, but it is what it is.

0 Replies

Setanta
What is really pissing me off is that no reports by the college, the psych. hospital, etc. were reported to the federal authorities keep the list of people who should not be allowed to buy guns. The gun dealer said he checked the list and Cho's name was not on it.

I realize Cho could have bought guns off the street, but I consider it a failure of government that legal gun dealers didn't know Cho was psychotic.

BBB

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know