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

Gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns and disarming the law-abiding would prove disastrous.

We don't (like the British and others) expect the State to protect us 100%, and we'd be stupid (as were they) to let it disarm us.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
Ah, but he in particular had trouble talking, he might have had trouble buying a street gun. But I get your point, O'Bill.
He didn't seem to have any trouble talking to the people he bought them from. Why should another be any harder?

Different scenarios, but, yeah, he might not have had trouble, except by his own various gates of access. I take it that street stuff was not his world. He just might have been intimidated by the street. (Were I him, I sure would be.)

I'll admit I think he was probably autistic, not a for sure thing in many reports. I did see one about a pastor suggesting it to the mother and her not apparently acting to seek help; given her background, I can see her not doing that. Aidan argues against autistic on another thread, but I think his early days were at least autism related.

(I also worry autism will be connected to all this in the media, and generate ridiculous fear.)

Some report I read said that when he hit his sister when they were children, it was with amazing intensity. Well, they could say that about a lot of children, I dunno. But it might have been true, too. Surely I don't know. I don't have a link on that, somewhere around two days ago.

I also wonder about clues for psychopathy, including dropped written notes about violence in his middle school years.

He might have been a boy with both problems, autism and some psychopathy, also dealing with taunts at the same time he was, individually, quite unattached. Thinking, lost child in a lost world.
Not that I defend his choices, am trying to get a clue..

There's a word I use once in a while without researching the meaning of, that is, inchoate. I think of him as inchoate.

I also see the sister, learning now through the media, that her mother wished it was the boy who went to Princeton.

It's difficult to get a handle on. Do we want to rope people up with tags? Never mind about guns, but just generally, especially given seemingly profligating diagnoses?

Maybe we do, given indicators. An indicator table? I don't know, right now, if that is a good idea or extremely creepy. I veer to the creepy, but have just been commenting towards it.

0 Replies

I'm not saying he could or would have gotten a gun anyway, because I couldn't know... but I do find it probable. However; stating that it wouldn't have happened had the pawn shop turned him down, authoritatively no less, IS ridiculous.

My limited exposure to autism leads me to believe that theory makes no sense either. Autism seems to be denoted by a lack of emotion and this kid clearly had an overload of emotion. I can understand how it would help him calmly do something so monstrous; but it just doesn't figure that he would. My friend's autistic child will cry when they leave just like any other kid, but will forget they exist for some "fries" (McDonald's ONLY and I mean ONLY).

0 Replies

I've no immediate answers, other than some opinions on apparent ease of gun buying. I think talk is useful. There are a lot of cobwebs out there...

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

xingu wrote:
What we need are stricter gun control laws. If there are those who disagree with that than what is the alternative?

Laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

Illegal gun owners already do this.

I asked for an alternative. Neither you or hokiebird gave me one. So I assume you have none. I do; stricter gun control laws. If you have a better idea lets hear it.

Whining about abolition of guns in not an idea but a whine.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

Gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns and disarming the law-abiding would prove disastrous.

We don't (like the British and others) expect the State to protect us 100%, and we'd be stupid (as were they) to let it disarm us.

British people do not expect the State to protect them "100%", its not possible for a start. But we do expect government to pass laws generally for the good of public safety. We expect to live in a society where it is possible to go about one's daily business without the fear of being shot, and where carrying a handgun for protection is not necessary. I do not see what is stupid about that.

0 Replies

I heard on the Chris Matthews show this weekend someone say that the gun control debate was over in America - and those for stricter controls have lost... but that other countries look at us and think we're insane to no longer seriously discuss it, with events like this latest going on.

0 Replies

Quote:

Newt Gingrich blames "Liberalism" for VA Tech massacre if you look at the fact that we refuse to say that we are, in fact, endowed by our creator, that our rights come from God, that if you kill somebody, you're committing an act of evil.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/22/newt-gingrich-blames-liberalism-on-va-tech-massacre/

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I heard on the Chris Matthews show this weekend someone say that the gun control debate was over in America - and those for stricter controls have lost... but that other countries look at us and think we're insane to no longer seriously discuss it, with events like this latest going on.

It certainly looks insane from here. But then I dont think its collective madness, I think there are powerful vested interests in America who are keen to close down rational debate on this issue, fearing the inevitable conclusion.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

snood wrote:
I heard on the Chris Matthews show this weekend someone say that the gun control debate was over in America - and those for stricter controls have lost... but that other countries look at us and think we're insane to no longer seriously discuss it, with events like this latest going on.
It certainly looks insane from here. But then I dont think its collective madness, I think there are powerful vested interests in America who are keen to close down rational debate on this issue, fearing the inevitable conclusion.

You're wrong. Most of the political Left won't touch it, because the majority of Americans don't want it. Russert's round table discussed it last night, and seemed in agreement that it won't be an issue because it doesn't help Democrats. Until they put a Democrat in the Oval office; don't look for any action because they won't risk the political fallout from bringing a bill the people don't want and the President won't sign.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
snood wrote:
I heard on the Chris Matthews show this weekend someone say that the gun control debate was over in America - and those for stricter controls have lost... but that other countries look at us and think we're insane to no longer seriously discuss it, with events like this latest going on.
It certainly looks insane from here. But then I dont think its collective madness, I think there are powerful vested interests in America who are keen to close down rational debate on this issue, fearing the inevitable conclusion.
You're wrong. Most of the political Left won't touch it, because the majority of Americans don't want it. Russert's round table discussed it last night, and seemed in agreement that it won't be an issue because it doesn't help Democrats. Until they put a Democrat in the Oval office; don't look for any action because they won't risk the political fallout from bringing a bill the people don't want and the President won't sign.

Well in that case if the American people love their guns so much, perhaps it is collective madness. Either that or cowardice on behalf of political leadership.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
snood wrote:
I heard on the Chris Matthews show this weekend someone say that the gun control debate was over in America - and those for stricter controls have lost... but that other countries look at us and think we're insane to no longer seriously discuss it, with events like this latest going on.
It certainly looks insane from here. But then I dont think its collective madness, I think there are powerful vested interests in America who are keen to close down rational debate on this issue, fearing the inevitable conclusion.
You're wrong. Most of the political Left won't touch it, because the majority of Americans don't want it. Russert's round table discussed it last night, and seemed in agreement that it won't be an issue because it doesn't help Democrats. Until they put a Democrat in the Oval office; don't look for any action because they won't risk the political fallout from bringing a bill the people don't want and the President won't sign.
Well in that case if the American people love their guns so much, perhaps it is collective madness. Either that or cowardice on behalf of political leadership.

It's a cultural thing with America. Guns is a symbol of strength. Americans still admire the values of the independent frontiersman who made his own law and order. Cattle rustlers and horse thieves were hanged without much ceremony and John Wayne backed down from no one, as long as he had a gun on his hip.

Those days are long gone but Americans still dream about them. In my generation I grew up watching westerns. A good example today is Kevin Costner's last western 'Open Range" made in 2003. The sherriff was the bad guy and the good guys cleaned up the bad guys in a big gunfight. I loved the movie but it's this type of mentality that supports gun ownership. People in America can't accept that 300 million people in America today is nothing like the Wild West of the 1870's. It's an American tradition to look after yourself and that means you own a gun.

Girlie men ask the government to help them.

It's a vicious circle in America. Americans don't want to give up their right to own guns and the gun lobby resist every attempt at gun control. The result is crazies like Cho being able to get guns and kill people. So what's the solution? Why more guns so you can defend yourself, like John Wayne did. The problem here is the guy who believed he was defending himself from abuse was Cho, not John Wayne.

And it goes on and on.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

maporsche wrote:
xingu wrote:
What we need are stricter gun control laws. If there are those who disagree with that than what is the alternative?

Laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

Illegal gun owners already do this.

I asked for an alternative. Neither you or hokiebird gave me one. So I assume you have none. I do; stricter gun control laws. If you have a better idea lets hear it.

Whining about abolition of guns in not an idea but a whine.

Ok, maybe you misread my post somehow so you could berate me. But let me rephrase.

MY ALTERNATIVE IS REMOVING laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

I don't know where I'm whining about abolition of guns. I strongly support my right to bear arms and I own 3 of them. What I have said is that I dream for a world where owning a firearm is not needed for protection, but we are far from there yet.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

MY ALTERNATIVE IS REMOVING laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

What does this have to do with VT? Cho would have been able to carry his weapons legally unless there were restrictions about carrying guns on campus.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

maporsche wrote:
MY ALTERNATIVE IS REMOVING laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

What does this have to do with VT? Cho would have been able to carry his weapons legally unless there were restrictions about carrying guns on campus.

Chances are good, but at least would have been greater, that someone else in the class/school would have been able to end the massacre before 32 people had to die if they were able to concealed carry.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
Gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns and disarming the law-abiding would prove disastrous.

We don't (like the British and others) expect the State to protect us 100%, and we'd be stupid (as were they) to let it disarm us.
British people do not expect the State to protect them "100%", its not possible for a start. But we do expect government to pass laws generally for the good of public safety. We expect to live in a society where it is possible to go about one's daily business without the fear of being shot, and where carrying a handgun for protection is not necessary. I do not see what is stupid about that.

There are millions of illegal guns in Britain and that number is growing. So is the violent crime rate, and the disarmed citizens are highly dependent upon law enforcement for protection. You gave up your right to protect yourselves, but we have not. We realize that once relinquished, that right won't be easily regained.

We're not so naive to think that any criminal anywhere will obey gun control laws.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

xingu wrote:
maporsche wrote:
MY ALTERNATIVE IS REMOVING laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

What does this have to do with VT? Cho would have been able to carry his weapons legally unless there were restrictions about carrying guns on campus.

Chances are good, but at least would have been greater, that someone else in the class/school would have been able to end the massacre before 32 people had to die if they were able to concealed carry.

You can't have students carrying guns on campus. Do you really think several thousand students, ages 19-22, are going to make a college campus safer if they carried guns everywhere?

Imagine guns at a basketball game with your chief rival defeating your team and rival fans jeering you?

Imagine drunken parties with guns and 20 year old students acting like macho men.

Imaging a girl breaking up with her boyfriend and he has a spurt of passionate anger.

The very last thing you want on college campuses are thousands of armed students.

If anyone on campus should be armed it should be the campus police. But even they looked pretty sad.

Fat men hiding behind trees.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, but that's just a buncha hyperbole. Cho couldn't have gotten a handgun if the BR check had just included mental health records along with criminal records. All that would have to happen is to include any kind of involuntary mental health treatment (and please see if you can restrain yourself from launching into another semantic game about what 'involuntary' reallymeans). No UN blue helmets confiscating all the good ole boys' guns, no re-enactment of Waco, nothing dramatic.

Actually, I agree that involuntary mental health treatment is an appropriate thing to evaluate when someone applies for a gun.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

There are millions of illegal guns in Britain and that number is growing. So is the violent crime rate, and the disarmed citizens are highly dependent upon law enforcement for protection. You gave up your right to protect yourselves, but we have not. We realize that once relinquished, that right won't be easily regained.

We're not so naive to think that any criminal anywhere will obey gun control laws.

And neither am I. So your solution to illegal weapons would be to make them all legal? The problem of too many guns in society is solved by selling more guns? Thats not just naive its silly. And dangerous. We have not given up any right to protect ourselves btw.

I really get the impression that for a lot of Americans the issue of gun control is not a hot button issue for reasons of public safety, or constitutional rights, but because they like playing with guns. On the other thread Farmerman said American society was immature. I wouldn't be so discourteous.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

maporsche wrote:
xingu wrote:
maporsche wrote:
MY ALTERNATIVE IS REMOVING laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.

What does this have to do with VT? Cho would have been able to carry his weapons legally unless there were restrictions about carrying guns on campus.

Chances are good, but at least would have been greater, that someone else in the class/school would have been able to end the massacre before 32 people had to die if they were able to concealed carry.

You can't have students carrying guns on campus. Do you really think several thousand students, ages 19-22, are going to make a college campus safer if they carried guns everywhere?

I believe you need to be over 21 to get a concealed carry permit. And I never specified students. Teachers or as you mentioned campus security is another alternative. And I'm curious why a college campus is much different than the pizza joint across the street of the college campus. Or the movie theater. Or all of the other places where people are allowed to CC.

Quote:

Imagine guns at a basketball game with your chief rival defeating your team and rival fans jeering you?

Imagine drunken parties with guns and 20 year old students acting like macho men.

Imaging a girl breaking up with her boyfriend and he has a spurt of passionate anger.

Imagine giving a lone gunman, with intent to kill, compelte access to hundreds of guarenteed unarmed citizens while they sit in a place that is supposed to be safe because a law was passed that said no guns allowed. Wait that happened, 32 dead remember.

Quote:

If anyone on campus should be armed it should be the campus police.

I agree.

Quote:

But even they looked pretty sad.

I agree with this as well, but I do not see another option that would have realistically worked for this school or these kids.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know