can't believe no one has mentioned this yet:
Virginia Tech massacre was a university campus shooting that took place on the morning of April 16, 2007 between approximately 7:15am and 9:45am in the United States. A total of 33 people, including the gunman, were shot and killed in two separate attacks on the campus of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia,[3] making it the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. At least two dozen other people were injured.
Cho Seung-hui, identified by authorities as the perpetrator, was a South Korean native who grew up in Virginia and a fourth-year English major at Virginia Tech. He committed suicide in Norris Hall, the second crime scene.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
I've been too angry to mention it. What is there to say about yet another damned American massacre? It seems that they'll keep on coming, regarless of how many there are, and no one seems to have learned anything. It's been seven years since Columbine. What's changed? We'll argue about school security and gun control for a while, and then forget about them until the next shooting.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 17, 2007, 04:16:21 PM
can't believe no one has mentioned this yet:
Yes, the Finnish hometheatre forum I an active in lauched this discussion about 28 hours ago!
Quote from: Joe Barron on April 17, 2007, 04:25:18 PM
It's been seven years since Columbine. What's changed?
NRA makes sure nothing will ever change. :-\
the korean guy is just stupid. He wrote a play, i read it, it's so hilarious, in a very chilling way.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 17, 2007, 05:08:55 PM
the korean guy is just stupid. He wrote a play, i read it, it's so hilarious, in a very chilling way.
I'm disappointed the killer was Korean. It's just sad that we rely on immigrants to carry on our most cherished traditions.
CIA should be extremely disappointed. The kid was from south-
Korea, so they can't even say that he has a dirty communist.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 17, 2007, 04:27:37 PM
NRA makes sure nothing will ever change. :-\
Thats the truth. So long as political parties here in the US accept massive campaign contributions from the NRA, there will never be a movement within Congress to tighten gun control.
BTW - the 2nd Amendment was adopted in the late 18th century when the "right to bear arms" meant owning a flintlock!
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 17, 2007, 05:08:55 PM
the korean guy is just stupid. He wrote a play, i read it, it's so hilarious, in a very chilling way.
Stupid and DEAD. At least he had the decency to off himself.
Quote from: Joe Barron on April 17, 2007, 04:25:18 PM
I've been too angry to mention it...........
Same as
Joe - for me, this is 'close to home' - I've often vactioned up I-81 (Shenandoah Vly - just a beautiful drive & place on this planet), location of Blacksburg. First, the tragedy of so many young people w/ promising futures lost because of a 'nut case' losing it all! As the names of these students (and faculty) are released over the next few days, this 'loss' will be even more deeply felt!
Second, I'm a faculty member in the Department of Radiology at Wake Forest University (School of Medicine) - we had a close relationship w/ Virginia Tech - School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (http://www.sbes.vt.edu/) - a wonderful 'joint' union initiated in part by Dr. Pete Santago (a Ph.D. member of our department), who is the Associate Director of this VA Tech school; the director, John Grant, Ph.D., was apparently shot in the shoulder but is doing well - this obviously is 'hitting home' for us here.
Blacksburg is just about 2 hrs up the road from us in Winston-Salem (North Carolina) - we love this trip - my wife & I will have a 'different feeling' when passing this university town on our future trips into Virginia (in fact, one is coming up in May) - not sure what else to say at this point - :'(
Supposedly his girlfriend cheated on him, or at least a girl he stalked ignored him, to the point where in his letter he wrote something to the effect that she made him do it. Anyway, I heard his father has already committed suicide, and the mother has attempted. This coming from a Korean friend who translated parts of a Korean web forum that has been used by members of the family's community. But I suppose it's as good as gossip until more information is released. --CS
One man with a handgun is actually a fairly easy thing for police or another armed civilian to stop (once they show up). Police do it all the time in every country in the world. What caused the VA Tech and Columbine cases to result in so many deaths is the decision by the police to leave the killers to finish their grisly plans. From the published time line this guy was allowed to systematically hunt down and execute people in Norris Hall for over 30 minutes, and even then the carnage wasn't stopped by the police but by the gunman killing himself and the students sensing the chance to escape the building. Otherwise, who knows; the police may have given him several hours to finish his monstrous business. What was the police commander thinking? "Thats it! I'll give him another half hour, but if he isn't done killing those kids by then I'm going to have to send some of you across campus to go stop him!"
But by all means, blame the CIA, NRA, Republicans, or whoever, so we can then start to craft national policy to tailor to the criminally insane and police departments who elect not to interrupt their massacre of helpless innocents.
Your comments appy to Columbine, where police did not enter the building until several hours after the shooters had killed themselves and one teacher bled to death waiting hours for help to arrive. This followed from police procedures which called for the establishment of a command post, etc, before anything gets done. However, a police official I heard on NPR reported that this event led to a change of basic police procedures. The new procedure, which it is claimed was followed in this case, calls for the first four officers who arrive on the scene to enter the building and move towards the sound of gunfire. I have not seen any official statement on how long it take police to engage the gunman, only reports of how long the gunfire went on from students who escaped (10 or 15 minutes was reported by the NY times) which I assume would be highly unreliable.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 05:08:17 AM
One man with a handgun is actually a fairly easy thing for police or another armed civilian to stop (once they show up). Police do it all the time in every country in the world. What caused the VA Tech and Columbine cases to result in so many deaths is the decision by the police to leave the killers to finish their grisly plans. From the published time line this guy was allowed to systematically hunt down and execute people in Norris Hall for over 30 minutes, and even then the carnage wasn't stopped by the police but by the gunman killing himself and the students sensing the chance to escape the building. Otherwise, who knows; the police may have given him several hours to finish his monstrous business. What was the police commander thinking? "Thats it! I'll give him another half hour, but if he isn't done killing those kids by then I'm going to have to send some of you across campus to go stop him!"
But by all means, blame the CIA, NRA, Republicans, or whoever, so we can then start to craft national policy to tailor to the criminally insane and police departments who elect not to interrupt their massacre of helpless innocents.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 05:08:17 AM
One man with a handgun is actually a fairly easy thing for police or another armed civilian to stop (once they show up). Police do it all the time in every country in the world.
not in mine
Quote from: Joe Barron on April 17, 2007, 04:25:18 PM
I've been too angry to mention it. What is there to say about yet another damned American massacre? It seems that they'll keep on coming, regarless of how many there are, and no one seems to have learned anything. It's been seven years since Columbine. What's changed? We'll argue about school security and gun control for a while, and then forget about them until the next shooting.
That seems to be the consensus view.
He killed a Holocaust survivor and one of America's leading authorities on cerebral palsy.
No matter, such sacrifices are necessary if the States are to maintain the democratic right to bear arms against, one assumes, an invader.
Every one of the gun-happy crowd at That Other Board is outdoing themselves in arguing that this tragedy could have been lessened had VT allowed professors and students to carry firearms on campus. What seems to be forgotten is that many of these killings occurred in a classroom. Even if guns had been allowed at VT, is it reasonable to assume students and professors would routinely carry a weapon each day to class? "Bill, you got everything you need for German class?" "Yeah, Frank - let's see now, books, pen, laptop, cell phone, gun. See you later, I'm off!"
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on April 18, 2007, 06:25:29 AM
Every one of the gun-happy crowd at That Other Board is outdoing themselves in arguing that this tragedy could have been lessened had VT allowed professors and students to carry firearms on campus.
That would be an instant recipe for disaster; a really dumb idea.
I do feel that the police and college administration handled things poorly. When the two students were killed in the dorm with the killer still on the loose, it was time to immediately shut down the college.
Have you noticed how the "officials" have been patting each other on the back (actually circling the wagons). I think that the law suits are going to fly and likely win.
Quote from: quintett op.57 on April 18, 2007, 05:51:21 AM
not in mine
Really? Do you mean that the police don't
ever confront someone with a handgun in your country? Or do you mean they do, but less often than police in the US?
The media's reporting of the killer being a Chinese student from Shanghai, with his name, alleged date of arrival, his website, is shockingly unprofessional. The young man has received hundreds of death threats, and his life made a mess. I can understand misreporting the Asian student being Chinese, or Japanese, or Korean, or Malaysian, but where did they get the name, website, flight number, etc. to report?
Quote from: Don on April 18, 2007, 06:34:25 AM
I do feel that the police and college administration handled things poorly. When the two students were killed in the dorm with the killer still on the loose, it was time to immediately shut down the college.
At the very least, they should have had a police presence on the main campus. A small number of uniformed officers around the main halls, square, etc. likely would have been all that was needed to prevent the second round of killing or at the very least stop it in it's tracks.
What most strikes me about the incident is that the killer should never have been able to legally purchase firearms.
Quote from: Don on April 18, 2007, 06:45:51 AM
What most strikes me about the incident is that the killer should never have been able to legally purchase firearms.
it just happens that Virginia is the easiest state to acquire an fire arm, all you need are the following:
over 21
resident of virginia
no criminal background
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 05:41:39 AM
Your comments appy to Columbine, where police did not enter the building until several hours after the shooters had killed themselves and one teacher bled to death waiting hours for help to arrive. This followed from police procedures which called for the establishment of a command post, etc, before anything gets done. However, a police official I heard on NPR reported that this event led to a change of basic police procedures. The new procedure, which it is claimed was followed in this case, calls for the first four officers who arrive on the scene to enter the building and move towards the sound of gunfire. I have not seen any official statement on how long it take police to engage the gunman, only reports of how long the gunfire went on from students who escaped (10 or 15 minutes was reported by the NY times) which I assume would be highly unreliable.
Fair point. We really need more information on the response to the VA Tech shooting. Perhaps the police really did quickly enter the building and they have just left that part out of their released information. At a gut level this seems very unlikely to me. This killing stands out because of the very high number of people killed;
something is different here. From the accounts released so far the killer wasn't highly trained (he bought the gun a month ago I think), so the shooter doesn't appear to be the unusual link. Neither does the weapon used (9mm pistol and a .22).
I will say I'm cynical based on what happened in Columbine. As you said their response was abysmal, but they have been generally very successful at covering this up. I fear we may be seeing a repeat of Columbine in more ways than one.
Quote from: springrite on April 18, 2007, 06:43:18 AM
The media's reporting of the killer being a Chinese student from Shanghai, with his name, alleged date of arrival, his website, is shockingly unprofessional. The young man has received hundreds of death threats, and his life made a mess. I can understand misreporting the Asian student being Chinese, or Japanese, or Korean, or Malaysian, but where did they get the name, website, flight number, etc. to report?
I never saw a single media report that reported the shooter to be any other than the Korean student, Cho Seung-Hui.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 06:53:12 AM
This killing stands out because of the very high number of people killed; something is different here. From the accounts released so far the killer wasn't highly trained (he bought the gun a month ago I think), so the shooter doesn't appear to be the unusual link. Neither does the weapon used (9mm pistol and a .22).
What training is needed to shoot unarmed people confined in a room at point-blank range? He apparently had the requisite contempt for human life, including his own. If we assume, as some witnesses reported, that the shooting went on for 10 minutes and was terminated when the shooter heard police approaching and killed himself, then I wouldn't consider this an unreasonable response time. Hopefully there will be a thorough inquiry and the facts will come out.
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 06:54:54 AM
I never saw a single media report that reported the shooter to be any other than the Korean student, Cho Seung-Hui.
Chicago Sun Time (The columnist/reporter is Mike Snyder or Snead or something) reported the killer being 24 year old Chinese student from Shanghai who arrived on August 7, 2006, United Flight from Shanghai to Sn Francisco. His name is Wen En Jiang. It was also picked up by radio, Internet media and later other media as well. His website and other info, including photo, was later reported in other media. That is BEFORE reports confirming that the killer was actually Cho. Jiang got the information from death threat phone calls and later saw his own photo posted! (Couldn't the caller tell that he's not the killer by the fact that the killer'd dead and Jiang answered his phone?)
I think that this slight inconvenient will cost the University some
bucks. 500 millons maybe?
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 07:02:19 AM
What training is needed to shoot unarmed people confined in a room at point-blank range? He apparently had the requisite contempt for human life, including his own. If we assume, as some witnesses reported, that the shooting went on for 10 minutes and was terminated when the shooter heard police approaching and killed himself, then I wouldn't consider this an unreasonable response time. Hopefully there will be a thorough inquiry and the facts will come out.
Hitting a target with a pistol is much harder than most people who have never fired one tend to imagine. I know it looks easy in the movies, but it does take focus and practice. A novice with a handgun (if he was in fact as he now appears) would likely have missed far more often than he hit. This is often a saving grace when police confront armed criminals. Assuming as you do that he was at "point blank range", he would have been close enough for his intended victims to rush him when he needs to change magazines (not an uncommon outcome for shootings like this). My point is he isn't the first lone nut with a pistol to enter a crowded room and open fire. People often do get killed in these scenarios but not in the numbers we saw here.
U.S. Police May Have Identity of Virginia Tech Gunman (Update4)
By Vivek Shankar and Nancy Kercheval
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The gunman responsible for the massacre at Virginia Tech University, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, was an Asian male student who lived in a campus dormitory, President Charles Steger said today.
...
Authorities are investigating whether the shooter was a 24- year-old Chinese national who arrived in San Francisco on a United Airlines flight Aug. 7 on a student visa issued in Shanghai, the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper reported on its Web site, citing an unidentified official.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Michael Sneed report has been removed from the Sun Times website, replace by the same reporter's report a day later of Cho being the suspect.
I don't suppose it should matter, but I did think the President of the University made a very strange impression. Like an accountant on tranquilisers. For the most part he seemed impassive and what a strange sight to watch seemingly a smile play round his lips at points when you felt he should look grief stricken. I guess nerves can do strange things to people, but impressions are important and he gave off vibes of complacency.
Can anyone in the US explain to me why, even if it is accepted that citizens seem to need weapons, that they be given access to semiautomatic guns?
We certainly have crazies over here in the UK, but in the main they manage to shoot one or perhaps two people with an illegal gun. Other than that they have to get up close and personal with a knife, and that tends also to reduce the body count, even if not the proportion of incidents.
I however long ago accepted that people here who I like and respect, nevertheless have what is to me a completely alien attitude.... that their right to a gun is as vital as a need to breathe and collateral damage has to be lived with, or died by.
Mike
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 07:44:22 AM
Hitting a target with a pistol is much harder than most people who have never fired one tend to imagine. I know it looks easy in the movies, but it does take focus and practice. A novice with a handgun (if he was in fact as he now appears) would likely have missed far more often than he hit. This is often a saving grace when police confront armed criminals. Assuming as you do that he was at "point blank range", he would have been close enough for his intended victims to rush him when he needs to change magazines (not an uncommon outcome for shootings like this). My point is he isn't the first lone nut with a pistol to enter a crowded room and open fire. People often do get killed in these scenarios but not in the numbers we saw here.
The difference though is that he seems to have shot each victim several times. The hospitals were reporting each victim they received had at least three gun wounds. It's likely that a novice shooting at each victim once will not lethally wound every single one. But three plus shots per person lowers the survival rate significantly. I'm sure after a few rounds he got better at aiming and handling the weapon, too.
I think one of the reasons they have these types of tragedies related to schools and sometimes workplaces in the US (together with weapon culture/history) is the very strong focus on winners in different aspects of every day life. I think this winner worshipping is at it's strongest in the US, and for sure it also has some positive sides. But the people who don't manage to become a winner, like this Cho, will probably feel more like a loser than in any other given country in the world.
At least in Scandinavia (and the most of Europe) these type of massacres seem totally surreal, even if there was one such incident in Germany a few years ago. And I think he was probably inspired by the Columbine case.
Or what do you Americans here think?
Quote from: rubio on April 18, 2007, 08:06:43 AM
I think one of the reasons they have these types of tragedies related to schools and sometimes workplaces in the US (together with weapon culture/history) is the very strong focus on winners in different aspects of every day life. I think this winner worshipping is at it's strongest in the US, and for sure it also has some positive sides. But the people who don't manage to become a winner, like this Cho, will probably feel more like a loser than in any other given country in the world.
At least in Scandinavia (and the most of Europe) these type of massacres seem totally surreal, even if there was one such incident in Germany a few years ago. And I think he was probably inspired by the Columbine case.
Or what do you Americans here think?
That is way too broad of a cultural determinist argument. It seems from the writings of Cho (which are now available on the web) that this was a very disturbed boy with some serious family issues (I am guessing sexual abuse) which prevented him from emotionally opening up to anyone. There are a lot of things at play here that cannot be narrowed down to such a simple formula.
Quote from: rubio on April 18, 2007, 08:06:43 AM
I think one of the reasons they have these types of tragedies related to schools and sometimes workplaces in the US (together with weapon culture/history) is the very strong focus on winners in different aspects of every day life. I think this winner worshipping is at it's strongest in the US, and for sure it also has some positive sides. But the people who don't manage to become a winner, like this Cho, will probably feel more like a loser than in any other given country in the world.
At least in Scandinavia (and the most of Europe) these type of massacres seem totally surreal, even if there was one such incident in Germany a few years ago. And I think he was probably inspired by the Columbine case.
Or what do you Americans here think?
There may be some truth to this, but it is an oversimplification to say this is a purely American phenomenon. In the last decade or so there have been similar events (on a smaller scale) at Dawson College, Montreal; Erfurt, Germany; Dubane, Scotland; Concordia University, Montreal; Ecole Polytechnique, Montreaul. In the latter case the gunman singled out female engineering students. It seems like Montreal is the world center for mass killing, since no US city has had more than one.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 18, 2007, 07:57:36 AM
The difference though is that he seems to have shot each victim several times. The hospitals were reporting each victim they received had at least three gun wounds. It's likely that a novice shooting at each victim once will not lethally wound every single one. But three plus shots per person lowers the survival rate significantly. I'm sure after a few rounds he got better at aiming and handling the weapon, too.
This may well be what happened. However, this would mean he fired several hundred rounds to kill and wound the number he did. At 10 rounds per magazine (US law for about a decade now) this would mean 20-30 times to stop and fumble for a full magazine or manually load an empty one, replace the magazine and bring the gun back to firing position. All this while under stress and using a fairly complex piece of equipment, with his intended victims looking for an opportunity to rush him. It could be just awful luck the whole way around, but again I suspect law enforcement fell down in a profound way and just don't want to have to face their own failure.
Quote"People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them," [Virginia Governor] Kaine said at a Tuesday evening news conference.
"To those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say: Take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs."
Amen.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 08:29:20 AM
This may well be what happened. However, this would mean he fired several hundred rounds to kill and wound the number he did. At 10 rounds per magazine (US law for about a decade now) this would mean 20-30 times to stop and fumble for a full magazine or manually load an empty one, replace the magazine and bring the gun back to firing position. All this while under stress and using a fairly complex piece of equipment, with his intended victims looking for an opportunity to rush him. It could be just awful luck the whole way around, but again I suspect law enforcement fell down in a profound way and just don't want to have to face their own failure.
Actually, that is exactly what happened. Many eyewitnesses reported that he reloaded several times and seemed completely unstressed doing so. Also, he appears to have had two guns with him. Not to prematurely say that law enforcement didn't fail as well, but Cho did apparently blast quite a number of rounds into each victim.
Looking at the rest of the paper, citizens of some cities may well wish for a day as calm and tranquil as Monday in Blackburg, VA. At least 157 are dead today by violence in Bagdad.
Yeah but does anyone really care about what goes on in Bagdad? No matter how many get killed in Bagdad it doesn't hit home. Plus the latest poll says that 80% of Iraqis think it is okay to shoot at American troops so I hardly think most of this country is sympathetic to what goes on in Iraq. VA is in our own very backyard that's why it gets all the coverage.
well, i'm probably going to be going to a technical school in a few months from now ::)
such a shame the guy was South Korean, i'd rather him have been some crazy North Korean dude- the only person i knew how was South Korean (at least, his mom was) was one of the nicest people i ever knew, behaved better than anyone I've ever known, though he was a bit too quiet when it came to meeting new people. Mostly, he just stayed inside playing video games all day, though, lol.
i really wonder, though, if people would describe the shooter as being nice or quiet (i haven't read the details or anything). Probably he was the type of guy who holds the anger in and just makes up a plan to let it all out.
which makes me think...... looking at the guy's background, it gave me a few thoughts about comparing different cultures and races- no offence intended for anyone though.... (next post)
Quote from: greg on April 18, 2007, 09:05:01 AM
well, i'm probably going to be going to a technical school in a few months from now ::)
Where are you going buddy? MIT, Georgia Tech?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 18, 2007, 08:58:43 AM
Yeah but does anyone really care about what goes on in Bagdad?
I am not sure that is exactly the point being made. But to have roughly say two such events as Bagdad has each day somewhere in the US each day would be a very shocking thing. Day on day the people in Bagdad are living with neighbours intent on blowing anyone up.... as many as possible, as often as can be arranged. That must be a very difficult atmosphere to live in.
Whilst on one hand that gives a small perspective to the relative infrequency of such savage events in the US; I still don't grasp why the methods of delivery of these murders is so readily available. Part of the difference in culture that I grapple with, and which I would like articulated to me without placing me in some mindset of an enemy camp.
Incidentally, the Dumblane shootings were 11 years ago, not really recent in the terms we are discussing. The only other one I can recall in the UK happened in Hungerford 20 years ago.
Mike
ok, isn't it weird how this works?
there's cultures that are "open" and others that are "closed".
another way of saying it is that the "open" ones are more uptight, work-oriented and are high achievers while others don't really care as much about working, and normally wouldn't be something like a scientist or a bodybuilder (though it's best to have a balance, which is what I try to do ;D 0:)).
cultures/races that are more open/uptight/conservative are most Asians and certain white people. This is excluding all the surfers, hillbillies, certain people from England that are loose (anyone who can help me out here?) that i know are white, but aren't likely to graduate with a Doctorate in Quantum Physics.
the ones that are moore "loose" are most Hispanic people (at least the ones around here, Mexicans, Cubans, Dominicans and especially Puerto Ricans) and most black people, actually anywhere for them. (As for Arabic people, that's a completely different thing entirely, lol).
Now from which group does petty crime happen and from which group does little crime ever happen, but when it does, it's usually extremely shocking and horrific? You guys can figure that out easily, right? In the ghetto, you have to worry about crime daily, but it's never going to be some guy planning to kill as many people as he can and then shoot himself before he's done- they express their anger more freely (which is why in the ghetto they're more "open") instead of holding it back and having it accumulate until they decide to plan something grandiose.
Here's a good example besides Columbine, Virginia Tech, and that one time in Germany: that one time in Japan where this guy kidnaps a girl (or was it a couple), rapes her and then cuts her up into tiny pieces until she's put into a bottle or something, i forget the details. This happens in the safest country in the world, where there's almost no crime. In fact, as I've read it once, you could "leave a bunch of money on your table at the restaurant your eating and come back an hour later and it'd still be there", or you could "let your 4-year old daughter wander the streets with a 100,000 yen bill and not have to worry about anything at all, except finding her."
Either way, a safe society is a great place to be but I see how it can be frustrating for angry people when they don't have an outlet. They just need to find some sort of outlet that helps them, and in their type of culture or society, which directly affects their mindset, stuff like picking fights might not happen so much. Maybe if the guy got into fights more to release his anger he wouldn't have the desire to shoot so many people? (still, even though I've said this, I haven't done much research on the particular guy, so i'm off to read some more)...
----
It's just a thought and I think with this it's a little bit easier to understand the human mind, has anyone else thought if it like this? It's like something I already knew, but haven't thought of it quite like this.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 18, 2007, 09:09:19 AM
Where are you going buddy? MIT, Georgia Tech?
nope, just a minor technical school in Central Florida that hardly anyone has heard of.
it's just the whole "Tech" thing that's just weird, since i am likely to be going to a technical school before long
Quote from: greg on April 18, 2007, 09:37:27 AM
nope, just a minor technical school in Central Florida that hardly anyone has heard of.
it's just the whole "Tech" thing that's just weird, since i am likely to be going to a technical school before long
I don't think massacres and "Tech" schools are in any way correlated. But maybe you have added stress in engineering schools since the courses are more rigorous, but that is just a guess.
I went to a Tech school. My junior year a young woman in my dorm jumped from the 11th floor, hit a balcony on her way down and then onto the cobblestone sidewalk and created so much blood you needed a ShopVac to clean her up. That ate at me for a little while, but I didn't know her personally so it wasn't a big deal. Then a couple of years later another girl I knew killed herself the same way. That one hurt...
It's a sad thing that occured. It's even more sad that people are using a lack of gun control and pretty soon Guns 'n' Roses as a scape goat for this.
here's an article i found:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070417-2102-university-bombthreat.html
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=70750
Why Guns 'n' Roses is going to be blamed. ::)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 18, 2007, 09:42:46 AM
I don't think massacres and "Tech" schools are in any way correlated. But maybe you have added stress in engineering schools since the courses are more rigorous, but that is just a guess.
I went to a Tech school. My junior year a young woman in my dorm jumped from the 11th floor, hit a balcony on her way down and then onto the cobblestone sidewalk and created so much blood you needed a ShopVac to clean her up. That ate at me for a little while, but I didn't know her personally so it wasn't a big deal. Then a couple of years later another girl I knew killed herself the same way. That one hurt...
That's terrible. Personally it is tragic no matter who died, be it someone you know, or don't, to me it hurts just as much. All you need to do to realize this is to think them as individuals, individuals just like you and me, and not look at them as "rich folks" or "Americans", life is precious, and it has made me more aware of my own mortality. I go to college, a big college just like VT, excerpt we have about 20000 more people than they do, anybody can come into our campus to do anything they want, there is no way to stop that.
In fact, just a few weeks ago, a 24 year old campus worker was killed by her boyfriend on our campus.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003648679_uwshooting03m.html
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 18, 2007, 09:43:58 AM
this post is so full of fallacies that i don't even know where to begin to take it apart...
there's some truth in it, though-
these types of school shootings don't happen in ghettos, but they happen in places that tend to be more upper-class in comparison- there is a reason to this.
Quote from: greg on April 18, 2007, 09:56:50 AM
there's some truth in it, though- these types of school shootings don't happen in ghettos, but they happen in places that tend to be more upper-class in comparison- there is a reason to this.
lol, where i live there's usually just going to be fights- in fact, there was this one fight at the beginning of the year at my previous high school that i missed (even though i normally sit in the lunchroom, i was absent that day since i had to go to my granma's funeral)- it was so big, they had to have the police come in and arrest them, and a bunch of students and teachers were hurt. It was just two kids fighting over a girl. But they were the type of kids that came from this one area of town which is notorious for having a high crime rate.
Quote from: greg on April 18, 2007, 09:56:50 AM
there's some truth in it, though- these types of school shootings don't happen in ghettos, but they happen in places that tend to be more upper-class in comparison- there is a reason to this.
I grew up in the South Bronx and I can tell you Brothers don't shoot other Brothers for no reason. They shoot for drugs, money, and turf. Shootings for no reason are not Brothers' cup of tea.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 18, 2007, 10:04:44 AM
I grew up in the South Bronx and I can tell you Brothers don't shoot other Brothers for no reason. They shoot for drugs, money, and turf. Shootings for no reason are not Brothers' cup of tea.
exactly my point! 8)
Quote from: knight on April 18, 2007, 09:13:09 AM
I still don't grasp why the methods of delivery of these murders is so readily available. Part of the difference in culture that I grapple with, and which I would like articulated to me without placing me in some mindset of an enemy camp.
Wonderfully put! I think I can help with your stated objective, with the full knowledge that neither of us is likely to change the other's opinion and without demonizing each other in the process. This kind of discussion could go on for many pages with great detail, but I think the key point of divergence is actually fairly simple:
Aside from an underlying belief that free, law abiding & sane adults have the right and
obligation to defend themselves, those in the US (like me) who support generally open gun laws aren't convinced that stricter gun laws would be effective in preventing these kinds of tragedies. The thinking being that laws by their very nature are most effective at changing the behavior of the law abiding, and least effective at changing the behavior of criminals. Applied to the VA Tech case, the 99.99% of law abiding students and faculty arriving on campus that day did so unarmed in compliance with the law and university policy. The .01% of the population intent on homicidal mayhem declined to abide by that law and was thereby in a position to inflict mass murder on the student body.
I'm being intentionally dispassionate about this, and deliberately avoiding supporting evidence for the argument because your request was to understand
why some others can see this so differently than you do. I think this kind of understanding of why we disagree with others is likely the best we can hope to achieve with discussion of issues like this.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 09:50:21 AM
It's even more sad that people are using a lack of gun control [...] as a scape goat for this.
Of course, pointing out the ease which which a nutcase can buy guns and kill people is completely unneccessary in the debate as to how to stop nutcases with guns killing people...
And of course, pointing out that if it's banned they'll just get it illegally like in any place where it's banned or restrictions are severe doesn't make a difference. Of course, if we're going to ignore all the widespread issues that could have factored into this and just attempt to use one particular issue as a scapegoat, we're not going to look at the obvious problem with that one idea. 0:)
Redbeard, Thanks, I was starting to think that my posts were being ignored.
I can see the argument you are putting forward, it is dispassionate and practical and I am not about to try to counter it, I am wondering though if it is more fundamental to the psyche of the nation....in the way that The Stars and Stripes is seen as a sacred totem. In the UK, stamp on the Union Jack and most people would shrug, in the US I know it would be unacceptable behaviour.
So I guess I am asking why the right to bare arms seems so much an issue akin to the right to vote?
Mike
Quote from: Lethe on April 18, 2007, 10:59:22 AM
Of course, pointing out the ease which which a nutcase can buy guns and kill people is completely unneccessary in the debate as to how to stop nutcases with guns killing people...
Especially since, as we have learned, a person with a mental illness and who had been transported to a mental hospital for treatment was cleared to purchase a semi-automatic handgun on the spot.
Quote from: knight on April 18, 2007, 11:06:24 AM
Redbeard, Thanks, I was starting to think that my posts were being ignored.
I can see the argument you are putting forward, it is dispassionate and practical and I am not about to try to counter it, I am wondering though if it is more fundamental to the psyche of the nation....in the way that The Stars and Stripes is seen as a sacred totem. In the UK, stamp on the Union Jack and most people would shrug, in the US I know it would be unacceptable behaviour.
So I guess I am asking why the right to bare arms seems so much an issue akin to the right to vote?
Mike
Interesting question. I suspect it is a combination of the enumeration of the right in our founding document, as well as a legacy of a society with it's roots in the frontier. Even today you can generally predict how a group of voters will feel about this issue by whether they live in an urban or rural environment.
Knight,
I'd say it's threefold: First, we don't like it when people attempt to mess with a right granted by the constitution. This sort of thing scares us.
Second, we don't like the idea of having our right to defend ourselves taken away just so a group of people can have a false sense of security while we're all made sitting ducks.
Thirdly, gun control is something amazingly useful for conspiracy theorists, in particular since the whole point of giving everyone access to weapons was in case a rebellion against the government was necessary to prevent another tyrannical system to coming into place. Combine people wishing for further restrictions/banning on guns with the Patriot Act and you have a good case for a conspiracy theorist to say we're heading in just that direction in regards to our government.
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 11:07:54 AM
Especially since, as we have learned, a person with a mental illness and who had been transported to a mental hospital for treatment was cleared to purchase a semi-automatic handgun on the spot.
I haven't heard about this and I know they did a background check so I have my doubts. Do you have the link that details this?
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 11:04:51 AM
And of course, pointing out that if it's banned they'll just get it illegally like in any place where it's banned or restrictions are severe doesn't make a difference. Of course, if we're going to ignore all the widespread issues that could have factored into this and just attempt to use one particular issue as a scapegoat, we're not going to look at the obvious problem with that one idea. 0:)
If guns were generally banned there would not be an enormous legal gun trade from which guns could be illegally diverted. Of course it would still be
possible to obtain a gun illegally, but it would be much more difficult and expensive to obtain a gun. It is quite plausible to me that if this mentally disturbed person weren't able to walk into a store with a credit card and legally buy a gun on the spot he would have found a less lethal way to manifest his mental disorder.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 11:11:13 AM
I haven't heard about this and I know they did a background check so I have my doubts. Do you have the link that details this?
This is a lead story on the CNN web site. An exerpt:
QuoteBLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- Cho Seung-Hui was referred to a mental health facility in 2005 after officers responded to accusations he was suicidal and stalked female students, police said Wednesday.
Authorities received no more complaints about the 23-year-old English major until Monday when he killed at least 30 people before taking his own life on the Virginia Tech campus, university police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.
Police first investigated Cho in November 2005 after a student complained about him calling her and contacting her in person, Flinchum said. (Watch how police learned of Cho's troubles Video)
Cho was sent to the university's Office of Judicial Affairs, which handled the complaint, the outcome of which is confidential, university officials said.
"The student declined to press charges and referred to Cho's contact with her as annoying," Flinchum said of the November investigation.
Police investigated him again the following month when a female student complained about instant messages Cho sent her, Flinchum said.
"Again, no threat was made against that student. However, she made a complaint to the Virginia Tech Police Department and asked that Cho have no further contact with her," the chief said.
After police spoke to Cho, they received a call from a student concerned that he might be suicidal.
Officers spoke to Cho "at length" then asked him to see a counselor. He agreed to be evaluated by Access Services, an independent mental health facility in Blacksburg, the chief said.
"A temporary detention order was obtained and Cho was taken to a mental health facility" on December 13, 2005, he said.
A student asking to be identified only as Andy said he was the one who told police that Cho was suicidal. Police "took [Cho] away to the counseling center for a night or two," said the student, who used to room with Cho. (Watch Cho's roommates describe his "crazy" behavior Video)
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 11:11:13 AM
I haven't heard about this and I know they did a background check so I have my doubts. Do you have the link that details this?
They only check for criminal background, not whether someone had treatment from teh campus counseling office. Really, the background checks are a joke. It's much harder to get a bank account opened than to get a gun. See here for more details (NYT requires free registration): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-virginia.html?hp
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 11:13:47 AM
If guns were generally banned there would not be an enormous legal gun trade from which guns could be illegally diverted. Of course it would still be possible to obtain a gun illegally, but it would be much more difficult and expensive to obtain a gun. It is quite plausible to me that if this mentally disturbed person weren't able to walk into a store with a credit card and legally buy a gun on the spot he would have found a less lethal way to manifest his mental disorder.
This is like claiming a person wouldn't get drugs because they've been banned. He was planning this out at least a month in advance, so I'm quite sure that if they were banned he would have got one illegally like anyone else who wishes to do such a thing badly enough. It wasn't just something spontaneous.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 18, 2007, 11:27:41 AM
They only check for criminal background, not whether someone had treatment from teh campus counseling office. Really, the background checks are a joke. It's much harder to get a bank account opened than to get a gun. See here for more details (NYT requires free registration): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-virginia.html?hp
Ah. What a background check entails varies from state to state I suppose, since I know some areas are much more...rigorous to say the least, than that.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 11:42:00 AM
Ah. What a background check entails varies from state to state I suppose, since I know some areas are much more...rigorous to say the least, than that.
Which makes the whole system really irrelevant since the fifty states cannot police their borders and enforce compliance with local regulations. Anyone can pick up a gun in a place where it is easy to obtani and take it somewhere where it is difficult to get or even banned. Virginia is on the lax side of the spectrum.
Thanks for your replies, I find the concepts alien to me, but I am not out to provoak an argument.
Mike
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 08:29:20 AM
This may well be what happened. However, this would mean he fired several hundred rounds to kill and wound the number he did. At 10 rounds per magazine (US law for about a decade now) this would mean 20-30 times to stop and fumble for a full magazine or manually load an empty one, replace the magazine and bring the gun back to firing position. All this while under stress and using a fairly complex piece of equipment, with his intended victims looking for an opportunity to rush him. It could be just awful luck the whole way around, but again I suspect law enforcement fell down in a profound way and just don't want to have to face their own failure.
Where do you get the 10 rounds per magazine restriction from? According to this here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-weapons070418-gfx,1,3845024.graphic?coll=chi-news-hed&?track=sto-relcon), the Glock used takes 15-33 rounds.
Quote from: knight on April 18, 2007, 11:54:13 AM
Thanks for your replies, I find the concepts alien to me, but I am not out to provoak an argument.
Mike
Americans need to have guns, it's part of our culture. When the nation was young, say 2 centuries ago, there weren't adequate police force, or a reliable standing army. Every citizen can only count on himself to protect his family and property, that's why having guns is important. from a traditional point of view, very few people are going to give up this right. You can see that it was important to the frontiersmen and colonists, the right to bear arms was part of the constitution.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 18, 2007, 12:02:01 PM
Where do you get the 10 rounds per magazine restriction from? According to this here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-weapons070418-gfx,1,3845024.graphic?coll=chi-news-hed&?track=sto-relcon), the Glock used takes 15-33 rounds.
This was included in the Assault Weapons Ban passed in the mid 1990s. I don't know anything about the specific pistol he used, but based on your reference it is very likely that it is one of the many models originally designed around a high capacity magazine that is still sold but civilian versions only come with 10 round magazines. The guns themselves are unchanged and will function with either type of magazine. Law enforcement can still buy high capacity magazines and any high capacity magazines already in existence when the law was passed were grandfathered in (referred to as "pre ban" magazines). I was basing my statement on the tidbit I read that he had very recently purchased the weapon new (of course this may turn out to be incorrect).
Edit: I just saw something online that suggests the Assault Weapons Ban may have been allowed to sunset a few years ago. If this is correct he may have been able to purchase high capacity magazines with the Glock. I'm sure we will be hearing more about this from the gun control lobby groups and politicians since this would of course be their poster child for reintroducing the restriction.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 18, 2007, 12:03:14 PM
Americans need to have guns, it's part of our culture. When the nation was young, say 2 centuries ago, there weren't adequate police force, or a reliable standing army. Every citizen can only count on himself to protect his family and property, that's why having guns is important. from a traditional point of view, very few people are going to give up this right. You can see that it was important to the frontiersmen and colonists, the right to bear arms was part of the constitution.
Put another way, and again in reference to Knight's query: Those in favor of stricter gun control see the VA Tech massacre as confirmation of the need for stricter gun laws. Those in favor of the right to keep and bear arms see the same incident as confirmation that law abiding civilians can't rely on the police to save them in their greatest moment of need.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 12:15:39 PM
This was included in the Assault Weapons Ban passed in the mid 1990s.
Didn't that expire in 2004?
Quote from: O Mensch on April 18, 2007, 12:23:33 PM
Didn't that expire in 2004?
You beat me to it! I was just editing my post above. I think you may be correct.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 12:15:39 PM
This was included in the Assault Weapons Ban passed in the mid 1990s. I don't know anything about the specific pistol he used, but based on your reference it is very likely that it is one of the many models originally designed around a high capacity magazine that is still sold but civilian versions only come with 10 round magazines. The guns themselves are unchanged and will function with either type of magazine. Law enforcement can still buy high capacity magazines and any high capacity magazines already in existence when the law was passed were grandfathered in (referred to as "pre ban" magazines). I was basing my statement on the tidbit I read that he had very recently purchased the weapon new (of course this may turn out to be incorrect).
geez, read the article on wikipedia.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 12:21:25 PM
Put another way, and again in reference to Knight's query: Those in favor of stricter gun control see the VA Tech massacre as confirmation of the need for stricter gun laws. Those in favor of the right to keep and bear arms see the same incident as confirmation that law abiding civilians can't rely on the police to save them in their greatest moment of need.
Right, if everyone in the building was carrying a gun there would have been a wild-west style shootout when the maniac entered the first classroom and he wouldn't have been able to take out 32 people before he was gunned down by a cheerleader packing a .357 magnum. That makes a lot of sense to the average gun owner. But if everyone was walking around campus with a gun how many people would be shot because they stole somebody's parking space or was seen making time with someone's girlfriend?
More importantly, if you're one of the people in the classroom and you missed the beginning of the altercation and you suddenly see two or more people shooting, how can you tell who is the bad guy? Whom do you shoot?
Quote from: Que on April 18, 2007, 11:50:28 AM
Aren't you scared of people with guns?
Only if it's my wife.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 18, 2007, 01:14:39 PM
More importantly, if you're one of the people in the classroom and you missed the beginning of the altercation and you suddenly see two or more people shooting, how can you tell who is the bad guy? Whom do you shoot?
Shoot'em both and let God sort them out.
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 12:46:06 PM
But if everyone was walking around campus with a gun how many people would be shot because they stole somebody's parking space or was seen making time with someone's girlfriend?
When this sort of thing occurs in the world outside of a college it is an isolated event. We have no reason to believe it would magically occur more often on college campus when those same students don't go shooting people for stealing their parking space in a mall parking lot (or something like that) or for catching someone with their girlfriend off campus.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 18, 2007, 01:14:39 PM
More importantly, if you're one of the people in the classroom and you missed the beginning of the altercation and you suddenly see two or more people shooting, how can you tell who is the bad guy? Whom do you shoot?
Given the scenario as you describe it, neither. Keep your head down and your weapon concealed until/unless someone threatens
you.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 01:40:49 PM
When this sort of thing occurs in the world outside of a college it is an isolated event. We have no reason to believe it would magically occur more often on college campus when those same students don't go shooting people for stealing their parking space in a mall parking lot (or something like that) or for catching someone with their girlfriend off campus.
At the risk of sliding into the specific debate I'm attempting to avoid, where I live is a good example of what you are referring to. In Dallas (and all of Texas I think) anyone who is an adult + non felon + not insane can not only legally buy a gun but is also able to get a concealed carry license provided they pass a course and pay a nominal fee (several hundred $ I think). While we
could get into a lengthy discussion about per capita crime rates and subtle differences statistically attributed to loose vs restrictive gun laws, in practice this is generally a non issue. The kind of free for all madness in the streets predicted above (shootouts over parking spaces, etc) doesn't happen. From looking at houses via a Realtor in the area before we purchased I know that my neighbors are more likely than not armed, but from what I understand very few likely choose to get a concealed carry license. Either way, I don't fear them shooting me when I'm pulling into a parking space, changing lanes, etc.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 18, 2007, 01:40:49 PM
When this sort of thing occurs in the world outside of a college it is an isolated event. We have no reason to believe it would magically occur more often on college campus when those same students don't go shooting people for stealing their parking space in a mall parking lot (or something like that) or for catching someone with their girlfriend off campus.
Nobody is saying that it would happen more or less often in one place or another, just that adding more civilians with guns into the mix makes identifying friend from foe increasingly difficult. I'm not worried that this is a great statistical likelihood that students on campusses will go around shooting each other. Most people will choose to walk around unarmed anyway. I am just trying to point out that the original poster's argument is fraught with inconvenient complications that make that approach less salient than it sounds.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 02:13:43 PM
At the risk of sliding into the specific debate I'm attempting to avoid, where I live is a good example of what you are referring to. In Dallas (and all of Texas I think) anyone who is an adult + non felon + not insane can not only legally buy a gun but is also able to get a concealed carry license provided they pass a course and pay a nominal fee (several hundred $ I think). While we could get into a lengthy discussion about per capita crime rates and subtle differences statistically attributed to loose vs restrictive gun laws, in practice this is generally a non issue. The kind of free for all madness in the streets predicted above (shootouts over parking spaces, etc) doesn't happen. From looking at houses via a Realtor in the area before we purchased I know that my neighbors are more likely than not armed, but from what I understand very few likely choose to get a concealed carry license. Either way, I don't fear them shooting me when I'm pulling into a parking space, changing lanes, etc.
It's not so much a wild west style shootout that abundant weapons make more likely. The real problem is that the vast supply of guns in homes is a source for theft and black market sale by owners or household members who need cash. That is the overwhelming source of illegally obtained weapons in the US. Secondly, guns at home disproprtionately increase the risk of them being used against a member of the household in anger or by a household member as a means for committing suicide. (Now before you come back with the worn argument that a suicidal person will find other means, remember that most other means are survivable/preventable if the victim is found early enough. Death from overdose or attempts at asphyxiation through carbon monoxide poisoning can be prevented if spotted. Blowing your brains out can't.)
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 02:13:43 PM
At the risk of sliding into the specific debate I'm attempting to avoid, where I live is a good example of what you are referring to. In Dallas (and all of Texas I think) anyone who is an adult + non felon + not insane can not only legally buy a gun but is also able to get a concealed carry license provided they pass a course and pay a nominal fee (several hundred $ I think). While we could get into a lengthy discussion about per capita crime rates and subtle differences statistically attributed to loose vs restrictive gun laws, in practice this is generally a non issue. The kind of free for all madness in the streets predicted above (shootouts over parking spaces, etc) doesn't happen. From looking at houses via a Realtor in the area before we purchased I know that my neighbors are more likely than not armed, but from what I understand very few likely choose to get a concealed carry license. Either way, I don't fear them shooting me when I'm pulling into a parking space, changing lanes, etc.
Before Monday, Texas had the distinction of the biggest gun massecre (22 killed in a diner) and the biggest campus massecre (16 at UT). However, your remark that all of your fellow texans are armed seems to be inaccurate, since when the guy crashed his pickup truck through the front wall of the diner and started shooting, nobody in the diner had a gun to return fire. The only place I know of where weapons are widely carried is Pakistan, where people make AK47 rifles by hand in their homes. The scenario I described is pretty much indicative of Pakistan, if you substitute Camels for cars.
I know this kind of sentiment is not much solace to the wounded or victims' loved ones but I just feel like pointing this out: What happened at Virginia Tech is EXTREMELY rare. A Columbine or Virginia Tech happens about once a decade. The odds are astronomically in your favor that you will get through life without being the victim of a tragedy like we saw last Monday.
Nothing earth-shattering about this observation - just felt like saying it.
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 18, 2007, 05:56:04 PM
I know this kind of sentiment is not much solace to the wounded or victims' loved ones but I just feel like pointing this out: What happened at Virginia Tech is EXTREMELY rare. A Columbine or Virginia Tech happens about once a decade. The odds are astronomically in your favor that you will get through life without being the victim of a tragedy like we saw last Monday.
Nothing earth-shattering about this observation - just felt like saying it.
yeah, but once it has happened the odds of it happening again just got a lot higher.
Quote from: head-case on April 18, 2007, 03:51:16 PM
Before Monday, Texas had the distinction of the biggest gun massecre (22 killed in a diner) and the biggest campus massecre (16 at UT). However, your remark that all of your fellow texans are armed seems to be inaccurate, since when the guy crashed his pickup truck through the front wall of the diner and started shooting, nobody in the diner had a gun to return fire.
That massacre you reference (Lubys in Killeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre)) rang a bell with me so I looked it up on wiki. It occured prior to the change in Texas law allowing common concealed carry, and is actually considered to be a major reason the law was changed. One of the survivors was an avid shooter who left her pistol in the car that day since it wasn't legal to carry. She testified to the legislature that she could easily have stopped the killer (and saved her parents lives) if she had her gun with her then.
Either way, I stated that my understanding is that very few people actually elect to go through the process and carry concealed, so even if this massacre had happened recently and no one inside was armed it wouldn't contradict my assertion.
I'm sure the NRA and its supporters will make excuses, but there is something seriously wrong with the USA and its love of guns. In 1997, a man named Martin Bryant went beserk in Tasmania, Australia and killed 35 people. It was our worst gun massacre ever. The Prime Minister, John Howard, (still in power) in probably his most courageous and best decision of his leadership got stringent gun laws passed, which severely restricted the sale and ownership of guns in Australia. Now, essentially all automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned in this country.
Now some statistics from the World Health Organisation's World Report on Violence and Health (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/9241545615.pdf):
Firearm-related mortality, by manner of death and country
USA homicide deaths from firearms (1998): 11 802
Australia homicide deaths from firearms (1998) 56
Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide is about 6% that of the USA.
Has anyone heard about the controversy regarding Simon Cowell and American X Factor? When one of the singers said "this is in memoery of the Virgina Tech students, he rolled his eys apparently and now he is being criticised for it.
But what is wrong with that? I think it is the height of distaste; a silly teenager making a tribute to people he didn't even know. The collective "oh this is an awful tradegy" mentality does anger me, it is like everyone wants a piece of the action. To say, I spoke to someone from Virgina tech 20 years ago, I am particularly touched by this. etc etc. People love it. Like over here when Diana died; everyone loved sobbing insincerly.
And then not blink an eye when 170 die in Baghdad.
Michel, in America it's called "American Idol", so they call it "American X Factor" where you live? Do you live in England?
And just last night they discussed it on the show, and they showed that Simon was talking to Paula (a discussion about the singer singing through his nose) and didn't hear what (what's his name) the singer said about VT. So Simon was rolling his eyes at Paula.
Then he openly said that he didn't intend to appear disrespectful for the families and people who died.
I saw an interview with his dormmates (or roommates, one or the other) and they said the whole 9 months that he was living with them, he didn't say a word. He just walked by with his head down, so they were surprised to see him in the video, saying he seemed like a completely different person. I hope they find out just a little bit more about what made him "go over the edge". In the video he recorded, he mostly complained about stuff that really didn't make much sense and said "you had a choice, but now you will spill blood that cannot be wiped off" or something like that. But the whole thing is vague, too vague.
Quote from: Michel on April 19, 2007, 12:01:15 AM
Has anyone heard about the controversy regarding Simon Cowell and American X Factor? When one of the singers said "this is in memoery of the Virgina Tech students, he rolled his eys apparently and now he is being criticised for it.
But what is wrong with that? I think it is the height of distaste; a silly teenager making a tribute to people he didn't even know. The collective "oh this is an awful tradegy" mentality does anger me, it is like everyone wants a piece of the action. To say, I spoke to someone from Virgina tech 20 years ago, I am particularly touched by this. etc etc. People love it. Like over here when Diana died; everyone loved sobbing insincerly.
And then not blink an eye when 170 die in Baghdad.
it's not right to not blink an eye when 170 die in Baghdad, but it's equally insensitive to not be touched by the tragedy of VT. It is not the people's fault, when 170 people die in Baghdad, you see that maybe one line "170 die in Baghdad" on some newspaper, and that's it; when 33 Americans get shot, all the big news agencies and virtually all the newspapers report on the issue, it's not american people's fault of not sympathetic to Iraq, but rather media's fault.
Quote from: greg on April 19, 2007, 05:05:46 AM
I saw an interview with his dormmates (or roommates, one or the other) and they said the whole 9 months that he was living with them, he didn't say a word. He just walked by with his head down, so they were surprised to see him in the video, saying he seemed like a completely different person. I hope they find out just a little bit more about what made him "go over the edge". In the video he recorded, he mostly complained about stuff that really didn't make much sense and said "you had a choice, but now you will spill blood that cannot be wiped off" or something like that. But the whole thing is vague, too vague.
I think it's much simpler than that, there was no clear motive. The guy is freaking insane, he was admitted into a mental hospital only 2 years ago, and stalks women.... He is simply an crazy individual, a crazy individual who was introverted, therefore depriving him a chance of getting mental help.
He really belonged to a mental hospital, not a campus.
Quote from: Redbeard on April 18, 2007, 06:53:12 AM
Fair point. We really need more information on the response to the VA Tech shooting. Perhaps the police really did quickly enter the building and they have just left that part out of their released information. At a gut level this seems very unlikely to me. This killing stands out because of the very high number of people killed; something is different here. From the accounts released so far the killer wasn't highly trained (he bought the gun a month ago I think), so the shooter doesn't appear to be the unusual link. Neither does the weapon used (9mm pistol and a .22).
I will say I'm cynical based on what happened in Columbine. As you said their response was abysmal, but they have been generally very successful at covering this up. I fear we may be seeing a repeat of Columbine in more ways than one.
A detailed timeline has been published by the BBC world service which seems questionable. It says that the second round of shootings started at 9:15, that police were not notified until 9:45, and that the shooting stopped when officers reached the second floor and the shooter killed himself at 9:50.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6563451.stm#0926
Just read a quote from someone in the US (letters Daily Telegraph) saying that gun possession is as much a part of American life as tea drinking is in Britain (although gun/knife crime is on the increase in Britain so I don't want to sound sanctimonious)
Another point was this guy mad or evil? My wife, who is kinder hearted, always says that the perpetrator of this type of crime must be seriously ill but i'm not so sure if evil does not play its part in this, although, this South Korean man was clearly very disturbed.
Morbidly fascinating as it was, I don't think that it was a good idea to show his self-justifying video on TV around the world.
So sad for those involved.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 19, 2007, 06:25:24 AM
I think it's much simpler than that, there was no clear motive. The guy is freaking insane, he was admitted into a mental hospital only 2 years ago, and stalks women.... He is simply an crazy individual, a crazy individual who was introverted, therefore depriving him a chance of getting mental help.
He really belonged to a mental hospital, not a campus.
No, it's never that simple. Read his plays that he wrote in his creative writing class (http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/mr-brownstone-title-page/20070417141309990001). My bet is he was a kid who was traumatized by a move to a new culture at a young age, then had to endure sexual abuse as a child (see the play about Richard McBeef). In addition, I suspect he had a lot of pressure from home to succeed in school, which were high expectations he didn't quite fulfill (his sister went to an ivy (Princeton), he didn't). That coupled with a general youth culture that glorifies "winners" and looks down upon "losers" probably contributed to a combination of lethally low self-esteem and inadequate socialization which meant he had nobody he trusted and opened up to, so all of this was just bottled up until it exploded one day.
Quote from: admin on April 18, 2007, 10:19:37 PM
I'm sure the NRA and its supporters will make excuses, but there is something seriously wrong with the USA and its love of guns.
I don't have time to enter this discussion in any depth, but I totally and completely agree.
--Bruce
Quote from: head-case on April 19, 2007, 06:32:35 AM
A detailed timeline has been published by the BBC world service which seems questionable. It says that the second round of shootings started at 9:15, that police were not notified until 9:45, and that the shooting stopped when officers reached the second floor and the shooter killed himself at 9:50.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6563451.stm#0926
Thanks for the link. This also suggests that he had a full 30 minutes of killing time before police entered the building, but according to this the delay was due to notification/dispatch. Either way, something went
very wrong from a police point of view. Everyone keeps saying they should have shut down the whole university after the first shooting. I can't argue that either way, but SOP for this kind of thing would be to have a uniformed presence on the main sections of campus. Even a single officer in the vicinity of Norris Hall would have saved countless lives. A single officer could have called it in and then engaged the shooter immediately. At the very least, he would have been able to distract the shooter from his killing spree while other officers could respond. More likely, a single officer with hundreds of hours of range time plus even basic tactical training would be more than a match for this guy.
Quote from: Captain Haddock on April 19, 2007, 06:46:08 AM
Morbidly fascinating as it was, I don't think that it was a good idea to show his self-justifying video on TV around the world.
I couldn't agree more. While ordinary people look at the pictures and see him as the monster that he was, other would be mass killers have to see him being lionized the way they could only dream of. I thought it was standard practice for the media not to engage in this kind of reward for killers, especially suicide killers. They are even reading his nutjob "manifesto" on the news. It makes me sick.
Quote from: admin on April 18, 2007, 10:19:37 PM
Now some statistics from the World Health Organisation's World Report on Violence and Health (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/9241545615.pdf):
Firearm-related mortality, by manner of death and country
USA homicide deaths from firearms (1998): 11 802
Australia homicide deaths from firearms (1998) 56
Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide is about 6% that of the USA.
I've noticed that people always fail to pull up the overall stats for violent crimes pre and post-ban to look at the situation as a whole rather than just using the gun related stats. Is there any particular reason for this?
Okay, I'll be fair, I
know the reason, but I'm curious if anyone who does this sort of cherry picking will be honest about it.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 19, 2007, 06:47:23 AM
No, it's never that simple. Read his plays that he wrote in his creative writing class (http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/mr-brownstone-title-page/20070417141309990001). My bet is he was a kid who was traumatized by a move to a new culture at a young age, then had to endure sexual abuse as a child (see the play about Richard McBeef). In addition, I suspect he had a lot of pressure from home to succeed in school, which were high expectations he didn't quite fulfill (his sister went to an ivy (Princeton), he didn't). That coupled with a general youth culture that glorifies "winners" and looks down upon "losers" probably contributed to a combination of lethally low self-esteem and inadequate socialization which meant he had nobody he trusted and opened up to, so all of this was just bottled up until it exploded one day.
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. Also, I'm quite sure that he knew the quality of his writing wasn't that great which left him very, very frustrated with himself. For some reason he strikes me as having been the sort of mediocrity who was unfortunately (for himself) intelligent enough to realize that he was just that.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 19, 2007, 08:31:45 AM
I think you've probably hit the nail on the head. Also, I'm quite sure that he knew the quality of his writing wasn't that great which left him very, very frustrated with himself. For some reason he strikes me as having been the sort of mediocrity who was unfortunately (for himself) intelligent enough to realize that he was just that.
But finish the last sentence: ...and had nothing or nobody else who would in his eyes have made life worth living. Meanwhile his peers (in his eyes undeservedly) seemed to have everything. Which, had he been able to open up to them and make friends, he would have seen is not true either, since everyone to some degree has self-doubts and unfulfilled dreams etc.
To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 08:47:34 AM
To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.
That's nonsense. The majority of north-americans don't own guns or enjoy violence. Where have you been living?
Kind of scarry no? You can go anywhere and some psycho nutjob can just start shooting people.
Funny thing is that a MSN feature reported that Blacksburg is the 4th best city in the United States to retire early; turns out it's the best city to die early.
Quote from: Don on April 19, 2007, 09:41:43 AM
Funny thing is that a MSN feature reported that Blacksburg is the 4th best city in the United States to retire early; turns out it's the best city to die early.
Everyone knows bullets travel right through old people.
Quote from: Que on April 19, 2007, 08:43:19 AM
Yes, you're probably right: there are so many fire arms around in the US (estimated to be more than the human population) that the situation is practicably irreversible. But I don't think it's anything to gloat over.
Q
Actually, that wasn't what I meant.
I simply don't like the tunnel vision used when producing these stats. If the gun crime goes down quite a bit but there's say....a 50% increase overall (just throwing out a number here) in violent crimes post-banning then clearly it didn't work because the theory of making the population sitting ducks for criminals by removing their only efficient means to self-defense is correct. Of course, people pointedly ignore the overall crime rates or other sort of violent crimes and whether they increase or decrease post-ban and simply look at gun crimes alone because it shows a much more favorable picture of their point of view.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 19, 2007, 06:47:23 AM
No, it's never that simple. Read his plays that he wrote in his creative writing class (http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/mr-brownstone-title-page/20070417141309990001). My bet is he was a kid who was traumatized by a move to a new culture at a young age, then had to endure sexual abuse as a child (see the play about Richard McBeef). In addition, I suspect he had a lot of pressure from home to succeed in school, which were high expectations he didn't quite fulfill (his sister went to an ivy (Princeton), he didn't). That coupled with a general youth culture that glorifies "winners" and looks down upon "losers" probably contributed to a combination of lethally low self-esteem and inadequate socialization which meant he had nobody he trusted and opened up to, so all of this was just bottled up until it exploded one day.
i did, I posted those links!
I read the plays, the plays make no sense, it's full of mindless violence and profanities. He wasn't a very subtle playwright i tell you that. What you said is exactly my initial diagnosis, i told my friends that the fact his sister was at Princeton definitely played a huge role. You know these Asian parents can be at times, they are complete ignorant of their children's feelings, i have no problem imagine that his parents constantly pressured him to be like his sister, to go to princeton, to go to yale, but he failed to fufill the expectations, in other words, he always felt inferior, this probably generated most of his anger.
as for sexual abuse, i am not very sure of that. I am afraid that we are going to need more evidence to prove that he was victimized when he was young.
Quote from: Don on April 19, 2007, 08:58:30 AM
That's nonsense. The majority of north-americans don't own guns or enjoy violence. Where have you been living?
Everyone seems to love watching it on the news. Why are negative things "news" and little jenny passing her piano exam not?
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 08:47:34 AM
To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.
Actually, the majority of Americans approve gun control. Your argument is total nonsense.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 19, 2007, 10:06:51 AM
as for sexual abuse, i am not very sure of that. I am afraid that we are going to need more evidence to prove that he was victimized when he was young.
A kid doesn't write about sexual abuse from adults just like that. There has to be some real life precedent. It's not a topic that juveniles are so comfortable with that they will openly write about it. The lack of imagination in his writing further supports that there is a real life basis for his stories, which are mostly vengenace fantasies.
Quote from: Michel on April 19, 2007, 10:22:40 AM
Everyone seems to love watching it on the news. Why are negative things "news" and little jenny passing her piano exam not?
Because little jenny passing her piano exam is only news to her immediate family and friends. If she cheated on her exam, perhaps that would elicit a news feature.
OMensh:If the majority of Americans really want guns
control, they would have guns control. But they don't,
and they wouldn't have it. So,your affirmation is total
nonsense.
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 02:58:19 PM
OMensh:If the majority of Americans really want guns
control, they would have guns control. But they don't,
and they wouldn't have it. So,your affirmation is total
nonsense.
I think it's more a case of the majority not having guns but being highly skeptical of strict controls.
Let's not overlook the fact that the gunman was not American - he was Korean.
Americans were the victims of this crime, not the perpetrators.
Quote from: MichelEveryone seems to love watching it on the news.
Unfortunately, the news media decides for us what is news. ::) I personally am sick of seeing his face plastered all over the news, all day it's been on, the horrific photos of him with a gun to his head, brandishing a hammer. It's exactly what he wanted, and they're right to get criticized for showing it. The students and their families are griping and I hope they don't stop.
This kind of thing makes mentally unstable young adults think it's quite glamourous, why not try it themselves someday and go out in a blaze of glory? This guy himself has said he idolized the Columbine shooters. I'm sure he'd love nothing more than to have a star portray him in a movie.
It's all really messed up, isn't it? As far as guns, they're horrible, but if they were banned, I know people would find a way illegally. Inevitable. And then the people who do have one around in a closet, want to be able to have it in case someone breaks in. I don't know what the answer is.
If there were a ban, how would that work with hunting? I always wondered that. That's a popular pasttime. In the European countries are there bans on guns, but an exception for shotguns? But, when you're far enough gone to shoot your classmates, you don't really care whether you have a concealed firearm or not...
What's
really bad, again, how to fix it, but it's the horribly violent video games and the plop-in-front-of-the-TV culture for children. There was an interview with a former shooter now in jail, and he said he just thought it was like in a video game, you "shoot them a few times and they just get back up".
These games can be so addictive for young kids, especially if they're already isolated in some way, have family problems or want to "escape" from life. Games like these are distributed worldwide, and U.S. action movies full of guns and murder are also popular in other countries as well. But, here there is a real problem with copycats and the media - you can look at how much more sharply escalated and brutal the incidents have become since Columbine, it's striking. These kinds of things make you want to never have kids. I would hardly want to let them out of my sight.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 19, 2007, 08:30:22 AM
I've noticed that people always fail to pull up the overall stats for violent crimes pre and post-ban to look at the situation as a whole rather than just using the gun related stats. Is there any particular reason for this?
Okay, I'll be fair, I know the reason, but I'm curious if anyone who does this sort of cherry picking will be honest about it.
OK, how about this. In a major scientific article (Ozanne-Smith, J; , K Ashby, S Newstead, V Z Stathakis and A Clapperton. ""
Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform"". Prevention 2004;10:280-286, part of the British Medical Journal group) the authors conclude that since the gun control laws have been put in place, the number of firearms deaths have dropped by over 50% in Australia. Furthermore, from 1985 to 1997, there were 5 major random mass murders using firearms, there have been exactly NONE in Australia since 1997. Of course, there have been isolated single homicides (as stated, about 50 for the whole country for the year 1998), there have been no random mass murder rampages that seem to be so common for the USA. In Australia, it has become just too difficult for the vast majority of the population to get their hands on the type of gun that can cause such destruction, so quickly.
I should point out that in addition to the strict gun control laws that were put into place, Australia also had a gun amnesty and buy-back scheme where gun owners could sell their guns back to the government to be destroyed, no questions asked. This was funded by a 1 year, 1% tax levy on the population, that was extremely popular. We (Australians) got serious with gun control and it has paid off.
For me, the amazing thing is not that there are regular mass shootings in the US, but that the population seems so surprised and shocked each and every time it happens.
Get used to it. Until the USA get serious about gun control, these massacres will continue to happen.
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 19, 2007, 03:36:11 PM
Let's not overlook the fact that the gunman was not American - he was Korean.
Americans were the victims of this crime, not the perpetrators.
The gunman lived in America for most of his life, and according to some recent articles surfacing about the bullying he received from peers in high school, it seems his social and psychological problems, if not started here, certainly developed here. And him being Korean is pretty irrelevant. It's not as if he came over to America last week and started killing Americans. Further, he wasn't racially motivated, and neither did he even show nationalistic tendencies. This was a severely troubled young man who grew up in America, and there's no need to bring race or nationality into the matter. I might add that the Korean government wanting to come over and apologize was completely unnecessary.
Quote from: CS on April 19, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
The gunman lived in America for most of his life, and according to some recent articles surfacing about the bullying he received from peers in high school, it seems his social and psychological problems, if not started here, certainly developed here. And him being Korean is pretty irrelevant. It's not as if he came over to America last week and started killing Americans. Further, he wasn't racially motivated, and neither did he even show nationalistic tendencies. This was a severely troubled young man who grew up in America, and there's no need to bring race or nationality into the matter. I might add that the Korean government wanting to come over and apologize was completely unnecessary.
interestingly, he isn't the first asian male to do this, i can remember 16 years ago some chinese guy shot 5 people in his physics department, and years ago another Chinese guy shot a professor for firing him.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 19, 2007, 09:18:24 PM
interestingly, he isn't the first asian male to do this, i can remember 16 years ago some chinese guy shot 5 people in his physics department, and years ago another Chinese guy shot a professor for firing him.
Grad school is very stressfull, and the support system for students is abysmal. And that's for students that are natives, you can imagine what it's like if you're thousands of miles away from home in a strange culture.
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 02:58:19 PM
OMensh:If the majority of Americans really want guns
control, they would have guns control. But they don't,
and they wouldn't have it.
Let's assume for a moment that the majority of Americans don't want gun control. (And with the very vocal NRA, thats a dubious assumption).
This may come as a shock to some, but there are certain things in which it doesn't really matter what the majority wants. There are some things that are just plain wrong. There is absolutely no need for a civilian population to have automatic weapons. And for a city population, there is no need to have
any weapons. There may be a case for firearms for some farmers, some sporting shooters, and perhaps recreational hunters. This is a very small minority of the population, and would be easy to regulate with strict controls.
There was a time when the majority wanted lynching, slavery and the death penalty. All civilised societies, except the USA has eliminated these population wants. And even the USA has eliminated 2 of these, at great collective anguish.
My point is that the majority (otherwise known as a "mob") is not always right. Gasp! Democracy and all that!
Sometimes it takes a courageous leader to do what is right rather than what is popular.
Quote from: admin on April 19, 2007, 09:59:32 PM
Let's assume for a moment that the majority of Americans don't want gun control. (And with the very vocal NRA, thats a dubious assumption).
This may come as a shock to some, but there are certain things in which it doesn't really matter what the majority wants. There are some things that are just plain wrong. There is absolutely no need for a civilian population to have automatic weapons. And for a city population, there is no need to have any weapons. There may be a case for firearms for some farmers, some sporting shooters, and perhaps recreational hunters. This is a very small minority of the population, and would be easy to regulate with strict controls.
There was a time when the majority wanted lynching, slavery and the death penalty. All civilised societies, except the USA has eliminated these population wants. And even the USA has eliminated 2 of these, at great collective anguish.
My point is that the majority (otherwise known as a "mob") is not always right. Gasp! Democracy and all that!
Sometimes it takes a courageous leader to do what is right rather than what is popular.
If only they had done a more thorough background check, Cho would never have been able to buy the guns. Or if the University would have been more insistent about him receiving therapy (which, apparently, they did a few years ago for 48 hours) it might have been averted.
Anyway, even with all of that, I know places where I can buy illegal guns. So I really don't know how we can solve this problem. :-\
Quote from: Que on April 19, 2007, 10:43:09 PM
Good point. Once in circulation - via a legitimate first owner or not - fire arms keep spreading. Even fire arms from WWII are used for criminal activities. A major problem in Europe is the staggering amount of fire arms coming from the former Communist countries - especially former Yugoslavia.
Q
Yeah, and in the States there's sooooooooo many guns out there--criminals who cannot buy guns legally can just as easily buy an illegal one.
Quote from: admin on April 19, 2007, 09:59:32 PM
Sometimes it takes a courageous leader to do what is right rather than what is popular.
The United States has neither a dictatorship nor a parliamentary system. It doesn't matter how courageous a leader or his party might be; even if their party controlled Congress, they still couldn't single-handedly change the Constitution which, for all intents and purposes, is writ in stone and guarantees the people the right to bear arms. In order to change the Constitution, both houses of Congress have to approve by
two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. To become effective, the proposed amendment has to be approved by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the states.
That will never happen.
The blood baths will continue.
Sarge
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 08:47:34 AM
To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.
You have a very distorted view of Americans, Carlos. That's not surprizing given the media and Hollywood and, of course, our insane foreign policies. But in fact most Americans don't own guns; most Americans abhor violence. We're no different than any other nationality on this planet. Believe it or not, we're compassionate human beings just like the majority of citizens in your country.
I was a solider; even in my profession, very few of us owned private weapons. I never have. Perhaps I could illustrate my point this way: in my immediate family there are 14 adult males: only two own guns. They are serious hunters (everything from turkey in PA to bear and cougar in the Rockies to caribou on the arctic circle) and have between them about a dozen rifles and pistols. Statistically, averaged out, it might appear that nearly every male member of my family owns a weapon when in fact only 15% own guns. I repeat, most Americans do not own a gun and we're horrified by real violence.
Sarge
It is an open question whether the 2nd Amendment unequivocally grants citizens the right to bear arms, or whether it does so (as I believe)
only in service of a "well-regulated state militia," that is, a body of individuals outside the armed forces who play a role in national defense - which some interpret as the predecessor to today's National Guard. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue, and in any case, the right to bear arms can still be considered as allowed under the catch-all 9th and 10th Amendments. The right granted by the 2nd Amendment, however, is of course not an obligation, as should be proven by the originally proposed text (which supports conscientious objection to military service on religious grounds):
QuoteThe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
In any case, the wording of the Amendment in no way suggests that the American populace on the whole is either gun-happy or violent, and the Sarge hits the nail on the head as decisively as Carlos misses it. I've lived in the United States for 58 years and have never owned a gun, know few people who do, and see no reason to believe the United States is intrinsically any more violent than any other society. A psychopath like Cho probably could find a gun whether it was "controlled" or not, and from what I've read of him I doubt any amount of "counselling" would have done stopped him from committing the bloodbath experienced at Virginia Tech.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 19, 2007, 06:25:24 AM
I think it's much simpler than that, there was no clear motive. The guy is freaking insane, he was admitted into a mental hospital only 2 years ago, and stalks women.... He is simply an crazy individual, a crazy individual who was introverted, therefore depriving him a chance of getting mental help.
He really belonged to a mental hospital, not a campus.
you know, i think you're right.
It may be hard for most people to understand (being disturbed and mad all the time for no reason) since most of us get mad for a reason- at least it's hard for me to imagine someone being like that.
Either way, he definetely needed more help, more medicine especially.
the whole debate with gun control is interesting- i can't actually take a side. you could still buy illegal guns, but the odds that someone will get a chance to do a school shooting will go down- i mean, when's the last time you've heard of a "school knifing" where they go down the halls, stabbing to death 30 victimes? then again, i'd be afraid in a society where there's only knives since being stabbed to death could be much more painful if not done properly
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 08:47:34 AM
To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.
that's bullshit, hasty generalization, and guilty by association, 2 fallacies you just committed there.
1) you don't know that majority of Americans own firearms. I don't have the exact numbers, but people i know don't even know how to fire a gun, let along buy one.
2) Why should it be that a few evil/messed up individuals (like Cho) represent the "American Mentality"?
please make valid arguments, otherwise it's really a waste of my time reading any of your other posts.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on April 20, 2007, 05:31:27 AM
It is an open question whether the 2nd Amendment unequivocally grants citizens the right to bear arms, or whether it does so (as I believe) only in service of a "well-regulated state militia," that is, a body of individuals outside the armed forces who play a role in national defense
I'm in favor of far, far stricter gun control and I see no reason to permit just anyone to own semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines of the type needed for law enforcement and battle. However, I disagree with your assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies only to members of a State militia. The Amendment says, the right of the
People, not the right of part-time soldiers. I don't know how that can be any more clear. Our history supports that interpretation. If the People hadn't been armed, there would have been no revolution against a despotic state; the founders understood that and wanted to ensure the citizens always had the means to fight. I do not for a moment think the framers meant that only the
State's soldiers had the right to be armed. That makes no sense given the fact the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees freedoms
against the State. It's not a list of rights that the State has. It's all about the people.
If it didn't mean The People, then the amendment would have been clarified 200 years ago by the courts, or at least at some point in our history. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue because there is no issue. We have a right to own guns. Period.
So, in the United States any damn fool can buy a lethal weapon; they even sell them to young alien residents with psychotic personalities. I'm glad I live in Germany.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 06:41:48 AM
So, in the United States any damn fool can buy a lethal weapon; they even sell them to young alien residents with psychotic personalities. I'm glad I live in Germany.
Sarge
I wish I could!
I don't think Germany accept convicted felons as immigrants :-[. I guess I can't entirely blame them.
Quote from: carlos on April 19, 2007, 02:58:19 PM
OMensh:If the majority of Americans really want guns
control, they would have guns control. But they don't,
and they wouldn't have it. So,your affirmation is total
nonsense.
You should really get your facts straight before you accuse people of spewing nonsense. Survey upon survey in recent years has shown that the majority of Americans supports gun control. Mind you, I said gun control, not a ban on private gun ownership. The problem is that politicians rely on the fundraising support of the NRA and the gun industry which is very powerful. Hence, to not alienate them, they have lacked the guts to pass laws that most Americans want (case in point, when the Republican congress allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004, even though Americans were overwhelmingly in support of extending it). Secondly, the problem is that the Congress has neither proper proportional representation nor a balanced regional representation. Voters from rural states in the midwest and southwest paradoxically carry more weight than voters in the urbanized and densely populated East and West Coasts. The result is that those states where gun ownership is more popular and where gun ownership to a degree makes some amount of sense, have disporportional power to decide the issue in their favor. The whole gun control issue really is a conflict between rural America (and Americans who still have outdated romantic ideals of a rural America) on one side, and on the other side urban America which has to live with the disastrous results of easy access to weapons.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 06:41:48 AM
I'm in favor of far, far stricter gun control and I see no reason to permit just anyone to own semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines of the type needed for law enforcement and battle. However, I disagree with your assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies only to members of a State militia. The Amendment says, the right of the People, not the right of part-time soldiers. I don't know how that can be any more clear. Our history supports that interpretation. If the People hadn't been armed, there would have been no revolution against a despotic state; the founders understood that and wanted to ensure the citizens always had the means to fight. I do not for a moment think the framers meant that only the State's soldiers had the right to be armed. That makes no sense given the fact the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees freedoms against the State. It's not a list of rights that the State has. It's all about the people.
If it didn't mean The People, then the amendment would have been clarified 200 years ago by the courts, or at least at some point in our history. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue because there is no issue. We have a right to own guns. Period.
So, in the United States any damn fool can buy a lethal weapon; they even sell them to young alien residents with psychotic personalities. I'm glad I live in Germany.
That's not entirely correct, Sarge. The Superme Court has consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states' rights to regulate the states' militias, today the National Guards. The use of the word "people" comes from the aversion of the founding fathers towards a standing army and is intended to enable the citizens as such (not the state) to possess weapons, but within the framework of a state militia. Whenever the Sup.Ct. decided on a private right to bear arms it was within the context of the non-enumerated rights under the 9th amendment and in the context of each individual's right to self defense. If one were to read the 2nd as you do, the Assault Weapons ban and other similar laws would indeed have been unconstitutional and wuold have easily been challenged. But they aren't because that's not what the 2nd says. There is a recent case in which Scalia (who else? ::) ), in a footnote to his dissent, suggested that the 2nd should be reinterpreted to mean that the people (i.e. each citizen) have a right to bear weapons no matter what, thereby ignoring the first half of the sentence of the 2nd amendment. I bet that if this issue comes up again before the court, Scalia with his new right wing friends on the bench will try to push in this direction. But, currently, the private right to bear arms in Supreme Court jurisprudence still derives from the 9th, not the 2nd. It is sad how NRA propaganda has in the public mind completely transformed the 2nd amendment into something it isn't, as if the first half of the sentence didn't exist. Indeed, most Americans don't even know the first half of the sentence.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 06:41:48 AM
I'm in favor of far, far stricter gun control.
So am I. But let's read the text of the Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Naturally, any member of the People can join such a militia. That's not at issue. But the Amendment doesn't simply read:
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
or even:
"The need of citizens to hunt deer or protect themselves against criminals having being acknowledged, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Every time someone interprets #2 as an unqualified right of the people to own weapons, they have to overlook the opening clause. IMHO, the right to own weapons as provided in #2 cannot be separated from the stated purpose therein for owning weapons.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 20, 2007, 07:06:27 AM
The Superme Court has consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states' rights to regulate the states' militias, today the National Guards.
As stated on The Other Board by my good friend Ralph Stein, a professor of constitutional law at Pace University:
QuoteThe Supreme Court, as many are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.
I shall have to refer your example cases to him to see where they fit in.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on April 20, 2007, 07:12:27 AM
So am I. But let's read the text of the Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Naturally, any member of the People can join such a militia. That's not at issue. But the Amendment doesn't simply read:
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
or even:
"The need of citizens to hunt deer or protect themselves against criminals having being acknowledged, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Every time someone interprets #2 as an unqualified right of the people to own weapons, they have to overlook the opening clause. IMHO, the right to own weapons as provided in #2 cannot be separated from the stated purpose therein for owning weapons.
Larry, the opening clause mentions a reason (one reason) why the people have the right to keep and bear arms...but I see nothing that says you
have to be a soldier. O seems to think that it's a shut case too but it's not. Well known gun-nut Orin Hatch unfortunately makes sense:
They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.
"When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.
And this from 5th Circuit Court in 2001:
...there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" (or "citizen" or "citizens") "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state", or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.
That others dispute Hatch and the Fifth Circuit is the reason we're having this debate now. It hasn't been satisfactorily resolved. I happen to agree with this interpretation of the Second...but, living in Germany, I'm glad I don't have to live with its implications.
Sarge
As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?
Mike
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on April 20, 2007, 07:19:28 AM
As stated on The Other Board by my good friend Ralph Stein, a professor of constitutional law at Pace University:
Quote
The Supreme Court, as many are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.
I shall have to refer your example cases to him to see where they fit in.
Well, I disagree with the highlighted part. That's too strong. I am also referring to Miller (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=174). But in Miller the Court upheld gun regulation with the following interpretation of the 2nd amendment:
Quote
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
...
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
However you read the Miller opinion, there is no way around concluding that the Court considered the first half of the 2nd amendment essential to the second half. And you can't read an unfettered private right to gun ownership into the 2nd without ignoring the first half of the sentence. See also Lewis v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/445/55.html), footnote 8:
Quote
These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"). United States v. Three Winchester, United States v. Johnson, Cody v. United States.
Forgive me for not copying the full citations, but findlaw is not letting me copy and paste for some reason. See also ADAMS v. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/407/143.html):
Quote
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be [407 U.S. 143, 151] secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.
Note the highlighted part. Sigh...
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 07:54:05 AM
O seems to think that it's a shut case too but it's not.
No I don't. I think people are trying to ignore the percedents, which I think are quite clear, but the case is not shut at all since both Thomas and Scalia have in hidden footnotes suggested an eagerness to revisit the issue and rule in favor of the gun lobby.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 07:54:05 AM
Well known gun-nut Orin Hatch unfortunately makes sense:
I am afraid he doesn't. And the reason is this misconception:
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 07:54:05 AM
Larry, the opening clause mentions a reason (one reason) why the people have the right to keep and bear arms...but I see nothing that says you have to be a soldier.
The misunderstanding is the same as here:
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 07:54:05 AM
They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.
The mistake here is that both you and Hatch are thinking from the perspective of the modern professional military. But that is not at all what the founding fathers had in mind when they used the word "militia". They were averse to a standing professional army. They thought the states would simply organize ad hoc militias of free citizens who would train regularly and be available for the national defense when needed. Due to the absence of a formal permanent structure, each citizen should keep his weaponry personally at home. This is what the 2nd refers to and there is some background to the original concept of a "militia" in the Miller opinion I cited. Indeed, you don't have to be a soldier under the 2nd, but that is because the founding fathers didn't intend to have professional soldiers at all. Still, the 2nd relates only to gun ownership in the context of citizens' service in an organized militia.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 20, 2007, 07:54:05 AM
...there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" (or "citizen" or "citizens") "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state", or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.
This is just plain bad logic and bad jurisprudence. You can't use the text of a state constitution (which may perhaps grant more rights than the federal constitution) to interpret the federal constitution. The 2nd does not speak of self defense. Yet, the Sup. Ct. has found a right of self defense under the 9th.
Quote from: knight on April 20, 2007, 08:01:37 AM
As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?
State law is unconstitutional if it either violates specific provisions of the federal constitution (which trumps state law via the Supermacy Clause) or if it is found to infringe upon a legal area that has been preempted by the federal branch. One such area would be the regulation of interstate commerce which is specifically reserved to the federal government. Insofar as state law regulating weapons were to be interpreted as infringing upon interstate commerce in weapons, it could be struck down as unconstitutional. Even if it were to pass muster (and many states have very restrictive gun control laws), they are in most cases not worth the paper they are written on since the states cannot police their borders and prevent the importation of weapons from less restrictive states. E.g. Washington DC has very restrictive gun control laws, but Virginia next door is very liberal. So people go and get their guns in Virginia and the DC law is a paper tiger.
Quote from: Don on April 19, 2007, 02:42:10 PM
Because little jenny passing her piano exam is only news to her immediate family and friends. If she cheated on her exam, perhaps that would elicit a news feature.
But its pleasant; it is nice to know good things are happening. Otherwise, we think life is all doom and gloom. And we live in fear; and so the "need" for guns continues.
stop all the arguing and the law stuff, i'm gonna get a gun and shoot you all up-
POW POW POW!!!! :'(
wait, i just destroyed my computer monitor :'(
(see, we Americans really are stewpid aren't we :-X )
And what happen with the spanish lessons? I'm ready
to renounce to my fee, and give it free of charge.
Quote from: carlos on April 20, 2007, 04:01:48 PM
And what happen with the spanish lessons? I'm ready
to renounce to my fee, and give it free of charge.
no te voy a pagar nada, dawg! es cierto
pero sà que estoy agradecido 8)
I quote myself...anyone got any helpful information for me please?
As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?
Mike
Thank you...so there is nothing to stop States moving to some extent on the issue without a change to the constitution.
Mike
Quote from: knight on April 20, 2007, 10:45:14 PM
Thank you...so there is nothing to stop States moving to some extent on the issue without a change to the constitution.
Mike
Yes, like the death penalty did.
Quote from: knight on April 20, 2007, 10:35:50 PM
I quote myself...anyone got any helpful information for me please?
As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?
Mike
ha, yeah, it's a different world out here- every state for himself 8)
Quote from: CS on April 19, 2007, 07:50:10 PM
The gunman lived in America for most of his life, and according to some recent articles surfacing about the bullying he received from peers in high school, it seems his social and psychological problems, if not started here, certainly developed here. And him being Korean is pretty irrelevant. It's not as if he came over to America last week and started killing Americans. Further, he wasn't racially motivated, and neither did he even show nationalistic tendencies. This was a severely troubled young man who grew up in America, and there's no need to bring race or nationality into the matter. I might add that the Korean government wanting to come over and apologize was completely unnecessary.
I didn't bring nationality into this matter - other posters to this thread did when they made the unfathomably stupid statement that Americans are violent and gun-loving, and citing Virginia Tech as an example. I was just responding to this by pointing out that the gunman was not American, but Korean. And with regard to your statement that his being Korean is "pretty irrelevant" then the fact that the crime was perpetrated on American soil is pretty irrelevant as well. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: knight on April 20, 2007, 10:35:50 PM
I quote myself...anyone got any helpful information for me please?
As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?
Mike
Knight, did you not read my response to you above?
Quote
State law is unconstitutional if it either violates specific provisions of the federal constitution (which trumps state law via the Supermacy Clause) or if it is found to infringe upon a legal area that has been preempted by the federal branch. One such area would be the regulation of interstate commerce which is specifically reserved to the federal government. Insofar as state law regulating weapons were to be interpreted as infringing upon interstate commerce in weapons, it could be struck down as unconstitutional. Even if it were to pass muster (and many states have very restrictive gun control laws), they are in most cases not worth the paper they are written on since the states cannot police their borders and prevent the importation of weapons from less restrictive states. E.g. Washington DC has very restrictive gun control laws, but Virginia next door is very liberal. So people go and get their guns in Virginia and the DC law is a paper tiger.
Mench, I am really sorry, I must have scrolled past your post, I had been hoping you would be one of the ones to respond, thanks. I can see there is a real difficulty in making the law stick.
Cheers,
Mike
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 21, 2007, 08:32:47 AM
I didn't bring nationality into this matter - other posters to this thread did when they made the unfathomably stupid statement that Americans are violent and gun-loving, and citing Virginia Tech as an example. I was just responding to this by pointing out that the gunman was not American, but Korean.
The statement "that Americans are violent and gun-loving, and citing Virginia Tech as an example" is idiotic, I agree, but I don't see how him being Korean is contrary to it. He grew up largely in America and lived in American culture.
QuoteAnd with regard to your statement that his being Korean is "pretty irrelevant" then the fact that the crime was perpetrated on American soil is pretty irrelevant as well. You can't have it both ways.
I don't see why not. The idea that you must accept both (1) a correlation between nationality or race and shooting rampages and (2) a correlation between shooting rampages and locations, without being able to admit the possibility of one or the other being false, is a logical fallacy. So, yes, I can have it "both" ways. But feel free to explain your reasoning, as I don't see any of it.
-CS
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 21, 2007, 08:32:47 AM
I was just responding to this by pointing out that the gunman was not American, but Korean. And with regard to your statement that his being Korean is "pretty irrelevant" then the fact that the crime was perpetrated on American soil is pretty irrelevant as well. You can't have it both ways.
the guy was more American than Korean. He still had somewhat of an accent, but he's obviously American. (if you've read his plays, you can see he definetely doesn't struggle with foul language) :P
[quote author = CS]I don't see why not. The idea that you must accept both (1) a correlation between nationality or race and shooting rampages and (2) a correlation between shooting rampages and locations, without being able to admit the possibility of one or the other being false, is a logical fallacy. So, yes, I can have it "both" ways. But feel free to explain your reasoning, as I don't see any of it.[/quote]
well, as i said before, you're more likely to have a troubled white guy or Asian guy who is antisocial to do a shooting spree than someone from the hood (their style is drive-by shootings or just plain murders)
so there is some type of correlation.... though i think my point is different entirely....
Quote from: greg on April 22, 2007, 11:50:29 AM
the guy was more American than Korean. He still had somewhat of an accent, but he's obviously you're more likely to have a troubled white guy or Asian guy who is antisocial to do a shooting spree than someone from the hood (their style is drive-by shootings or just plain murders)
Well, as someone who grew up in the 'hood so to speak I think in general Brothers are very social (how many single person gangs do you see?). Dealing drugs, pimping, drive-by shootings and carrying out armed robberies usually require more than one person.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 22, 2007, 12:14:09 PM
Well, as someone who grew up in the 'hood so to speak I think in general Brothers are very social (how many single person gangs do you see?). Dealing drugs, pimping, drive-by shootings and carrying out armed robberies usually require more than one person.
must suck to grow up in the hood, huh?
probably in less than 10 years, where i used to live (and basically, grew up) will be a complete ghetto the way it's going, that's one of the reasons my family (and me with them) moved out a bit.
so you're saying
all the crime was involving more than one person? like if you get carjacked, there's two people?
Quote from: greg on April 22, 2007, 12:29:42 PM
must suck to grow up in the hood, huh?
probably in less than 10 years, where i used to live (and basically, grew up) will be a complete ghetto the way it's going, that's one of the reasons my family (and me with them) moved out a bit.
so you're saying all the crime was involving more than one person? like if you get carjacked, there's two people?
Not all, but most. One person to commit the crime and one to stand watch for the cops.
Well I moved out of the 'hood after college, but my parents like living there...
Quote from: greg on April 22, 2007, 12:29:42 PM
must suck to grow up in the hood, huh?
probably in less than 10 years, where i used to live (and basically, grew up) will be a complete ghetto the way it's going, that's one of the reasons my family (and me with them) moved out a bit.
Could be worse. The town where my father grew up has turned into one large ghetto. Not a section of it...the entire town.
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 22, 2007, 01:50:45 PM
Could be worse. The town where my father grew up has turned into one large ghetto. Not a section of it...the entire town.
Where would that be? St. Louis or New Orleans?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 22, 2007, 02:11:07 PM
Where would that be? St. Louis or New Orleans?
Portland. Maine (just kidding).
Quote from: Harvested Sorrow on April 22, 2007, 01:50:45 PM
Could be worse. The town where my father grew up has turned into one large ghetto. Not a section of it...the entire town.
i wonder if there ever has been a ghetto that's eventually turned into a fancy, upper-class neighborhood :o
Quote from: greg on April 23, 2007, 03:41:05 PM
i wonder if there ever has been a ghetto that's eventually turned into a fancy, upper-class neighborhood :o
Upper West Side, parts of Brooklyn, several neighborhoods in Chicago, etc. Really, as of late, gentrification has quite considerably changed American urban landscapes. Consider that the ganag wars of West Side Story were set where today Linconln Center is located.Rents are ridiculous around there. There are several Trump-owned condo buildings around there.
Quote from: O Mensch on April 23, 2007, 03:44:35 PM
Upper West Side, parts of Brooklyn, several neighborhoods in Chicago, etc. Really, as of late, gentrification has quite considerably changed American urban landscapes. Consider that the ganag wars of West Side Story were set where today Linconln Center is located.Rents are ridiculous around there. There are several Trump-owned condo buildings around there.
really? that good news 8)
Quote from: greg on April 24, 2007, 10:39:32 AM
really? that good news 8)
If you consider rent for a studio at $1,900/month good news, then yes...
Quote from: O Mensch on April 24, 2007, 11:03:16 AM
If you consider rent for a studio at $1,900/month good news, then yes...
that's no problem for all the famous rappers, though- that's like losing a penny for them.
and they won't have any rage over a lost penny.....
Quote from: CS on April 21, 2007, 09:26:03 AM
The statement "that Americans are violent and gun-loving, and citing Virginia Tech as an example" is idiotic, I agree, but I don't see how him being Korean is contrary to it. He grew up largely in America and lived in American culture.
I don't see why not. The idea that you must accept both (1) a correlation between nationality or race and shooting rampages and (2) a correlation between shooting rampages and locations, without being able to admit the possibility of one or the other being false, is a logical fallacy. So, yes, I can have it "both" ways. But feel free to explain your reasoning, as I don't see any of it.
-CS
You agree with me that it's stupid to think that Americans are violent and gun-loving and you agree that it's idiotic to give VT as an example to support this belief. But then you say that you don't see how the gunman being Korean is contrary to it. It's not that it's contrary to that belief, it's that it's non-supportive of that belief.
Let me make an analogy : Imagine that a mutual friend of ours is of the belief that all swans are white. (An erroneous belief, BTW, as there are black swans but he's too dumb to know that.) Now imagine that, in an attempt to lend credence to his belief, he points to a white dove. Would that make any sense at all? Mind you, the existance of a white dove is not contrary to his (false) belief, it just does nothing to support it.
Believing that Americans are prone to shooting sprees and citing VT as evidence makes as much sense - none. Only now instead of presenting a dove as "evidence" for a belief about swans there are those presenting a Korean as "evidence" for a belief about Americans.
You point out that he grew up and lived in US culture. Nonetheless, he was Korean. He never took out US citizenship. From what I've read in the newspaper he was born in Korea, to Korean parents, grew up speaking Korean, spent his early childhood in Korea, later lived in the Korean community of an American city, and was a South Korea national. That makes him Korean, doesn't it? Well, that's all I said in my OP. What is it about that simple declarative statement that's factual incorrect? And if you're going to concede that he was Korean but then dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion about whether the VT mass shooting is inherently American in nature, then I'm going to take the fact that the shooting took place in the US and label it irrelevant. Why not? If you can I can.
Also, when I say you can't have it both ways, you say "I don't see why not". You point out that there are two correlations being considered - one between the rampage and nationality, the other between the rampage and location - and that the idea that you must accept both without admitting the possibility of one or the other being false is a logical fallacy. When I say you can't have it both ways I do not mean you have to accept both in order to be logical - I mean you have to accept both in order to be fair. All you're doing is being selective in emphasising the one that gives weight to your contention - that the shooting is somehow typically American - while dismissing the other as irrelevant. You say, "yes, I can have it both ways". Very well then, you can - but only by being intellectually dishonest.
Look, my point here is very simple. All I'm really saying is that in a discussion about VT, if someone is going to tell me (or at least strongly imply) that the shooting is intrinsic to the American character, then I'm going to point out that the gunman was Korean. If you're going to talk nationality (American), then I'm going to talk nationality (Korean).
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 25, 2007, 11:34:16 AM
You agree with me that it's stupid to think that Americans are violent and gun-loving and you agree that it's idiotic to give VT as an example to support this belief. But then you say that you don't see how the gunman being Korean is contrary to it. It's not that it's contrary to that belief, it's that it's non-supportive of that belief.
Let me make an analogy : Imagine that a mutual friend of ours is of the belief that all swans are white. (An erroneous belief, BTW, as there are black swans but he's too dumb to know that.) Now imagine that, in an attempt to lend credence to his belief, he points to a white dove. Would that make any sense at all? Mind you, the existance of a white dove is not contrary to his (false) belief, it just does nothing to support it.
Believing that Americans are prone to shooting sprees and citing VT as evidence makes as much sense - none. Only now instead of presenting a dove as "evidence" for a belief about swans there are those presenting a Korean as "evidence" for a belief about Americans.
You point out that he grew up and lived in US culture. Nonetheless, he was Korean. He never took out US citizenship. From what I've read in the newspaper he was born in Korea, to Korean parents, grew up speaking Korean, spent his early childhood in Korea, later lived in the Korean community of an American city, and was a South Korea national. That makes him Korean, doesn't it? Well, that's all I said in my OP. What is it about that simple declarative statement that's factual incorrect? And if you're going to concede that he was Korean but then dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion about whether the VT mass shooting is inherently American in nature, then I'm going to take the fact that the shooting took place in the US and label it irrelevant. Why not? If you can I can.
Also, when I say you can't have it both ways, you say "I don't see why not". You point out that there are two correlations being considered - one between the rampage and nationality, the other between the rampage and location - and that the idea that you must accept both without admitting the possibility of one or the other being false is a logical fallacy. When I say you can't have it both ways I do not mean you have to accept both in order to be logical - I mean you have to accept both in order to be fair. All you're doing is being selective in emphasising the one that gives weight to your contention - that the shooting is somehow typically American - while dismissing the other as irrelevant. You say, "yes, I can have it both ways". Very well then, you can - but only by being intellectually dishonest.
Look, my point here is very simple. All I'm really saying is that in a discussion about VT, if someone is going to tell me (or at least strongly imply) that the shooting is intrinsic to the American character, then I'm going to point out that the gunman was Korean. If you're going to talk nationality (American), then I'm going to talk nationality (Korean).
Boy, it's really difficult to figure out what you are trying to say.
The person in question had a severe mental illness. That is a characteristic failure mode of the human brain, and is more or less universal. However, this psychopathology manifested itself in the form of a shooting spree. This clearly reflected the cultural in which the person was immersed, which is America, not Korea. However this does not indicate that shooting sprees are part of American culture, only that this is the effect that American culture has on a severely deranged person.
Quote
When I say you can't have it both ways I do not mean you have to accept both in order to be logical - I mean you have to accept both in order to be fair. All you're doing is being selective in emphasising the one that gives weight to your contention - that the shooting is somehow typically American - while dismissing the other as irrelevant. You say, "yes, I can have it both ways". Very well then, you can - but only by being intellectually dishonest.
No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest. I'll address most of the points you raised below.
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 25, 2007, 11:34:16 AM
Believing that Americans are prone to shooting sprees and citing VT as evidence makes as much sense - none.
I didn't.
But your whole talk of swans seems a little wobbly to me. If one agrees that American culture certainly had an effect on the shooter (which it undeniably did, reasonably more so than any other culture), than it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings. One finds in fact that there is a potential correlation, citing other similar events disproportionately attributed to America. One also considers the shooter's nationality and race. There is no other information that points to either of these factors having a general trend. Of course everything should be "considered," if even as common sensibly as above.
QuoteAnd if you're going to concede that he was Korean but then dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion about whether the VT mass shooting is inherently American in nature, then I'm going to take the fact that the shooting took place in the US and label it irrelevant. Why not? If you can I can.
Like I said before, there is a reason (repeated occurrences) to believe America is prone to school shootings, more so than other countries. There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean is part of some national or racial trend. To say him being Korean has something to do with it: well, OBVIOUSLY, at some level of pedantry, it has something to do with it. And I'm sure the specific schools he went to had SOMETHING to do with it. But there is no good reason to believe Koreans have mass murdering genes or murderous nationalistic tendencies from this incident.
Quote
Look, my point here is very simple. All I'm really saying is that in a discussion about VT, if someone is going to tell me (or at least strongly imply) that the shooting is intrinsic to the American character, then I'm going to point out that the gunman was Korean. If you're going to talk nationality (American), then I'm going to talk nationality (Korean).
"Intrinsic to the American character" seems to imply mass shootings are somehow characteristic of the average American individual. I never heard anyone suggest that, and I wouldn't take it quite seriously -- I think we agree most Americans are reasonable and moderate people. What some people have suggested, and I'm certainly not against the suggestion, is that there is a general trend of school shootings in American culture, more so than other places, and concurrently American culture has something to do with it. That there is a trend or a correlation is indeed a suggestion, perhaps a very good one. That there actually are a disproportionate number of these shootings in America is fact.
--CS
Quote from: CS on April 25, 2007, 01:25:53 PM
Like I said before, there is a reason (repeated occurrences) to believe America is prone to school shootings, more so than other countries.
Maybe it's like a chain reaction? After Columbine, people were always afraid another school shooting would happen, so it gets the idea into people's minds. So if someone like Cho, who is feeling really bad, wants to do something nasty, he gets the idea of school shooting since it's already happened before.
Personally, I prefer the type of school shooting where the shooter shoots the school
building instead of the students. It's much safer and a more constructive way to express that you don't care much for school 0:)
And if somebody feels like to kill other, he/she should
choose politicians, and no innocent students.
Quote from: carlos on April 26, 2007, 06:44:55 AM
And if somebody feels like to kill other, he/she should
choose politicians, and no innocent students.
or maybe they should just kill terrorists?
Quote from: CS on April 25, 2007, 01:25:53 PM
No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest. I'll address most of the points you raised below.
I didn't.
But your whole talk of swans seems a little wobbly to me. If one agrees that American culture certainly had an effect on the shooter (which it undeniably did, reasonably more so than any other culture), than it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings. One finds in fact that there is a potential correlation, citing other similar events disproportionately attributed to America. One also considers the shooter's nationality and race. There is no other information that points to either of these factors having a general trend. Of course everything should be "considered," if even as common sensibly as above.
Like I said before, there is a reason (repeated occurrences) to believe America is prone to school shootings, more so than other countries. There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean is part of some national or racial trend. To say him being Korean has something to do with it: well, OBVIOUSLY, at some level of pedantry, it has something to do with it. And I'm sure the specific schools he went to had SOMETHING to do with it. But there is no good reason to believe Koreans have mass murdering genes or murderous nationalistic tendencies from this incident.
"Intrinsic to the American character" seems to imply mass shootings are somehow characteristic of the average American individual. I never heard anyone suggest that, and I wouldn't take it quite seriously -- I think we agree most Americans are reasonable and moderate people. What some people have suggested, and I'm certainly not against the suggestion, is that there is a general trend of school shootings in American culture, more so than other places, and concurrently American culture has something to do with it. That there is a trend or a correlation is indeed a suggestion, perhaps a very good one. That there actually are a disproportionate number of these shootings in America is fact.
--CS
You say "If one agrees that American culture had an effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings." That, my friend, is what's known as a tautology. If you can make one I can make one - to wit : If one agrees that American culture had no effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider that there is no connection between American culture and shootings.
You say "There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean has something to do with it." Of course not. I never said so. Re-read my posts - all I said is that he was Korean - period. Now you might reasonably think "OK, he was Korean. But why does Mayfielder point this out?" I do this to give you a feel for what I experience when I read the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture. If someone attempts to support this bizarre belief by making the irrelevant observation that the shooting tool place in the US, then I respond by making the equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean. I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality, whether the nationality of the shooter or the nation in which the shooting occured. The shooting has nothing to do with Koreanness and it has nothing to do with Americanness. But a number of posters have said or implied that it is somehow an indictment of America. I'm just responding to that.
You say "There is no reason to believe Koreans have mass murdering genes from this incident." That statement is absolutely true. Now I've got a statement that absolutely true : There is no reason to believe Americans are infected with an I-think-I'll-kill-some-people-today virus from this incident. And yet, incredibly, that's what you're implying when you say "it's not as if he came over last week" and "he grew up largely im America and lived in American culture" as though during his 15 years here he caught something the way you might catch a cold from being in a room with infected people.
The fact that this rampage took place means that one (ONE, mind you) individual was sick in the head and killed people. The fact that he was Korean means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was Korean. The fact that it took place in America means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that it took place in America. It is not a reflection on American culture.
And this leads to a question I have - why is it that when a multiple shooting takes place anywhere in the world outside the US it's seen for what it is? An aberation. An anomoly. A deviation. It is not looked upon as being indicative of the culture of the country it took place in but is rightly looked upon as reflecting solely on the individual who committed it. Does the school shooting in Montreal last September when 20 people were shot mean that Canada has a gun culture? No? Well, how about the school shooting in Montreal in Dec 89 when 13 people were killed or Montreal in Aug 92 or Alberta Apr 99? No? Does the fact that 16 people were killed in a school shooting in Erfurt, Germany in 2002 mean that German culture is to blame? No? How about the school shootings in Branneburg in 2000, Munich in 2002, and Emsdetten in 2006? No? Does the bloodbath in Dunbane, Scotland school shooting in March 1996 when 17 were killed mean there's a sickness in the British soul? No? How about the mass killing in Hungerford, England in Aug 87? No? How about the Continent? School shootings in Stockholm, Sweden in Jan 2001 and Veghel, Netherlands Dec 99. Do Europeans love violence? No? School shootings in other countries - Kenya Mar 2001 and Osaka, Japan June 2001. How about 35 killed in Australia in April 1996? No? But Columbine and Virginia Tech? YES! YES! YES! Proof positive that Americans are gun-lovin' freaks who are violent by nature, doncha know? It's not the poor gunmen's fault - what'ya expect being exposed to that culture? Although you deny it CS, you can't have it both ways. Either mass gun deaths in America and the rest of the world are due to the culture in which the gunmen live OR (on a more positive note) we look upon the people and cultures of all countries as being innocent in these tragedies that, fortunately, are extremely rare and attributable only to the sick individuals who carry them out.
So why single out America? The only thing you've given me, CS, is that there is evidently more shootings in the US that elsewhere. But bear in mind there are more people in the US than in most countries - recently hitting the 300,000,000 mark. If country A has twice as many gun deaths as country B you might well make the obvious statement that country A has a more gun deaths that country B. But what if the population of country A is three times the population of country B? On a per capita basis it's country B that has a bigger gun death problem that country A. And even if the rate is proportionately higher in the US what does that mean? Only that the US differs from other countries only in degree, not in kind. And even if you consider a difference in degree to be significant what are you actually doing? You're just choosing an arbitrary rate and decreeing that if a country is above this standard in gun deaths then its culture is to blame and if a country is below this standard then its culture is not to blame.
OK, my fingers are getting tired from all this typing - I'll stop now. But be sure to respond and tell all about how wrong I am in my thinking.
PS You said "No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest." OK, I'll accept that.
lol, I have to say I agree with Mayfielder.
With the population thing..... is it easy to get guns in India or China? just wondering
I just thought of one more thing. After this I promise not to say any more on the subject.
Do you know how many high school students there are in the US? About 16.5 million. Do you know how many college students there are in the US? About 17.5 million. Add the two and you've got 34 million high school and college students in the United States. Count them again in, say, ten years and practically no one in the first counting will be in the second counting and so after a decade you essentially double that. So over the past few decades there have been God-only-knows how many tens of millions upon tens of millions of high school and college students in America. Now let me ask you something - how many of those students go on a shooting rampage at their school?
Don't you see?
It's not the .000001 % that's representative of American culture.
It's the 99.99999 % that don't shoot up their school that's representative of American culture.
Virginia Tech is an aberration that no more reflects American culture than a shooting anywhere else in the world reflects that country's culture. Can't you see this? It's so obvious.
Sorry if I seem to dwell on this but as someone who has never (and I mean literally not once) so much as touched a gun in my life, let alone owned or fired one (and I'm as American as you can get) I take it as a personal insult when someone says there's something inherently violent in American culture. I'm about as belligerant as a dead Quaker and I can't believe I'm atypical in this regard.
BTW, I just read that the only cultural influence that anyone has been able to attribute to the VT shooter are violent Korean films he had an obsession with - that's right - Korean. But I still say that Koreanness, like Americanness, had nothing to do with this guy going off his nut. I just found it interesting.
OK, I'm now done with this topic.
PS, Greg, I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to get guns in India or China. I thank you for saying you agree with me - at least someone on this thread gave me moral support.
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 27, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
You say "If one agrees that American culture had an effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings." That, my friend, is what's known as a tautology. If you can make one I can make one - to wit : If one agrees that American culture had no effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider that there is no connection between American culture and shootings.
I just don't think "American culture had no effect on the shooter" is a sensible statement.
Quote
You say "There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean has something to do with it." Of course not. I never said so. Re-read my posts - all I said is that he was Korean - period. Now you might reasonably think "OK, he was Korean. But why does Mayfielder point this out?" I do this to give you a feel for what I experience when I read the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture. If someone attempts to support this bizarre belief by making the irrelevant observation that the shooting tool place in the US, then I respond by making the equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean. I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality, whether the nationality of the shooter or the nation in which the shooting occured. The shooting has nothing to do with Koreanness and it has nothing to do with Americanness. But a number of posters have said or implied that it is somehow an indictment of America. I'm just responding to that.
I don't think "the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture" is an absurd idea. Definitely worth consideration.
"[...] equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean." Equally irrelevant? Sorry, I disagree, and I thought my stance on that was clear in my last post.
"I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality:" but nationality is not the same thing as culture. There are a lot of vague terms being thrown around here (by myself as well).
Quote
There is no reason to believe Americans are infected with an I-think-I'll-kill-some-people-today virus from this incident.
I agree, and I said that in my last post.
QuoteAnd yet, incredibly, that's what you're implying when you say "it's not as if he came over last week" and "he grew up largely im America and lived in American culture" as though during his 15 years here he caught something the way you might catch a cold from being in a room with infected people.
There's a big difference between saying (1) this troubled young man's actions were somehow catalyzed by his environment and (2) his environment somehow passed down the tendencies of its members to him. I'm saying (1). You quote me as saying (2). Just clearing that up.
Quote
The fact that this rampage took place means that one (ONE, mind you) individual was sick in the head and killed people. The fact that he was Korean means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was Korean. The fact that it took place in America means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that it took place in America. It is not a reflection on American culture.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between our arguments. I am saying, as above, American society somehow, very likely, catalyzed the actions of the shooter, not that American society turns normal citizens into mass murderers. Cho had problems not common to most people, I think we all agree on that.
QuoteAnd this leads to a question I have - why is it that when a multiple shooting takes place anywhere in the world outside the US it's seen for what it is? An aberation. An anomoly. A deviation. It is not looked upon as being indicative of the culture of the country it took place in but is rightly looked upon as reflecting solely on the individual who committed it. Does the school shooting in Montreal last September when 20 people were shot mean that Canada has a gun culture? No? Well, how about the school shooting in Montreal in Dec 89 when 13 people were killed or Montreal in Aug 92 or Alberta Apr 99? No? Does the fact that 16 people were killed in a school shooting in Erfurt, Germany in 2002 mean that German culture is to blame? No? How about the school shootings in Branneburg in 2000, Munich in 2002, and Emsdetten in 2006? No? Does the bloodbath in Dunbane, Scotland school shooting in March 1996 when 17 were killed mean there's a sickness in the British soul? No? How about the mass killing in Hungerford, England in Aug 87? No? How about the Continent? School shootings in Stockholm, Sweden in Jan 2001 and Veghel, Netherlands Dec 99. Do Europeans love violence? No? School shootings in other countries - Kenya Mar 2001 and Osaka, Japan June 2001. How about 35 killed in Australia in April 1996? No? But Columbine and Virginia Tech? YES! YES! YES! Proof positive that Americans are gun-lovin' freaks who are violent by nature, doncha know? It's not the poor gunmen's fault - what'ya expect being exposed to that culture? Although you deny it CS, you can't have it both ways. Either mass gun deaths in America and the rest of the world are due to the culture in which the gunmen live OR (on a more positive note) we look upon the people and cultures of all countries as being innocent in these tragedies that, fortunately, are extremely rare and attributable only to the sick individuals who carry them out.
For the record, those international incidents, most of them, were publicized and in the media plenty. American shootings get more coverage in America because they're domestic.
Your list of incidents doesn't change the fact that America has more school shootings than those other countries. But your next point is the more interesting one:
QuoteSo why single out America? The only thing you've given me, CS, is that there is evidently more shootings in the US that elsewhere. But bear in mind there are more people in the US than in most countries - recently hitting the 300,000,000 mark. If country A has twice as many gun deaths as country B you might well make the obvious statement that country A has a more gun deaths that country B. But what if the population of country A is three times the population of country B? On a per capita basis it's country B that has a bigger gun death problem that country A. And even if the rate is proportionately higher in the US what does that mean? Only that the US differs from other countries only in degree, not in kind. And even if you consider a difference in degree to be significant what are you actually doing? You're just choosing an arbitrary rate and decreeing that if a country is above this standard in gun deaths then its culture is to blame and if a country is below this standard then its culture is not to blame.
I think it would be worthwhile to investigate this. I admit that not considering the populations of countries is unfair. But does America have about equal or less than other regions of the world when statistically adjusted? I'd be interested to find out.
These are interesting:
http://www.svrc.net/ShootingsMap.htm
http://www.keystosaferschools.com/Map_School_Shootings.htm
I suppose you could even bring this to a regional level in the US; ie. the Midwest hardly ever has school shootings (according to the above link).
Quote
OK, my fingers are getting tired from all this typing - I'll stop now. But be sure to respond and tell all about how wrong I am in my thinking.
Let me humble myself and say I realized I had looked at some things too simply at first. But I hope our little battle of words here has made you think as well. I maintain our initial disagreement was largely semantical, however (though you may disagree).
QuotePS You said "No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest." OK, I'll accept that.
Thanks. --CS
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 28, 2007, 02:29:57 PM
PS, Greg, I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to get guns in India or China. I thank you for saying you agree with me - at least someone on this thread gave me moral support.
I tried researching the topic and found little statistical studies on the topic of school shootings, demographically and regionally; so the points you raise are well taken, but I'd like to find out more about the conclusions those considerations bring about.
And about the quote above, it is not a moral issue to me, and I hope you realize there is nothing personal about this debate.
--CS
Quote from: CS on April 28, 2007, 07:46:54 PM
I just don't think "American culture had no effect on the shooter" is a sensible statement.
I don't think "the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture" is an absurd idea. Definitely worth consideration.
"[...] equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean." Equally irrelevant? Sorry, I disagree, and I thought my stance on that was clear in my last post.
"I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality:" but nationality is not the same thing as culture. There are a lot of vague terms being thrown around here (by myself as well).
I agree, and I said that in my last post.
There's a big difference between saying (1) this troubled young man's actions were somehow catalyzed by his environment and (2) his environment somehow passed down the tendencies of its members to him. I'm saying (1). You quote me as saying (2). Just clearing that up.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between our arguments. I am saying, as above, American society somehow, very likely, catalyzed the actions of the shooter, not that American society turns normal citizens into mass murderers. Cho had problems not common to most people, I think we all agree on that.
Ok, if you're going to say that American culture had some kind of effect on this troubled guy's mind, could you give us an example of anything specific? Violent video games maybe? Western movies? People he knew that were into guns and violence?
The thing is, this guy was completely non-social and almost never talked to anyone, so it's hard to think of this guy being influenced by any culture...
QuoteI tried researching the topic and found little statistical studies on the topic of school shootings, demographically and regionally; so the points you raise are well taken, but I'd like to find out more about the conclusions those considerations bring about.
And about the quote above, it is not a moral issue to me, and I hope you realize there is nothing personal about this debate.
ah, that sucks :P oh well, maybe the internet doesn't have all the information in the world ;D
Quote from: greg on April 29, 2007, 10:32:27 AM
ah, that sucks :P oh well, maybe the internet doesn't have all the information in the world ;D
Now
that is wisdom!
Quote from: greg on April 29, 2007, 10:32:27 AM
Ok, if you're going to say that American culture had some kind of effect on this troubled guy's mind, could you give us an example of anything specific? Violent video games maybe? Western movies? People he knew that were into guns and violence?
The thing is, this guy was completely non-social and almost never talked to anyone, so it's hard to think of this guy being influenced by any culture...
ah, that sucks :P oh well, maybe the internet doesn't have all the information in the world ;D
As far as Cho being "influenced" by American culture: when he mentions "hedonists," "snobs," and "brats" I don't think he's talking about the people he knew in South Korea. He mentions his aversion to the "pretentious" and spoiled culture of his surroundings; he mentions the alcohol culture (perhaps which he experienced in college); he mentions his suffering being analogous to the 9/11 attacks; he makes an aggressive comment towards the current US president. As for the American media: Cho mentions John Mark Karr and Debra Lafave as antagonists towards his goal, and finally, Cho praises the Columbine shooters as inspiration. And by the way, Cho was not absolutely sealed in a vacuum. He had occasionally called his roommate, used AIM, and drank with his roommates at least once. And yes, he actually did go to (English) classes and lived in a dorm/suite with others for four years, so I don't think it's fair to say Cho wasn't exposed to or influenced by any culture.
Quote from: CS on April 29, 2007, 01:11:47 PM
As far as Cho being "influenced" by American culture: when he mentions "hedonists," "snobs," and "brats" I don't think he's talking about the people he knew in South Korea. He mentions his aversion to the "pretentious" and spoiled culture of his surroundings; he mentions the alcohol culture (perhaps which he experienced in college); he mentions his suffering being analogous to the 9/11 attacks; he makes an aggressive comment towards the current US president. As for the American media: Cho mentions John Mark Karr and Debra Lafave as antagonists towards his goal, and finally, Cho praises the Columbine shooters as inspiration. And by the way, Cho was not absolutely sealed in a vacuum. He had occasionally called his roommate, used AIM, and drank with his roommates at least once. And yes, he actually did go to (English) classes and lived in a dorm/suite with others for four years, so I don't think it's fair to say Cho wasn't exposed to or influenced by any culture.
okay, thanks.
You know, you seem to have learned more stuff that I didn't even know about him :o - probably some articles I haven't read online, huh?
I actually understand his aversion toward the alcohol/partying/wild drugs & sex culture of America (and really, it's everywhere, not just America). It's all just total immorality, if you're gonna have a party, have a party with all of that stuff. I can understand Cho's feelings towards this; but I don't think shooting people will help to change this at all, somehow ??? (what an idiot)
uggghh....... now I feel like I'm dissing almost every friend I've ever had, since everyone nowadays goes out to wild parties every once in awhile (except for me, of course)
as for the "pretentious and spoiled" culture, I wonder if he's talking about everyone or just people with lots of money? probably none, he probably didn't know what he was talking about himself ;D
Quote from: greg on April 30, 2007, 05:34:27 AM
okay, thanks.
You know, you seem to have learned more stuff that I didn't even know about him :o - probably some articles I haven't read online, huh?
Everything I know I read from a few articles and extracts from his manifesto (5 pages are released) and parts of his video. I'm no scholar on the matter :P
Quote
as for the "pretentious and spoiled" culture, I wonder if he's talking about everyone or just people with lots of money? probably none, he probably didn't know what he was talking about himself ;D
Who knows. What we have to look at (which probably is not much less than what investigators are looking at) shows Cho making very vague to seemingly personal statements about his problems with society.
I find it absurd to discuss the supposed social implications of a person who evidently had a severe brain disorder. Cultural cues may have influenced the mode of expression of his pathology, but they didn't cause it.
If his parents had sent him to a Tibetan Monstary he would have ended up raking the monks with machine gun fire after making a demented video about how he did it for Chairman Mao.
Quote from: CS on April 30, 2007, 06:37:27 AM
Everything I know I read from a few articles and extracts from his manifesto (5 pages are released) and parts of his video. I'm no scholar on the matter :P
Who knows. What we have to look at (which probably is not much less than what investigators are looking at) shows Cho making very vague to seemingly personal statements about his problems with society.
Quote
If his parents had sent him to a Tibetan Monstary he would have ended up raking the monks with machine gun fire after making a demented video about how he did it for Chairman Mao.
That's just pure speculation. And I don't think this kid had a "severe brain disorder." Depression itself can lead one to do irrational things, and I don't consider depressed people having severe brain disorders. I guess it's all about where you draw the line.
Quote from: CS on April 30, 2007, 11:36:14 AM
That's just pure speculation. And I don't think this kid had a "severe brain disorder." Depression itself can lead one to do irrational things, and I don't consider depressed people having severe brain disorders. I guess it's all about where you draw the line.
And the pages and pages you've posted on the subject aren't speculation? At least I have the virtue of being brief!
The kid's family reported that he had essentially refused to talk to anyone, including his parents and sister, from the age of 6. His sister, who grew up in the same household and environment is a successful graduate of an ivy league university. It is clear to me that this person's brain was defective.
Quote from: CS on April 28, 2007, 07:46:54 PM
Let me humble myself and say I realized I had looked at some things too simply at first. But I hope our little battle of words here has made you think as well. I maintain our initial disagreement was largely semantical, however (though you may disagree).
I said I wasn't going to say anything more on the shooting. Don't worry, I'm not going back on my word. I'm only going to respond to the above.
Yes, it is easy to look at things (especially complicated things) too simply and I have no doubt that I am as guilty of that as you admit to. As far as I'm concerned there was no battle (little or otherwise) between us and, yes, you certainly gave me enough food for thought for me to gorge on. "Semantical"? Oh, I don't know - maybe. What DO words like "culture" and "nationality" really mean?
But isn't it great to have a forum (thanks, GMG) that we can share our thoughts on with each other and argue (I mean argue in the traditional sense)? The Athenians had Plato's Academy, we have the 'net.
Quote from: Mayfielder on April 30, 2007, 04:54:49 PM
I said I wasn't going to say anything more on the shooting. Don't worry, I'm not going back on my word. I'm only going to respond to the above.
Yes, it is easy to look at things (especially complicated things) too simply and I have no doubt that I am as guilty of that as you admit to. As far as I'm concerned there was no battle (little or otherwise) between us and, yes, you certainly gave me enough food for thought for me to gorge on. "Semantical"? Oh, I don't know - maybe. What DO words like "culture" and "nationality" really mean?
But isn't it great to have a forum (thanks, GMG) that we can share our thoughts on with each other and argue (I mean argue in the traditional sense)? The Athenians had Plato's Academy, we have the 'net.
:)
--CS
Quote from: head-case on April 30, 2007, 12:16:30 PM
And the pages and pages you've posted on the subject aren't speculation?
Most of it isn't...but I suppose you didn't read much of it anyway. Mayfielder and I were talking mostly about what is, and our interpretations of it, and we ended up disagreeing on some major points. Speculative, sure, but none of, "well if circumstances were different it surely would have happened this way."
And just because you don't feel like reading or writing more than 2 lines of text doesn't make you virtuous.
--CS
There is at least one aspect of US culture that caused so many dead - the bit about automatic weapons being so freely available. Every society has its share of people with psycho/socio/mental problems, whether it is a personality disorder, depression or psychosis. Most societies do not go out of their way to make weapons of mass murder so easily available to such people.
Yes, we in Australia did have a mass shooting in 1996. We as a nation responded to it - we banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Number of deaths from mass shootings since then? Zero! It is just too difficult for people in this country to get their hands on these weapons.
Sure, "professional" criminals will have access to them, but such criminals do not go into schools, shopping centers and workplaces and shoot 30 random people.
I am amazed that anyone would defend the retention of a law that allows ordinary people access to such weapons. Why does anyone in a civilised society need them? Just because some ancient law, now very out of date, says so? If such a law is responsible for so many deaths, change the &*&#@*$ law!
I bet if you actually saw the mutilation of the bodies of the dead, the suffering of the families or had to work in the hospitals where the wounded were treated, you would change your stance. Its not pretty. Gun deaths are not clean and clinical like in the movies. It is disgustingly unhuman (and I have chosen that term deliberately). A high-powered weapon changes a person into a steaming mound of flesh, liquid, and feces.
You are wrong if you are trying to say that gun deaths in the USA are simply a reflection of the high population. Gun deaths in the USA are much, much, much higher than the rest of the western world, even taking into account the population. As I said before, gun deaths in Australia are just 6% that of the USA when adjusted for population.
Just don't be surprised the next time it happens, because it will happen again and again and again. Until you finally change the law.
I've heard that when they banned guns for the first time in England, the crime rate went up. Is this true?
Quote from: greg on May 01, 2007, 05:48:41 AM
I've heard that when they banned guns for the first time in England, the crime rate went up. Is this true?
What guns? Handguns were banned but not just in England and the crime rate has been consistently falling since 1997.
Have we the only police force in the World that still does not carry handguns on a day-to-day basis?
But lately in England there were many aggressions with knifes.
You don't need a bullet to kill somebody.
And also some with guns - however these appear mostly to have been "de-activated" weapons (i.e. for display) that had been re-activated, or replica weapons that had been converted for actual use. Proving, I suppose, that where there's a will there's a way. The situation would probably not be helped by un-banning handguns.
Quote from: carlos on May 01, 2007, 06:46:37 AM
But lately in England there were many aggressions with knifes.
You don't need a bullet to kill somebody.
That's what's scary. Would you rather be killed with a gun or a knife?