Virginia Tech massacre

[Tuomas]

1. how inclined was he exactly? We for one have one of the highest suicide rates in the world, but the people don't go berserk. And most suicides are by young men left or rejected by their girls. To get a gun here would mean weeks of planning and finding contacts, and if you after all that most people who act impulsively would not be so keen on the idea anymore, they'd just hang themselves.
2. The gun is certainly not the only way, but certainly the most lethal and powerful way. And when it is presented to you on a silver plate, you might just take it. with a knife or a baseball bat you might find it hard to kill 33 people including yourself. Not that it makes any difference, but the thing is, it's really not helping if you're given a gun as a gift at birth, and you grow up thinking they're common objects, just like forks and spoons.

[LimpingFish]

I don't agree with comparing a gun to a knife, or a sword, or spiked baseball bat, and certainly in this case the greater loss of life can be attributed to the weapon used.

Bludgeoning, or stabbing someone to death, is a far more up-close and personal experience. It requires time and physical, not to mention mental, effort.

The distance between murderer and victim when a gun is involved more or less allows for a mental buffer zone. Shooting someone across a room is a lot different to feeling their skull crack under your fists.

Point. Pull trigger. Move on. Impersonal and effective. And far too dangerous to be widely available.

Any society that belives that the gun is a necessary part of life is no society I'd wish to be part of.

"It's part of the constitution!"

Bollocks. A law passed in uncertain times, and grossly abused by people and institutions such as the NRA.

If you own a gun it means, on some level, that you are willing to use it. You would kill to "defend". Why else would you own a gun? Potential intruders on your personal property/self won't see it at the bottom of your sock drawer. It doesn't become a deterent until you're waving it in someones face.

Good luck with that.

EDIT: Before the inevitable: I understand people may own a hunting rifle for recreation or sport. But nobody (with any sense at least) would hunt with a handgun.

[Darth Mandarb]

Should guns be outlawed, not because of what they are, but because American society breeds people crazy enough to use them?

Here we go again :/ Let's just jump on the "america sucks" bandwagon.

Well for the record, guns are designed to kill, and there's no way out of that. And if I had the choise, I'd never touch a gun in my whole life. And the whole fact, that you have a lethal weapon to protect yourself is just hypocrite, and what's more, I find it utterly sickening.

I'm sorry, but no. I am "enlightened" to such a degree where I can honestly say, "I have no intention of shooting another human being."  But I'm the only person I can say that about.

Whether you (or anybody) wants to admit it or not, just because you won't hold a gun, others will.  And there will be others still that don't share the enlightened view or concern for human life that most of us do.  There are those that will harm, hurt, and kill for nothing more than a few dollars.

We live in a world full of people that will own/carry guns whether we want/allow them to (and not just in the U.S. as shocking as that may seem).  As long as that's the case there will be people who own guns for protection reasons.  They own the gun for no other reason than that, whether or not you can accept that.  And there's nothing hypocritical about that.

Bludgeoning, or stabbing someone to death, is a far more up-close and personal experience. It requires time and physical, not to mention mental, effort.

The distance between murderer and victim when a gun is involved more or less allows for a mental buffer zone. Shooting someone across a room is a lot different to feeling their skull crack under your fists.

Point. Pull trigger. Move on. Impersonal and effective. And far too dangerous to be widely available.

I'm going to guess that you've never shot somebody?

If you own a gun it means, on some level, that you are willing to use it. You would kill to "defend". Why else would you own a gun? Potential intruders on your personal property/self won't see it at the bottom of your sock drawer. It doesn't become a deterent until you're waving it in someones face.

That kind of generalization is dangerous.  Just because somebody owns a gun doesn't mean they're willing (or able) to kill somebody with it.  As I stated above, just because we might be enlightened to not want to take human life there are others who aren't.

If I had a family (kids and wife) I would have a hand gun in my house.  The bottom line is ... the guy breaking into my house at 3am isn't there for tea and I won't have anyway to know what he's bringing with him.  Should I be like, "excuse me sir?  I was wondering what your intentions are?" as I hold a baseball bat?  So he can turn towards me with his gun and kill me and then do god knows what with my family?

Good luck with that if that's what you want to do.

I'm gonna pull my hand gun out of the sock drawer and put it to the back of his head and ask him what his intentions are.  Protecting my family is FAR more important to me than some criminal breaking and entering my house or anybody's feelings toward gun laws.

Oh wait ... as long as we ban guns that criminal breaking into my house couldn't possibly have a gun!!  I forgot.  I guess my baseball bat will be enough.

[big brother]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
For the record, Japan has a history of outlawing weapons.

Let's not overlook that the VT killer was clearly insane (imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly" who called him "Spanky", his refusal to talk to anyone or make eye contact, deranged writing, past therapy, etc). A bunch of students stopped going to class because of him. The co-director of the creative writing department, who tutored him one-on-one had a code word with her assistant to call the police. From his behavior alone, there were warning signs.

It's sad the school didn't close after the first shooting, and that the police waited until he killed himself. Zipping up bodybags isn't exactly "serving and protecting" the unarmed (by policy) students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre
This event was interesting in that the victims managed to beat the killer to death with a fire extinguisher (despite the fact he was using a fully-automatic assault rifle).

[Nikolas]

If I had a family (kids and wife) I would have a hand gun in my house.  The bottom line is ... the guy breaking into my house at 3am isn't there for tea and I won't have anyway to know what he's bringing with him.  Should I be like, "excuse me sir?  I was wondering what your intentions are?" as I hold a baseball bat?  So he can turn towards me with his gun and kill me and then do god knows what with my family?

Good luck with that if that's what you want to do.

I have a wife and 2 kids! And no gun in the house, nor I'll ever put one in!

I have never considered the chance of someone entering with a gun in my house, raping my wife/kids/me and then killing us. somehow this has never crossed my mind. Must be that I don't live in the US (nothing intended, just the fact that I don't live in the US), or another more dangerous country (Columbia for example).

I'm gonna pull my hand gun out of the sock drawer and put it to the back of his head and ask him what his intentions are.  Protecting my family is FAR more important to me than some criminal breaking and entering my house or anybody's feelings toward gun laws.

This is the different mentality I'm talking about. So you are ready to kill in the end, using the gun! If none of you and the guy breaking your home had been brainwashed and trained and educated to a gun culture maybe indeed things would be different...

[Helm]

Let's not overlook that the VT killer was clearly insane (imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly" who called him "Spanky", his refusal to talk to anyone or make eye contact, deranged writing, past therapy, etc). A bunch of students stopped going to class because of him. The co-director of the creative writing department, who tutored him one-on-one had a code word with her assistant to call the police. From his behavior alone, there were warning signs.

Yes all these things why did this person have access to weapons?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I really don't understand why.

[LimpingFish]

Because it was his right, Helm! Read the constitution!

That kind of generalization is dangerous.  Just because somebody owns a gun doesn't mean they're willing (or able) to kill somebody with it.  As I stated above, just because we might be enlightened to not want to take human life there are others who aren't.

If I had a family (kids and wife) I would have a hand gun in my house.  The bottom line is ... the guy breaking into my house at 3am isn't there for tea and I won't have anyway to know what he's bringing with him.  Should I be like, "excuse me sir?  I was wondering what your intentions are?" as I hold a baseball bat?  So he can turn towards me with his gun and kill me and then do god knows what with my family?

Good luck with that if that's what you want to do.

I'm gonna pull my hand gun out of the sock drawer and put it to the back of his head and ask him what his intentions are.  Protecting my family is FAR more important to me than some criminal breaking and entering my house or anybody's feelings toward gun laws.

Oh wait ... as long as we ban guns that criminal breaking into my house couldn't possibly have a gun!!  I forgot.  I guess my baseball bat will be enough.

I really don't know how to take this. You call my "generalization" dangerous, and then describe the exact point I was making. You would "put the gun to the back of his head"...and then what? Hope that he pisses his pants, and curls up into a ball, sobbing, while you call the police?

Or maybe he'll pull his gun. Or maybe he has a friend that you didn't notice, who has now stepped up behind you and just shot you through the back of the head.

Or maybe he'll try to disarm you, resulting in a struggle, the gun will go off and a bullet will go through the ceiling and then through the missus, who was cowering with the kids upstairs.

What point are you trying to make? That this bullshit gung-ho attitude is what passes for "defending" your family/self? That the best defence is a good offence?

Someone breaks in downstairs, I call 911 and then take the wife and kids and hide.

Or I get a good burglar alarm.

I love how normal it seems to be in America to arm yourself in anticipation of someone breaking into your house.

[Tuomas]

I'm sorry, but no. I am "enlightened" to such a degree where I can honestly say, "I have no intention of shooting another human being."  But I'm the only person I can say that about.

Whether you (or anybody) wants to admit it or not, just because you won't hold a gun, others will.  And there will be others still that don't share the enlightened view or concern for human life that most of us do.  There are those that will harm, hurt, and kill for nothing more than a few dollars.

We live in a world full of people that will own/carry guns whether we want/allow them to (and not just in the U.S. as shocking as that may seem).  As long as that's the case there will be people who own guns for protection reasons.  They own the gun for no other reason than that, whether or not you can accept that.  And there's nothing hypocritical about that.

In the following example you are clearly stating that you're using the general idea of a gun to threaten another person. Should this burglar turn around and raise his hand, I bet you would be willing to shoot him. And that is clearly the reason why I would not ever buy a gun. As long as I have it, I was dangerous to other people. Not to mention my own family. Having the gun in your house provides means to do such things. It also is a threat to your young son who finds it from the desk drawer you accidentally forgot to lock. Don't you see, first you give a gun to the crook, why not, he's buying it, no questions asked. Then of course you need to get one as well. To me it makes no sense. I'd rather that he'd come rob you without it. But see, here's the difference. You're going to claim he's going to get it anyway. No he's not. Most criminals don't use guns, only the ones that have access to them as easily, like the Americans in this case.

There are those who will hunt and kill and rob for no reason, but you really don't have to encourage them to use unnecessary voilence, and you don't have to give them a gun just to be justified to have one of your own.

I'm gonna pull my hand gun out of the sock drawer and put it to the back of his head and ask him what his intentions are.  Protecting my family is FAR more important to me than some criminal breaking and entering my house or anybody's feelings toward gun laws.

Oh wait ... as long as we ban guns that criminal breaking into my house couldn't possibly have a gun!!  I forgot.  I guess my baseball bat will be enough.

Then why dont' you do something to prevent that from happening rather than waiting home with your pityfull arsenal ready to give the burgular his own poison?

Because as Nik said, when the case is as it should be, or even close to it, you wouldn't have to live in a constant fear of someone breaking into your house and assraping your wife and gutting your children before your eyes. That stuff belongs to crappy horror films. Now that I've heard some of you consider such a situation, I can't understand how you still defend loose gun laws? Do you really want the criminals to get the weapons? Do you really, honestly want them to go buy them at the local walmart?

Because you know what I do when I'm afraid of burglars? I lock my door. And I close my windows, perhaps use double locks, oh, and hey, I might just as well call the police before the criminal uses his bazooka on the door.

You don't really have to sell guns to everyone, if you kow what I mean. If one really feels unsafe here, it's not impossible to get a gun and a lisence. But it also takes some time and research before they hand it to you. and I think even that is too easy.

[evenwolf]

I would advise against the view "no guns period"  but I would also advise against "no gun control period."   These are extremist philosophies based on emotion, and not on reality.   Yes this country was founded on a revolution against the government.  That revolution would not be possible without unarmed citizens.  Yes, technology has granted guns ridiculous firing rates. Yes there are guns all over the US.

The VT shooter didn't pick up his guns out of a garbage can.   He bought them legally according to the state of Virginia's laws.  But he should have had paperwork, some red flag in the computer system which would have denied him access to the glock and the Walther P22 which he bought February and March of this year.   There's a compromise I think gun control extremists can reach when it comes to the mentally ill.

Any mentally ill person can purchase a gun & go on a shooting spree the same day as long as its their first offense.  Completely legal until the very first shot is fired.   Both the VT shooter and the UT shooter had medical histories.

[Disco]

If I had a family (kids and wife) I would have a hand gun in my house.

Why go to all the trouble and danger when, for the price of a handgun (I'm guess A LOT less actually, but admittedly  I am not interested enough to look it up), you could install a state-of the-art home security system for as little as $100-200. They protect against more than just break-ins, like fires and medical alerts. Here, check these sites out:

Protect America
USA Alarm

There are loads of benefits from having something like this over a handgun, just off the top of my head-

*Many available packages have 24 hour monitoring that will automatically notify local authorities.
*You may get a lower homeowners insurance premium.
*There will be no gun for your kids to find and accidentally kill/injure each other with.
*The burglar/psychokiller/rapist would most likely run away at the first sound of such an alarm, and all you would have is a broken window/door rather than being forced into mortal combat and end up with a dead body from either party on your floor.
*You would save on the cost of a safe or a dresser and socks in which to store the gun.
*You could skip the tests and whatever other licensing steps that exist to become a gun owner.
*Let's face it, you probably don't really want one anyways, if you felt you didn't need to have one I mean.

[voh]

The reason I won't ever need a handgun is because I can assume that of all the burglars I'll ever meet in my life (or house, eheh) will simply not have a gun. A knife, sure, but one short trip to the kitchen and I've got two.

I'm also quite appalled at how Americans defend their right to a gun and say "BUT IT'S TO STOP CRIMINALS!" as if strict weapon laws wouldn't hit the petty criminals - who, allow me to guesstimate, make up most of the burglars anyway. If you make it nigh impossible to get a handgun (like it is here), both the public and the non-hardcore gangsters won't have access to them.

How often are you going to run into a mobster or hitman anyway?

It's the petty criminals (and mentally troubled) the public needs to be afraid of. And a criminal or deranged lunatic will always pull the trigger fastest.

A gun against a gun is the most retarded defense there is. One always loses - and it's usually the defender, because he/she is less likely to pull the trigger until it's absolutely necessary.

I just don't see the point.

While I feel for the victims of the university, I can't help but feel America's created this problem all by itself.

A clearly mentally troubled young man was allowed to purchase 2 weapons legally, causing 32 deaths.

You tell me that sounds like something you want to defend.

Any mentally ill person can purchase a gun & go on a shooting spree the same day as long as its their first offense.  Completely legal until the very first shot is fired.   Both the VT shooter and the UT shooter had medical histories.

And at the moment, the US law allows this. *mind is boggled*

[evenwolf]

Well there are supposed to be restrictions on the mentally ill.   But suffice to say these restrictions need amendment or serious scrutiny.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9800EED8143EF932A25757C0A9669C8B63

Most background checks only show if the person was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital not that there was a history of mental disorder.   This is mostly attributed to privacy laws for the mentally ill.

[big brother]

Ideally, a seriously mentally disturbed person shouldn't be allowed to have anything sharper than a rubber ball, but I don't think that should come at the price of everyone else's freedoms.

On a basic evolutionary level, females seek a male that can protect them and their offspring. Self defense is a basic human duty and firearms are a means to better your chances of survival. Ultimately, no one else (police or otherwise) will care about the safety of you and your family more than you will.

In a situation where there are rolling blackouts (happened in the last few years in CA and NY), looting is rampant and the police have finite resources (plus driving at night without street lamps or traffic lights would be a nightmare). A burglar alarm and a good lock are good first line defenses, but trusting solely in them can lead to a disaster you could've stopped personally.

Also, an alarm won't stop you from getting carjacked.

"All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun."
A good quote from this editorial:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Guns+on+campus%3a+One+is+one+too+few&articleId=79fa4ff5-d3d0-4042-9617-6dbfce808d68

[Moresco]

I'm American and I don't care if they take away my right to have a gun.   For starters, I don't have a gun and I don't need one.  I've never been robbed, or accosted, or had anything even thrown at me.  I grew up in OC California and spent my life there and in LA - and I've never even been in one fight with a person.  I'm very outgoing, and I know many people.   So what's a gun for exactly?  Hell, if not for my brother's standard police issue, I never would have seen a gun close up.

If lots of people go out and buy guns, it's not because the US is so crazy dangerous that you need them, it's because they're paranoid - or the house next door was robbed and they're worried about little Katie.  lolz.

This past year a bunch of hunters were gunned down by another hunter one state over from us.  I guess he went mental.  I know my ex-wife's brother is crazy.  And they sometimes ship him to the funny ward and force him to stay there.  But you know what? They always let him go.  He's CRAZY.  Certifiable, thinks there are multiple realities and people are out to get him. 

I mean, this guy is dangerous and they just let him walk out.  I know there are reasons for this, but the fact is he's one dude in South Dakota alone - he could shoot up anything, and I know for a fact that he owns guns, plural.

Yah having a gun makes it easy to shoot up anything.  Maybe they buy it for a good reason (whatever that is) and never intend to shoot anyone.  Maybe they're not even crazy....but something goes down.  It's 9am and he's a level headed guy - but his girlfriend dumps him and his checks bounce and his best friend is sleeping with her - and that's it...he snaps.  He doesn't see it coming, but he sees red and gets the gun...

What I'm trying to say is that everyone is singling out mental crazies who kill people - they're out there - but the normal everyday Joes who would NEVER do such a thing are equally unbalanced when their emotions go disco.  :p

For the record, there are school shootings almost every day - just not 33 at once so they don't hit the big news frenzy.   Sad life.  *checks watch* wellp, there goes another car bombing in distant country of choice.   What do we do about it? Argue more?

[Gregjazz]

If lots of people go out and buy guns, it's not because the US is so crazy dangerous that you need them, it's because they're paranoid - or the house next door was robbed and they're worried about little Katie.  lolz.

Stories of crimes stopped by a gun-owning citizen are not nonexistent at all.

There are areas of US that are so crazy dangerous that you need guns--that is, unless you don't mind having everything you value taken away. The second ammendment exists for a very good reason.

Yah having a gun makes it easy to shoot up anything.  Maybe they buy it for a good reason (whatever that is) and never intend to shoot anyone.  Maybe they're not even crazy....but something goes down.  It's 9am and he's a level headed guy - but his girlfriend dumps him and his checks bounce and his best friend is sleeping with her - and that's it...he snaps.  He doesn't see it coming, but he sees red and gets the gun...

And if he doesn't have a gun or is unable to steal a gun, he uses a knife, or a baseball bat, or the candlestick in the billiard room.

What I'm trying to say is that everyone is singling out mental crazies who kill people - they're out there - but the normal everyday Joes who would NEVER do such a thing are equally unbalanced when their emotions go disco.  :p

So you're saying that if guns were inaccessible, murders would cease, if not dramatically decrease? Guns are merely just another amoral accessory which can assist a murder--along with knives, baseball bats, etc.

Heck, if we're going to outlaw guns, we should go the whole way and outlaw knives and baseball bats, too. Ballpoint pens are pretty dangerous, too--they can be used to inflict some serious ocular damage.

[Darth Mandarb]

It's late ... and I didn't read all the replies.  But I still maintain that I have no intention of shooting/killing anybody.  Putting the gun to the back of his head isn't the same as pulling the trigger.  Defending yourself (or more importantly those you love) is not hypocritical in ANY fashion.  And if the "bad" guys are going to use guns (which they are whether or not anybody wants to see this simple fact) then your average citizen needs to have the ability to level the playing field.

I'm not gonna take the time to find out if the guy breaking into my house has violent intentions.  I'm just gonna assume he does.

God forbid anybody with a family is put in the situation of a break-in ... but I'd wager were you the victim of such a crime you'd be whistling a different tune.

It's easy to say "I never think of these things" or "that couldn't happen to me" blah blah blah ... I'd wager the 32 dead VT students thought the same thing right up to the moment the bullet(s) killed them.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem here ... as I said earlier there IS a problem.  But it's not the availability of guns that's causing it.

I don't live in fear of somebody breaking into my house ... just as I suspect those students weren't living in fear of getting executed in class.  But the reality is, it's possible for it to happen.  Maybe not likely, but possible.  I have the philosophy that "it's better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it."

For the record.  I don't own a gun and don't intend on having one anytime soon.

[Moresco]

There are areas of US that are so crazy dangerous that you need guns--that is, unless you don't mind having everything you value taken away. The second ammendment exists for a very good reason.

No, there are areas of the ENTIRE WORLD where you CAN have everything you value taken away ... I've lived in some of the most crime filled cities in the US, and I still have all my stuff.   It's called chance, and it exists every moment of every single day always has and always will.  The 2nd ammendment may give you a gun, but most people don't keep their guns with them 24/7 and they're not exactly quick draw-mcgraw, so it won't be protection for everyone.  Lots of senior citizens buy guns for protection against thugs who might break in and take their stuff, but I bet most of them just shoot themselves with them.

And if he doesn't have a gun or is unable to steal a gun, he uses a knife, or a baseball bat, or the candlestick in the billiard room.

Of course, that's why it's called a weapon of opportunity.  The gun maybe was bought for target practice at the range - but it became a weapon for murder at a moment's notice.  It's changed by the rage of emotions and intent to kill.

So you're saying that if guns were inaccessible, murders would cease, if not dramatically decrease? Guns are merely just another amoral accessory which can assist a murder--along with knives, baseball bats, etc.

No I'm not.  I completely agree with you.  Murder is about the intent to kill, the method doesn't matter.  And as a matter of fact guns are not the only effective and fast projectile weapons available that can be used to kill.  I just don't think everyone needs a gun, but someone will disagree with me because they always do.

Now please don't be a fancy news reporter and spin more of my discussion, I was simply trying to point out that being "crazy" doesn't make you a killer.  Upright citizen Bob, the friendliest man in town, can become a killer at a moment's notice without even a single "sign".   It's human nature - just like arguing :p

Edit:
I completely agree with Darth Mandarb.  If we didn't have the gun and a group of kids were slashed with a sword, or a man takes out a bunch of walking chaps in NY City with his trusty crossbolts, would we not be discussing the banishment of swords or crossbows? It's the human element and desire to cause harm to others that is in question and we all know it.  It's tough, but you can't remove it...you can't ban it, you can't do away with it no matter how much we do.  But we fight the good fight.

[Gregjazz]

No, there are areas of the ENTIRE WORLD where you CAN have everything you value taken away ... I've lived in some of the most crime filled cities in the US, and I still have all my stuff.  It's called chance, and it exists every moment of every single day always has and always will.  The 2nd ammendment may give you a gun, but most people don't keep their guns with them 24/7 and they're not exactly quick draw-mcgraw, so it won't be protection for everyone.  Lots of senior citizens buy guns for protection against thugs who might break in and take their stuff, but I bet most of them just shoot themselves with them.

Well you were talking about US, so I addressed that domain. Of course the statement applies to all areas of the world.

Anyway, relating to the topic, the VT massacre, this is an interesting read:

"In shootings at other schools, armed students or employees have restrained gunmen, possibly preventing additional murders. Four years ago at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, a man who had killed the dean, a professor, and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns. In 1997 an assistant principal at a public high school in Pearl, Mississippi, likewise retrieved a handgun from his car and used it to apprehend a student who had killed three people."

"Not only can guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives in situations like these; they may even make such situations less likely. It may seem implausible that the possibility of armed victims would deter a seemingly irrational, suicidal attacker such as Cho, who ended his attack by shooting himself in the head. But even a gunman who expects to die during an attack does not want to be stopped before he can carry out his homicidal mission."

"Given the reality that police cannot be everywhere, it is unconscionable to disarm people who want to defend themselves."

(http://reason.com/news/show/119694.html)

[Timosity]

I can't believe we're debating guns again, and as usual it's Americans who try to defend the right, when it's clear from the outside that it is THE major reason for high murder rates.

there's plenty of knives, baseball bats, cricket bats in all countries, but it's still guns that are the problem. There's just a lot more guns in the USA.

You just have to watch Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine to see the stats. And the part where he compares Detroit to the Canadian city visible across the lake (sorry can't remember its name) which shows a huge difference between 2 cities within spitting distance.

People seem to keep there own opinions, but the answer to minimize the risks is obvious, but stubbornness gets in the way.



This massacre was a tragedy, the 2nd section could have been avoided if everyone was evacuated (or at least minimized) but it didn't happen, so nothing much can be done about it now. He mailed a package with video's, photo's etc to NBC during the crime.

They look at all the evidence after and see that this guy had been planning and had a lot of attributes to commit this type of crime, but as if anyone could have guessed, I'm sure there's plenty of people in similar states of mind as this guy   right now in every city in the world, but most won't act on it.

This type of crime is rare, don't know if availability of guns is as much of an issue in cases like this, cause if someone gets this into their mind, I'm sure in any country, if you really want a gun, you can get it whether it be legally or illegally.


being a hero, bringing your own gun to save the day, is not the way, just having that gun in your house or car could come back to haunt you in a few years when you get shot by your 5 year old.

[Adamski]

Here we go again :/ Let's just jump on the "america sucks" bandwagon.

It's an easy bandwagon to jump on, because America presents itself as such a terrifying place. Over 30 people can be mowed down by a mentally unstable indivudual who had a lawful right to own a 'tool' that is designed only to put an end to someone's life, and people here are trying to defend his right to own that weapon. If he had not had easy access to a gun, which is an extremely effective device for killing lots of people with minimum effort, the body count would not have been so high. If he had a baseball bat or a knife or a frigging ballpoint pen, he might have assaulted two/three people and either been too worn out to continue or had been overpowered.

If you find it insulting that the rest of the world is criticising America's gun culture after a massacre of this proportion, quite frankly you deserve to been insulted. Speculating about burglars and self defense is side-stepping the issue, which is that this person...

Let's not overlook that the VT killer was clearly insane (imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly" who called him "Spanky", his refusal to talk to anyone or make eye contact, deranged writing, past therapy, etc). A bunch of students stopped going to class because of him. The co-director of the creative writing department, who tutored him one-on-one had a code word with her assistant to call the police. From his behavior alone, there were warning signs.

...was allowed by law to have a weapon, and could quite easily get hold of one without anyone stopping him. And it's not like he used it to protect his family from burglars, he used it to remorselessly kill 30 innocent people who just happened to be in his proximity. There is a very big problem here, and instead of getting defensive about history and rising up against the British and all that blah blah claptrap, people should be looking at this and saying "Fuck! This person shouldn't have legally been allowed to buy the gun that carried out this act! We've got to do something about this so it doesn't happen again!"

But it'd be much easier to blame it on Doom or Maralyn Manson or Grand Theft Auto or just say "a few bad apples can't spoil it for the rest of us!", wouldn't it?