Virginia Tech massacre

[evenwolf]

Why is someone defending counterstrike in this thread?  Go somewhere else.  The fact that you are protecting your right to kill imaginary people is sickening right now.

Cho Seung-Hui Video Released  (I am not linking you to it however)


There is a video which was sent to NBC News in the period between the 7AM shootings and the later shootings. It features the killer himself. Refuse to watch these kinds of things. Can you imagine how many more murders there would be if every killer was guaranteed a slot on prime time television?

Shameful media and their 'scoops'. They are further victimizing the survivors by harassing them day in and day out. They are clamoring over dead bodies for scraps of information to get an edge. But airing a mass murderer's dying wish is too far. And the media thinks that we want to see these kinds of things.

At one point Fox was going to publish OJ's "If I Did It Here's How" book through their sister company Harper Collins. Is there any question to why someone would do this? Seung- Hui has gained your attention. He found an audience. Refuse to watch and encourage others to show dissent toward the decision to broadcast murderers.

[Nacho]

Eeeer... I added a big edit to my previous post, you can take a look if you want, there are some points that are IMO importants.

[SSH]

Yeah, because if you watch Cho's movie, he might be encouraged to do it again...  :

[EagerMind]

Well Eager-Mind, this is a debate about gun-control which was generated by the initial event. With all due respect to the departed, there is always room to discuss why it happened.

Agree with you completely. Don't even have problems with a debate about gun control.

But I get agitated when I see something like: "I think guns are morally wrong because they kill people. But I also think that when people who live in societies that allow guns (whether or not they had a choice in the matter) are killed because of them, they simply had it coming." I get especially agitated when people using an argument like this are trying to take some sort of superior moral high ground against gun activists.

This in addition to a "debate" that is mostly just culture-bashing and moral self-righteousness.

Person 1: "Guns are bad because they kill people."
Person 2:"No, they're good because they allow me to protect myself and others from attackers."
Person 1:"No, that's bad, because the attackers can just get their own guns and you have escalation."
Person 2:"No, that's good, because then no one will ever attack anybody else for fear of reprisal. In fact, everyone should have guns."
Person 1: "No, that's bad, because guns kill people ...." etc., etc., ad nauseum

So tell me, who wins the moral argument here? Person 1 because he doesn't want people to die, or person 2 because he doesn't want people to die? How about someone making a compelling argument with facts, numbers, and references, without disparaging someone's cultural background, and realizing that perfectly reasonable people can disagree on this (even after all the facts have been presented)?

If I had been killed, I'd rather have people discussing the reasons behind it and the steps to prevent it from happening again, instead of crying some fake tears and moving on without changing a thing.

Again, agree with you completely, as long as it's constructive discussion. So assuming (quite reasonably, I think) that America will continue to allow gun ownership, let's quit beating our heads against that wall and look at this constructively:

1. At least several teachers were concerned with this guy's mental health and recommended to the university that he receive medical attention. What steps were taken to ensure he actually received it, and what was the extent of that medical attention? If he had been admitted to a psychiatric care facility, might this whole incident have been avoided?

2. Prior to the massacre, he was involved with several stalking incidents in which women made complaints to the police. No arrests were made or charges filed, but shouldn't this have warranted at least an entry into his police record, and possibly other disciplinary action within the university environment?

3. Despite #1 and #2, he was still able to purchase a weapon. Shouldn't this warrant a change to the gun-acquisition process to prevent someone with a questionable background from obtaining a gun? If procedures like this already exist, then why didn't they come into play in this instance? Was this guy's problems properly documented so that they would show up in a background investigation?

4. Doesn't the media, and perhaps we as a society, share in the blame for empowering this kind of behavior? By choosing to commit mass-murder, this person has received basically 24-hour coverage on the news-dedicated channels for the past three days (and counting) and has had his views and opinions splashed on the front page of the major news publications. I'd wager this is more fame than a scientist finding a cure to AIDS, cancer, and world hunger would ever get. How about a news summary covering the incident, taking a moment to mourn the dead, and then letting officals and policy makers review the facts and make recommendations without the crushing pressure of the media and public eye?

These are some questions I'd like to see asked and action taken on. Instead, I fear that people will just pound their fists on the table in indignation until the coverage finally dies down and everyone forgets about it and continues with their normal routine. Or maybe we'll strip away more individual freedoms in some fear-driven goal for "better safety." The worst part is, while I think my 3rd question is reasonable and may call for some stricter gun regulations, because events like this get passions high and generate finger-pointing discussions like this one, gun activists won't concede a single inch because the only alternative being presented to them is "no guns at all" while they're basically being called murderers.

We discuss this because we're concerned and want to change things.

Me too.

[Darth Mandarb]

Yes, let's completely nullify this tragedy and ignore the fact that it was the perpetrator of this act, clearly mentally unstable and in need of help, who in the end chose to act out in violence. Rather, it's because of people like you Darth, Geoffkan, RickJ, etc., that this happened. You're the ones with blood on your hands. As for those dead students, what did they think was going to happen to them? It's this poor Seung-hui fellow that's the real victim in all of this. Ah well, those crazy Americans, in the end they're just getting what they deserve, what?

Whatever one's opinions are on gun control, I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit, and sublimely hypocritical if you deem yourself a pacifist.

That is so incredibly stupid I have to assume you're joking?

This debate has gone in the toilet.

Would you mind terribly explaining how/why I have blood on my hands?

Is it perhaps because I'm a realist who knows full well that no matter how enlightened mankind may become there are still going to be those that are going to be violent?

Is it perhaps because I'm willing to protect my friends/family at all costs?

I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that there's violence in the world and there always will be.  If group A disarms, group B will ramp up their guns and destroy group A.  There's always going to be a group B waiting to take control.  Deny it all you want.  Rationalize all you want this is a fact of human existance.  You can live in a pretty little shell and ignore the outside world [reality] ... and I truely hope you never have to experience a violent crime.

But I find these "blinders" people are wearing to the reality of the world FAR more dangerous than a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for protection reasons.

[EagerMind]

That is so incredibly stupid I have to assume you're joking?

Yes. I was taking issue with some of the responses to what you (and others) have said. I had hoped this was clear.

This debate has gone in the toilet.

My point exactly.

[Helm]

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.

What is the game being played? Who are these video-game 'bad guys'?

In the language you use there are the signifiers of a whole mentality that is mostly ecountered en-masse in the US in my opinion. You live in a huge country, and you've been led to fear people you don't know constantly (by whom and for what reason is a different discussion). I don't think if boom! tomorrow all guns are outlawed in the US, the citizens won't find ways to kill each other (though probably in less numbers and possibility of success). I think it takes a long period of hard work on many levels to undo the damage in the US that an intentionally cultivated culture of ignorance, fear and violence has created.

In a powerful, yet politically bankrupt society, the reaction is for the able to defend their liberties over everything. That the US spawned what we call 'libertarians' whose seemingly only political interest is securing their right to this and to that according to their constitution is not an accident. People there don't care about their fellow man, they can slice their own wrists for all it matters. Just as long as the awful state doesn't tell them what to do. Libertarianism is the political position of the egotist.

I personally think making guns very difficult to aquire in the US is a very worthwhile proposition even if it steps on the freedoms of americans to have guns generally, just as long as it is coupled with an intentful process of changing the cultural climate of the country from fearful and suspicious to oh... something more like Canada. But this won't happen as long as certain governing parties' interests depend on the american public being fearful and suspicious of everybody, most namely sand-niggers.

The constitution is not written by god, when it's outmodded it should be able to go through a rigorious but fair process of being reevaluated. NOT having a gun doesn't harm you. If a violent criminal harms you and you couldn't defend yourself because you didn't have a gun, it's not the lack of your gun that harmed you, it's the criminal that did. Minimizing criminal behaviour is the goal, not just to be able to 'kill the bad guys before they kill you and clear the level'.

[voh]

You call it reality, but reality in Europe is completely different.

So when you say we're dreaming and wrong in our belief that guns are unneccessary, you immediately invalidate your own statement because it allows us to say the same. The situation in America is unique (and the only other countries where everyone's allowed to carry a gun are either in a civil war, have had one quite recently, or are otherwise fucked up, like Iraq, Palestine, etc.) in the western world yet you keep on saying you guys have got it right.

Pish.

Also, with my previous statement that while I felt for the VT victims, I couldn't help but think America brought this onto itself, I meant exactly that. I hope that those who are left behind (friends, family, colleagues) get through this, and I wish them all the best.

But I can't find any logic in the American gun laws. Catastrophes are sometimes needed to bring change. WW2 brought America out of its isolationism and cemented it in its place of world power (due to financial aid to Europe to keep them away from the Soviets, and thereby indebting us, making us dependant). War was necessary to remove many dictators from their lazy chairs and free the people. Sure, all of this came with its own hardships, but the end result usually was worth it.

Maybe more people need to get shot without any reason before people will realize maybe the gung-ho attitude was well-fit for the wild west, but in contemporary times, perhaps it needs to be amended.

It's harsh, but eh. Somebody needs to say it. Whenever I see a news item saying "school shooting", it's America. Whenever I see a news item saying "Sniper kills x people", it's America. I find that typical.

[Nikolas]

Is it perhaps because I'm a realist who knows full well that no matter how enlightened mankind may become there are still going to be those that are going to be violent?

Is it perhaps because I'm willing to protect my friends/family at all costs?

EDIT: Somehow I can't make the quotes right... You know what they mean though...

Darth, I'm quoting you, since you are posting here, I'm not opposed per se with you, you know that.

Answer me (please) this simple question:

You have a family and a couple of children. In order to protect them, you get guns in the house. Ok. (I don't buy it for a minute, but OK). Then you decide to move to a different country. spain, Greece, UK (not Iraq of course). What do you do with the guns then and in order to protect your country?

I. Believe that guns are the ultimate way to protect your family, thus keep them. Laws somehow do not apply to you! So no point in being illegal blah blah. But only you!

II. Decide to research on what you neighboors do. Then you buy a better door, better windows and start double locking them. You learn by heart the number of the police.

Keeping I, or even believe that I is the correct answer, you are providing guns force they certainly do not posses, not for a minute! If something is going to protect your family, it should do so universally! Not locally (under normal circumstance, not war, that's why Iraq is out). If people kill people, not guns, then people protect people, not guns.

If you go with II, then you should be ready to admit that there is something wrong with the way you used to think, or where you lived.

For me, I can understand your arguments, because you live where you do. But you don't understand that by living like this you are augmenting the problem. OF course which idiot woiuld say that "yeah, **** guns. I'll give a good example and live with no guns and hope to make a better place!". Individually maybe not, but what about through a... law maybe?

somehow I was brought up that all people have equal rights. Which seems strange to me because the US citizens have a right to carry a gun, while I don't and never even considered it! I'm not trying to be smart, I just don't understand it. It seems strange!

[Da_Elf]

i think that the easiest solution to the gun problem is if you go to buy a gun they should be allowed to shoot you. then if you live you can keep the gun, if not then well you were stupid enough to want to own a gun anyhow. Knowing how much it hurts to get shot might make people think twice about wanting to own one.

[Adamski]

Edit: Argh, this is Becky logged in as Adamski.  Oops.

somehow I was brought up that all people have equal rights. Which seems strange to me because the US citizens have a right to carry a gun, while I don't and never even considered it! I'm not trying to be smart, I just don't understand it. It seems strange!

The rights of citizens are granted by their respective government.  In this case, the citizens of the US have the right to bear arms, drawn from the US Constitution.  What is a right for a citizen in one country may not be so in another country.

However there is the theory of fundamental human rights, something slightly different, in that basically all humans are entitled to the same "human rights".  It's not a universally held theory, and no real way of implementing this has been put forward (though the European Convention of Human Rights places the protection of these human rights in EU law, but it has to be incorporated in member-state law to be properly upheld).

[Nikolas]

thanks Becky

[Darth Mandarb]

Okay ... I'm growing weary of this debate

Firstly, the second ammendment of the constitution was put in place to ensure that the citizenry of the U.S. would have the arms necessary to over-throw their government should that government begin to resemble the governement they'd just fought and bled for years to defeat.  In modern (contemporary) times that's gotten a bit lost.

Again, I don't own a gun.

Again, YES there IS a problem in America (and the world) with violence and those that don't hold life in high regard.

Again, yes it is rediculously easy to get a gun in America.

I'm not denying any of these things.  I'm simply saying that whether or not people want to admit it there are those that don't give a shit about human life, or your rights, or anything.  There are those that seek advantage over another by violent means.  That's not me giving in to fear and propoganda.  It's a reality that has existed since the first human wanted the other human's rock-pile.

Whenever I see a news item saying "school shooting", it's America. Whenever I see a news item saying "Sniper kills x people", it's America. I find that typical.

Whenever I hear "young boy straps bomb to chest and blows up bus" it's Israel.  Whenever I hear "hundreds found dead in mass grave" it's Bosnia.  Whenever I hear "gas released by religious zealot in subway" it's Japan.  Whenever I hear "group of armed men kill dozens of children in a school after holding them hostage for 3 days" it's Russia.

Would you people please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop generalizing the world's problems as American problems?  It's simply ignorant and rediculous.

[voh]

Whenever I hear "young boy straps bomb to chest and blows up bus" it's Israel.  Whenever I hear "hundreds found dead in mass grave" it's Bosnia.  Whenever I hear "gas released by religious zealot in subway" it's Japan.  Whenever I hear "group of armed men kill dozens of children in a school after holding them hostage for 3 days" it's Russia.

We're not talking about Israel, Bosnia, Japan or Russia here. So why you pull that into it is beyond me. I'm not generalizing - those things are fairly American. Just like dumbass lawsuits.

And most Americans agree that those things are shit and need to stop (talking about the shootings as well), but there's always going to be bad seeds. The problem lies in what you do to PREVENT these bad seeds from doing what you don't want them to do. But whenever the guns are pulled into an argument, they just seize up and repeat what they've been told (and now think themselves).

If you just call everything we say generalizations, mis-informed opionions, of course you're going to come across as a 'typical' American. It's a shame you can't see the points we're trying to make.

Because you've taken the defensive stand on this issue, we're focusing on you. I realize it's not about you, but I do realize there's something there which makes me go "wtf".

[Huw Dawson]

My personal opinion here is that guns are bad and should be outlawed. That is because guns kill people, and if the American government can arrest someone for conspiracy to blow themselves up purely because they build themselves a bomb as a dumb idea for a boring sunday, then why can't someone be arrested for conspiracy to kill 32 people when he buys a handgun so he can go to the shooting range?

Logically though, if guns are outlawed then the police can arrest someone for carrying a gun. This is opposed to a criminal carrying a gun and is unable to be arrested.
- Huw

[big brother]

You call it reality, but reality in Europe is completely different.

Yes, a 35% British rise in gun crime in the last year couldn't possibly be reality.

"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York."

"A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)

Wow! Burglaries while the owners are home? Those British should really learn to lock their doors, right?

Logically though, if guns are outlawed then the police can arrest someone for carrying a gun.

If a criminal is planning to shoot 32 people, I think "possession of an illegal weapon" concerns him about as much as "jaywalking".

Keep in mind that the disarmament of the population happened in about every dictatorship.

[vict0r]

You call it reality, but reality in Europe is completely different.

Yes, a 35% British rise in gun crime in the last year couldn't possibly be reality.

Still, afaik, it's not even up to a tenth of what's in America...

[Darth Mandarb]

We're not talking about Israel, Bosnia, Japan or Russia here. So why you pull that into it is beyond me. I'm not generalizing - those things are fairly American. Just like dumbass lawsuits.

You say you're not generalizing, then say "those things are fairly American" which IS generalizing.  Violent crime is NOT "fairly American".  That's why I brought those other instances into this conversation.

If you just call everything we say generalizations, mis-informed opionions, of course you're going to come across as a 'typical' American. It's a shame you can't see the points we're trying to make.

I am not saying everything being said against America[ns] is generalization, nor did I call (I don't believe) anybody mis-informed.  I'm merely putting my opinion on the discussion table.  Which is, after all, what a debate is about.

As I've said several times in this thread; I do see the points you're trying to make.  Just because I don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean I don't see them.  But I guess since I'm a violent, arrogant, gun-toting American I must be blind to logic and reason.

[Tuomas]

Okay ... I'm growing weary of this debate

Me too, I've made my point, and it's highly unlikely that anyone will pick up ideas from this debate anyway, so I'll leave it to places that matter

Yeah, because if you watch Cho's movie, he might be encouraged to do it again...  :

You know, that would be really cool, but really creepy at the same time.

[voh]

As I've said several times in this thread; I do see the points you're trying to make.  Just because I don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean I don't see them.  But I guess since I'm a violent, arrogant, gun-toting American I must be blind to logic and reason.

Uhm, I never said you're violent or arrogant, so don't link that to a quote of mine. But I see what you mean, as you seem to see what I mean. Let's agree to disagree.

As for Big Brother's UK statistics: Yeah, the UK's getting fairly messy too. Hence why I chose Paris over London for my vacation