American College Shooting, rinse repeat

Frederico

Its just a broken record by this stage..

Gunman/men shoot a bunch of people in school/college in America, what happens?

Media outlets go into a frenzy, ratings shoot up..

Obsession with finding heroes making it into a glorious tragedy, the brave teacher who did etc..

Talking heads blame video games/Marilyn manson/etc..

Its like a carnival, its a very messed up country right now.

lostexpectation

gun lovers always argue that you kill people with kitchen knife just as well a gun but you can't kill 30 people in a few minutes with a knife, protection from unpredicted behaviour

wes

Been reading a couple of US message boards, and some of the right wing nuts are even blaming Muslims on this as well . So you can add that to video games etc, list of things to blame instead of America's gun culture.

Truly sad that there has been another one of these shootings.

Manic Moran

Frederico wrote:

Its just a broken record by this stage..

Gunman/men shoot a bunch of people in school/college in America, what happens?

Media outlets go into a frenzy, ratings shoot up..

Obsession with finding heroes making it into a glorious tragedy, the brave teacher who did etc..

Talking heads blame video games/Marilyn manson/etc..

Its like a carnival, its a very messed up country right now.

Can't argue any of that. The ratings war. The various news organisations here are falling over themselves trying to come up with VA Tech-related stories, gun-related stories, survivor-related-stories... Guys.. there's more happening out there....

NTM

GuanYin

I've heard arguments for relaxing gun laws in light of this.

It's all just ****ed up.

Noone here will ever touch the right to bear arms. The logistics of disarming america is just too daunting.

Nevyn

i've heard it too that if anyof the first few victums had of been 'carrying' they would 'took him out' and saved the lives of the others.

It is more then just the 'gun' laws it is being able to go and by bullets when shopping in your local supermarket.

RedPlanet

Thaedydal wrote:

i've heard it too that if anyof the first few victums had of been 'carrying' they would 'took him out' and saved the lives of the others.

It is more then just the 'gun' laws it is being able to go and by bullets when shopping in your local supermarket.

So i guess those gun nuts don't have a problem with people carrying weapons to class?
In that case this South Korean fella was just being a good, upstanding american, up until the point he pulled the trigger at least.

mike65

No potential President will say its time to 'ban' guns if they did it would be a sop as disarming the US population would proberly cause another civil war.

Would it even make a difference?

After Dunblane in Scotland the UK gov moved to quash possesion of hand guns and rifles. Its made zero difference to those who are most likely to face a gun (ie South London and Manchester), there has'nt been another mass shooting in the UK since but I don't think that has anything to do with the state of the law.

Switzerland is one of the most armed societies in the world but they don't have US style rampages, its not the guns its something else and that what really needs discovering and dealing with (a much tougher task).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

Mike.

wes

mike65 wrote:

No potential President will say its time to 'ban' guns if they did it would be a sop as disarming the US population would proberly cause another civil war.

Would it even make a difference?

After Dunblane in Scotland the UK gov moved to quash possesion of hand guns and rifles. Its made zero difference to those who are most likely to face a gun (ie South London and Manchester), there has'nt been another mass shooting in the UK since but I don't think that has anything to do with the state of the law.

Switzerland is one of the most armed societies in the world but they don't have US style rampages, its not the guns its something else and that what really needs discovering and dealing with (a much tougher task).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

Mike.

The Swiss example is a bad one as most of the guns there are owned by men who are army trained to use them. So using it as an example is dishonest.

Its the gun culture in the US thats the problem rather than the actual guns themselves. I doubt this tragedy will change anything. It will be used by those with an agenda to blame whatever they dislike on all sides.

spank_inferno

In light of this latest tragedy it comes to mind the US peoples right to bear arms.

Originaly an armed citizen militia was probably a good idea for a fledgling state just after a crippling war with England.

However in a modern nation with a stable police force the right to bear arms is surely redundant?

The main point I'm getting at is that the constitution of any nation isnt the finished article, but a constant work in progress, a document that can adapt to relate better to the citizens and the times they live in.

Constitutional articles are often changed/added/deleted in other nations.
So why not a referendum to remove this article from the US constitution.

Perhaps someone out there knows the process for the US to change its constitution?? If a referendum wouldnt work could the legislative/executive branches of government make it happen?

I'd be interested to hear how america could do this


thanks

Judt

wes wrote:

The Swiss example is a bad one as most of the guns there are owned by men who are army trained to use them. So using it as an example is dishonest.

Its the gun culture in the US thats the problem rather than the actual guns themselves. I doubt this tragedy will change anything. It will be used by those with an agenda to blame whatever they dislike on all sides.

Soldiers don't go on rampages, then? I daresay they just make better rampagers.

It's the culture in the US that's the problem, not the gun laws. Go to Canada and you can buy a gun as easily in the US. They don't have the same level of gun crime. Why is that?

"Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people" is the famous quote, I believe.

wes

Judt wrote:

Soldiers don't go on rampages, then? I daresay they just make better rampagers.

It's the culture in the US that's the problem, not the gun laws. Go to Canada and you can buy a gun as easily in the US. They don't have the same level of gun crime. Why is that?

"Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people" is the famous quote, I believe.

The 2 situation are very different. I would also assume that Military people are under a bit more scrutiny than your average gun owner. The situations are very dissimilar.. A better example would be Canada which has almost as many guns as the US and doesn't have the same amount of problems as they do.

America's gun culture is to blame. I do agree its not the guns themselves, but the culture the American's have built up around them.

EDO

spank_inferno wrote:

In light of this latest tragedy it comes to mind the US peoples right to bear arms.

Originaly an armed citizen militia was probably a good idea for a fledgling state just after a crippling war with England.

However in a modern nation with a stable police force the right to bear arms is surely redundant?

The main point I'm getting at is that the constitution of any nation isnt the finished article, but a constant work in progress, a document that can adapt to relate better to the citizens and the times they live in.

Constitutional articles are often changed/added/deleted in other nations.
So why not a referendum to remove this article from the US constitution.

Perhaps someone out there knows the process for the US to change its constitution?? If a referendum wouldnt work could the legislative/executive branches of government make it happen?

I'd be interested to hear how america could do this





thanks

As far as I can remember from my undergrad days in College - to propose a constitutional amendment would require a 3/4 Senate Majority and Im not sure about the House - ie Its extremely difficult - thats why the US relies so much on its supreme court to interpret and reinterpret the constitution.

Americans treat their constitution as if it was the 10 commandments given down on Tablets to Moses by God - it isn't up for negotiation- nearly all the amendments were put in during the first decade of States existence . It was probably grand for a fledging agrarian republic newly liberated from an empire - for the 21% century I don't know. As regards the second amendment - the NRA have that locked down - most Americans will look at the tragedy in Virginia as an isolated incident and therefore an acceptable price to pay for their God given right to "protect" themselves.

Nick_oliveri

EDO wrote:

Americans treat their constitution as if it was the 10 commandments given down on Tablets to Moses by God - it isn't up for negotiation...... God given right to "protect" themselves.

Yeah well with the "Patriot Act" and the domestic surveillance, doesn't look like Americans take their constitution too seriously.

Time to pry the AK from that old bastards cold dead hands.

GuanYin

The US constitution doesn't actually say anything about guns to be fair. It merely mentions the right to bear arms. It doesn't ay the arms need to be a semi-automatic rifle.

As I alluded and mike65 said outright, it isn't about the law or constitution. It's the simple fact that given an option of going to the southern US to remove guns from US citizens or going to Iraq, most people would agree that Iraq is the safer option....

Seriously though, the regulation of guns here is a joke. Anyone can buy and in many states anyone can carry one. Allowing ownership of guns in the home but preventing they possession and enforcing age restrictions on their handling is really whats required.

Manic Moran

I've heard arguments for relaxing gun laws in light of this.

Yes, I agree with them. So do various VA Tech students who the State has permitted to carry a gun elsewhere in the State, but VA Tech faculty says 'not here.' What is it about a college campus that would make someone go ape there, and be less trustworthy with a firearm than if he was down the road in Blacksburg? I can't think of anything.

RedPlanet wrote:

So i guess those gun nuts don't have a problem with people carrying weapons to class?

If they're allowed be armed elsewhere in the State, why not? Disarming them certainly doesn't seem to have worked. Ever notice how these shootings, even in states with 'Right to carry' laws, always seem to happen in places where the local policy or law says 'Don't carry a gun here, it's for your safety'? It doesn't work that way, regardless of emotional thought.

i've heard it too that if anyof the first few victums had of been 'carrying' they would 'took him out' and saved the lives of the others.

If you change the 'would' to 'could', as nothing is ever a given, is there anything incorrect in that proposition?

It is more then just the 'gun' laws it is being able to go and by bullets when shopping in your local supermarket.

And what's the problem with that? If I were to go give you a box of .40S&W right now, what good is it going to do you? How are you going to go on a rampage, using a catapult? Why not ask for a driver's license every time you fill up for petrol?

Perhaps someone out there knows the process for the US to change its constitution?? If a referendum wouldnt work could the legislative/executive branches of government make it happen?

Forget it. There is no way 2nd Ammendment will be changed. There just aren't the votes, either in the population or in the Senate. Indeed, most recent firearms legislation, both at State and Federal level have been in the other direction. About ten, fifteen years ago, the swing was in favour of tighter controls, they didn't work.

Besides, even if they did, it wouldn't get rid of all the firearms. Canada, filled with generally polite, law-abiding people, couldn't track down even half of the 16 million firearms in its 32million population when it tried so it gave up, what makes anyone think that 200 million firearms in a population of 300million will be found, or even a sizeable portion of them?

The Swiss example is a bad one as most of the guns there are owned by men who are army trained to use them.

Competence with a weapon does not seem to have been an issue here. Either Cho knew what he was doing, or the victims were particularly inactive. Watch a neophyte at a range, it takes them a while to realise they need to reload, let alone actually carry it out.

However in a modern nation with a stable police force the right to bear arms is surely redundant?

A matter of huge debate around here. Those who think it is tend to live in cities where they're never more than a mile or two from the nearest precinct. Those who think it isn't tend to live where the nearest policeman can be 15-20 minutes away. Of note, however, is that when San Francisco recently attempted to enact a handgun ban (by popular vote), the police officer's association took the city to court to get it reversed: They thought it was a really bad idea to disarm the populace. What does that tell you? Also of note is the fact that a stable police force isn't always going to be stable. There are plenty of pictures from Katrina and Los Angeles (Rodney King Riots) where there -was- no police force, period, and the only people who were left to defend their homes and livelihoods were private citizens with their weapons.

NTM

Dr_Teeth

I'm really glad we've managed here in Ireland to have a fairly 'gun free' society. Here at least the only citizens with guns are either the legal farmers/sportsmen (no problem there) or the illegal organised criminals (you'll never stop them having them anyway, and besides they have a drugs empire to run! no time for massacres! )

In the U.S. however, there are so many guns and they've been part of their society for so long that there's really no option left but to allow the law-abiding people carry them wherever.

EDO

psi wrote:

The US constitution doesn't actually say anything about guns to be fair. It merely mentions the right to bear arms. It doesn't ay the arms need to be a semi-automatic rifle.

As I alluded and mike65 said outright, it isn't about the law or constitution. It's the simple fact that given an option of going to the southern US to remove guns from US citizens or going to Iraq, most people would agree that Iraq is the safer option....

Seriously though, the regulation of guns here is a joke. Anyone can buy and in many states anyone can carry one. Allowing ownership of guns in the home but preventing they possession and enforcing age restrictions on their handling is really whats required.

Yeah good point - the right to bear arms could be bazookas, stinger missiles anything - where do you draw the line?

Given The number of "sports" stores I've been to in the US -anyone of them could have outfitted the entire Irish Defense forces from their front window displays. Just don't get why you need such a degree of firepower and military equipment to go hunting ducks for gods sake ! - maybe they should give the wildfowl air to surface missiles to even it up and make it a real contest!!(then again that would break the cardinal rule of American martial prowess - the target must be unarmed , unaware and preferablly much weaker than you and should not fight back!)


Heres some links to the constitutional amendments for so far

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

and heres how difficult it is to get these amendments through:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html

lostexpectation

wes wrote:

The 2 situation are very different. I would also assume that Military people are under a bit more scrutiny than your average gun owner. The situations are very dissimilar.. A better example would be Canada which has almost as many guns as the US and doesn't have the same amount of problems as they do.

America's gun culture is to blame. I do agree its not the guns themselves, but the culture the American's have built up around them.

well you can't really legislate for someone going postal, although it seems there were plenty of warnings signs with this guy, for quite a while,

guns don't go on rampages crazys do ?

Manic Moran

The US constitution doesn't actually say anything about guns to be fair. It merely mentions the right to bear arms. It doesn't ay the arms need to be a semi-automatic rifle.

EDO wrote:

Yeah good point - the right to bear arms could be bazookas, stinger missiles anything - where do you draw the line?

The Miller case, of 1934, is the only one where the 2nd Ammendment has really been directly addressed by the Supreme Court. It got as far as asking if the weapon in question (A sawn-off-shotgun) was applicable for militia use. As the court didn't have any evidence showing that it was a weapon in common use with the military at the time, the Court saw no reason to proceed with the case and dismissed at that point.

This has since been revisited a few times, most recently by the federal court in DC in Parker v DC last month, and again, the criterion is 'is it a weapon in common military use'. As a result, the general school of thought is that 2nd Ammendment -does- cover semi-auto weapons, -can- cover fully auto weapons, and a minority do believe it can also cover rockets, anti-air missiles, whatever you can afford. Yes, there are people who legally own field artillery pieces which work. (Whether they can find ammunition for them is another matter). They are, of course, heavily restricted, much as full-auto weapons are. In theory, it's possible for anyone to have one, but the expense and procedure is such that almost nobody does it.

Given The number of "sports" stores I've been to in the US -anyone of them could have outfitted the entire Irish Defense forces from their front window displays.

Go to Germany. A German gun store will make a Texan cry. You can buy things in Europe which are currently prohibited in the US.

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

The Miller case, of 1934, is the only one where the 2nd Ammendment has really been directly addressed by the Supreme Court. It got as far as asking if the weapon in question (A sawn-off-shotgun) was applicable for militia use. As the court didn't have any evidence showing that it was a weapon in common use with the military at the time, the Court saw no reason to proceed with the case and dismissed at that point.

Go to Germany. A German gun store will make a Texan cry. You can buy things in Europe which are currently prohibited in the US.

NTM

I bloody wish the americans would use their arms and rise up against their gov!


surely the standard would be what woud be neccessary to overthrow the gov, some jet fighters a nuke perhaps, one for every home.

EDO

Manic Moran wrote:

Go to Germany. A German gun store will make a Texan cry. You can buy things in Europe which are currently prohibited in the US.

NTM

Something like this?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3384

metrovelvet

EDO wrote:

Americans treat their constitution as if it was the 10 commandments given down on Tablets to Moses by God - it isn't up for negotiation- nearly all the amendments were put in during the first decade of States existence . It was probably grand for a fledging agrarian republic newly liberated from an empire - for the 21% century I don't know. As regards the second amendment - the NRA have that locked down - most Americans will look at the tragedy in Virginia as an isolated incident and therefore an acceptable price to pay for their God given right to "protect" themselves.

The constitution is always up for negotiation, thats why there is the supreme court. The rights bestowed by it are "unalienable". They can be reinterpreted but not removed.

If a right were removed from the constitution everytime someone abused it we'd all be in big trouble.

Try to separate the right to bear arms with gun control. Arms do not necessarily equate with guns. For all you know, they could remove the right to bear arms and suddenly no one would have any kitchen knives or baseball bats because such items would be classified as "arms."

lostexpectation wrote:

I bloody wish the americans would use their arms and rise up against their gov!

Well, interesting you say this because this was part of the idea by preserving the right to bear arms, at least as set out by the founding fathers, that is that the private citizens should have the same rights and powers as the government and that bearing arms is part of that and also of having the power to overthrow your government.

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

surely the standard would be what woud be neccessary to overthrow the gov, some jet fighters a nuke perhaps, one for every home.

The argument has been made in the past that the original 'protect from the government' argument has been made moot as the average person can't do much against an Apache gunship or Abrams tank. There is something to that, but there are also arguments which point that the original concept still has merit.

On the larger scale, a bunch of guys with light weapons and home-made bombs seems to be doing a good job of keeping the US military busy in the middle East.

On the smaller scale, where the Army doesn't get involved, smaller uprisings such as Athens 1946 (Corrupt Sheriff vs pissed-off-locals) or even one-on-one incidents of denizen vs unlawfully-acting cop are still valid.

NTM

Manic Moran

EDO wrote:

Something like this?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3384

I referred solely to the variety of firearms on offer, not their restrictions on use. The H&K Rifle mentioned in the article could well be a model not permitted in the US ever since the import ban of the late 1980s, for example. If it's a rifle produced outside of the US after 1990 or so, you can't buy them. I think it was some form of protectionist measure to force companies to set up production facilities in the US. Some companies have done it, some have not. We're waiting for Steyr to finally open up a production line here, there's a line of people waiting to buy AUGs.

Similarly, using a silencer in Europe is considered socially responsible: It doesn't disturb the neighbours. They're highly restricted in the US.

NTM

metrovelvet

Manic Moran wrote:

On the larger scale, a bunch of guys with light weapons and home-made bombs seems to be doing a good job of keeping the US military busy in the middle East.

NTM

Or who were those guys again who used box cutters?

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

On the smaller scale, where the Army doesn't get involved, smaller uprisings such as Athens 1946 (Corrupt Sheriff vs pissed-off-locals) or even one-on-one incidents of denizen vs unlawfully-acting cop are still valid.

NTM

searches http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm oh jesus :rolleyes:


cool story though,

AbusesToilets

For those saying that Gun Culture,music,computer games etc. is to blame for this massacre,perhaps you might blame the the shooter,who actually did the shooting.You can't legislate for crazy.If not a gun then a knife,or a car or whatever.
There is a place to examine what it is in our society that leaves people feeling so detached that they can be moved to commit these acts.But saying that,at the end of the day the responsibility for this lies with the killer and noone else.

homah_7ft

So there should be no controls on weapons?

AbusesToilets

There are controls on guns,not enough perhaps.

lostexpectation

AbusesToilets wrote:

For those saying that Gun Culture,music,computer games etc. is to blame for this massacre,perhaps you might blame the the shooter,who actually did the shooting.You can't legislate for crazy.If not a gun then a knife,or a car or whatever.
There is a place to examine what it is in our society that leaves people feeling so detached that they can be moved to commit these acts.But saying that,at the end of the day the responsibility for this lies with the killer and noone else.

the more that comes out the less this is true, again the amount of people he killed is do with guns and little else,

that he could simply tick the no box on thef form under the question do you mental health problems and get the gun anyway is ridiculous, what sort of check do they do over the counter when buying a gun? do they do police check right there? would mental health only come into it if he been convicted for violence before?

he was directed in 2005 as being a danger to himself and public by judge ?

so they saying now he sent package to nbc between shootings with a video photos and more ranting, nbc gave it to the police before showing it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ - eek!