news article
Now thats pretty fucked up. i wonder that caused it.
news article
Now thats pretty fucked up. i wonder that caused it.
My friend called his friend that goes to Virginia Tech and she said that it was because of relationship problems. No clue how valid this is.
an account from one of DO's friends on irc:
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> i'm alive
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> ;__;
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~DO> damn
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~DO> wtf happened?
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> some shooting in a dorm early morning
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> then 2 hours later
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> the nut went to an academic building
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> and randomly shot out
[14:04] <DO> [13:04] <~goat> killing 19 there
[14:04] <DO> [13:05] <~goat> 1 died in the dorm
32 confirmed deaths
phew that was a close one.
The probability of goat being among the casualties was 0.12%
I like how any time there's some sort of incident, everyone goes to see what the president thinks, which of course is always of grievance for the loved ones of the victims.
http://drudgereport.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-BeRt
Most likely valid.
No surprise, Jack Thompson didn't waste one minute: http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Jack...on_video_games
Also "Terrorism"Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
One of the main tabloids in the UK has picked up on the jilted boyfriend theme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
Yeah I heard his speech its pretty much bs, he doesn't care, he just reads whats in front of him other than that I don't see why people just have a shootout.
I heard on the radio this morning a snippet of a conference with one of the school officials, something along the lines of, "we've taken the survivors to hospital where they can receive medical attention and we'll inform the next of kin when we can identify everyone".
I was like, "um, duh?"
But yeah. Horrible business, this.
I just hope this doesent cause trouble for Korean nationals...i could easily see it going that way; since scared people jump to irrational conclusions. Hopefully, it doesent come to that.
Don't get me wrong. This event was horrible and everything but... I think many are making it somewhat bigger that it was.
I mean... when they mentioned on the radio yesterday (here in Mexico, before anyone asks) they made the whole business sound worst than September 11, or even as a new war had erupted.
When they mentioned it was this massacre I was like.... huh? all that for this?
Obviously after hearing the news I do think its awful and everything. But whats with the damn news (radio or tv) making it sound as bad as Sep11?
Second amendment sucks pretty hard when you see stuff like this.
Now the Us got Army and Law inforcement units all over the country. No one need guns at home, nor a militia ... It's not the Wild West anymore.
here here! Now we're getting to the root of the problem!Quote:
Originally Posted by Inazuma
Self defense is a relative thing. People only need guns because those that'd threaten them have guns. I don't think anyone can argue that the intended safeguard of the Second Amendment (that the people at large have weapons in order to counteract any authoritarian power grab or dictator) works in this modern day when the military has stealth bombers and tanks and shit.
And the "possession of guns for hunting" supporters are simply retarded hicks.
edit to RZ: That's the sensationalism of the media. They need to hype up their presentation of the news because, let's face it, they're more worried about keeping their ratings/sales high and attracting advertisers. So, while the event is certainly atrocious, they seize on the "record breaking" aspect of it (largest compiled by a single shooter in U.S. history) and that leads to cheapening the tragedy.
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1.../vtech9523.jpg
see also: sig.
Hmm...Not to start a debate on gun control; but I still dont think it would be a good idea for the studednt populace to walk around campus packing. That was a freak occurrence, and arguably if other students were shooting, it could have compunded the injuries.
[14:51] <masamuneehs> ...wow... speaking of Moderating.... http://forums.gotwoot.net/showpost.p...1&postcount=16
[14:51] <Deadfire> *sigh*
[14:52] <Deadfire> idiots are so many in number
[14:52] <Deadfire> yo got or may I
[14:52] <Deadfire> *you
[14:52] <masamuneehs> well, it's not quite something we can do...
[14:52] <masamuneehs> i mean, he's entitled to his opinion, even if he's an ass
[14:53] <masamuneehs> but if i find he's a troll or someone off an alternate account, then i'll get him
[14:53] <Deadfire> no masa that is open flaming
[14:53] <Deadfire> and he joined just to do that
[14:53] <Deadfire> thats not what gotwoot is like
[14:53] <Deadfire> bann him for a couple is what I say
[14:53] <masamuneehs> ...
[14:58] <Deadfire> masa
[14:58] <Deadfire> bann it
[15:45] * Valeur has joined #gotwoot
[15:45] <Valeur> Why was i banned?
[15:46] <Valeur> ?
[15:46] <Valeur> I can't express my opinion on gotwoot forums?
[15:47] <Valeur> or are you all just American's you can't fathom a world outside of hawaii
[15:51] * masamuneehs sighes
[15:51] <masamuneehs> deadfire, care to handle this one?
[15:52] <masamuneehs> Val, do you really believe in what you said there?
[15:52] <Valeur> yes
[15:53] <masamuneehs> that 33 20-year olds deserve to die for U.s. foreign policy?
[15:53] <masamuneehs> well then you're a certified piece of shit
[15:53] <Valeur> If 10 year old children get shot by us soldiers why not the reverse
[15:53] <masamuneehs> ...
[15:53] <masamuneehs> so, it's right for U.S. soldiers to kill 10 year old children?
[15:54] <Valeur> No
[15:54] <Valeur> but they do
[15:54] <Valeur> And i am supposed to feel sorry for 20 year olds?
[15:54] <masamuneehs> so what validates who should die?
[15:54] <Valeur> Revenge.
[15:54] <masamuneehs> do you read the news?
[15:54] <Valeur> the USA stomps all over many places.
[15:55] <masamuneehs> do you have any idea why that guy killed those people?
[15:55] <Valeur> yet when something happens on their soil. they shit there pants in despair.
[15:55] <masamuneehs> it wasn't for anything that you're talking about
[15:55] <Valeur> masamuneehs, no, but thats not the point.
[15:55] <Valeur> masamuneehs, true
[15:55] <Valeur> But they still deserved to die.
[15:55] <masamuneehs> pray tell why
[15:55] <Valeur> the support a Country that ruins the world.
[15:55] <masamuneehs> so do i
[15:56] <Valeur> Yes.
[15:56] <masamuneehs> and you live where, by the way?
[15:56] <Valeur> And if you die, i will not have a shred of sympathy for you.
[15:56] <Valeur> Korea.
[15:56] <Valeur> South
[15:56] <masamuneehs> oh that's precious, we really should let Kim Il fuck you guys over
[15:57] <Valeur> And yes, your soldiers are still here. And they cause many problems for us.
[15:57] <Valeur> Rape.
[15:57] <Valeur> Theft.
[15:57] <Valeur> Yet we can't touch them since they are US
[15:57] <masamuneehs> you'd rather go cover the DMZ yourself?
[15:57] <Valeur> Is that what you think they do here?
[15:57] <Valeur> most of them sit on old army bases from the war.
[15:57] <Valeur> and drink too much.
[15:58] <masamuneehs> well i'm not that naive. it's a nice in-road to launch to China and the southern air routes
[15:58] <Valeur> the USA hurts the whole world.
[15:59] <masamuneehs> so some korean gets pissed off because he has no friends and doesn't fit in. so he goes out and ruins the lives of some americans. and that's justice?
[15:59] <Valeur> Their ability to throw around the WTO
[15:59] <Valeur> masamuneehs, some.
[15:59] <masamuneehs> some justice?
[15:59] <Valeur> yes
[15:59] <masamuneehs> listen. if something is just, it's either right, or there's something better that would be actual justice
[15:59] <Valeur> Maybe once the horrible things happen to you.
[16:00] <masamuneehs> you ever lose a loved one?
[16:00] <Valeur> Then your country would stop doing them to us.
[16:00] <Valeur> masamuneehs, yes
[16:00] <masamuneehs> oh yeah, how'd it happen?
[16:00] <Valeur> My father
[16:00] <Valeur> was killed by USA air strike.
[16:01] <masamuneehs> so for you it's a personal vendetta
[16:01] <Valeur> I may hold some grudges.
[16:01] <Valeur> But you sound as if you are excusing the actions of your people as a whole.
[16:01] <masamuneehs> heh
[16:02] <masamuneehs> dude, if you'd been around here before, you'd know i don't even agree with almost any U.S. policy
[16:02] <Kraco> Where on earth was a south korean killed by an us air strike?
[16:02] <masamuneehs> but i won't excuse a blind, vicious, insensitive verbal attack against 33 dead kids around my age because you have some history and a clearly fucked sense ofjustice
[16:02] <Valeur> Korean war
[16:03] <Kraco> How old are you?
[16:03] <Valeur> 25
[16:03] <masamuneehs> Val, you seriously want a shot at defending your views?
[16:03] <Valeur> masamuneehs, yes
[16:04] <Kraco> Hmm... Your father was killed in a war that lasted from 1950-1953? And you are 25..?
[16:04] <Valeur> Yes
[16:04] <masamuneehs> i'm unbanning you and deleting the modified post (i can't recover it, unfortunately). you can post your opinion again, if you'd like
[16:04] <Kraco> So, your father was killed dedaces before you were born?
[16:04] <Kraco> *decades
[16:05] <Valeur> no
[16:05] <masamuneehs> i'd also be willing to edit your original post into something of your choosing, if you'd like
[16:05] <Valeur> masamuneehs, delete it
[16:06] <masamuneehs> done. unbanned. do keep in mind the rules when you post
[16:07] <Valeur> I did not break any rules.
[16:07] <Valeur> i stated what i belief in
[16:07] <Valeur> well good day sir
[16:07] * Valeur has quit IRC (Quit: winRAR)
setting the record straight and establishing context for those who will surely be confused by the chain of events which i have no doubt will follow.
lols....that's almost as good as that one time someone shit-posted in a thanksgiving thread we had once because it celebrates pilgrims killing native americans or something.
Then there was that other guy who always implied that the fact many of us were born in America, we were simply inferior to him. Oh wait, that was r3n.
America as in the continent or the USA?
I didn't follow closely the news about this case (for the previos reasons I gave... tv and radio making it seem worse that Sep11), so I assume the gunman was Korean? I mean... because from what Rockmanj posted, and because of the irc conversation published above.
Whatever reasons many would have... innocents should never pay for a goverments mistakes. (For example... there have been about 45 murders on my state (Nuevo León) during this 2007. The governor doesn't want to let the army enter and hunt down the 'narcos' doing this (about 40 of the murdered have been policemen linked to the narco) because it would damage the image of the city for the upcoming event 'Forum de las Culturas' with people from all over the world).
Again, I totally ignore why this dude did this, but whoever believes that killing innocents is the solution to make someone pay... they deserve to root in hell. And before I get flamed... I am talking about the gunman.
Guns should be banned. Who gives a shit about the 2nd amendment, the whole point of amendments is to fix our constitution. The American Fore-fathers knew shit would need to change, thats why we went from the Bill of rights all the way to the 27 amendments we have now. Who needs a gun? Its not like you can ever use it when you need to anyway. When the asshole points a gun to your face, your not going to reach into your pocket to pull out the gun, otherwise he'll just pull the trigger on you. And hunters should just go fuck themselves. Find a more challenging sport then picking on ants who can't even defend themselves.
i agree with RZ, but actually I'm not suprised at all but Valeur's comments at all. I mean, I live there, and I know many people that share that world view in SK. I mean, most people arent like that, but I've met a fair share that unequovically hate Japanese people, Americans, and to a greater extent, Americans not of European descent. That being said I don't believe anyone's death should be celebrated, be they American, Iraqi, or whatever. And yea, the gunman was a 23 year old Korean national...who had serious problems; the guy needed help, cause he was a NUT http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/..._tech_shooting
The game populations need to be thinned annually in any case. I think it reasonable to allow willing people to hunt, because regions that don't have lots of large carnivores would otherwise overflow with prey animals. It would fall to the police, army, or professionals otherwise. If the animals are going to be killed anyway, why not allow anyone willing and qualified enough (and rich enough) to kill them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage
Real hunting rifles are kind of harder to hide when walking around a campus, nor can they be reloaded so easily or have so large magazines.
There exists a select percentage of people in this world who truly deserves rape, torture & murder. Some americans, africans, arabs, hell, even swedes, are among these people.
But to say that a bunch of innocent students are among those who deserve to get slaughtered because they happen to live in a country in which a big amount of those who truly deserve to die live... well, that's pure idiocy.
Val, I can only express my deepest sorrow over the fact that your father died AFTER inseminating some poor woman with a disgusting individual such as you.
People like you, with your fucking "REVENGHSCH!!" talk are the reason why society is an enormous pile of fail.
Deviating slightly from the current discussion, did you guys hear how apparantly the NRA has said that this incident has highlighted why people need more guns, not less? Their argument was that if the students were armed they could have defended themselves. I'm not sure if the picture posted earlier was a direct reference to this or some earlier incident, but it sure is some perverse logic.
I'm not really famliar with the gun debate in the US, but from what I have understood there are two main points from the NRA,
a) It's the right of every American to bear arms due to the 2nd amendment
b) Guns don't kill people, people do
I have to say that despite the tragedy that has occured, you can't fault the arguments of the NRA. Of course they are being extremely cynical in order to make a profit, but what how would you guys respond to these arguments?
I agree Americans should be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, however I think the NRA oversimplifies things as seemingly every organization and politician in the U.S. does. Obviously the University fucked up, the Police fucked up, and that led to 32 people being killed.
I am sorry if my post has offended anyone. I did not mean to act racist, but was just giving my own personal opinion.
I was not just blurting out random accusations just to piss people off, but that is how I really feel. And I do feel entitled to my own opinion. If thousands of Iraqi’s have been killed in a span of several years because of corrupt U.S. diplomacy, then what are 32 students? Its not as though every American shits his pants everyday over the amounts of deaths that come in weekly from Iraq. If you make a big deal out of 32 dead university students, then you should also make that much of a deal for every 32 people that have been killed not only Iraq, but other country’s such as Afghanistan and Darfur.
It seems to me as though the U.S. government is a bigger threat to the world than anyone else, seeing as how they’re the only ones to have used a nuclear bomb on civilians. And you Americans are still supporting U.S. policy. The only reason people are pissed at Bush is not because he started the war in Iraq, but because he lost it. There wasn’t nearly as much opposition in the U.S. towards its own government when this whole mess began, which is proof that people aren’t really against the war, but are against his failure.
It’s about time you people got a cold slap in the face and came to reality. The tyranny of the United States must end! If it takes bloodshed like Columbine and VT to make you understand what you are doing to children all over the world by polluting us with violence, capitalism and ‘democracy’ then so be it…Americans must understand that there are consequences to your actions.
DB, did you even read my first post?
"The American Fore-fathers knew shit would need to change, thats why we went from the Bill of rights all the way to the 27 amendments we have now. Who needs a gun? Its not like you can ever use it when you need to anyway. When the asshole points a gun to your face, your not going to reach into your pocket to pull out the gun, otherwise he'll just pull the trigger on you."
And as for huntng, Im sure nature would find a way to kill off overpopulation. Disease would probably spread amongst the deer in overcroweded areas, godwilling humans remain immune to Dear disease. Im not an expert, so I could be wrong, but I think predators of Deer are afraid of big cars with big headlights. I dont think they would dare come into a human town and start eating people. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
This, I agree with. But that doesn't even come close to justyfing why someone would want innocents to die for the sake of "revenge", because the innocent people who end up getting killed usually don't even have anything to do with all the terrible things that occur in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valeur
Also, stuff like this gets blown up so much because frankly most people don't give a shit about how many dies outside of their borders. It's all about media and selling the best piece of news.
1. I'm actually very glad I unbanned you after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valeur
2. I agree in principle, but there are two problems with that: Lack of knowledge (whether created by interference from the govt, simple lack of knowledge, or ignorance) and the undeniable fact that media is just another industry. What you see as 'people caring' is really just how much media coverage that industry gives things. That coverage is planned out in order to capture viewers/purchasers who will consume the media coverage of the event. The media should give as much attention to other tragedies as they did in this case, but modern media simply doesn't operate like that.
3. First part granted, although it means alot less than people always make it out to be. "You Americans supporting US policy" is a misconception on your part. This is simply not true! It's well documented that many Americans, a majority as of recent, disagree with a great deal of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Just because I live in America doesn't mean I support it.
Besides, I can imagine that a great deal of similarly-thinking Islamists would look at you, and judging you by your own criteria conclude that you, a citizen of a country that is openly allied with the U.S., you too support U.S. foreign policy.
So, for you to somehow claim that these 32 (would you count the shooter as a victim as well?) are valid military targets for some cause that clearly was not associated with the Virgina shootings, simply because they were born in the U.S. is quite a foolish thing for you to suggest.
4. Once again, this random act of violence does nothing to further whatever twisted "cause" you wish it would support. The simple fact that you invent a connection between this isolated act of evil and your own warped ideaology strongly suggests that you are a sick, sad and desperate person whose enjoys the suffering of others. Your fantastic, non-sensical political sentiments seem to be a very bare, very thin attempt to veil a sadistic and cowardly enjoyment of violence.
Your political ramblings don't hold water here because this is not an internationly political event. Nobody will look at this event and agree with you that "these are the consequences of America's foreign policy". As suggested by other posts in this thread, there are very serious domestic and socio-cultural issues to be discussed in light of re-occuring school shootings.
edit - goddamned terracosmo, you are not the one i'd expect to cut in front of my post and work out several debatable counters along almost the same line of thinking as I follow.
@Carnage: Sorry dude, I did read your post but wanted to hear what other people thought too.
@Valeur: I agree with you in terms of the of hypocrisy being shown over these deaths in terms of the numbers game. Yes 32 people are insignificant compared to the 1 million plus that have been killed in Iraq due to sanctions and the war.
However, I think it is incorrect to reduce discussion of the tyrannical policies of the US government to a mere numbers game. The point is that every innocent life lost to opression is a tragedy, be it American or Iraqi, Muslim or Christian. This guy who went on the rampage didn't even have justice on his mind, rather he was consumed apparantly by being dumped by his girlfriend.
I would also say that you should consider the number of Americans who oppose the policies of the US. Not everyone is an evil oppressor the like of Bush and his government. Bush and Co would love you to believe that America is united behind his government, buts its not the case.
As for those American's who are turning against Bush because of his failure in Iraq rather than as a point of principle, then I agree those people are scum in my opinion. But some of the growing opposition is also a realisation by Americans of the propaganda and lies Bush has been pumping out, so think about that also.
Valeur, it is definitely the media who blows the deaths out of proportions. The fact that the deaths occured in a school setting rather than a war zone is the main reason why we are frustrated by it. It's not a matter of numbers, it is a matter of feeling safe in our own schools and cities. Frankly, the "tyranny" that you describe affecting other countries won't end as a result of multiple school shootings unless they become directly related to terrorists from the outside, in which case the VT incident was not ... er if it was, it hasn't been revealed, but I doubt it.
That's a realyl hardline stance, there, and i actually do agree about the whole tyranny of the US, but like a lot of other people said, not everyone supports that sort of ideology, and the media controls what image "we" Americans are given. Yes, i know the US basically practices modern-day colonialism, and yes, living in Korea, i see how some of those soldiers act like damned fools, and ive seen it in other countries too; so i kind of see where you are coming from. However, its wrong to think that everyone in America is an ignorant sheep. That's like any other group ostracizing the whole of another group for the actions of a hew...
I'm not sure if I can add much to what masamuneehs and everyone else have so eloquently said, but I'd just like to address the "us vs. them" attitude that I see. Valeur, I'm still not convinced of your intentions here, whether you actually want to discuss this with us, or if you just came to start an argument or vent your frustrations. However, a majority of the people who visit these forums are not American at all. Those Americans who do frequent here have their issues with their government, and are by no means passive bystanders to global events. I understand your frustration, but celebrating the deaths of innocent college kids is not a constructive way to express that. The most powerful force for change in America is the voices of the American people, and by alienating them, you lose your best hope for change. Why not try working together with Americans in cooperation to raise the issues you want addressed?
Let me tell you a story. Its about this kid. He goes around stealing all the neighborhood bicycles and is generally a bad kid. One day after a couple of years of being the bad kid, he gets hit by a car. Guess what, no one feels bad. Why? Because he pissed off everyone.
People America has attacked.
France, Mexico, Spain, the UK, Algiers, Tripoli, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Greece, Indonesia, Argentina, Peru, Samoa, China, Turkey, Nicaragua, Japan, Uruguay, Republic of New Grenada, Angola, Taiwan, Colombia, Hawaii, Korea, Egypt, Haiti, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Syria, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Morocco, China, Soviet Union, Netherlands, Greenland, Iceland, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
And i am missing a lot of places.
Just like how when the kid who was a bad ass got hit by the car and no one cared when America gets a few scratches the rest of the world looks at the damage they have done and really could care less what happens to the USA.
For the short time the USA has been in existence they have caused the most wars out of any country. Lets also not mention that the USA falls out side of the rest of the worlds norms.
Like Murders by guns. America has more than any other place. Even if you look at it per capita. In America most serial killers are male while the rest of the world they are female.
If your society were not so corrupt maybe people would have forgiveness for you. but you just keep charging on with "The American way" and "Democracy works!" No mater what the consequences.
Do the terms generalization and over simplification mean anything to you? You liken a hypothetical kid with 300 million people, nearly all of whom have differing backgrounds, and some that aren't even "american". Living in america or holding a green card doesn't necessarily make you american.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valeur
And you represent the rest of the world? You have dont have the right to speak on behalf of 6 billion people, the majority of who are decent human beings who see the sufferings of others, and dont let political borders blind them to the needs of thier fellow human beings.Quote:
Just like how when the kid who was a bad ass got hit by the car and no one cared when America gets a few scratches the rest of the world looks at the damage they have done and really could care less what happens to the USA.
I dont know about the female serial killer thing, so you'll have to provide some stats. But i do agree about the US causing more then its share of problems world wide. They've adopted double standards in nearly every aspect of thier government, and there are more then enough reasons to convict nearly half the politicians (of the executive branch atleast) of this and previous governments. However, unless any of those 31 unfortunate souls were secretly working for Bush as his personal aide, they cannot he held responsible for the actions of thier government.Quote:
For the short time the USA has been in existence they have caused the most wars out of any country. Lets also not mention that the USA falls out side of the rest of the worlds norms.
Like Murders by guns. America has more than any other place. Even if you look at it per capita. In America most serial killers are male while the rest of the world they are female.
Forgiveness? i think you meant sympathy, as this particular event requires has no need for forgiveness. In any case, people do have sympathy for those who were killed and thier families. Just because you are full of idiotic ideals and unjustified (and wrongful) hatred, doesn't mean the rest of the world is as well.Quote:
If your society were not so corrupt maybe people would have forgiveness for you. but you just keep charging on with "The American way" and "Democracy works!" No mater what the consequences.
You're treating America as an entity when there is actually about 100 different major opinions floating around. Not everyone wants to be the "badass" America that you claim we are.
Again you are confusing the intention on which America attacked others. If you look at it in context, America was either protecting its own soil or doing something that all the other major powers were also participating in. A majority of these conflicts come from WWI, WWII, and Cold War tensions in which we weren't blatantly blowing coutries off the face of the Earth.
No one is saying we are perfect either.
Ideals and pre-concieved notions play a huge role in your argument. I suggest you look both ways before crossing the street.
In response to DB_Hunter's question: (i was originally gonna edit my post but then darkmetal505 posted >.>)Quote:
Originally Posted by DB_Hunter
a) As carnage or whoever pointed out, the reasons for the 2nd ammendmant are no longer there. And if they are (you could technically look at the bush gov't as a authoratarian power), then the 2nd ammendmant has failed already anyway. It may have been benificial in earlier times to carry a gun to protect yourself and you're beliefes or whatever, but in modern society it does more harm then good.
b) Completely true. It's people who kill people....however to use that as a reason to justify more lax gun laws or even gun ownership is just stupid. Would the VT gunman still have gone on a murderous rampage if he didn't have a gun? quite possibly. But how many people do you think he would've been able to kill with his bare hands? even if he had a knife, or hell, a sword (lets assume that he's physically capable of wielding a sword, which i doubt he would have been considering he was described as a loner english major), he would have wounded a few people, maybe killed the person in the dorm. But there is no way in hell he could kill 31 people with any weapon other then a gun.
So ya, guns dont kill people. But they do make killing people a hell of a lot easier.
yes, but the thing is, the people who died in this shooting didn't do anything. they are, in fact, not "the bad kid". their cause of death wasn't even related to national politics! it was just some messed up guy who got too triggerhappy with his recent arms purchase. your opinion on the politics and status of the U.S. nonwithstanding, you're just getting all vindictive for no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valeur
you say that the rest of the world doesn't care less what happens to the USA, yet you're here gloating about the deaths of innocent people. how the hell can you say you don't care when you swagger in here and start talking about how these people deserved to die because they were sinners. according to your inferential reasoning, "one man has killed a number of people. zomg we must destroy all men!" or, alternatively, i could say to you, "this korean guy killed a number of people. death to all koreans!"Quote:
Just like how when the kid who was a bad ass got hit by the car and no one cared when America gets a few scratches the rest of the world looks at the damage they have done and really could care less what happens to the USA.
yes, fine, the U.S. isn't perfect in the least. a fair bit of people are not happy with the way things are run, but nothing justifies killing innocent people, for any reason.
--
anyway, it's kind of pissing me off how the news and media people are making such a big deal about this guy being korean. it's like they're saying, "haaay gaiz it's okay the kid wasn't from around here our national identity is safe lolz"
No, in fact. Deer's natural predators mainly consist of wolves and cougars. Wolves and cougars are largely not present in much of the US, due to the presence of people. Top tier predators require large ranges, and having a giant grid of farmland and roads and fences doesn't quite lend itself to that. Further, wolves in particular are known to take livestock, causing many local farmers not to tolerate them. Incidentally, only top-tier predators can take deer, and deer are even work for a small pack of wolves, which will typically pick smaller, lower-risk game given the option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage
In the absence of natural predators, it's not disease that kills deer, it's starvation. Anyone with the slightest ounce of humanity realizes that it's a lot less cruel for a portion of the population to die by being shot by a skilled hunter than for a larger portion of the population to die of starvation. Further, when the population starves to death, it for the most part starves wholesale -- available food in the winter simply runs out, and nothing eats.
Deer overpopulation is also a significant human problem. Deer get driven into cities and suburbs, looking both for food and for territory. They get hit by cars, causing not only deer deaths but human death. They destroy property. They raze farmland. In short, deer overpopulation quickly becomes a problem to more than just the deer.
Regular culling of deer is the ONLY way, absent abandoning our cities and farms and restoring the wolf population to its natural levels, to prevent this in areas where deer thrive. Any ecologist worth calling an ecologist will generally tell you that.
Near my hometown, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has a nature preserve area consisting of a forest and a prairie, and a herd of bison (all within city limits, where it's illegal to discharge a firearm except in certain situations), Once a year they close it off, and a team of professional marksmen goes through and culls the deer population. Every couple of years they also light portions of their prairie area on fire. If they were to stop culling the deer, they would need a small pack (3-5) of wolves. The wolf pack would (a) not respect the boundaries of the half a square mile of forest, and (b) not respect the lives of the neighboring pets. Or they would die on the fairly busy nearby road. Either way, natural predators are not an option.
This has nothing to do with Virginia Tech, or insane shooters, and is only marginally tangential in that it has to do with gun control. None of this has anything to do with a perceived American imperialism.
(I was going to post this like 2 hours ago, but got distracted. I'll probably have something to say about the rest of the thread when I read it :p)
Heh, since you're reminded me now, i mite as well give my 2 cents on the whole hunting issue.
The way i see it, the best way to control the rampant gun violence would be to get rid of guns all together and only allow police/military personal (and the occasional security guard or whatever) to carry them. This wont be a problem for hunters, if -rather then buying/owning guns or hunting rifles- hunters were issued the guns on location.
For example, set up a shop run by the regional/federal hunting authority near the hunting grounds where, instead of buying beer, the hunters would recieve guns. The only thing the hunters need is a valid hunting liscence, and the on-location shop provides then gun (free of charge ofcourse) and a case or two of ammo (or however much is a reasonable amount for a hunting trip). Any additional ammo could be bought at the shop, and the guns/ammo returned once the trip is over.
That way, hunters have thier fun, the catostrophic deer over population issue (:p) is solved, and the only guns in the city are the ones used to protect the citizens.
And before people start poking holes in the theory, keep in mind im not submitting it for official approval or anything. Its just a very basic premise of a possible solution.
You seem to have a very narrow scope of the idea of "hunting grounds".Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
Despite our crisscrossed American roads and patchworks of fields and pervasive cities, there's a LOT of open country, a lot of forest that's either not in good location (too far from cities, too far from resources) or not geographically good for development (too boggy, too steeply graded) The Fermilab example is an isolated exception. The rule is that hunters go out into the country, into places that there's no other people for miles around, and hunt there.
IE: this idea is unconscionably ignorant :p.
While I'm on the topic of unconscionable ignorance...
If you think the reasons for the second amendment have gone away (or even CAN go away) you don't understand why the second amendment is second only to the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
There are tons of compelling arguments in favor of the second amendment, and in favor of concealed carry, which is why nearly every state in the country has a CCW law. I'm not even going to begin to go into them, but if you want I can send you the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" that covers the core of it pretty well. It'd be season 3 episode 9, if you're interested.
Regardless, the genie is out of the bottle and you're never going to get it back in there -- guns exist, and aren't particularly difficult to improvise or import. The way I see it, there are two possibilities. I call these "Surveillance society" versus "Acceptable Risk society".
"Acceptable risk" is where we accept and attempt to rationally mitigate those risks which are significant, and accept that we will never, ever, under any circumstances be 100% safe from everything. EVER. You have to draw a line, and say "these risks are significant" versus "these risks are insignificant". Then you have to look at those significant and insignificant risks and further divide them into "these risks are mitigable" versus "these risks are not". Basically, propose a reasonable mitigation path to the risk. Then see if the mitigation path actually works. Then determine an associated cost for it, and compare the cost of implementing it and the benefit you get from that implementation. If the benefits outweigh the costs, do it. If the costs outweigh the benefits, don't. If the problem is insignificant or if no mitigation path can be found in which the benefits outweigh the costs, then simply call it an acceptable risk and move on.
The alternative is to outlaw guns everywhere and universally enforce it. This means setting up very tightly controlled borders, searching every person and every car and every truck and every shipping crate and every plane that comes into or moves around inside the country, and basically invading the privacy of everyone in order to find those few people who carry guns illegally. Because to stop a single motivated, well-planned "lone gunman" type, you're going to have to do that. Every person that walks onto the campus is going to have to be searched by a police officer. Every time. From every direction. And at every other public place you want to protect. Literally a police officer on every street corner, and not just making their presence known, but patting down every little old lady looking for her .22 pistol. Moreover, this means a thorough search of every home, every hiding place looking for every firearm in every household. The guns would have to not only no longer be bought, sold or carried, they'd have to no longer exist.
Take your pick. As a man with a family history of heart disease, or even if I weren't, I'm more likely to die of a heart attack than a gunshot wound. I find the very unlikely incident of a mass shooting to be an acceptable risk. Further, I find the possession of privately owned firearms by the law-abiding citizens around me to be good mitigation of that risk and any risk of violent crime: it costs me nothing, it costs the people around me very little, and it is statistically significant as a preventer of violent crime in general.
But, whatever works for you I guess.
::Yawn::....Valeur, your stance is getting tiresome....
First of all....I couldn't care less what other countries think about the shooting that happened here. I myself am surprised that it has as much publicity as it has, because 32 isn't much compared to the number of premature deaths tallied on average every day.
Second of all, you can write your poetic stories all you want, but to say that America has been in more wars than any other country is ridiculous. I'd like to see some solid proof backing your statement, because wars have been around since the dawn of civilization.
Third of all, only the last few wars started by us have held any sort of general negative consensus. Before that there were rather clear dangers occuring in many hotspots over in Asia and Europe that stood to benefit from American intervention. Needless to say, what would become of your horrifically victimized land if America never opposed the communists in the first place? You'd probably be starving in a hut somewhere as Kim Jong II sucks your nation dry. Or maybe China will decide you don't have any freedom of information, and cut off all your access to such wonderful places such as these gotwoot forums.
Everyone has something tragic happen at some point in their lives. What ever history or country you're from... it doesn't really matter, this is just really an unfortunate event and it's quite sad for a lot of people, especially the families of the victims. Yes, I know this has gotten a lot of publicity, and that hundreds of thousands of people who die every day around the world will never get heard of ...
As my neighbor would say, "Pour one for the homies. Respect."
This goes out to the victims, the families, and everyone who been though some pain. Keep your heads up.
Maybe it's just because I've grown up in a relatively gun-free Canadian society, but the thought of everyone around me carrying a gun makes me very very uneasy. In the end, those who wish to perpetrate violence will find ways to enact that violence no matter the laws that are in place. One of my friends today was commenting to me about how shooters such as this one are North America's equivalent of suicide bombers. They take the lives of others using the easiest means at their disposal, which just happens to be guns in this case.
KitKat's proposed solution:
Everyone should carry around lasers! They're the weapons of the future to protect your home and your country! Visible and invisible lasers available! Order now, and get a free cookie.
Here's my argument against people who think that making guns illegal will solve the worlds problems. Until very recently it was illegal for any unauthorized person to possess a firearm of any kind within Washington, DC. Additionally the only people that could be authorized were police and military personnel. About 10-12 years ago a congressman wanted to prove a point that guns were a major problem in DC and congress needed to do something about it (If you didn't know Congress has pretty much absolute authority over DC, though they rarely exercise it, which can be good or bad depending on the situation). Anyway, this congressman gave a speech about how guns were all over the place and it was a problem. Then he walked out of the Capitol, walked a few blocks into South East bought a gun on the street, came back to the Capitol Building, showed that there were no bullets in it, took it into the House Chamber, laid it on the podium and explained where he'd gotten it.
Now I'll admit that if guns were banned on a national scale it would be somewhat harder to get them into DC then driving over a bridge from Virginia, but I trust you get my point. (Side Note: The shooter was from Northern Virginia right outside DC).
On the other hand, from the accounts I've been reading about how this guy was shooting he knew his way around a gun, which implies that he had probably had practice (from playing video games no doubt). Had guns been illegal, it might have been slightly less easy for him to practice, assuming he practiced on a range. But then, all you really need to learn how to shoot straight is a gun, bullets, a target, and time.
Anyway back on topic, by all accounts this guy seems like he was fairly disturbed and his best future prospect was living out his life alone because he pushed everyone away (I would say miserably, but he might have had some measure of peace in loneliness and we'll never know). The worst case scenario for someone like him is obviously what happened, but I wonder now how many other people are walking around with little to no social contact, and a permanent blank expression on their face. Not much good is going to come from people in that state, and there's clearly a lot of potential bad that can happen. And the worst part is there's really not much anyone can do about it, you can't force people to be happy or enjoy life, and this guy seemed like he wasn't going to accept the world the way it was, and took the most drastic steps because of it.
what's the power output on these lasers?
how do you handle the power supply problem?
can I get laser eye beams?
wouldn't shiny clothing (eg: lycra) defeat or at least hinder laser attacks? And how about mirror-polished chainmail, for that light-scattering effect?
This is why concealed carry is currently the preferred mode of carrying. People aren't used to the idea of firearms in the hands of their fellow man, or to being around guns, and someone open-carrying who isn't wearing a badge will generally either be feared and avoided or will be badgered with questions and stared at constantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by KitKat
But ultimately, with or without them, your safety depends solely on the good will of the people around you.
On a slightly broader note, I'm getting sort of tired of the America-bashing. France has race riots. Great Britain has that whole messy North Ireland affair, and riots every third time a rugby match happens. Sweden's got Terra :p. Canada's cold. South Korea's youth is abjectly complacent and generally caught up in vapid consumerism* to a greater extent than quite possibly any other nation in the world (seriously, how old is your cell phone? If you're like most, I bet it's less than a year), to the extent that they're completely unaware that North Korea still engages in active preparation to find new and entertaining ways to invade and conquer the South. The point is, everyone's got their problems, and it's easy to focus on the ones that are external, because they give you something nice to hate to distract yourself from internal issues. This is an application of what social psychologists call the Fundamental Attribution Error**: people blame their own problems on situations, and the problems of others on dispositions. "My sin is forgivable. Yours is not."Quote:
Originally Posted by Valeur
So please lay off the America-bashing. Yes, we've got military bases in a lot of places all over the world. Most of those are accepted and welcomed. Some are not. If we only went where we were welcome, we'd never be welcome anywhere, and you'd be a communist and sing praises of the Dear Leader, and forget about this whole "internet" thing...
*: my stepdad is Korean, and my mom has spent something like 3 months in South Korea in the last 3 years, toured the demarcation line, talked with older family members and younger people. I'm mostly going by their accounts of what's going on there.
**: putting that BA in psychology to good use :p
The gun density / ownership issue in relation to gun crimes is a tough nut to crack. According to wikipedia Finland has the third highest amount of guns per capita in the world, yet gun related crimes are quite rare (and those that happen are 90% of time a drunken man shooting his drunken wife or drinking buddy at home).
Over here you can't just walk to a dealer and get a gun, but you need a license from the police, and in order to get that you need to belong to a shooting or hunting club (and you can't be a criminal or a psycho). Possibly also being a recognized collector is enough. Or a movie maker. Carrying guns around isn't allowed at all for civilians except possibly for select few people like some special security guards. Otherwise owners can only carry them concealed directly from their storage place (home) to the place of use.
Still, I don't know if those legislation differences make any actual difference. Maybe it's just a fundamental difference in the gun cultures. In any case, casually saying tightening the gun laws in the US would solve lots of issues would be extremely naive. And like one British buddy once told me: Even if the cops in the UK don't carry guns, the crooks always seem to have them.
Hahahahahahahahahahaa. As always Assertn's sarcasm gets the best of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
On to the important matter, it does suck though. Specially, not to be rude, he wasn't even an American, and 30+ American's died from it. I do find the media stupid though. They just had a story about the fear of copycat's yet they won't shut up about it, hell they even interviewed one guy who could barely speak english. As soon as some suicidal retard catches on about how much negative attention he'll get he'll probably go an try to pop off some.
Todays news on the radio:
32 (again) Egyptians died in an bus accident near El Cairo.
18 Chinese died after dunno what accident.
9 Iraqui died after a bomb exploded.
And the list goes on....
All tragedies. But the media is still busy interviewing those from the Virginia Tech.
Heck... they interviewed the mexican students there and what they though about the terror they 'lived'. I absolutely loved their answered: "I didn't notice anything happened until the SWAT teams arrived". Pwned.
One student even went as far as praising his colleged (Tec de Monterrey) for the exchange program with Virginia Tech. WTF? Where we talking about the tragedy or his damn exchange program? Media is useless...
I'm french and I'm not as anti american as many or my fellow citizen are.
No one in my country is packing, expect police officers, soldiers and Special Ops.
And I think letting any dickhead buy a gun and carry one is a serious mistake.
This is the 21st century dammit
Exacly, media is useless. For anyone coming down on the US as a whole i'm sorry but you're a moron. The media is fucked up all over the world, it's not the country's (as a whole) fault for moronic reporter looking for a story so they can get their 30 seconds of air time and continue doing so for hmm probably another week or 2. Garunteed in 2 weeks there will be a news story on something about the korean dude's family and how that may have drove him to do what he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyougaZell
1) In my arbitrary units of measurement, hereby known as KitKats (KK) the lasers can output from 100 to 1 million KK.Quote:
Originally Posted by complich8
2)These lasers run off the essence of pure distilled awesomeness, transmitted from my orbiting bakery-sattelite.
3)Only if you say 'Please'.
4)Not if you find the right wavelength! Or if you have enough power so that you start to turn the air into a plasma......then things start to get fun!
KitKat Inc is not responsible for any death, damage or injury caused by firing lasers backwards, putting plastic packaging bags over your head, or burned muffins.
lols......
<3 kitkat
oh jackie... what wouldn`t you blame video games for
taken from qj.net
Due to the recent tragic event at the campus of Virginia Tech, Jack Thompson has been increasing his efforts to get media exposure. Gaming news site, GameAlmighty has posted a report on his latest open letter. This time it is addressed to Bill Gates:
April 18, 2007
Bill Gates
Microsoft
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 Via Fax and e-mail
Dear Mr. Gates:
On Monday, April 16, at 3:10 pm, I was a guest, as I often have been in the past, on the Fox News Channel. News anchor Bill Hemmer asked me to profile the Virginia Tech rampage killer. I did so, noting that until that day the worst school massacre in world history was at the hands of Robert Steinhaeuser, who literally trained on the Microsoft on-line, hyper-violent shooter game, Counterstrike. I mentioned your company’s game by name. I explained that the rehearsal for such a massacre is key to being able to pull it off, as efficiently as Cho, whose name we didn’t even know at the time. Cho and Steinhaeuser were able to do what they did the first time because it was not the first time. This is why the military uses this same virtual reality simulation to train soldiers to want to kill and how to kill calmly, as the witnesses of Cho said he did.
Sure enough, last night I was doing a west coast radio interview when the host said to me, "Mr. Thompson, you are right. The Washington Post is reporting right now the following:
‘Several Korean youths who knew Cho Seung Hui from his high school days said he was a fan of violent video games, particularly Counterstrike, a hugely popular online game published by Microsoft, in which players join terrorism or counterterrorism groups and try to shoot each other using all types of guns.’"
I thus went back on the Fox News Channel, and Bill Hemmer and I explained not only that I was right about your game figuring in the Virginia Tech massacre but also that the Washington Post excised the above excerpt from the story this morning. That is yet another story. The bad news for the Post however is that you can still get the excised excerpt at http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2...l?hpid=topnews. Thus, the cat is out of the bag, and his paw prints are still on the bag. Is this a great Internet, or what?
As you know, I similalry [sic] went on NBC’s Today Show with the DC Beltway Sniper still unidentified and at-large a few years ago and told Matt Lauer and the nation that the triggerman would most likely be a teen video gamer trained on a sniper video game. The tarot card was a clue, but there were other clues. I was right, as Malvo trained on your Microsoft game, Halo. NBC reported that three months later, and it was part of the criminal trial of Malvo.
Mr. Gates, your company is potentially legally liable the harm done at Virginia Tech. Your game, a killing simulator, according to the news that used to be in the Post, trained him to enjoy killing and how to kill. You knew five years ago that your on-line game, Counterstrike, so clearly figured in the massacre by a student in Erfurt that the event and the game impacted the race for Chancellor in Germany at the time!
Yet, here you are, five years after "Erfurt," still marketing Counterstrike. having done nothing to disable the server(s) for this mass murder simulator, and it looks like "Virginia Tech" is a consequence. There’s more going on in the world than Vista. Just ask the bereaved Virginia Tech families.
Mr. Gates, pull the plug on Counterstrike today, or do we need more dead to convince you? "Virginia Tech" was the 9-11 of school shootings, and it appears Microsoft is in the middle of it, in more ways than one.
Regards, Jack Thompson
The Washington Post report has been edited to remove any references to Counterstrike, and it is unlikely that the good Mister Gates can do anything about Counterstrike.
Although the game's Xbox version is published by Microsoft, it was originally puiblished by Vivendi Universal, and developed by Valve, and most folks on the Intertubes probably acquire their copy of the game via methods considerably cheaper than retail.
Gino D. and Ryan A. wrote reports on how to react to this Fox News proclaimed "School Shooting Specialist."
lol, jack thompson is a douchebag, we all know that. i doubt theres a korean kid alive that doesn't play counterstrike, lol.
by his logic, i can play a flight sim and be qualified to fly a 747 :p . It would be great if bill gates replied "Dear Mr.Thompson. You're are an idiot. Stop bothering me, and get a real job"
I stopped reading that article after the 3rd paragraph. It's ridiculous.
On the gun control matter, I've heard both sides of the argument too many times. My roommates are right-wing military-fanboys and my whole dad's side of the family is completely anti-gun. I've somewhat removed myself from the argument, but I do see the how useless a banning on firearms could be, what with the existence of a black market. All it takes is one maniac to shoot up a school, and all it takes for that maniac to get his gun is someone willing to sell it (under the counter or legally). Personally I think gun laws have as much to do with the issue as video games...
Well, let's say the current gun laws have as little to do as the video games, but if stricter laws had been in place for a long time, it could have meant less weapons present and available today. Still, the gun culture of the USA is and was such that this is indeed useless speculation. The handguns manufactured before WWI are perfectly good killing tools still today, and the ones manufactured today will be good for this century easily, and nothing is able to quickly reduce their numbers in a vast country like the USA.
Do many people take this Mr. Jack Thompson seriously?
I find his articles hilarious. :p
"Bill Gates pulled off Virginia Tech!"
If he's such an expert at killing, I hope Gates can somehow get him assassinated. :p
More serious anti-game campaigners must be cursing that dolt. He surely must eat a lot away from the credibility of the whole movement. Well, assuming the movement had any credibility in the first place. I'm not the right person to judge that...
That being said, the game industy probably doesn't care. Only fools that would never buy a game anyway and thus don't matter would listen to charlatans like that. People who hesitate should be put off by such witless ramblings, and thus the effect would be opposite.
Umm...Although you could say that this could have been prevented with some anti/pro gun laws, it could also have been prevented if the University, the local police, and the institution he was in were responsible.
He was deemed to be an "iminent danger" to those around him from the institution he was commited in. However, he was released for some reason (don't know why you would release someone who is an iminent danger to the general populace). Anways, at the University, his English teacher had some 1 on 1 time with him and informed the University and the Police that this kid needed professional help and was a danger to others. He also had 3 prior run-ins with the cops, one of which included stalking a girl.
In a conversation with his roomate he told him that he had to break into a girls room and stare into her eyes to see something (i forgot this bit). Anyways, when he did, he said that he saw promiscuity...<----THAT IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR!!! If any of my friends did that shit i'd def. get him/her some professional help. However, no one did anything.
Can anyone shed some light on some of these events? Maybe I haven't heard the whole story but from what i hear it seems like his friends f'ed up, the university f'ed up, the police f'ed up. The only person who wanted to stop this kid before he did something horrid was his English professor.
Wow... I guess since I play Role Playing Games, I will want to learn magic, buy lots of swords and dress up in a wizard's hat and robe and kill people thinking they're monsters who will give me experience and gold. $$
Heh, indeed however there are two sides to the coin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraco
There are those who argue these incidents take place not because there are too many guns, but because there are not enough. "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," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "The latest school shooting at Virginia Tech demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen." Others argue that schools and colleges are not sufficiently protected, and that the lack of security is tantamount to an open invitation.
The right to bear arms in America is seen as an important civil liberty, and the debate concerns how far to impose restrictions on that right. Politically, most Democrats favour tighter gun laws whilst the majority of Republicans are opposed to any new legislation, saying the problem lies in the lax enforcement of existing laws.
According to the Pew Charitable Trust, support for greater restrictions has slipped in recent years among the general public. A recent poll for the organisation suggested that 52% of people had favourable views on the NRA compared to 32% who did not.
In a separate poll in October last year, some 56% of people did however tell Gallup that they wanted stricter laws. However, when given the choice in that poll between enforcing current gun laws or passing new gun laws in addition to enforcing the existing ones, most people preferred simple enforcement.
On the gun laws in the US
After the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado in 1999 more than 15 state legislatures passed gun control bills or dropped liberalization bills supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Nonetheless, in many cases these simply restricted the number or type of guns which could be bought. California for instance limited gun sales to one firearm per customer per month and outlawed some assault weapons.
At the federal level, little changed. Following the Columbine killings President Bill Clinton proposed tougher legislation including raising the legal age of possession to 21 and closing loopholes on sales without background checks. But they proved intensely controversial, and by the time the bill was to be voted on by Congress the president himself denounced it as so watered down it was "worse than current law".
Mr Clinton did however introduce the Assault Weapons Ban, a 10-year ban on 19 types of semi-automatic weapon. The ban expired in 2004 under President George Bush and has not yet been renewed.
As well one last tidbit In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.
On the account of the shooting
There are five common factors in shootings like this. The first is an acute rejection episode - such as Teasing, bullying or other kinds of rejection which usually takes place shortly before the killer acts. His video(that he sent to NBC), he makes it clear he believes there was an on-going history of rejection.
In his video, Cho says: "You have vandalised my heart, raped my soul and tortured my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic more life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ to inspire generations of the weak and the defenceless people."
He also labelled fellow students "brats" and "snobs".
A fascination with guns and explosives is another factor. Cho, it appears, had acquired weaponry over a period of time. The video also shows him dressed in a hunting vest, black baseball cap and gloves brandishing guns at the camera.
Another factor is a pre-occupation with death. They talk about it a lot and they think about it. Cho's plays appear to indicate a fascination with the subject. In one of his plays, entitled Richard McBeef, the main character named John is alone in his room throwing darts at a target covered with a picture of his stepfather, the eponymous character. John says: "I hate him. Must kill Dick. Must kill Dick. Dick must die. Kill Dick."
Metal state, is another factor, Cho had previously been accused of stalking two female students, and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005. There were also concerns at the time that he was suicidal. In the videos his actions and words showed Cho could have been suffering from a severe case of grandiosity and possibly either bipolar depression or schizophrenia.
In many campus and school killings, the perpetrators planned their attacks some time in advance this being the fifth factor. Cho must have planned the attack more than a month ago, when he purchased his first gun. It appears that he began working on material for his video at least six days before the shootings. He seemed to be was very methodical and very calculated, like he was very clear cut about what he wanted to do."
The problem is how to catch them before they do this. Thats a hard issue in itself. There is no accurate or useful "profile" of students who engaged in targeted school violence. There are many students who are troubled and many who have a fascination with death, but it doesn't mean that they are going to kill people As well the concern with profiling is that it can include a high percentage of students that have similar characteristics.
Other issue that happens is that such attacks have a tremendous and lasting effect on the place that was targeted. In the aftermath, questions are inevitably asked about whether the authorities should have known that the attack was being planned, and could have been prevented.The schools often underestimates the long-term effect of the crisis. It is not unusual for there to be a lot of depression and suicides in the weeks and months after the tragedy.
DF, I can't tell which part of that you wrote and which part you just pulled from some news sites.
Regardless, I think it's pretty scary to think how many teenagers might be similar to this guy. The whole line between "angsty teen" and "mentally disturbed" seems a little too easy to blur.
Also, it seems we don't need a couple of Korean teenagers to celebrate the deaths of the students. Oh no. We've got our own nut cases to do that job.
I took a fair bit from the news sites, mostly rewording it and presenting it in my own words and expressions. As well as limiting it to the useful content. I did this in order to pass English in high school those years ago. It also helps to get a understanding for yourself of the writing alot better then simply copy and pasting or simply just reading itQuote:
Originally Posted by XanBcoo
You catch them when they present an IMMINENT DANGER to those around them as he was said to have been in 2005 and as i have said in my previous post. However, the shrink in charge of him convinced the judge that he was not a danger to anyone and that "locking him up" would be the wrong thing to do...(yea...that was such a wrong thing to do wasn't it?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadfire
Also, when dealing with a kid like this, looking at what he writes is tantamount. He was an english major and as such would most likely display some of his feelings and ideas in his rhetoric. He did. His English teacher caught him while doing it and said "The threats seemed to be underneath the surface. They were not explicit, and that was the difficulty the police had." This was a year and a half before the shooting so it would also have been in 2005 but a few months after the "imminent danger" part. These two events strung together over the course of a few months should have been enough to deem him a potential danger to society. Alas, our system, as good as some think it is, does not allow us to move an inch unless he makes a direct threat AT someone or something.
Furthermore, when he bought the guns, state police conducted an instant background check that probably took about a minute. Why was his mental condition not provided in that?! Even though his shrink at the institution convinced the judge to let him go, shoudln't there have been a note saying that he should not be able to buy dangerous weapons? He was caught for stalking on 2 separate occasions and has mental issues...ya lets just let him have a gun. He needs to protect himself from the people he's stalking<sarcasm>. Some people should NOT have a right to bear arms (those that are mentally ill or those that have had quite a few run-ins with the police - stalking twice and getting a call from a professor that says he's gonna hurt someone would def. put him into the "no gun" area IMO).
I think Lucind Roy said it best: "It's such a shame if people don't listen very carefully and if the law constricts them so that they can't do what is best for the student."
First, would like to send my condoleances to the family who lost a loved one and I hope the injured could get back to their lives.
Second, in my opinion, Canada and USA should tightened up the law with gun control. There is so many guns for nothing. While watching a news report few days ago, I learned that he had 2 guns. He bought his first one in March and the second one this month. You can buy only one gun per month. What is this? A gun per month? Who needs 2 gun? Is this a collection or what? If you need a gun to protect yourself, get one not 2,3,4, or even 6!!!!
Third, people should be studied to see if they have mental problems or not. If some one has some problems, they should be sent to see a psychiatrist. People should stop bringing others down and when they see some one having problems, they should make sure to tell the authorities to do somehting about it. They have to push the authorities because the authorities usually dont do anything unless they are "real signs",
In both cases of the Dawson shooting and the Virginia tech, the shooters were crazy and both had access to guns legally. We have to learn from our mistakes and make sure we dont repeat them. We should make guns really hard to get (we dont even need guns....) and make sure crazy people get help.
@ gr3atfull: While I can somewhat agree with your second point your third point seems to be very much wishful thinking. The authorities can't go around locking up every deeply disturbed person just because they might decide to buy a gun and kill some people. Yes it's a possiblity but for every person that snaps and does something like VTech there are lots more who are just as disturbed but don't end up killing anyone. Treatment would be good, but do they deserve to have some of their rights forcibly taken away?
always the "ban guns" litany with you canadian folks ...
I am not talking about locking up sick people in a hospital. I am saying that they shouldnt have the right to own a gun. Help them get better or just watch an eye on them to make sure they dont do anything horrible like buying a gun and then shooting people. All of this could have been preventedQuote:
Originally Posted by Yukimura
So where would the money come from to put even token surveilance on every emotionally disturbed person in a country of 300 million? Now it would be feasible to just ban anyone ever convicted of a crime or declared 'crazy' from owning a gun, but I think that would probably be unconstitutional, since you'd basically be saying breaking the law or being crazy voids your constitutional right to bear arms.
Also while the guy was accused of stalking, but was he convicted? If not then there's no legal reason to stop him from owning a gun, or 10 guns, because according to the legal system he didn't do anything. And that would probably explain why the background check didn't show any problems. You're innocent until proven guilty even if you get off on a technicality, I'd rather have that then a police state where the mere thought that you might be dangerous was enough to strip you of rights.
We should help sick people with tax money and stop allowing any one to own guns so school shooting and this
Edit: grammar
Lil late but i live about a hour from Vtech and the guy was a complete nut from my friends that dormed near him have said. His plays where demented and his outlook on life probally reflected upon that. At our highschool we were put on lockdown for about 3 hours of our day till they found out where the killer was. Good news is that my friend that got shot will be ok since he didn't hit any of her arteries:-)
shit man, sorry to hear about your friend. Hope he is ok.
If you are convicted of a felony you are NOT allowed to buy a handgun in the US. <--factQuote:
Originally Posted by Yukimura
I think if you are deemed to be a danger to those around you, that you should not be allowed to posses dangerous weapons. I mean it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together. If you are a danger to people around you unarmed, wouldn't you be even more dangerous with a weapon?
Stalking is a felony. Since the girls he stalked did not press charges, he was not convicted. As i said earlier, if you aren't convicted of a felony you can buy a weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukimura
Just saw this and thought you guys would like it.
Virginia Tech Memorial-There's No Sunset in Virginia