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. $$
Wow... I guess since I play Role Playing Games, I will want to learn magic, buy lots of swords and dress up in a wizard's hat and robe and kill people thinking they're monsters who will give me experience and gold. $$
Heh, indeed however there are two sides to the coin.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.
image fail!
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.
<@Terra> he told me this, "man actually meeting terra is so fucking big", and he started crying. Then he bought me hot dogs
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 it
image fail!
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?)
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."
i saved a unicorn
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 prevented
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
Last edited by gr3atfull; Sat, 04-21-2007 at 02:18 PM.
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:-)
Read -> comprehend -> post
do not skip part 2
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. <--fact
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.
i saved a unicorn
Just saw this and thought you guys would like it.
Virginia Tech Memorial-There's No Sunset in Virginia
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
