And thus, another anniversary for a heinous and tragic event is created.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Pic of campus:

[Brdavs]

Yeah becuase we all know that if people don't have guns anymore they won't use something like a knife, or homemade explosives, or a blunt object. Of course that's right. Sorry, get a clue please. Guns don't kill people, it's people who kill people.

 

Plus you know places like China where the government is the only one that controls weapons never abuse their power right? Of course not becuase you guys are living in your own delusional world thinking the government wouldn't take advantage of something like that. Because outrageously unthinkable things like the Holocaust never happened. Ignorance is bliss?

 

For Christ sake... you have 10 nuts with no/limited acces to guns and 10 nuts with easy acces to guns, which group will potentionally make more damage? And did Charlton Heston teach you that line about guns not killing but people? Meh, it`s hopeless... a culture thing I guess... But I don`t know how having a police force armed more heavilly than 1/4 of the world`s armies just to fight crime isn`t a clue into some serious society issues. Nvm these horrific tragedies every year, US doesn`t need to intervene in ME, it has a warzone on its home soil. But somehow thats "normal" for ye folks... To each his own...

 

Bringing in China and holocaust is just ridicolous. So you need an automatic weapon at home to protect you from uncle Sam now? Jesus H. C., I knew historically America was founded on gunpowder but that`s taking it a wee bit far...

[Tale]

It's truely astonishing that these incidents never cause anyone to pause and consider whether a universal rigth to bear arms has any place in the 21st century.

 

They circle every which way trying to come up with answers, but the truth is, these students are expendable if the choice is between the second amendment and lives.

It's not guns! It's violent video games! They inspire and glorify this violence. The choice shouldn't be between second amendment and lives, but games and TV and lives!

 

I think I know which has the priority.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...it also seemed as though the hunt was on very early for someone to blame (the police, the college authorities, the gun laws, who knows?).

 

I'm also listening to NPR, and would agree that they already seem to be hunting for the scapegoat. Personally I believe that the gunman is the one truly responsible, although some of the deaths might have been preventable if people had reacted differently. As for the other incidents, the BBC says "There were two bomb threats at the campus in the week before the shootings, but police said they were still unsure whether the incidents were linked."

[Gorgon]

Do things like this happen in Europe?

Yes.

 

 

The exception proves the rule.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

Funny how universities always have bomb threats in the examination season, and never at the beginning of term. The bomb threat to actual bomb ratio also seems to be arounnd 100% to 0%

Edited April 16, 2007 by Gorgon

[Tale]

Do things like this happen in Europe?

Yes.

 

 

The exception proves the rule.

What rule? What exception?

[Gorgon]

If something happens once it proves the rule that it doesen't happen. It's a figure of speech, or maybe it isen't in English, it is in Danish anyway.

[Musopticon?]

Do you mean that in the Middle-English way(prove=test) or the incorrect modern interpretation?

 

 

This is just horrid. I'm not going to go blame people around, but this is one problem, no not a problem, an issue that deserves a solution.

[Tale]

If something happens once it proves the rule that it doesen't happen. It's a figure of speech, or maybe it isen't in English, it is in Danish anyway.

This is a complete misuse of the saying "the exception that proves the rule." It means that a stated exception is a proof that an unspecified rule exists. "No parking between 10-5 Monday through Friday" would be an exception that proves the rule that parking can be done at all other times.

 

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

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheexc.html

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/excepti...s-the-rule.html

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html

 

Saying that an event happening can somehow prove it does not happen is offensive to all forms of rationality.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Tale

[Gorgon]

Like I said, a figute of speech, those aren't always rational.

[Tale]

Like I said, a figute of speech, those aren't always rational.

This one is if used properly. If used improperly it is absolutely nonsensical.

[Gorgon]

Language is full of nonsensical creations, and things that used to mean one thing but have alternate meanings, although I see your point. I never really considered what the 'propper' meaning was, just the sense that a one off doesen't mean that whatever, happens regularly.

[Walsingham]

I think it may be in rather poor taste to turn this into either a pro or second amendment debate. NOt to mention precipitate before all the fact sare in.

 

In some alternate reality where anyone wanted my opinion:

 

1) A gun is a device that can magnify the killing power of an individual. I do not think this can be in question.

 

2) Merely arming everyone without properly training them would be utterly pointless. I personally don't see why anyone who takes a gun proficiency and safety examination shouldn't own one. Like with cars. The notion that an untrained bunch of english majors with .38s could effectively deter anyone who has prepared psychologically and materially for a rampage seems pretty silly.

 

3) We have psychos who go on rampages with samurai swords and the like. These too are pretty dire and deadly, although I will concede they are less so.

 

4) If a psycho decides to kill a bunch of people they can be counted upon to do so, using natural human ingenuity. I would suggest that on the whole we would do well to consider more seriously the mental health of the population than try to safety proof everything to the level required to stop maniacs. I once did volunteer work and discovered that one of the day release patients had critically wounded an orderly with a fork.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I think these idiotic shootings are due to a degredation of morals, not a case of gun laws. More and more focus has been put on the 'me' generation. Everything revolves around you. When things don't go a persons way it is the world's fault.

 

The real issue is never addressed though, and this will be turned into another massive anti-gun drive from liberal politicians.

 

What a damn tragedy.

Edited April 16, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Gorgon]

I think it may be in rather poor taste to turn this into either a pro or second amendment debate. NOt to mention precipitate before all the fact sare in.

 

In some alternate reality where anyone wanted my opinion:

 

1) A gun is a device that can magnify the killing power of an individual. I do not think this can be in question.

 

2) Merely arming everyone without properly training them would be utterly pointless. I personally don't see why anyone who takes a gun proficiency and safety examination shouldn't own one. Like with cars. The notion that an untrained bunch of english majors with .38s could effectively deter anyone who has prepared psychologically and materially for a rampage seems pretty silly.

 

3) We have psychos who go on rampages with samurai swords and the like. These too are pretty dire and deadly, although I will concede they are less so.

 

4) If a psycho decides to kill a bunch of people they can be counted upon to do so, using natural human ingenuity. I would suggest that on the whole we would do well to consider more seriously the mental health of the population than try to safety proof everything to the level required to stop maniacs. I once did volunteer work and discovered that one of the day release patients had critically wounded an orderly with a fork.

 

Care to enligthen us as to why your personal palate is against discussing whether it's smart to allow Joe Public access to guns. It looks deceptively like thats exactly what you are doing.

 

The facts are, a man went on a rampage, with a gun, and killed a bunch of people. whatever follows isen't going to change that.

 

If a psycho decides to go on a killing spree I would be mightily impressed if he managed to kill 23 people with a fork.

[Tale]

In the face of a tragedy, it's usually considered poor taste to push political agendas. Want to say that guns should be disallowed, wait until a more appropriate time.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Tale

[mkreku]

Well, I happen to disagree with the American way of erasing every picture of the Twin Towers several months after 9/11 (as an example), just as I disagree with not bringing up the root of the problem when a horrific tragedy like this brings it to the public spotlight again. What better time to discuss this morbid phenomenon than when it's rearing its ugly head and shocking an entire world?

[Pidesco]

One would think that the best time to speak against guns would be when these are used to 30 random high school kids.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Pidesco

[Tale]

Well, I happen to disagree with the American way of erasing every picture of the Twin Towers several months after 9/11 (as an example), just as I disagree with not bringing up the root of the problem when a horrific tragedy like this brings it to the public spotlight again. What better time to discuss this morbid phenomenon than when it's rearing its ugly head and shocking an entire world?

When people are willing to actually look at it rationally and productively and aren't just reacting with their base emotions over an event that can't be changed.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Tale

[Gorgon]

In the face of a tragedy, it's usually considered poor taste to push political agendas. Want to say that guns should be disallowed, wait until a more appropriate time.

Maybe the memory of those killed deserve that we ask hard questions rather than tiptoe around. Anyway, i'm not running for office, it seems like common sense to me that not just anyone with a clean record is psychologically equipped to be allowed to own guns.

[Volourn]

"The exception proves the rule."

 

Except you were making the case that it never happens in Europe. the fact of the matter is it *does* happen Europe.

 

This shouldn't be a set up for another silly 'which country or continent is superior' or 'guns are evil' debate.

 

The peopel who committed these heinous crimes are the *only* villains.

 

Is that black and white thinking Absolutely. However, soemtimes, black and white thinking is the best way.

 

 

P.S. I doubt those Anti Amerikans would appreciate commits like 'the Holocaust would never happen in Amerika; that's an Euopre thing. The truth of the matter is soemthing like this can happen anywhere.

 

 

"f a psycho decides to go on a killing spree I would be mightily impressed if he managed to kill 23 people with a fork."

 

Nah. Ban guns completely/make them illegal; he'd just get the gun on the black market. Or he'd use a bomb. Or a knife. Or some other suck, and twisted yet device that I'm sure to miss.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Volourn

[Tale]

"f a psycho decides to go on a killing spree I would be mightily impressed if he managed to kill 23 people with a fork."

 

Nah. Ban guns completely/make them illegal; he'd just get the gun on the black market. Or he'd use a bomb. Or a knife. Or some other suck, and twisted yet device that I'm sure to miss.

Easier than all of that... motor vehicle.

[Gorgon]

Would he now....

 

You can't buy dynamite or even amonium nitrate fertilizer in a store unless you have a valid use for them.

[Walsingham]

Gorgon, you are correct. I was waffling. I think if I tried again I would make more clear that I feel the issues of general gun control, and trying to prevent psychotic rampages are very different. The former may not be relevant, and the latter is not an issue of solely being about guns.

 

In any event, I hope stratfor.com will excuse my quoting from their report: (they won't of course)

 

"U.S.: A Well-Planned Shooting Spree

Summary

 

At least 32 people were killed April 16 when an individual or individuals went on a shooting spree at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University campus in Blacksburg, Va. This was obviously an attack for which the killer prepared, and the high killed-to-wounded ratio suggests the killer was skilled and thorough.

 

Analysis

 

At least 32 people were killed April 16 when an individual or individuals went on a shooting spree at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University campus in Blacksburg, Va. The shooter reportedly used two 9 mm semiautomatic pistols to kill his victims, many of whom were lined up and shot.

 

The first shooting occurred around 7:15 a.m. local time on the fourth floor of West Ambler Johnston Hall dormitory, where one victim was killed. The second shooting occurred approximately two hours later in Norris Hall, an engineering building. The gunman reportedly entered the building, chained the doors shut behind him and moved from classroom to classroom executing students.

 

 

This was obviously an attack for which the killer prepared. The high killed-to-wounded ratio suggests the killer was skilled and thorough. Police were still investigating the first shooting at the dorm when the other shootings occurred. It is possible the killing in the dormitory was meant as a diversion to occupy police while the gunman moved on to his primary target, Norris Hall.

 

Within the last two weeks, there were two separate bomb threats against engineering department buildings at the university. These could have been a form of preoperational surveillance to gauge the response times and procedures of university police.

 

Unconfirmed reports coming from Blacksburg have identified the suspect as an Asian individual in his mid-20s. In all probability, the delay in identifying the culprit or culprits is because the intelligence community is running foreign and criminal intelligence traces on the suspect(s). Police believe the shooting spree might have been the result of an off-campus incident. They are not certain whether the suspect was a student, nor have they ruled out the possibility that he had accomplices. Arrests reportedly were made this morning.

 

The largest killing spree on a U.S. campus until this incident was in 1966, when Charles Whitman killed 15 people in the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1999, two high school students in Columbine, Colo., killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives."