Virginia Tech shootings

[ReRuss]

possibly add a feild to the gun applications where you must be legal resident , and have references , such as your work and/or school , and you must take a class about firearm safety to receive a license to own the gun

kinda like with concealed weapon license , you have to pay to take the class so you can carry a concealed weapon , exceptions to this are only covered in the make my day law where you have the right to have a non-concealed weapon in your house and vehicle for protection

honestly if it came down to having a license to own weapons , I wouldn't mind , but you cant bring a complete stop to shootings , only raise the cost of owning a weapon

[funkyass]

possibly add a feild to the gun applications where you must be legal resident , and have references , such as your work and/or school , and you must take a class about firearm safety to receive a license to own the gun

kinda like with concealed weapon license , you have to pay to take the class so you can carry a concealed weapon , exceptions to this are only covered in the make my day law where you have the right to have a non-concealed weapon in your house and vehicle for protection

honestly if it came down to having a license to own weapons , I wouldn't mind , but you cant bring a complete stop to shootings , only raise the cost of owning a weapon

...

[Deathlike2]

wrote something retarded+useless

...

I stand corrected gentlemen.

In this specific case, the shootings were in fact done by a legally purchased gun.

Detailed Story on Yahoo

Based on this, better gun control or banning of firearms would have indeed prevented this incident.

Not quite. A crazy idiot could get a gun, either way. If you add a background check similar to what the government does for hiring in certain areas... it should work. At worst, you are giving guns to spies, but then again, they are spies.

But you know what else is a problem? If you read that article and listen to what people have had to say about the kid. It's quite obvious to me the kid had a problem. He never responds to anyone when they talk to him. C'mon.. that's a red flag. Anybody who won't respond in any way when people speak to them or ask them questions every single time has a problem.

Yes, they failed at missing the warning signs... I suspect it happens more often than not, and well someone didn't take the inititive to resolve it.

Secondly, how did he not flunk out of school? If you don't participate in classroom exercises when asked, your grades have to suffer because of it.
Then you've got the teachers and professors who did nothing when the kid won't respond to them when they speak to him or ask questions.

Not all classes are interactive.. some are simply just lectures so interaction is kept to optional class participation... and more often than not, a large class has a tendency to "lose people" and become forgotten.

I think there's a lot more people and policies to blame than just gun control here. We need to set things in place to catch and handle these red flag people who are going to go postal and kill people later.

He was quite obviously mentally unstable and not 'normal'. Can't we do something to try and catch these problems early? I know there's no easy answer, but there's got to be some improvements we can make that can help. Too many people watch these problem cases go by and nothing gets done about it. Now many people are dead and many lives have been changed forever because of one unstable jackass we ignored too long.

If you take a look at these school shootings, the killers aren't just an average person who had a bad day and lost control. They are mentally unstable people with problems who needed help or to be removed from the free society.

It's not quite as simple as that. As a society, it should be the requirements of the parents to properly educate the child. In fact, it should be a requirement for all parents to get formal training, provided by the government.. if only to protect people in the future. The more people fix this issue at its core, the better we will be in the future and have to worry less about.

[blackmyst]

I realise that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

That said, I live in a country with strict gun control. I have never seen a real gun in my life. And I can tell you, just the idea of living in a neighbourhood where anybody could potentially be armed, frightens the fuck out of me.

Even if someone can obtain a gun legally, that still doesn't make them mentally stable, as we've seen once again. I just don't trust the average fucker on the street enough to be in favour of civilian gun ownership.

That is all.

[corronchilejano]

The guy had HUGE issues... sometimes you just can't control EVERY person that exists in the world. Maybe you could tighten up controls for getting firearms, but there will always be someone utterly messed up.

My condolencies to the families. What I thought was the worst was actually locking the building up.

EDIT: Just read the part in The Rush Limbaugh Show. Totally right. You can only blame people, and maybe, just MAYBE, investigate the person, create some psycological profiles, and, as gay as it sounds, start caring.

[SquareHead]

Edit: The following post is opinion from my personal observations of events.

What I'd like to say, is that this is nothing new. Its just more publicized. I mean the numbers, and weapons may change, but there always have been and always will be someone who will do something like this.

[Panzer88]

Like, seriously, what you are asking is stereotyping profiling and sentencing people for crimes "they might" commit in the future.

if this is directed at me, then hey man, I'm with you. I was just saying the only way I could see to help it, is if someone is clearly suffering from a mental illness or is taking anti-depressants then maybe they shouldn't be given guns.

but that was just a off-the-top-of-my-head idea. To be honest I think that you can't limit people's rights because criminals do insane things, you have to address the issue directly, he could have just as well planted a bomb, or set off poison gas, or knifed people, the gun isn't the problem, the fact that he killed a bunch of people is a problem. Granted guns are very efficient at killing people, but if you know what you are doing (with chemistry for example) it is SO easy to produce lethal substances, so blaming guns or violence in video games will get them no where.

[creaothceann]

I realise that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

That said, I live in a country with strict gun control. I have never seen a real gun in my life. And I can tell you, just the idea of living in a neighbourhood where anybody could potentially be armed, frightens the fuck out of me.

Even if someone can obtain a gun legally, that still doesn't make them mentally stable, as we've seen once again. I just don't trust the average fucker on the street enough to be in favour of civilian gun ownership.

About the same here.

IMO guns would save you only in very few cases. It just gives you a false sense of power and false security. Criminals (& the government) will always try to get more or stronger weapons than the average guy.

[Joe Camacho]

Like, seriously, what you are asking is stereotyping profiling and sentencing people for crimes "they might" commit in the future.

if this is directed at me, then hey man, I'm with you. I was just saying the only way I could see to help it, is if someone is clearly suffering from a mental illness or is taking anti-depressants then maybe they shouldn't be given guns.

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

[Gil_Hamilton]

I realise that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

That said, I live in a country with strict gun control. I have never seen a real gun in my life. And I can tell you, just the idea of living in a neighbourhood where anybody could potentially be armed, frightens the fuck out of me.

Even if someone can obtain a gun legally, that still doesn't make them mentally stable, as we've seen once again. I just don't trust the average fucker on the street enough to be in favour of civilian gun ownership.

About the same here.

IMO guns would save you only in very few cases. It just gives you a false sense of power and false security. Criminals (& the government) will always try to get more or stronger weapons than the average guy.

Only takes one bullet. More and stronger is meaningless.
Unless you have body armor, which most civilians, criminal or otherwise, don't.


Anyways, most criminals aren't stupid. They know that burglary carries a much smaller sentence, and is a much lower police priority, than murder. They don't really want to shoot you.
They'd also rather not get in a reflex contest with an unknown person.
If a gun shows up, they're not likely to stick around to see if it's loaded.




I don't really see how a neighborhood where almost anyone might be able to legally own a gun is frightening.
But then... My dad collected the things for years. I was given a Red Ryder as a gift when I was three. I was born a Texan. Guns aren't magical death-dealing boomsticks to me, they're just another facet of everyday life.

I honestly think that's a lot of it. People that aren't raised around guns tend to view them as tiny ticking timebombs that run up and shoot people randomly(mild exaggeration). People that are tend to view them as just another tool.



I tend to err on the side of 100,000 defensive handgun uses(most of which don't involve firing) in the US annually, though. That's 100,000 crimes directly stopped by the right to bear arms.

Given I don't have a personal police escort, I prefer the option of self-defense. Or at the very least least making the other guy think VERY HARD about whether or not I'm equipped for the task(My only personal gun is STILL the Red Ryder, and I somehow doubt a children's toy will intimidate anyone).

[badinsults]

I realise that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

That said, I live in a country with strict gun control. I have never seen a real gun in my life. And I can tell you, just the idea of living in a neighbourhood where anybody could potentially be armed, frightens the fuck out of me.

Even if someone can obtain a gun legally, that still doesn't make them mentally stable, as we've seen once again. I just don't trust the average fucker on the street enough to be in favour of civilian gun ownership.

About the same here.

IMO guns would save you only in very few cases. It just gives you a false sense of power and false security. Criminals (& the government) will always try to get more or stronger weapons than the average guy.

Only takes one bullet. More and stronger is meaningless.
Unless you have body armor, which most civilians, criminal or otherwise, don't.


Anyways, most criminals aren't stupid. They know that burglary carries a much smaller sentence, and is a much lower police priority, than murder. They don't really want to shoot you.
They'd also rather not get in a reflex contest with an unknown person.
If a gun shows up, they're not likely to stick around to see if it's loaded.




I don't really see how a neighborhood where almost anyone might be able to legally own a gun is frightening.
But then... My dad collected the things for years. I was given a Red Ryder as a gift when I was three. I was born a Texan. Guns aren't magical death-dealing boomsticks to me, they're just another facet of everyday life.

I honestly think that's a lot of it. People that aren't raised around guns tend to view them as tiny ticking timebombs that run up and shoot people randomly(mild exaggeration). People that are tend to view them as just another tool.



I tend to err on the side of 100,000 defensive handgun uses(most of which don't involve firing) in the US annually, though. That's 100,000 crimes directly stopped by the right to bear arms.

Given I don't have a personal police escort, I prefer the option of self-defense. Or at the very least least making the other guy think VERY HARD about whether or not I'm equipped for the task(My only personal gun is STILL the Red Ryder, and I somehow doubt a children's toy will intimidate anyone).

I don't know about that. I don't think that Canada has a higher crime rate than the US, despite the fact that no one is allowed to own handguns.

[creaothceann]

People that are [raised around guns] tend to view them as just another tool.

That might be part of the problem.

[Nightcrawler]

Like, seriously, what you are asking is stereotyping profiling and sentencing people for crimes "they might" commit in the future.

if this is directed at me, then hey man, I'm with you. I was just saying the only way I could see to help it, is if someone is clearly suffering from a mental illness or is taking anti-depressants then maybe they shouldn't be given guns.

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

I can accept the argument you're trying to make. But I ask you one more question:

Don't you think that it's fair to not give a handgun to someone who was deemed mentally unstable?

I totally agree, we shouldn't go Minority Report here and start taking action against assumptions of what people MIGHT do.

But, we've got a case where where the guy was already deemed mentally unstable. Now, I guess that statement is flawed because his psychologist let him go which pretty much means he thought he was no longer a threat to society.

Isn't THAT part of the problem? Isn't he somewhat to blame for this?

Perhaps I'm suggesting the right to bear arms should not be given to people with a recorded history of mental instability. Is that logic so wrong?

[Deathlike2]

Like, seriously, what you are asking is stereotyping profiling and sentencing people for crimes "they might" commit in the future.

if this is directed at me, then hey man, I'm with you. I was just saying the only way I could see to help it, is if someone is clearly suffering from a mental illness or is taking anti-depressants then maybe they shouldn't be given guns.

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

I can accept the argument you're trying to make. But I ask you one more question:

Don't you think that it's fair to not give a handgun to someone who was deemed mentally unstable?

That's probably not a half bad idea there. However, it won't really stop people from obtaining guns illegally, but that's a different discussion of course.

I totally agree, we shouldn't go Minority Report here and start taking action against assumptions of what people MIGHT do.

You can't.. it's difficult, but you can at least try to pick up the signs and at least "keep watch" to some extent.

But, we've got a case where where the guy was already deemed mentally unstable. Now, I guess that statement is flawed because his psychologist let him go which pretty much means he thought he was no longer a threat to society.

Isn't THAT part of the problem? Isn't he somewhat to blame for this?

For a thought, the crazies can work around the psychologists. One's true nature can be somewhat apparent in one's day to day life... the "actions speak louder than words" concept.

Perhaps I'm suggesting the right to bear arms should not be given to people with a recorded history of mental instability. Is that logic so wrong?

No issues there.

[Panzer88]

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

you are misunderstanding what I am trying to convey. Let me try to clear it up. It wouldn't be accusing people of crimes or stereotyping them by personality. There would only be restrictions if you had a serious mental disease, just like some jobs, like ones that involve opperating heavy machinery don't allow people on certain medications or who have certain mental conditions.

I don't think that anyone should be kept from bearing arms, but only that there be more checks along the way.

I also don't think that EVERYONE having a gun is the answer though, although it would most likely make people more polite

[Joe Camacho]

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

you are misunderstanding what I am trying to convey. Let me try to clear it up. It wouldn't be accusing people of crimes or stereotyping them by personality. There would only be restrictions if you had a serious mental disease, just like some jobs, like ones that involve opperating heavy machinery don't allow people on certain medications or who have certain mental conditions.

I don't think that anyone should be kept from bearing arms, but only that there be more checks along the way.

I also don't think that EVERYONE having a gun is the answer though, although it would most likely make people more polite

One thing is safety regulations, another thing is labeling someone as a "would be killer" because of his personality.

"We need better gun control laws" - Safety Regulations.

"Oh that guy was a psycho, you could tell he was a killer from miles away, he was *obviously* going to kill someone eventually." - Labeling someone because of their personality and customs, prejudging him for stuff he hasn't done.

And yes, it's a good point to enforce or not give weapons to mentally unstable people, but that doesn't give us the right to label people as "potential killers". Because we are harming them from the beginning.

[Gil_Hamilton]

I realise that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

That said, I live in a country with strict gun control. I have never seen a real gun in my life. And I can tell you, just the idea of living in a neighbourhood where anybody could potentially be armed, frightens the fuck out of me.

Even if someone can obtain a gun legally, that still doesn't make them mentally stable, as we've seen once again. I just don't trust the average fucker on the street enough to be in favour of civilian gun ownership.

About the same here.

IMO guns would save you only in very few cases. It just gives you a false sense of power and false security. Criminals (& the government) will always try to get more or stronger weapons than the average guy.

Only takes one bullet. More and stronger is meaningless.
Unless you have body armor, which most civilians, criminal or otherwise, don't.


Anyways, most criminals aren't stupid. They know that burglary carries a much smaller sentence, and is a much lower police priority, than murder. They don't really want to shoot you.
They'd also rather not get in a reflex contest with an unknown person.
If a gun shows up, they're not likely to stick around to see if it's loaded.




I don't really see how a neighborhood where almost anyone might be able to legally own a gun is frightening.
But then... My dad collected the things for years. I was given a Red Ryder as a gift when I was three. I was born a Texan. Guns aren't magical death-dealing boomsticks to me, they're just another facet of everyday life.

I honestly think that's a lot of it. People that aren't raised around guns tend to view them as tiny ticking timebombs that run up and shoot people randomly(mild exaggeration). People that are tend to view them as just another tool.



I tend to err on the side of 100,000 defensive handgun uses(most of which don't involve firing) in the US annually, though. That's 100,000 crimes directly stopped by the right to bear arms.

Given I don't have a personal police escort, I prefer the option of self-defense. Or at the very least least making the other guy think VERY HARD about whether or not I'm equipped for the task(My only personal gun is STILL the Red Ryder, and I somehow doubt a children's toy will intimidate anyone).

I don't know about that. I don't think that Canada has a higher crime rate than the US, despite the fact that no one is allowed to own handguns.

And had a lower crime rate before they banned them, too.

People that are [raised around guns] tend to view them as just another tool.

That might be part of the problem.

How exactly is not wetting your pants at the concept of a gun a bad thing?

[Noxious Ninja]

Texas needs to secede from the Union and declare that, henceforth, all children should be raised to be as awesome as Chuck Norris.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Texas needs to secede from the Union and declare that, henceforth, all children should be raised to be as awesome as Chuck Norris.

Seconded.
We did it before, we can do it again!
The Civil War was a fluke. We were held back by our allies.

[Joe Camacho]

Texas needs to secede from the Union and declare that, henceforth, all children should be raised to be as awesome as Chuck Norris.

Seconded.
We did it before, we can do it again!
The Civil War was a fluke. We were held back by our allies.

*raises fist*

[Deathlike2]

Texas needs to secede from the Union and declare that, henceforth, all children should be raised to be as awesome as Chuck Norris.

Seconded.
We did it before, we can do it again!
The Civil War was a fluke. We were held back by our allies.

*raises fist*

Ahahaaha, Chuck Norris.

[Panzer88]

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

you are misunderstanding what I am trying to convey. Let me try to clear it up. It wouldn't be accusing people of crimes or stereotyping them by personality. There would only be restrictions if you had a serious mental disease, just like some jobs, like ones that involve opperating heavy machinery don't allow people on certain medications or who have certain mental conditions.

I don't think that anyone should be kept from bearing arms, but only that there be more checks along the way.

I also don't think that EVERYONE having a gun is the answer though, although it would most likely make people more polite

One thing is safety regulations, another thing is labeling someone as a "would be killer" because of his personality.

"We need better gun control laws" - Safety Regulations.

"Oh that guy was a psycho, you could tell he was a killer from miles away, he was *obviously* going to kill someone eventually." - Labeling someone because of their personality and customs, prejudging him for stuff he hasn't done.

And yes, it's a good point to enforce or not give weapons to mentally unstable people, but that doesn't give us the right to label people as "potential killers". Because we are harming them from the beginning.

I agree with what you are saying overall. How are mental diseases and personality traits related though? I'm talking about clinical mental diseases, you can be whatever personality you want, that shouldn't effect your rights, but if you have certain kinds of mental diseases it's just not safe to have weapons, for your own safety as much as anyone else's (e.g. suicide)

it's not about pre-judgment, like "you WILL kill" it's more like, needing glasses to drive if you are legally blind, well you need to be on your meds or something to be legally bearing arms. etc.

and most certainly not labeling someone psycho. If someone is literally Psychotic by definition though, they are probably hospitalized. but not many such shooters are ever psychotic by definition, as they wouldn't be able to plan it out as well as they do.

it's not about labeling people as killers, not at all. It's about taking precautions with dangerous devises. Just like minors aren't allowed to posses weapons, people with SERIOUS clinical mental illnesses should have restrictions too.



On another note, has anyone else seen how the shooter sent footage to NBC after shooting two people, and then went and killed the rest and NBC didn't notify anyone upon receiving said footage.

[Deathlike2]

I was talking in a general sense. But still, it's easy to say "this was avoidable", "you could tell he was a killer from miles away", "the dude was a psycho", etc. But the truth is no one can.

How many lonely, medicated, shy and introverted people exist in the world? How many of them become mass murderers? The thing is, you can't judge someone for actions he hasn't commited. You can't treat a person like a criminal when he hasn't even *decided and commited* a crime.

There are different stages in a crime, it's different to find a guy carrying guns to school, to a dude shooting in school and to a guy killing others in school. But know one can really predict WHO will act that way.

I'm of the opinion that treating them different because they "might" snap, would cause even more harm.

you are misunderstanding what I am trying to convey. Let me try to clear it up. It wouldn't be accusing people of crimes or stereotyping them by personality. There would only be restrictions if you had a serious mental disease, just like some jobs, like ones that involve opperating heavy machinery don't allow people on certain medications or who have certain mental conditions.

I don't think that anyone should be kept from bearing arms, but only that there be more checks along the way.

I also don't think that EVERYONE having a gun is the answer though, although it would most likely make people more polite

One thing is safety regulations, another thing is labeling someone as a "would be killer" because of his personality.

"We need better gun control laws" - Safety Regulations.

"Oh that guy was a psycho, you could tell he was a killer from miles away, he was *obviously* going to kill someone eventually." - Labeling someone because of their personality and customs, prejudging him for stuff he hasn't done.

And yes, it's a good point to enforce or not give weapons to mentally unstable people, but that doesn't give us the right to label people as "potential killers". Because we are harming them from the beginning.

I agree with what you are saying overall. How are mental diseases and personality traits related though? I'm talking about clinical mental diseases, you can be whatever personality you want, that shouldn't effect your rights, but if you have certain kinds of mental diseases it's just not safe to have weapons, for your own safety as much as anyone else's (e.g. suicide)

it's not about pre-judgment, like "you WILL kill" it's more like, needing glasses to drive if you are legally blind, well you need to be on your meds or something to be legally bearing arms. etc.

and most certainly not labeling someone psycho. If someone is literally Psychotic by definition though, they are probably hospitalized. but not many such shooters are ever psychotic by definition, as they wouldn't be able to plan it out as well as they do.

it's not about labeling people as killers, not at all. It's about taking precautions with dangerous devises. Just like minors aren't allowed to posses weapons, people with SERIOUS clinical mental illnesses should have restrictions too.



On another note, has anyone else seen how the shooter sent footage to NBC after shooting two people, and then went and killed the rest and NBC didn't notify anyone upon receiving said footage.

Every media outlet would do the same thing... as shameless as they are. It speaks to where the media is today, which is whoring the exclusive info.. even if it enlightens more morons to do copycat crimes.

[Panzer88]

yeah, I don't take NBC as any worse than any of the other, it still makes me sick though. It's nothing new, I mean you wonder how they get some of the up close shots of terrible events etc. Well there is someone there simply watching with a camera (not in this situation) and doing nothing while the terrible event takes place.

[Bent]

On another note, has anyone else seen how the shooter sent footage to NBC after shooting two people, and then went and killed the rest and NBC didn't notify anyone upon receiving said footage.

I believe he mailed it after the first incident, and it arrived two days later. NBC didn't receive it after the first shooting, it was just mailed then.