atleast 20 killed in campus shooting at Virginia Tech
POSTED BY: Feity
UPDATED: Friday, November 7, 2025 15:59
VIEWED: 17813
PAGE 7 of 12
I agree that we'll never get the real story, in 3 days the poloticians will turn it into something else.
Columbine after 3 days...it's all about the guns; the bombs planted all over the school...dropped.
The DC Sniper...it became all about how they got a military style rifle...that they were islamic converts who altered their car into a killing machine worthy of Q-branch...forgotten.
The list goes on but I think you get the point.
The cops have to file so much paperwork whenever they even just pull a gun...let alone use it what do you expect.
Unless you're a federal agent in which case you can massacre people on a scale even larger than this tragedy...just drive a tank into a burning building insuring that nobody can get out & watch men, women, & children burn like candles.
Just make sure you get that budget increase!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
This is sort of interesting, but then, not really.
Murder and gun murder are 64% correlated.
When it comes to 'gun laws' I don't think the laws on the books mean much if they're not enforced. Not to shame any particular country, but there are many countries with great laws on the books that have nasty reputations as being extremely corrupt. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
So rather than looking at gun laws, it would be more meaningful to correlate per capita number of guns with gun-related homicides. I think it would be VERY useful to be able to pull figures on per capita handguns v gun-related homicides.
And I thought there was an interesting omission in the charts and that was gun murder v modal income.
But since we are talking about the US, it stands far above any developed nation in gun-related homicides. What are the factors in the US that make it an elephantine exception to all other developed countries?
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Jamaica has very strict gun control laws, and a murder rate 7.7 times that of the US, generally referred to in media reports as "gun crimes" although I havent found any stats yet. Mexico also has many restrictions on firearms ownership (there's only one gun store in the whole country), yet 1.2 times the US firearms murder rate.
If you look at just murders per capita, regardless of weapon, there's a lot of countries on the list with stricter gun laws than the US where people apparently manage to kill each other at a much higher rate using something other than guns.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-cap
ita
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think it holds water.
"I have a robbers not welcome sign in front of my house, and I got robbed, so maybe I should put up TWO signs?"
Same basic argument.
If one law doesn't stop em, three or four more won't neither.
By their very nature, criminals do not respect the law, that is why we call them criminals, so adding more laws to bog down an already mired legal system and annoy decent folk has zero effect in this case, and the cumulative of zero, is still zero.
Let's see, nothin, inta nothin, carry the nothin...- Jayne Cobb
Since you seem interested in the statistical data, however, you could try HERE.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
US Dept of Justice Statistics.
I dunno that they have anything relevant, but I guess it's worth a look.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm
Note the Brady Bill was passed in 1993.
-----------------------------------
The other way I could interpret gun bills is this - the laws are too fragmented from state to state and too full of loopholes, giving easy access to anyone with motivation. The house of straw isn't holding up. Maybe one needs a house of brick.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@FremdFirma:
"""
And I am beginning to believe that anyone who honestly, truly, has a problem with me carrying via that philosopy and with that express purpose.. is suffering from some level of mental illness.
"""
You're aware that by saying this you're proving my assertion that the US has a violent culture, right?
"""
Would you be willing to rent a place in the worst projects ghetto you could find, for a month, with a sign on the door stating
"This is a gun free home, firearms are not welcome here!"
Does that seem sensible ?
Logical ?
Do you think it would ensure your safety ?
"""
The ghettos that you refer to don't exist where I come from because I live in a civilized country. But, lets entertain this anyway.
This is a loaded question. What you're attempting to do here is present an exception to a rule as if it is a general truth because you know that there is only one answer and that answer supports your position. Sorry, but I'm not following you along that logical fallacy.
"""
It's the same principle, so don't be telling me it's "utter crap" unless you're willing to bet your very life on a "Gun Free Zone" to protect you.
"""
Actually, I'm not doing that at all. What I /am/ doing is betting that someone is not going to come around a corner and shoot me (*knocks on wood*). This is sound reasoning. And, I'm stating my opinion that I don't want people around me carrying firearms.
How this /does/ make me safer is that if I see a firearm, I KNOW that they aren't able to have one and I contact the proper authorities. But, if people are allowed to have one, then people carrying firearms becomes something that isn't reported and the possibility exists that a tragedy like this could go on even though it could have been stopped/made "less" tragic.
"""
The day I see such a barrier physically stop a criminal like a stone wall, I might start believing in it, but it makes as much sense as holding up a don't bite me sign in front of a freshly chummed shark and expecting it to stop him.
"""
Are you capable of intelligent discourse? Because saying things like this doesn't exactly lend to your favour.
"""
That's like blaming me, personally, for what this lunatic did, and I find that offensive in the extreme - if you think someone like me is contributing to the danger, you've got some serious problems upstairs.
"""
I'm not sure if you're aware that I said no such thing. I'm also not sure if you're aware that is a ridiculously irrational thing to say. Please only assume that I wrote what I wrote, not what the voices in your head tell you what I meant to continue on to.
"""
I also don't buy that a physical object, an inanimate THING, and a tool causes the problem - as you noted culture and society and social ills aplenty contribute to it, and either directly or indirectly cause it, sure, but a firearm in and of itself, never harmed anyone - and until the day I see one levitate off the table and blow a hole in someone, I categorically reject any attempt to blame the tool instead of the user.
"""
But, it does make things a hell of a lot worse now doesn't it. There is also, production defects that could cause premature firing. Not to mention guns going off in the gun rack while driving (this happens regularly). Do you honestly think that such things don't occur and that they haven't ever hurt anyone?
Btw, the way you pose the way in which you will change your opinion is again, loaded. It's designed so that you'll never have to change your mind nor bow to any logic no matter how solid it is, no matter how well reasoned and based on hard facts.
"""
I refuse to blind myself to the obvious and depend on naivety and hope to protect myself and those I care about, when there are tools available to ensure that safety as such as possible, nobody sees my toolbox, flashlight or fire extinguisher as a crime about to happen, why the bloody hell should they see my piece that way, I ask you ?
"""
Sophistry. A flashlight or fire extinguisher cannot kill someone
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
Actually as I understand it more UK police can carry guns now, because their crime rate jumped, as did Australia...after they banned guns!
More isn't all and you have to look at the reasons why the police are carrying as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the UK police are starting to carry for the reasons you gave. But, one must not underestimate the "fear factor" that the terrorism "argument" gives.
But, to analyze if the gun ban has anything to do with the gun ban, what kind of crime jumped? How long after? etc. Society is *way* too complex for there to be such a causal connection. So, until I see some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that this is at most loosely coupled.
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
The US also has a higher level of personal freedom than many Europeean-socialist countries.
Then why is the US a major target of Amnesty International?
Take it from someone on the outside looking in, a US citizens personal freedoms that they /perceive/ they have are disturbingly less than what they actually have. There's the DMCA and Patriot Act for starters that severely cripple personal freedoms. The US also has a legal system that has more to do with how much more money one has than the laws themselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
In the UK as I understand it you are taxed at 100% after a certain amount of money is obtained, which is why many UK actors & writers come to the US.
I'm pretty sure that you are completely wrong on this one. IMO the more likely reason why actors and writers from the UK (and else where) go to the US is earning potential. As in, in other parts of the world, actors/writers get paid reasonable wages, but in the US they /can/ get paid obscene amounts of money.
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
Like a 2 hour lull in activity? Like a half-mile geographic shift in location? If this was indeed the same shooter why the change?
Cat and mouse can take a while. Not wanting to get caught.
Let's go over that. The first shooting 2 people died. The next one was 30 dead. The people were still in class because the university didn't shut down classes. The university didn't think that there was a threat because some cop said the perp was miles away by then.
So basically, the university and this cop are to blame for 30 deaths. How many people here think that this will go unanswered and nothing will happen to these people?
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
If he just wanted to kill people then why not just kill folks in the dorm?
Can't kill people if you get caught. Perhaps he was looking for specific people, or specific types of people. Who knows how a crazy mind works.
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
Also could someone explain to me how we have a 32 to 15 (18) dead to wounded ratio?
When people are lined up to be shot, accuracy goes up.
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
I'm not buying the official line on this...it don't smell right.
Definitely not. But, I don't think that it's in the way that you're implying.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Alliethorn7:
Well, why would someone try to rob folk at gunpoint when they can shoot back?
Logically speaking your right. But, here's where you're wrong. The criminal mind, someone who's going to rob at gun point, does _not_ obey logic.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
The 2nd amendment is about keeping control in the hands of citizens...not government.
LOL, you mean /was/. Because I'd really like to see any portion of the US population stand up to the US military and any and all police forces.
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
Most gun control measures work the same way, private security, permits, licences, bodyguards etc. allow monied individuals to violate "weapons resrictions" (even in Europe) while making the poorer classes defenceless.
Nonsense. Gun licenses are there to ensure that people know how to use and maintain a weapon. This is /very/ important from a safety point of view. Keeping guns off the streets means lessening accidental shootings. Keeping very powerful weapons in the hands of law enforcement and/or the military ensures very not intelligent people don't blow the neighbourhood up... literally.
Only allowing bodyguards, etc to carry is actually appropriate. Keep the guns in the hands of the people who are protecting, and try to keep the guns out of the ones trying to do the killing.
This is a public safety issue, not a paranoid conspiracy issue.
Remember, we are _not_ in the day of the musket anymore. Things have changed, thus so should the attitudes.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RojBlake:
The hypocrisy on the issue inself is so thick you couldn't get a .50 cal BMG round through it.
What hypocrisy?!?!? I honestly think you are confusing gun control with keeping guns from citizens. The two are *very* different.
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If you look at just murders per capita, regardless of weapon, there's a lot of countries on the list with stricter gun laws than the US where people apparently manage to kill each other at a much higher rate using something other than guns.
So, you're implying that gun control isn't necessary because people can kill with weapons other than guns?
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME