Massacre at Virginia Tech

[mtrycrafts]

It may be natural to be angry and express a desire for revenge. I believe it is also counterproductive. It does nothing to help the people affected at Virginia Tech and their families.

I was angered last night when I saw network news anchors fanning the flames of the blame game by repeatedly asking the same questions you did. Virginia Tech University has some 26,000 students, 9,000 live on campus. The remainder, as well as faculty and staff were coming in from off-campus. To stop all this at 8 am would be like turing the Titanic. It may well have taken over 3 hours to get the word out. How many people read their email upon waking up on Monday morning?

Why didn't they respond immediately after the first shootings around 7 am? Don't forget that there were three false bomb threats on campus on the previous Friday. It caused havoc. The school authorities did not want to repeat that, and risk loosing all credability. They also had reason to believe that the first shootings were of a "domestic nature" and as such were limited.

If they did lock down all classrooms, where would people go? Out onto the big drill field in the middle of campus? That could easily have been more dangerous.

I think all the blame game and second guessing is unfair and wrong. I personally think the TV news media should be publicly smacked for their role in propagating this.

I totally agree with your assessment. So easy to play gotcha and so hard to make decisions on the spot, in real time, with limited info and such a huge place, a city within a city.

If in the future they close off campus on a scare, you will not hear the end of that either.

A no win situation no matter what you do.

 

[Tom Andry]

A no win situation no matter what you do.

Oh, there's a winner - the media and opportunistic political figures. Just not the families, or the community, or the American public.

 

[markw]

Observations

First off, hang in here, Nichols250. It sounds like you've got a good head on your shoulders.

Second, hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarter backing and finger pointing seems to be a hobby on forums and chat rooms.

Third, this is America. You can't arrest and remove somebody simply because they are weird, scary or reclusive. If that was the case, many high schools and the NYC subway would be emptied on a daily basis.

That's a matter of free speech and freedom of expression. Can you imagine the ACLU and other agencies reactions had they tried?

They did suggest counseling, but there wasn't much more they could do unless he had actually made threats of caused damage or harm. "The Minoritory Report" was fiction and, if memory serves me well, quite a fine allegory on why that line of thinking is dangerous.

Finally, Columbine was one school which could be easily locked down. This was a huge campus and essentially a city onto itself. He could run and hide anywhere and apparently did. IMNSHO, some armed security might be a good thing in a facility that size.

 

[billy p]

It's a sad day when people assign responsibility, and intent to inanimate objects.

Agreed! However, how many people would of died if his choice of weapons was a knife? We to had our share of school killings in Canada and guns inflect the MOST damage.

 

[markw]

What's your point?

Agreed! However, how many people would of died if his choice of weapons was a knife? We to had our share of school killings in Canada and guns inflect the MOST damage.

Are you saying that guns never played a part in your school shootings?

If someone wants to use guns to kill people bad enough, they can always find a way to get them.

 

[stratman]

Just some stupid statistic to keep the gun issue in perspective: more kids die every year in football injuries than gun accidents (source: Justice Department study). I won't get into quotes and such, my point being the families and their loss is what's important, not some hair-brained quaterbacking from people that were not there, but feel the need to opine their stupidity, this is not directed at anyone in this forum, but at the vultures known as the mass media that for ratings they'd throw their mothers under the bus.

 

[billy p]

Guns are the choice weapon for deranged people. Saying guns have no fault in these deaths is a stretch. Here's a link to a shooting here in Canada and our laws in obtaining firearms is a little more difficult.


http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/spree-killers/marc-lepine/

 

[markw]

Again, your point is?

Guns are the choice weapon for deranged people. Saying guns have no fault in these deaths is a stretch. Here's a link to a shooting here in Canada and our laws in obtaining firearms is a little more difficult.


http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/spree-killers/marc-lepine/

I'll repeat myself. If someone wants to use guns to kill people bad enough, they can always find a way to get them.

Do you want me to say it slower?

 

[billy p]

Thanks Mark

your cynicism is greatly appreciated and always welcomed on the forum.

 

[stratman]

Billy you're missing the point, this was methodically planned and executed it wasn't a crime of passion, ditto with Columbine, we have the toughest anti-gun laws, the problem is the judges don't like to enforce them. If you really want to kill people guns are extremely easy to find illegally, this tragedy is not about guns it's about one derranged idiot that the media now doesn't want to make "value" judgment" against because he had issues. If that punk would've been caught alive most likely he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty because he's got issues. England is anti-gun yet look at the crime statistics per capita, not very effective heh?

 

[Seth=L]

If gun sales are restricted further the people that intend to break laws will probably still get the guns. A killer certainly isn't going to have any moral dispute or fear of the law when trying to obtain a firearm considering the crime they wish to commit is much worse than getting the firearm illegally.

Now the moral good citizens are having problems getting firearms to protect themselves and their families. Since law enforcement can't be everywhere at once or in time to save lives people have the right to defend themselves.

PS (I have no affiliation with any particular political party)

 

[stratman]

If gun sales are restricted further the people that intend to break laws will probably still get the guns. A killer certainly isn't going to have any moral dispute or fear of the law when trying to obtain a firearm considering the crime they wish to commit is much worse than getting the firearm illegally.

Now the moral good citizens are having problems getting firearms to protect themselves and their families. Since law enforcement can't be everywhere at once or in time to save lives people have the right to defend themselves.

PS (I have no affiliation with any particular political party)

Well put Mr. Seth.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Shooting rampages will happen regardless of gun laws. They happen often in 'anti-gun' nations too.

For example, Germany employs some of the most severe leftist anti-gun laws, and they had a major school shooting rampage that killed close to 20 only a couple years ago. The only difference is that when these anti-gun nations experience shooting rampages, you wont hear much commentary about them in the US press.

Why... you might ask? Because it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of strict leftist anti-gun laws. The end result is that it only disarms the law abiding. On the other hand, those considering or willing to do mass murder aren't too worried about breaking gun laws to obtain them.

With that said, gun laws are irrelevant to the VT shootings. It was premeditated, he had a clean record, and no gun law would have stopped this kid. Even if non-citizens were banned from buying firearms, there is nothing that would have stopped him from buying his weapons on the black market so that he could fulfill his murderous fantasy.

Geesh.... look no further than Washington DCs strict gun laws and their astronomical number of annual shootings if you want to see the inevitable result of strict gun laws.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...[anti-gun laws] only disarm the law abiding.

True, but why would any law abiding person want to carry a gun if there's no need to carry a gun? And if there is a need to carry a gun, what does that say about the place in which you live?

Nothing like gun related threads highlights the differences between myself as a European, and many on the forum as Americans. You derive a sense of security from the freedom to bear arms to protect yourself whereas I am horrified at the thought that the person standing next to me has the means to so easily end my existance.

How depressing that our ways of thinking are poles apart.

 

[markw]

You make Scotland sound like Utopia.

Nothing like gun related threads highlights the differences between myself as a European, and many on the forum as Americans. You derive a sense of security from the freedom to bear arms to protect yourself whereas I am horrified at the thought that the person standing next to me has the means to so easily end my existance.

How depressing that our ways of thinking are poles apart.

"Scotland is reported to have the second highest murder rate in Western Europe and people living in Scotland are more than three times as likely to be killed than those in England and Wales. Rising levels of violence in Scotland have been aggravated by alcohol and drug abuse, gang culture. Almost half of all murders in Scotland are committed by people under the influence of drugs or drink."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Scotland#Social_problems

Dude, the population of you're entire country is 5 million. The population of of New York City alone is over 8 million. I'd say you've got a little scrubbing to do on your own pot before calling our kettle black, wouldn't you?

 

[Buckle-meister]

My previous post was an observation. It does sadden me that we seem to think in ways so far apart. At no point did I state that I was in any way somehow better/superior than anyone else, nor was I in any way being judgemental. This is something you have mistakenly interpreted from the post.

 

[markw]

My previous post was an observation. It does sadden me that we seem to think in ways so far apart. At no point did I state that I was in any way somehow better/superior than anyone else, nor was I in any way being judgemental. This is something you have mistakenly interpreted from the post.

If that's the case, then I apologize for reading that into it.

 

[Rickster71]

It's the intent, not the weapon!

Originally Posted by Rickster71

It's a sad day when people assign responsibility, and intent to inanimate objects.

Agreed! However, how many people would of died if his choice of weapons was a knife? We to had our share of school killings in Canada and guns inflect the MOST damage.

It's the 'INTENT' not the weapon!
If the technology of firearms didn't exist, would that mean all murder would end?
Of course not.
If a person intends to harm another, they will find something to use.
A knife, a baseball bat, a brick, etc.
A gallon of gas has lots of destructive force, should we outlaw gas?
This tragedy took place because Mental Illness, is the most destructive force of all.

 

[Buckle-meister]

If a person intends to harm another, they will find something to use. A knife, a baseball bat, a brick, etc.

If the person had used a knife, baseball bat or brick it is a virtual certainty that he would have been overcome and fewer - not necessarily none - but fewer people killed.

This tragedy took place because Mental Illness, is the most destructive force of all

Why make it easy for them?

 

[Tomorrow]

How depressing that our ways of thinking are poles apart.

That's the way it is, Robbie. Different cultures present different mindsets. There is no reason for depression. Your way of thinking is also worlds apart from Asians, middle-easterners, etc. You grew up in a historical culture of kingdoms and fiefdoms and obedience (no owning of weapons by the masses...that would pose threat to the kings of your country's past). I grew up in a nation of adventurers and independents wanting to carve a nation out of a dangerous wilderness.

Also, the person standing next to you may share your culture, but be just as likely to pose a threat to your well-being as the person is that's standing next to me...or even worse, the person standing next to a Shiite or Sunni Muslim in Baghdad. Only the implements of danger are different.