This is a sad tragedy but it is still a blip on the death-rate statistics. Hedley's right about the storm, or traffic accidents, or deaths from heart attacks.
The papers are ecstatic as they now have something interesting to put on the front page and they will be able to milk this for weeks.
I just found out that three of the guys I worked with on my first job have died from heart attacks. They would all have been under 55 (-ish) and are part of the 55,000 that die of the same cause in Canada every year.
Nothing that has happened here is sufficient to raise or lower the gun own/carry/ban debate.
Comparing US to Canada is specious too as their social problems make ours look like games in comparison. If you doubt this, try driving from Montreal down through up-state New York; down the east coast of the US - there are whole areas that are little better than crack towns and god-help-you if you get there at night.
Va Tech > Guns...
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
I am not sure that this is true.Nestled amongst a large, mostly coherent essay, Snowgoose wrote:
The reality also is that we need to do something. What we have now isn’t working.
We have this knee-jerk requirement to "do" something...we deeply need to believe that this can be prevented.... and then we go off in all directions with various "solutions", most of which have unintended consequences down the road...not all of them good.
Perhaps it is not irrational to believe that psycho shootings are not that different than being hit by a drunk driver. Psychos and Drunk Drivers ARE out there, and becoming one of their victims is mostly a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It is very doubtful that Society can "prevent" these things in the immediate sense.... but the long term solution has more likely to do with the way society educates itself to reach out to find, educate, help, (and/or restrain) these individuals...
...rather than having anything to do with broad-brush regulations affecting the entire population.
Such regulations may make us "feel" better (what's it called?? "security theatre", I believe???).... but they may do very little to effect real prevention.
...
I don't think this is a knee-jerk reaction. It just brought an important issue to the forefront. I had never heard of a school massacre before Columbine. Now I know 4 by name. If I went searching a little further I bet I can find at least 10 more. This is where I see a problem.
People have been getting killed with guns since their invention. That's not up for dispute. Plus as many would argue that guns have saved lives as well.
The problem that I see is that kids are taking guns to school and shooting them up. It doesn't happen every day but it's happening. More than ever before.
Here's my little anecdote.
The Bloor Street viaduct in Toronto was a popular place to commit suicide. So popular in fact that it was number 2 behind the Golden Gate Bridge for places to commit suicide.
When I lived in Toronto I traveled across that bridge many a time. At either end was a pay phone with a sign for a help line (I always thought it was interesting that the number wasn't toll free) I lived in Toronto for 6 years and 3 people I was connected to, 1 I knew personally jumped to their deaths off that bridge. There solution, which drew much criticism, was to build a barrier to prevent the easy jump access. They called it the luminous veil. Guess what, suicides there are virtually zero now. I know people still commit suicide but it's a little more difficult for them now. Hopefully now there is a little more time for intervention.
Similar to airport security. Anyone who works at an airport can tell you that if you really wanted to hijack an airplane you still could. It's a bit tougher now since Sept 11 but there are holes in security. Every so often a reporter walks on airport and writes and article about it.
So if you're a depressed lonely, or abused person (which seems to be the common thread here) maybe if you didn't have access to a gun we wouldn't be discussing this issue.
Maybe the solution from the anti-gun side is too simple, but in my experience complicated solutions tend to fail.
I don't have kids yet, but when I do I hope that I can send them to school without fear of them getting shot. And seeing a metal detector at the front door won't make me feel any better.
So I come back to the simple truth. No guns, no one gets shot.
Would this picture have been funny 2 days ago?
People have been getting killed with guns since their invention. That's not up for dispute. Plus as many would argue that guns have saved lives as well.
The problem that I see is that kids are taking guns to school and shooting them up. It doesn't happen every day but it's happening. More than ever before.
Here's my little anecdote.
The Bloor Street viaduct in Toronto was a popular place to commit suicide. So popular in fact that it was number 2 behind the Golden Gate Bridge for places to commit suicide.
When I lived in Toronto I traveled across that bridge many a time. At either end was a pay phone with a sign for a help line (I always thought it was interesting that the number wasn't toll free) I lived in Toronto for 6 years and 3 people I was connected to, 1 I knew personally jumped to their deaths off that bridge. There solution, which drew much criticism, was to build a barrier to prevent the easy jump access. They called it the luminous veil. Guess what, suicides there are virtually zero now. I know people still commit suicide but it's a little more difficult for them now. Hopefully now there is a little more time for intervention.
Similar to airport security. Anyone who works at an airport can tell you that if you really wanted to hijack an airplane you still could. It's a bit tougher now since Sept 11 but there are holes in security. Every so often a reporter walks on airport and writes and article about it.
So if you're a depressed lonely, or abused person (which seems to be the common thread here) maybe if you didn't have access to a gun we wouldn't be discussing this issue.
Maybe the solution from the anti-gun side is too simple, but in my experience complicated solutions tend to fail.
I don't have kids yet, but when I do I hope that I can send them to school without fear of them getting shot. And seeing a metal detector at the front door won't make me feel any better.
So I come back to the simple truth. No guns, no one gets shot.
Would this picture have been funny 2 days ago?
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
It's interesting that in Britain, which is where all the anti-gun people point to as a Utopia on earth, the government is considering banning sharp kitchen knives. Apparently, without guns, people in Britain resort to attacking each other with knives.if you didn't have access to a gun ...
When will people figure out that the most dangerous animal on earth walks on two legs?
There is nothing inherently evil or immoral in a firearm, a kitchen knife, a car, a truck, a boat, a snowmobile, a light aircraft, a tractor, or fertilizer - but all have killed in the past, and surely will in the future.
It's the operator that kills. Don't get angry about the invention of the lever, the wheel, or gunpowder, or quantum mechanics.
Immediately after a tragedy like this is the worst time to get into this debate because emotions are running high, and everyone can state a statistic or argument that, in isolation, supports their view point. But here's a question for the gun supporters:
If a total stranger came up to you on the street and said "give me a loaded gun right here, right now", would you do it? If the answer is no, or even a qualified yes, then you are in favour of some form of gun control. You just don't want it to apply to you.
If a total stranger came up to you on the street and said "give me a loaded gun right here, right now", would you do it? If the answer is no, or even a qualified yes, then you are in favour of some form of gun control. You just don't want it to apply to you.
I can't think of too many people dying accidentally from a knife. And I even worked in a slaughterhouse.
I know someone personally who died from a gun accident.
I know someone personally who died from a gun accident.
True, but with a knife you have to be within arms reach. You don't have to be with a gun. It's too easy with a gun compared to a knife.It's the operator that kills
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
That's an interesting viewpoint. Very True.Rockie wrote:Immediately after a tragedy like this is the worst time to get into this debate because emotions are running high, and everyone can state a statistic or argument that, in isolation, supports their view point. But here's a question for the gun supporters:
If a total stranger came up to you on the street and said "give me a loaded gun right here, right now", would you do it? If the answer is no, or even a qualified yes, then you are in favour of some form of gun control. You just don't want it to apply to you.
It's better to break ground and head into the wind than to break wind and head into the ground.
Most of the victims in Rwanda were hacked to death with machettes.
No guns does not mean no violence .
Sir Bob Geldof wrote it all about another school massacre years ago.http://www.geocities.com/~sdsundstrom/idont.htm
No guns does not mean no violence .
Sir Bob Geldof wrote it all about another school massacre years ago.http://www.geocities.com/~sdsundstrom/idont.htm
Last edited by 2R on Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rockie, I think you have us confused.
I have nothing against rules. I enforce them as part of my job. My problem is that people don't understand firearms. They see a gun and think it's as unstable as uranium-235.
There is a vast difference between gun toteing thugs who puts pistol in their belt vs. me who put's the same pistol in a holster. (both may have magazine's and a round in the chamber). I'm not going to have a negligent discharge, because I treat my weapon with respect, as I treat driving and flying with respect.
It's the user, not the device that cause's the problem. And in firearms the user can't be controlled. Canada tried, and it failed. I have always argued that you should regulate the user not the firearm.
Hey Northy, I'm running a marathon this Sunday, I'll let you know how well I do.
I have nothing against rules. I enforce them as part of my job. My problem is that people don't understand firearms. They see a gun and think it's as unstable as uranium-235.
There is a vast difference between gun toteing thugs who puts pistol in their belt vs. me who put's the same pistol in a holster. (both may have magazine's and a round in the chamber). I'm not going to have a negligent discharge, because I treat my weapon with respect, as I treat driving and flying with respect.
It's the user, not the device that cause's the problem. And in firearms the user can't be controlled. Canada tried, and it failed. I have always argued that you should regulate the user not the firearm.
Hey Northy, I'm running a marathon this Sunday, I'll let you know how well I do.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Countdown until that vapid Wendy Cukier twot is all over this.
"FLY THE AIRPLANE"!
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
http://www.youtube.com/hazatude
He could have...maybe. My friends who bow hunt do so because it's more challenging than using a rifle. If I've got a potentially predatory bear in my backyard (or a rabid fox or skunk for that matter), I do NOT want extra challenge. I want to know that I've got a 30-06 or a 12 ga. or a 45-70 that will do the job.Snowgoose wrote:Could you have shot the bear with an arrow? Or used a bear banger, or bear repellent? Just a thought.
Bear bangers are the best non-lethal answer...but they do not always work. Bear spray is the least effective of all the options. You need to be awfully close to the bear, and hit it in the face with the spray. By that time, I'll lay even money that the bear in question is charging and will have "paws on" before it realizes it's been sprayed.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
WHAT are they covering up??
Judge Orders Columbine Documents Sealed For 20 Years
School Violence Experts Prevented From Reviewing Material
POSTED: 6:52 am MDT April 3, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
DENVER -- Statements made by the parents of the teenage gunmen who attacked Columbine High School will remain sealed for 20 years, frustrating at least one victim's parent who believes knowing what happened before the shootings could help prevent similar tragedies.
U.S. District Judge Lewis T. Babcock's ruling Monday also prohibits a school violence expert and his assistants from reviewing the documents.
"It can save lives, no question about it," said Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel was one of 12 students slain on April 20, 1999. A teacher and the two gunmen also died. "Knowing what was going on in their homes is absolutely paramount to learn how to prevent this from happening again."
Attorneys for the parents of gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did not return messages left after business hours. Documents from a federal lawsuit include sworn statements made by the Harrises and Klebolds, as well as records regarding the gunmen's participation in a juvenile diversion program in 1998 and 1999.
The National Archives and Records Administration will get the records.
Jefferson County sheriff's officials previously made a decision under the state's open records law to not release videotapes of the gunmen out of concern they would encourage copycat attacks.
Babcock said similar arguments in the federal case means the balance "still strikes in favor of maintaining strict confidentiality."
Rohrbough said he strongly disagreed with that decision and called the logic "flawed and bogus."
"Unless you're saying that the parents taught the kids how to shoot up a school, it would be hard to image that releasing these documents could lead to a copycat crime," Rohrbough said.
The Colorado Attorney General Suthers earlier had asked Babcock to allow University of Colorado researcher Delbert Elliott to access the documents as part of his work on preventing school violence. The Jefferson County sheriff's office has expressed concern that allowing Elliott to review the documents could open access to others.
A magistrate ordered the documents destroyed in 2003, upsetting some victims' families who said the statements could contain lessons to prevent school shootings. U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock then proposed storing the documents under seal for 25 years.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Judge Orders Columbine Documents Sealed For 20 Years
School Violence Experts Prevented From Reviewing Material
POSTED: 6:52 am MDT April 3, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
DENVER -- Statements made by the parents of the teenage gunmen who attacked Columbine High School will remain sealed for 20 years, frustrating at least one victim's parent who believes knowing what happened before the shootings could help prevent similar tragedies.
U.S. District Judge Lewis T. Babcock's ruling Monday also prohibits a school violence expert and his assistants from reviewing the documents.
"It can save lives, no question about it," said Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel was one of 12 students slain on April 20, 1999. A teacher and the two gunmen also died. "Knowing what was going on in their homes is absolutely paramount to learn how to prevent this from happening again."
Attorneys for the parents of gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did not return messages left after business hours. Documents from a federal lawsuit include sworn statements made by the Harrises and Klebolds, as well as records regarding the gunmen's participation in a juvenile diversion program in 1998 and 1999.
The National Archives and Records Administration will get the records.
Jefferson County sheriff's officials previously made a decision under the state's open records law to not release videotapes of the gunmen out of concern they would encourage copycat attacks.
Babcock said similar arguments in the federal case means the balance "still strikes in favor of maintaining strict confidentiality."
Rohrbough said he strongly disagreed with that decision and called the logic "flawed and bogus."
"Unless you're saying that the parents taught the kids how to shoot up a school, it would be hard to image that releasing these documents could lead to a copycat crime," Rohrbough said.
The Colorado Attorney General Suthers earlier had asked Babcock to allow University of Colorado researcher Delbert Elliott to access the documents as part of his work on preventing school violence. The Jefferson County sheriff's office has expressed concern that allowing Elliott to review the documents could open access to others.
A magistrate ordered the documents destroyed in 2003, upsetting some victims' families who said the statements could contain lessons to prevent school shootings. U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock then proposed storing the documents under seal for 25 years.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
That'll buff right out 
-
North Shore
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5622
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Good onya! Giv'r shit! Sub 3:10 and you're off to Boston! 4:30/km all the way...Hey Northy, I'm running a marathon this Sunday, I'll let you know how well I do.
Sure but trucks, boats etc...don't haul off and kill 30 people in one goThere is nothing inherently evil or immoral in a firearm, a kitchen knife, a car, a truck, a boat, a snowmobile, a light aircraft, a tractor, or fertilizer - but all have killed in the past, and surely will in the future.
....firearms in this case, did.Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
First one I can remember is Ecole Polytechnique in 89. I guess the University of Texas at Austin in 66 counts too, but most of the victims wern't associated with the university.Snowgoose wrote:I don't think this is a knee-jerk reaction. It just brought an important issue to the forefront. I had never heard of a school massacre before Columbine. Now I know 4 by name. If I went searching a little further I bet I can find at least 10 more. This is where I see a problem.
Did it reduce the number of suicides, though, or just make people move elsewhere? As for murder, it's been declining in Canada since the 1970s. The decline isn't easily connected to any gun control measures. The murder rate goes down, but the percentage committed with firearms has stayed roughly the same since the early 80s.There solution, which drew much criticism, was to build a barrier to prevent the easy jump access. They called it the luminous veil. Guess what, suicides there are virtually zero now. I know people still commit suicide but it's a little more difficult for them now. Hopefully now there is a little more time for intervention.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/8 ... 006006.pdf
I'm not advocating that people should carry, or that we shouldn't have some form of gun control, only that the controls that we've put in place have done very little to affect the murder rate, or even the means people choose to murder others.
Guys got a murderous rampage on his mind, and all he has to do to comply with Virginia gun control law is buy his two handguns 32 days apart. Takes ten minutes March 1st, and ten minutes April 1st. Now the gun advocates are all over this saying if only everyone were armed someone could have taken the guy out before he killed all those people.
Yippeekayyay Motherf***er!!!
(Bruce Willis. Die Hard. Hollywood movie. Coming soon to a reality near you)
Yippeekayyay Motherf***er!!!
(Bruce Willis. Die Hard. Hollywood movie. Coming soon to a reality near you)
-
niss
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
- Contact:
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18170761/'Unremarkable sale' of gun to Va. killer
Cho Seung-Hui legally bought Glock handgun, ammunition for $571
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:25 a.m. ET April 18, 2007
RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui walked into a Roanoke gun shop five weeks ago, put down a credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. He paid $571.
The Glock was one of two guns found with Cho’s fingerprints after he fatally shot 32 people and then himself at the university in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history.
Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock to Cho in March. The serial number had been scratched off, but federal agents traced it to the store using a receipt found in Cho’s backpack.
“It was a very unremarkable sale,” said Markell, who did not handle the sale personally. “He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won’t sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious.”
Markell said it’s not unusual for college students to make purchases at his shop as long as they are old enough.
Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, according to federal officials. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.
“To find out the gun came from my shop is just terrible,” Markell said.
'Easy access to high firepower weapons'
Authorities also found a Walther .22-caliber handgun in Cho’s possession, according to a search warrant filed in Montgomery County.
Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia.
Because he killed and injured so many victims in a short span of time, some people speculated that Cho used high-capacity magazines containing as many as 33 rounds in each clip.
Under the federal assault-weapons ban enacted in 1994, magazines were limited to 10 rounds. But that ban was allowed to expire in 2004.
“The key thing that we have seen in all of these school shootings is easy access to high firepower weapons,” said Daniel Vice, an attorney with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “These killings can’t be done with baseball bats and knives.”
Under Virginia law, state police keep records of gun purchases from licensed dealers for only 30 days. After that, police destroy the records.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
I think it says more about the limits on free speech, or lack thereof. His english prof went to the cops after he'd writting disturbing plays. The cops responded that they couldn't do anything, as he hadn't made a specific threat against anyone. I'm strongly in favour of people being able to speak their mind, but if you're scaring the shit out of several people, the cops should be allowed to come by and ask you what the @#$! is going on.Rockie wrote:Guys got a murderous rampage on his mind, and all he has to do to comply with Virginia gun control law is buy his two handguns 32 days apart. Takes ten minutes March 1st, and ten minutes April 1st. Now the gun advocates are all over this saying if only everyone were armed someone could have taken the guy out before he killed all those people.
-
niss
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
- Contact:
What would happen if there was a stricter control? What if like here he needed an FAC just to purchase ammo? Could that have prevented it or at the very least delayed it?
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
That would probably only have delayed it at the most. Just like drugs today, or alcohol under Prohibition, the black market would just rise to the demand. Make it hard to buy ammo legally, and someone will start selling it of the back of a van in a dark alley. Or he would just have gone and jumped in a car and run people down or found some another easy way to strike out at everyone he thinks did him wrong.niss wrote:What would happen if there was a stricter control? What if like here he needed an FAC just to purchase ammo? Could that have prevented it or at the very least delayed it?
If people really want to stop these attacks, we need to do more to help each other out and just generally treat each other better. In this case it sounds like other students were afraid to even show up to class with him. If that isn't a sign of someone who needs help, I'm not sure what would be.
Seems like it'd be similar to how it worked with Kimveer Gil. Lots of posts on myspace or whatever saying he probably wasn't all there, reputation as a loner, and had no problem getting a restricted weapon or ammunition. Right now I think the problem is that we place restrictions on what you have to do to get most firearms, rather than how you have to act. If you're willing to jump through hoops, don't have a criminal record, haven't been fired recently, and didn't divorce recently, it's trivial to legally pick up a restricted weapon in Canada. It just takes time. If you do have a criminal record, it's not difficult to pick one up illegally, either, though it'd cost you more.niss wrote:What would happen if there was a stricter control? What if like here he needed an FAC just to purchase ammo? Could that have prevented it or at the very least delayed it?
Anyway, assuming that he'd planned this since he bought the .22, it wasn't an impulsive thing. Gun control as we have it in Canada likely wouldn't have done a damn thing.
Librescu, coutureDoc wrote:Cho, Cho, Cho, Cho, Cho........anybody have just ONE victim's name? Here we go again....stinking media! The next dirtbag will want to be even more famous, and make it 34?
"He seemed like a nice clean cut college kid...." What, you couldn't sell him an UZI?????
