Va. gunman had 2 previous stalking cases By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer
3 minutes ago
The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.
Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.
He said the woman declined to press charges and Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system. During one of those incidents, both in late 2005, the department received a call from Cho's parents who were concerned that he might be suicidal, and he was taken to a mental health facility, he said.
Flinchum said he knew of no other police incidents involving Cho until the deadly shootings Monday, first at a girl's dorm room and then a classroom building across campus. Neither of the stalking victims was among the victims Monday.
Thirty-two people were shot to death before the gunman killed himself. State Police have said the same gun was used in both shootings, but they said Wednesday said they still weren't confident that it was the same gunman.
Police searched Cho's door room on Tuesday and recovered, among other items, a chain and combination lock, according to documents filed Wednesday; the front doors of Norris Hall had been chained shut from the inside during the shooting rampage.
Other items seized include a folding knife; two computers, a hard disk and other computer disks; documents, books, notebooks and other writings; a digital camera; CDs; and two Dremel tools.
Cho's roommates and professors on Wednesday described him as a troubled, very quiet young man who rarely spoke to his roommates or made eye contact with them.
His bizarre behavior became even less predictable in recent weeks, roommates Joseph Aust and Karan Grewal said.
Grewal had pulled an all-nighter on homework the day of the shootings and saw Cho at around 5 a.m.
"He didn't look me in the eye. Same old thing. I left him alone," He told CNN. He said when he saw Cho that morning and during the weekend, Cho didn't smile, didn't frown and didn't show any signs of anger. Grewal also said he never saw any weapons.
Several students and professors described Cho as a sullen loner. Authorities said he left a rambling note raging against women and rich kids. News reports said that Cho, a 23-year-old senior majoring in English, may have been taking medication for depression and that he was becoming increasingly erratic.
Professors and classmates were alarmed by his class writings — pages filled with twisted, violence-drenched writing.
"It was not bad poetry. It was intimidating," poet Nikki Giovanni, one of his professors, told CNN Wednesday.
"I know we're talking about a youngster, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings," she said. "There was something mean about this boy. It was the meanness — I've taught troubled youngsters and crazy people — it was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."
Giovanni said her students were so unnerved by Cho's behavior, including taking pictures of them with his cell phone, that some stopped coming to class and she had security check on her room. She eventually had him taken out of her class, saying she would quit if he wasn't removed.
Lucinda Roy, a co-director of creative writing at Virginia Tech, said she tutored Cho after that.
"He was so distant and so lonely," she told ABC's "Good Morning America" Wednesday. "It was almost like talking to a hole, as though he wasn't there most of the time. He wore sunglasses and his hat very low so it was hard to see his face."
Roy also described using a code word with her assistant to call police if she ever felt threatened by Cho, but she said she never used it.
Cho's writing was so disturbing, though, he was referred to the university's counseling service, said Carolyn Rude, chairwoman of the university's English department.
In screenplays Cho wrote for a class last fall, characters throw hammers and attack with chainsaws, said a student who attended Virginia Tech last fall. In another, Cho concocted a tale of students who fantasize about stalking and killing a teacher who sexually molested them.
"When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare," former classmate Ian MacFarlane, now an AOL employee, wrote in a blog posted on an AOL Web site.
"The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of."
He said he and other students "were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter."
"We always joked we were just waiting for him to do something, waiting to hear about something he did," said another classmate, Stephanie Derry. "But when I got the call it was Cho who had done this, I started crying, bawling."
Despite the many warning signs that came to light in the bloody aftermath, police and university officials offered no clues as to exactly what set Cho off.
Cho — who arrived in the United States as boy from South Korea in 1992 and was raised in suburban Washington, D.C., where his parents worked at a dry cleaners — left a note that was found after the bloodbath.
A law enforcement official described it Tuesday as a typed, eight-page rant against rich kids and religion. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
"You caused me to do this," the official quoted the note as saying.
Cho indicated in his letter that the end was near and that there was a deed to be done, the official said. He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said.
The official said the letter was either found in Cho's dorm room or in his backpack. The backpack was found in the hallway of the classroom building where the shootings happened, and contained several rounds of ammunition, the official said.
With classes canceled for the rest of the week, many students left town.
Tuesday night, thousands of Virginia Tech students, faculty and area residents poured into the center of campus to grieve together. Volunteers passed out thousands of candles in paper cups, donated from around the country. Then, as the flames flickered, speakers urged them to find solace in one another.
As silence spread across the grassy bowl of the drill field, a pair of trumpets began to play taps. A few in the crowd began to sing Amazing Grace.
Afterward, students, some weeping, others holding each other for support, gathered around makeshift memorials, filling banners and plywood boards with messages belying their pain.
"I think this is something that will take a while. It still hasn't hit a lot of people yet," said Amber McGee, a freshman from Wytheville, Va.
Monday's rampage consisted of two attacks, more than two hours apart — first at a dormitory, where two people were killed, then inside a classroom building, where 31 people, including Cho, died. Two handguns — a 9 mm and a .22-caliber — were found in the classroom building.
According to court papers, police found a "bomb threat" note — directed at engineering school buildings — near the victims in the classroom building. In the past three weeks, Virginia Tech was hit with two other bomb threats. Investigators have not connected those earlier threats to Cho.
Cho graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., in 2003. His family lived in an off-white, two-story townhouse in Centreville, Va.
At least one of those killed in the rampage, Reema Samaha, graduated from Westfield High in 2006. But there was no immediate word from authorities on whether Cho knew the young woman and singled her out.
"He was very quiet, always by himself," neighbor Abdul Shash said. Shash said Cho spent a lot of his free time playing basketball and would not respond if someone greeted him.
Some classmates said that on the first day of a British literature class last year, the 30 or so students went around and introduced themselves. When it was Cho's turn, he didn't speak.
On the sign-in sheet where everyone else had written their names, Cho had written a question mark. "Is your name, `Question mark?'" classmate Julie Poole recalled the professor asking. The young man offered little response.
Cho spent much of that class sitting in the back of the room, wearing a hat and seldom participating. In a small department, Cho distinguished himself for being anonymous. "He didn't reach out to anyone. He never talked," Poole said.
"We just really knew him as the question mark kid," Poole said.
One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.
Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock and a box of practice ammo to Cho 36 days ago for $571.
"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.
Investigators stopped short of saying Cho carried out both attacks. But State Police ballistics tests showed one gun was used in both.
And two law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been announced, said Cho's fingerprints were on both guns. Their serial numbers had been filed off.
Gov. Tim Kaine said he will appoint a panel at the university's request to review authorities' handling of the disaster. Parents and students bitterly complained that the university should have locked down the campus immediately after the first burst of gunfire and did not do enough to warn people.
Kaine warned against making snap judgments and said he had "nothing but loathing" for those who take the tragedy and "make it their political hobby horse to ride."
"I'm satisfied that the university did everything they felt they needed to do with the heat on the table," Kaine told CBS' "The Early Show" on Wednesday. "Nobody has this in the playbook, there's no manual on this."
Virginia Tech students still on edge got another scare Wednesday morning as police in SWAT gear with weapons drawn swarmed Burruss Hall, which houses the president's office.
The threat targeted the university president but was unfounded, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum. The building quickly reopened, but students were rattled.
"They were just screaming, 'Get off the sidewalks,'" said Terryn Wingler-Petty, a junior from Wisconsin. "They seemed very confused about what was going on. They were just trying to get people organized."
One officer was seen escorting a crying young woman out of Burruss Hall, telling her, "It's OK. It's OK."
Va Tech > Guns...
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
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:
How could someone like this be allowed to get a gun?
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!
Ok folks, here are a couple of questions for you...
1. Why did automatic weapons ever become legal (for the general public), and why would someone legitimately need one?
2. Why did hand guns ever become legal (for the general public), and why would someone legitimately need one?
North America was once a vast wilderness - much of Canada still is. I can certainly see how its citizens should have legal access to firearms... i.e. rifles & shotguns, etc for hunting. Fine, no problem.
However, how is it that access to handguns & automatic weapons ever spread beyond the military & law enforcement circles? When was there ever a legitimate reason for allowing this?
1. Why did automatic weapons ever become legal (for the general public), and why would someone legitimately need one?
2. Why did hand guns ever become legal (for the general public), and why would someone legitimately need one?
North America was once a vast wilderness - much of Canada still is. I can certainly see how its citizens should have legal access to firearms... i.e. rifles & shotguns, etc for hunting. Fine, no problem.
However, how is it that access to handguns & automatic weapons ever spread beyond the military & law enforcement circles? When was there ever a legitimate reason for allowing this?
Exactly. You could add driving cars through large crowds to that list too.xsbank wrote:What's the difference between a gun and a backpack full of ammonium nitrate? Or a couple of gallons of avgas?
Red herring, Neil.
This has very little to do with whether or not someone has access to guns or not. Even if it was possible to stop everyone from getting a gun that shouldn't have one, we very likely will still have these sad incidents. A better solution would have been be to actually address the cause of his depression and isolation. This would actually take effort and responsibility on everyone's part though and I'm not sure that the US, or even Canada, is really capable of this right now. Everyone wants to blame everyone else for their problems and have a quick fix (ban/restrict guns).
I think people have missed my point entirely.
I agree that its people, not guns, that are dangerous. I also agree that people who intend to cause harm will find a way. However, that wasn't what I asked.
Firearms are fine. But, going way back in time ... what legitimate reason was there to allow hand guns and automatic weapons into the general population in the first place? I've yet to find anyone who can answer this. Usually, people start going off on a tangent about protecting themselves against armed bad guys. But how did these classes of weapons get out of control in the first place? These types of weapons serve only one purpose - and that's to take down people.
...which by the way, is what they were designed for (designed for military & law enforcement use). A 9mm handgun is for shooting people - not hunting moose. So why does your average citizen need one?
I agree that its people, not guns, that are dangerous. I also agree that people who intend to cause harm will find a way. However, that wasn't what I asked.
Firearms are fine. But, going way back in time ... what legitimate reason was there to allow hand guns and automatic weapons into the general population in the first place? I've yet to find anyone who can answer this. Usually, people start going off on a tangent about protecting themselves against armed bad guys. But how did these classes of weapons get out of control in the first place? These types of weapons serve only one purpose - and that's to take down people.
...which by the way, is what they were designed for (designed for military & law enforcement use). A 9mm handgun is for shooting people - not hunting moose. So why does your average citizen need one?
It's also a waste of time and money. With all due respect to those killed, your chances of being murdered with a gun over the course of a year in Canada are something like 1 in 150,000. There are far more common ways of dying, which are more easily prevented, than murder by a firearm. If we can spend a certain amount of money on gun control, or spend the same amount on more paramedics, better trauma centers, more cops, etc, we'd probably save more lives by doing those things than with gun control. Gun control measures should be cost effective with respect to the number of lives expected to be saved. And right now in Canada, for any new measures, that tops out at around 200 per year, if we eliminate (and don't simply change the weapon used for) every murder caused by guns in a year.goates wrote:This would actually take effort and responsibility on everyone's part though and I'm not sure that the US, or even Canada, is really capable of this right now. Everyone wants to blame everyone else for their problems and have a quick fix (ban/restrict guns).
Other than self-defense or collecting?neilblythin wrote: ...which by the way, is what they were designed for (designed for military & law enforcement use). A 9mm handgun is for shooting people - not hunting moose. So why does your average citizen need one?
http://www.ipsc.org/whatipsc.htm
I have a .45 and I haven't shot anyone. I did shoot IPSC though, and its a hoot. I just decided some time ago that flinging myself face down in gravel to shoot was doing me more damage than the targets.
Its just sitting in my house, locked up in a safe, and the ammo is locked up somewhere else. In fact, it is less 'dangerous' than the rack of knives I have in the kitchen and the rolling pin that's in the drawer. If you came into my house to do mischief you are much more likely to get you hair parted by a rolling pin than if you stood about patiently waiting while I assembled and loaded my gun.
And it is a semi-auto, a "class of weapons" that are better than a revolver, though those are cool too.
Don't be afraid of guns, be afraid of the guy who wishes you harm. As Grimey says and as I have been spouting off about here ever since I joined, the death rate involving guns is negligible. The good thing about guns is that half of those that get shot either have previous criminal records or are shot in the commission of a crime. The other half are usually smoked by someone they know. If you have pissed off your wife, she is more likely to smoke you with a rolling pin than a gun, but you're just as dead.
Sounds like Darwinism to me and should be encouraged (not the wife bit!)!
Sorry Rockie, no, I don't. The Oklahoma City thing was ammonium nitrate and so was the first World Trade Centre 'event.'
Its just sitting in my house, locked up in a safe, and the ammo is locked up somewhere else. In fact, it is less 'dangerous' than the rack of knives I have in the kitchen and the rolling pin that's in the drawer. If you came into my house to do mischief you are much more likely to get you hair parted by a rolling pin than if you stood about patiently waiting while I assembled and loaded my gun.
And it is a semi-auto, a "class of weapons" that are better than a revolver, though those are cool too.
Don't be afraid of guns, be afraid of the guy who wishes you harm. As Grimey says and as I have been spouting off about here ever since I joined, the death rate involving guns is negligible. The good thing about guns is that half of those that get shot either have previous criminal records or are shot in the commission of a crime. The other half are usually smoked by someone they know. If you have pissed off your wife, she is more likely to smoke you with a rolling pin than a gun, but you're just as dead.
Sounds like Darwinism to me and should be encouraged (not the wife bit!)!
Sorry Rockie, no, I don't. The Oklahoma City thing was ammonium nitrate and so was the first World Trade Centre 'event.'
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
If you saw someone about to jump off a cliff, would you try and address why he was trying to do that or would you pull him back from the edge first? Same thing with guns. Sure, it would be nice to identify, diagnose, then treat the psychological problems of every nutcase out there before they kill someone. But you're smoking dope if you think you can actually do that. What we can do though is keep weapons away from them. That might mean actually making it harder for everyone to get one, but it's worth the hit to your freedoms in the long run don't you think?goates wrote:Exactly. You could add driving cars through large crowds to that list too.xsbank wrote:What's the difference between a gun and a backpack full of ammonium nitrate? Or a couple of gallons of avgas?
Red herring, Neil.
This has very little to do with whether or not someone has access to guns or not. Even if it was possible to stop everyone from getting a gun that shouldn't have one, we very likely will still have these sad incidents. A better solution would have been be to actually address the cause of his depression and isolation. This would actually take effort and responsibility on everyone's part though and I'm not sure that the US, or even Canada, is really capable of this right now. Everyone wants to blame everyone else for their problems and have a quick fix (ban/restrict guns).
This has everything to do with someones access to guns.
I guess you can't see the difference between a gun and a credit card either.xsbank wrote:I have a .45 and I haven't shot anyone. I did shoot IPSC though, and its a hoot. I just decided some time ago that flinging myself face down in gravel to shoot was doing me more damage than the targets.
Its just sitting in my house, locked up in a safe, and the ammo is locked up somewhere else. In fact, it is less 'dangerous' than the rack of knives I have in the kitchen and the rolling pin that's in the drawer. If you came into my house to do mischief you are much more likely to get you hair parted by a rolling pin than if you stood about patiently waiting while I assembled and loaded my gun.
And it is a semi-auto, a "class of weapons" that are better than a revolver, though those are cool too.
Don't be afraid of guns, be afraid of the guy who wishes you harm. As Grimey says and as I have been spouting off about here ever since I joined, the death rate involving guns is negligible. The good thing about guns is that half of those that get shot either have previous criminal records or are shot in the commission of a crime. The other half are usually smoked by someone they know. If you have pissed off your wife, she is more likely to smoke you with a rolling pin than a gun, but you're just as dead.
Sounds like Darwinism to me and should be encouraged (not the wife bit!)!
Sorry Rockie, no, I don't. The Oklahoma City thing was ammonium nitrate and so was the first World Trade Centre 'event.'
Or a gun and a rock.
Or a gun and a kitchen knife.
Or a gun and a bucket of water.
Or a gun and a crescent wrench.
Or a gun and a screwdriver.
Or a gun and a ballpoint pen.
Or a gun and a two by four.
The list is endless. I don't think you are that thick and that argument does you no credit.
This is a continuation of a previous discussion and you likely know my background from past reading, so you know fear of weapons is not my particular problem. My problem is how do we keep them out of the hands of nutbars. It would be really swell if everyone were as responsible and professional as you, Nark, and whole host of others who think since they aren't a problem no one is. Guns are a tool to kill people. Until we can identify the nutbars we should limit access to the tools. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
And he could also get a job as a Greyhound bus driver and drive it off a bridge somewhere. That would set a new record wouldn't it? This isn't a contest to devise new ways to kill more peoplemcrit wrote:If he didn't have a gun, and he really wanted to take some people out when he went, all he would need to do is strap himself full of explosives and nails, walk into the room and push the button. Much easier than getting a gun.
Rocky, you owe me an apology. I did not insult your intelligence and if you think that attacking me, not my argument, is legitimate debate then I will take my gun and go home.
Everybody said what a loser this guy was but he wandered into a gun store and bought a couple. He might just as well have gone to Home Depot and bought some fertilizer.
I still think this gun stuff is immaterial. I'm not saying that this incident isn't a tragedy or its a good thing or anything about it should be emulated (wait 'til the next ones - thanks to the papers, the loonies now have a record to beat) but it is a small blip in the death toll. We killed something like 25 in one weekend on skidoos. They just weren't all on one machine.
Yes it would have been harder to kill 30 with a knife, unless you are very quick, but wandering into the same class and leaving a backpack full of dynamite or gasoline would probably have killed them all too. How is this different? One big bang instead of a lot of little ones?
What about the 60-odd CF deaths in Afghanistan? There's an easy solution to keeping soldiers alive that won't cost billions (let's not go there).
I think the media makes a circus out of a tragedy like this, frightens the wits out of the populace and billions get spent on a gun registry so someone can get re-elected. The truth of the matter is that 8000 get killed by accidents in Canada each year. Making drivers do a recurrent would save way more lives than fussing over guns.
Car accidents, unless they are spectacular or on a slow news day, don't make news individually - we accept them and they are not sensational, but the death toll is so high its almost a sixth of the death toll from heart attacks. Ate anything at McDonald's recently?
I think the whole gun thing is twaddle and poppycock and we'd all be a lot better off without newspapers and TV news.
Everybody said what a loser this guy was but he wandered into a gun store and bought a couple. He might just as well have gone to Home Depot and bought some fertilizer.
I still think this gun stuff is immaterial. I'm not saying that this incident isn't a tragedy or its a good thing or anything about it should be emulated (wait 'til the next ones - thanks to the papers, the loonies now have a record to beat) but it is a small blip in the death toll. We killed something like 25 in one weekend on skidoos. They just weren't all on one machine.
Yes it would have been harder to kill 30 with a knife, unless you are very quick, but wandering into the same class and leaving a backpack full of dynamite or gasoline would probably have killed them all too. How is this different? One big bang instead of a lot of little ones?
What about the 60-odd CF deaths in Afghanistan? There's an easy solution to keeping soldiers alive that won't cost billions (let's not go there).
I think the media makes a circus out of a tragedy like this, frightens the wits out of the populace and billions get spent on a gun registry so someone can get re-elected. The truth of the matter is that 8000 get killed by accidents in Canada each year. Making drivers do a recurrent would save way more lives than fussing over guns.
Car accidents, unless they are spectacular or on a slow news day, don't make news individually - we accept them and they are not sensational, but the death toll is so high its almost a sixth of the death toll from heart attacks. Ate anything at McDonald's recently?
I think the whole gun thing is twaddle and poppycock and we'd all be a lot better off without newspapers and TV news.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
The hypocrisy of the anti-gun crowd is staggering ... if you are truly worried about your life:
1) quit smoking
2) cut down on fatty foods
3) lose some weight, lard ass - eat less, exercise more
The odds of you dying of heart disease or cancer are in excess of 99%. Do something about the real problem.
1) quit smoking
2) cut down on fatty foods
3) lose some weight, lard ass - eat less, exercise more
The odds of you dying of heart disease or cancer are in excess of 99%. Do something about the real problem.
-
Redneck_pilot86
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: between 60 and 70
Ok, go way back in time to the mid 1800's. Everyone had a handgun, and there were countless reasons to need one. Maybe you are riding your horse and get thrown, and your foot gets caught in the stirrup. You need a handgun to save your own life. Someone tries to steal from you, you defend yourself with a handgun, not a rifle.neilblythin wrote: Firearms are fine. But, going way back in time ... what legitimate reason was there to allow hand guns and automatic weapons into the general population in the first place? I've yet to find anyone who can answer this. Usually, people start going off on a tangent about protecting themselves against armed bad guys. But how did these classes of weapons get out of control in the first place? These types of weapons serve only one purpose - and that's to take down people.
Sure, maybe handguns arent as necessary nowadays. At least not in Populated North America. But there are still parts of Canada and the US that are just as wild as back in the 1800's. Say you are out trapping, and you come across a wounded wolf or bear that is in one of your traps. Handgun is a handy tool to have, no? A rifle would work fine, but its heavy and akward to carry through the bush.
I'm going to get flamed for this, but if every student in that room had a pistol on them, not near as many would have died. Maybe one or two would get shot before the entire classroom dropped the nutcase, but not the 30+ that did die. Maybe noone would have, because he would have known he would get shot almost immediately. Maybe that would be enough to deter him. And maybe it would be enough to deter all those other murders, rapists, thiefs, and other scum.
The only three things a wingman should ever say: 1. "Two's up" 2. "You're on fire" 3. "I'll take the fat one"
" Maybe you are riding your horse and get thrown, and your foot gets caught in the stirrup. You need a handgun to save your own life."
You mean you shoot your own horse or do you shoot yourself? Probably the latter, better than getting all that cactus up your nose.
" Maybe noone would have, because he would have known he would get shot almost immediately. Maybe that would be enough to deter him."
That was sort of my point - all he would have to do is blow up the classroom, as he was sort of whacko anyway. Gun or no guns - that was the point. The fact he used one is not material, but waaay more fuel for the hysteria bonfire.
You mean you shoot your own horse or do you shoot yourself? Probably the latter, better than getting all that cactus up your nose.
" Maybe noone would have, because he would have known he would get shot almost immediately. Maybe that would be enough to deter him."
That was sort of my point - all he would have to do is blow up the classroom, as he was sort of whacko anyway. Gun or no guns - that was the point. The fact he used one is not material, but waaay more fuel for the hysteria bonfire.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Read what I said again and tell me why I owe you an apology. People who justify handguns by comparing them other means of dying are being disengenous. There is no justification for handguns in the hands of ordinary citizens in North America. Self protection doesn't cut it when you could just as easily have a baseball bat or a dog. We are supposed to live in a civilized society and that to me doesn't include everyone walking around armed up like Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid. Macho dimwits who carry a gun for protection are more likely to shoot themselves or their kid by accident than they are saving themselves from a bad guy. I have no patience for it.xsbank wrote:Rocky, you owe me an apology. I did not insult your intelligence and if you think that attacking me, not my argument, is legitimate debate then I will take my gun and go home.
Everybody said what a loser this guy was but he wandered into a gun store and bought a couple. He might just as well have gone to Home Depot and bought some fertilizer.
I still think this gun stuff is immaterial. I'm not saying that this incident isn't a tragedy or its a good thing or anything about it should be emulated (wait 'til the next ones - thanks to the papers, the loonies now have a record to beat) but it is a small blip in the death toll. We killed something like 25 in one weekend on skidoos. They just weren't all on one machine.
Yes it would have been harder to kill 30 with a knife, unless you are very quick, but wandering into the same class and leaving a backpack full of dynamite or gasoline would probably have killed them all too. How is this different? One big bang instead of a lot of little ones?
What about the 60-odd CF deaths in Afghanistan? There's an easy solution to keeping soldiers alive that won't cost billions (let's not go there).
I think the media makes a circus out of a tragedy like this, frightens the wits out of the populace and billions get spent on a gun registry so someone can get re-elected. The truth of the matter is that 8000 get killed by accidents in Canada each year. Making drivers do a recurrent would save way more lives than fussing over guns.
Car accidents, unless they are spectacular or on a slow news day, don't make news individually - we accept them and they are not sensational, but the death toll is so high its almost a sixth of the death toll from heart attacks. Ate anything at McDonald's recently?
I think the whole gun thing is twaddle and poppycock and we'd all be a lot better off without newspapers and TV news.
If I happened to be in that school, and I happened to have a gun, I too would have shot that lunatic and not lost a minute sleep. But I don't carry a gun and I don't think it's normal in a civilized society to do so. If I did, I would buy a nice beach house south of Mogadishu where the dollar goes much farther and live like a king.
People who justify a gun for protection in this country should also stop driving, stop eating, stop smoking, stop watching TV, talking on cell phones and sun tanning. Give me a break.
"...I don't think you are that thick and that argument does you no credit..."
That's why.
And maybe you should re-read my posts and show me where I said that everyone should be armed?
In words of one syllable (more or less) what I said was that this kid would have killed lots of people even if there was not a single gun on the North American continent - he would have used gasoline or a bomb and done just as much damage.
You have fallen for all the hysteria and media claptrap about guns and probably spend way too much time worrying about them. I think guns are used as a huge red herring in this country to distract us from homelessness, gas sniffing, 6 month medicare waits, corrupt police, useless Coast Guard, drug production, Hell's Angels, ethnic gangs...get my point? Guns are only a peripheral part of any of these problems. The Liberals would have been able to snow the Canadian public for years except the stupid registry ended up being such a cash hog and the sponsorship thing was just too big.
I'll say it again, slightly differently - use your energy to stop people smoking, stop people eating at McDonald's (etc.) and stop people driving like morons. The death toll from any one of these activities dwarfs the gun issue by multiples of hundreds.
That's why.
And maybe you should re-read my posts and show me where I said that everyone should be armed?
In words of one syllable (more or less) what I said was that this kid would have killed lots of people even if there was not a single gun on the North American continent - he would have used gasoline or a bomb and done just as much damage.
You have fallen for all the hysteria and media claptrap about guns and probably spend way too much time worrying about them. I think guns are used as a huge red herring in this country to distract us from homelessness, gas sniffing, 6 month medicare waits, corrupt police, useless Coast Guard, drug production, Hell's Angels, ethnic gangs...get my point? Guns are only a peripheral part of any of these problems. The Liberals would have been able to snow the Canadian public for years except the stupid registry ended up being such a cash hog and the sponsorship thing was just too big.
I'll say it again, slightly differently - use your energy to stop people smoking, stop people eating at McDonald's (etc.) and stop people driving like morons. The death toll from any one of these activities dwarfs the gun issue by multiples of hundreds.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Geez xsbank...read that line again carefully.
I'm willing to bet there are very few people with more disregard for the press than I have. I don't swallow any message from anyone without thinking about it very carefully first and forming my own opinion. I could say that you have been listening to the NRA too much though. In the United States guns are most definitely a big, big problem. I would not want to live in that society because of it. I very much don't want my country to become like the United States vis-a-vis guns. Those are my very carefully thought out opinions formed over many years based on my vision of what I want my country to be. Or in this case not be. I don't want my country taken over by a bunch of gun totin cowboys.
We don't have a gun problem in this country yet on the scale the Americans do, and I want to keep it that way. I don't want every schmoe I see to be a potential vigilante looking to smoke me if I look suspicious to him. I like my country just the way it is thank you very much, and I don't want it to turn into the northern chapter of the NRA.
You can campaign against Big Mac's if you want to, but I happen to think guns are a more deadly problem.
I'm willing to bet there are very few people with more disregard for the press than I have. I don't swallow any message from anyone without thinking about it very carefully first and forming my own opinion. I could say that you have been listening to the NRA too much though. In the United States guns are most definitely a big, big problem. I would not want to live in that society because of it. I very much don't want my country to become like the United States vis-a-vis guns. Those are my very carefully thought out opinions formed over many years based on my vision of what I want my country to be. Or in this case not be. I don't want my country taken over by a bunch of gun totin cowboys.
We don't have a gun problem in this country yet on the scale the Americans do, and I want to keep it that way. I don't want every schmoe I see to be a potential vigilante looking to smoke me if I look suspicious to him. I like my country just the way it is thank you very much, and I don't want it to turn into the northern chapter of the NRA.
You can campaign against Big Mac's if you want to, but I happen to think guns are a more deadly problem.
-
Wasps rule
- Rank 1
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:34 pm
Apologies for wading into this debate so late but I couldn't let this one by.
Full marks for creativity!
If I was asked for my lunch I wouldn't hand that over either. You are closer to exploring peoples opinion of property rights than gun control with that scenario.Rockie wrote: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.
Full marks for creativity!
Nice stab at a diversion, but I said "give me a loaded gun". Not your loaded gun. You know what I'm asking...would you give a loaded gun to a total stranger if he asked for it?Wasps rule wrote:Apologies for wading into this debate so late but I couldn't let this one by.
If I was asked for my lunch I wouldn't hand that over either. You are closer to exploring peoples opinion of property rights than gun control with that scenario.Rockie wrote: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.
Full marks for creativity!
