link

A SHOOTING spree believed to be by a lone gunman left at least 33 people dead at a Virginia university overnight in the bloodiest school shooting in US history.

A student journalist's video of the chaos was replayed repeatedly on US television networks, showing people scurrying around the campus and volleys of shots ringing out. Dramatic mobile phone video footage also picked up the clatter of bullets fired in the attack.

Virginia Tech campus police chief Wendell Finchum has said the suspected gunman is dead. He was later reported to have said the gunman killed himself.

Holy s***. Twas just listening to this on 4BC and they were talking to some teacher in the US and he was saying there was someone killed at least an hour before the main shooting spree started but the Uni wasn't locked down. WTF? And then it continued after when all these people were killed.

There's gonna be some real pissed off people over there if that's true.

i wonder if the guy who did it had been studying gta3, or maybe accounting.

pretty devastating though. i wonder if he had a history of mental illness. surely youd have to be insane to do something like that.

That is seriously f***ed up, and the sad thing is these sorts of things will probably just get worse/more frequent over time. And Free brings up a good point, I wonder how long it'll be before they blame games ...

They are reporting that he was Asian, so he probably did play video games.

Just four more and he would have beaten Bryant's record (news.com.au says 32 dead)

last edited by fpot at 07:45:16 17/Apr/07

One of the saddest things about these events is that media coverage of them tends to make more wackos go out and do the same s***.

so, about that constitutional thing about bearing arms, are you over it now

Sif, if he wanted a gun he would have got it regardless of any laws.

Some eyewitness accounts

Bloody George Bush making his first comments about the right to bear arms. What a wanker!!!!

Two hours between shootings and no lock down.

That campus is in trouble

Ohhhhhhh, sigh.

FFS! You dumb f***ing idiots (America). If you didn't give people these guns then s*** like this wouldn't happen.

Worst c***ry ever!

last edited by dynamite at 09:23:09 17/Apr/07

Holy s*** thats the university my dad used to teach economics at when my family lived in the states. Really nice place, can't believe that would happen we still have tonnes of family friends who live/teach/work there this is incredibly f***ed up =(

I am getting sick of all these shootings happening at schools and universities.

They are meant to be places you feel confident in sending your children to. Knowing that they are safe.

Damn, that's some messed up stuff. Stupid gun laws and stupid Americans.

Though I'm considering doing the same at QUT... lecture at 8-9am, then lecture at 5-6pm... WHAT THE FARK, THATS 8 HOURS OF NOTHING!!! DIE!!!

and with little surprise, jack thompson has already commented on this and blamed it on video games. he went on fox news or something ranting his ass off. why are people like him allowed to live when good people die? seriously.

The state's governor has declared a state of emergency in the aftermath of the massacre.

Really? That seems a little extreme

and with little surprise, jack thompson has already commented on this and blamed it on video games.

Now a good reporter would have said "on what grounds do you blame this incident on computer games?" But because you said "FOX" I assume that didn't happen.

This is just a publicity stunt by rockstar to build awareness about gta4.

Apprently in Virginia there is no waiting period or restrictions for buying a gun (surly there is an age restriction tho).
So in theory this guy could wake up and find out his gf dumped him. Gets really angry cause he has mental issues. Decides he wants to shoot everyone and goes out and buys a gun an half an hour later then goes to uni and unloads.

FFS, take everyones guns away. There is no reason why ordinary citizens need a firearm, of any kind. Definatly take away automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Really, is this needed:
http://www.girlontheright.com/redneck.jpg

Is it just me or is America just obsessed with violence. Look at the movies it makes they are a good reflection on how the society thinks. Don't get me wrong I love violent movies, games, books & music they make me giggle. But that country has some really f***ed up people who cannot handle freedom. They have a bizarre mentality when it comes to guns. Taking away their guns would be like us taking away XXXX from the hands of bad taste beer drinkers. They would just be able to handle it, freedom is killing them and I am sure there is irony in there somewhere.

And for those occasions when one gun just isn't enough.
http://media3.guzer.com/pictures/triple_machine_gun.jpg

I bet those Al Qaeda folks were behind it

The 2nd amendment ..

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

My take on it.
Firstly, most people who declare its their right are not part of any militia, much less regulated ones. (Tho to be fair, the use of the word was different in 1781 to now, militia was basically any person doing something "military")

Secondly, arms in 1791 when the amendment went through are some what different to modern arms. ie. back then you are talking flintlocks and blunderbusses, the first semi automatic rifle was in the late 1800. Now you can buy high powered fully automatic rifles in the name of a free state.

And I agree guns don't kill people, people kill people. Making guns easy for people to find, get, steal, purchase, own makes it easier for people to kill people on purpose or by accident.

Finally, given the situation in Iraq, one might suggest a highly armed populace does not ensure a "free state" or its security.

You'll eat those words when the British attack.

its columbine all over again.

The NRA is a very powerful lobby group in the U.S hence the re-direction of blame towards Video Games.

The king of england could come in here at any time, do you want that huh? The king of england pushing you around.

martin bryant > this wanna be

martin bryant > this wanna be

GO AUSTRALIA!

laws on owning a firearm only relate to the people who have a registered one. (law abiding gun owners)

it is pretty easy to get hold of a gun if you want to get one.(especially america) most criminals arent going to use a registered gun in their name to blow people away.

even with the strict gun laws in australia if someone wants to kill a heap of people and are insistant about doing so, they will find a gun.

sad situation for all those people who love those injured and dead in this shooting. cant imagine what they are feeling right now.

roffle this guy's blog got accused of being the killers blog


last edited by groydis at 14:46:44 17/Apr/07

Im not saying I agree with this but Ive been reading a whole lot about the university rule banning concealed carry permit holders from carrying on campus. They all postulate that had some students been carrying, this could have been minimised. They all also comment on some problems with this eg. frequent miss-identification of people with permits to carry a gun (like under cover cops being shot) as the killer. So alot of these people dont seem to be blind with stupidity - Though I would have thought having more people with guns couldnt help in the end, alot of people seem to think it would. I guess thats the situation in America.

Im just glad I live in a country who made a strong response to a big shooting and actually did something in its wake, rather than comparing it to see if it was bigger than the last and buying more guns to protect themselves.

sounds pretty scary

cant see americans ever giving up their guns though

they'll just have to learn to deal with this sort of thing

Yeah, thats the thing, it is a country that is likely to never see a nationwide ban on firearms so they have to look at alternatives.

Short of taking away the availabillity of firearms they will have to look at education and see the results of those states that have already instituted CCW laws and judge whether this is a good idea to institute or not for more areas or to dismiss.

One thing is for sure, there are going to be a whole lot more shootings that are only going to get worse in the future till they can get their cumulative heads out of their asses and institute some non reactionary legislation based on the cold hard facts and not some political regime.

im half suprised no one else was packing and wasted the sucka fool

Sleepy:

even with the strict gun laws in australia if someone wants to kill a heap of people and are insistant about doing so, they will find a gun.

Sometimes the difficulty in acquiring one is enough of a deterrent. ie less crimes of passion simply because you can't just pick one up down the road.

Spook:

im half suprised no one else was packing and wasted the sucka fool

Nice in theory, however (stolen from Slashdot)

Think for a minute about the chaos that a few shots fired in a school would cause. Now, imagine that a bunch of people suddenly pull out handguns and start looking for the original shooter. I see a lot of problems with this situation.

and

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

I think the phrase is 'hilarity ensues'.

The gun laws are f***ed. But with mexico right on the border guns will get in the country regardless. Sleepy is right, gangs like ms-13 etc. like that won't go the legal route when buying/registering a gun. It is beleived the guns used in the north hollywood shoot out were obtained illegally.

Some good things have come out of citizens being able to use guns though...

alot of the yanks ive been talking to about it have harped on about how stupid it is that there gun laws didnt allow any of the students to carry a gun thus defend themselves, i roffle and tell them there idiots but they think they have a valid point

You are talking about a nation that at times seems to masturbate over murder. Everyone has stories about how every American they have met has been nice and wonderful. If this was true these things wouldn't happen but there is something wonderfully f***ed up about that place. They cannot handle their own freedom so this is what they get for it.

Everyone argues that if he wanted a gun he could still get one if they were banned. The current story has something to do with a girlfriend break-up.

Scenario: Guns are banned in the US and not everybody has one. They're still illegally available on the black market if you try hard enough (prolly similar situation to Australia). So the random nutter gets dumped by his gf. He loses the plot.

A) In a fit of rage he immediately goes and punches/kicks/stabs/takes a baseball bat to the head of the people he's angry at because he doesn't have a gun.

B) Spend a few hours/days/weeks finding where he can get a gun, get some money together to buy one, not get caught or shot in the process, all while maintaining this fit of rage. He's also in this situation got to buy two guns and a heap of ammo. He also needs to know how to use one as now that guns aren't readily available he's only ever seen them in the movies.

Everyone seems to assume that even with all the gun laws you can "still get one if you really want to". I personally wouldn't have a clue where to start looking to get a gun and I don't know anybody that would.

An american once told me that its good that everyone has guns because there can never be anarchy. So luckily everyone had guns after Hurricane Katrina otherwise there would be heaps of looting and no order!

guns are not banned in us you can buy them from wall mart if your 12+

There is no reason why ordinary citizens need a firearm, of any kind.

the right to bear arms is important imo. When the Government finally removes all rule of law in this country (which it will eventually, they are just doing it incrementally, like the frog in the pot of boiling water) we will need our guns to resist the dictatorship and protect the High Court's judges.

I became convinced of this watching those youtube survivalist vids and reading John Titor's prophecies, so it's based on well-researched fact.

shot dude talking to press

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=67f_1176750363

When the Government finally removes all rule of law in this country (which it will eventually, they are just doing it incrementally, like the frog in the pot of boiling water)

haha, you can't even wash a car anymore

he didn't even beat martin bryant's record, what a useless c***

Here's something for you to think about:

If a large percentage of people in that school had firearms on them, there is no way the guy would have gotten to kill 33 people...

If just a couple people on the 911 planes had weapons, there would have been more chance of an uprising by the passengers against the terrorists.

Trust people to have a bit of power, and don't rely on the Government to protect you.

Consider: you are carrying a concealed weapon and you hear gunfire coming from the room down the hall (or maybe from the floor below). You draw your weapon, and the next thing you know someone carrying a gun walks into the room. Is it another student from elsewhere in the building responding to the gunfire, or the nutcase? Do you shoot them before they can shoot you? Now add plenty of screaming and panic, and multiply this scenario by the number of different panicked scared students all carrying firearms.

dm 0

If a large percentage of people in that school had firearms on them, there is no way the guy would have gotten to kill 33 people...

Yes. You'd instead have several unrelated multi-kill sprees over time which would result in the same number killed in the end.

If just a couple people on the 911 planes had weapons, there would have been more chance of an uprising by the passengers against the terrorists.

Again, one could argue that you'd have more frequent high-jackings that might be suppressed quickly unless the high-jacker does something really stupid very quickly (blow holes in the plane before anyone takes him down).

Trust people to have a bit of power

People under pressure and extreme emotional stress can do stupid things when armed.

last edited by parabol at 19:49:15 17/Apr/07

i blame george bush, rockstar games, martin bryant, the media, firearm laws, the education system, economics, americans, jack thompson, fox, al qaeda, obes, columbines, the nra, blogs, walmart, youtube, yur mum's & other stuff. thx.

If just a couple people on the 911 planes had weapons, there would have been more chance of an uprising by the passengers against the terrorists.

they have that, they are called air marshalls

they have that now, they are called air marshalls

yea, guns really solve problems...

Maybe parabol, but I think our perception of the violence that would happen if everyone was armed is exaggerated by those who want to keep power over us. If the people have more guns than the Government, and enough people are united against Government policy, then we have the power to keep them in line, which is what they don't want.

People alone on public transport usually don't want to look you in the eye, let alone pull a gun on you. Especially if everyone else around them has a gun too.

if violent games/movies and metal music create psychopathic killers, then lock me up.

for i am a walking time bomb

Put it this way, you've all played counter-strike... everyone is armed, but who wins? The team with a bunch of sane rational people, or the lone nut*?




*(not StreX tho)

Yeah but watch ya team mates fall when FF is on :(

Who ever is pro guns is retarded.

the more guns we remove, the more power is concentrated in those who have the guns. the one way to make a society weak is to disarm it.

Easy solution:
Ban firearms and cut off the arms of/execute those caught with one.

they have that now, they are called air marshalls

come on thats the dumbest idea ever, if passengers could carry weapons, then what the f*** are the terrorist going to use

sure as f*** not stanley knives, doesn't level the playing field at all. plus look at the stats for things like home invasions, people who carry weapons to defend themselves are more than likely going to get the weapon turned on themselves.

when some internet gamer pulls out his swiss army knife on a terrorist whos spent 3 years in some s***hole country practicing for that moment, what do you think will happen. and any potential uprising of passengers could be stopped just by taking a hostage. terrorist grabs a 7 year old girl, puts a knife to her throat and says "any of you c***s move and she becomes virgin #63", whos going to zerg rush him then?

plus what happened on 9/11 was unprecedented, most hijackings in the 70s and 80s were for bargaining. israeli jetliner gets captured, they ask for the release of prisoners. i doubt anyone on the first 3 planes of 9/11 knew the plan was so very different, only reason #4 was different because passengers were on the blower to people on the ground.

thats why air marshalls did not exist at the time. i doubt theri effectiveness on an economic scale. it would unaffordable to require an air marshall on every flight. therefore their application would be entirely random.

how can people suggest more guns?
america is saturated with firearms as is.
it won't help.
ever.

how will disarming assist the general populace if the army ever decides to take control?

or will civilisation stay civil for ever...

So Idol, when the police rush the building and are confronted with all the gun-toting students, what might happen then? They don't know who the f*** the original shooter is. There's only a split second there for someone to make a decision and shoot. If anyone, cop or not, goes into a bld under fire and comes face to face with someone else armed they're not going to think about being courteous, they're going to think about staying alive, i.e. killing the other guy. Then what would the body count be?

I used to be pro-gun. I was raised with handguns and used to own a little semiauto rifle too. Then Port Arthur happened and even though we made a pretty good profit selling them back to the govt, I was pissed we had to sell most of our guns.

But when this s*** happens I think how can the US govt not do something. Bush says he is shocked and saddened but does sweet f*** all. The only way anything is going to change is when there are more ppl antiguns than pro. The only thing is there are too many who are pro. It's gonna take a lot of lives over a lot of years for anything to happen.

With regards to shootings and gun control, yes, you will always be able to get guns. Not only can they be snuck past customs (the APF is not completely useless, but they can't stop everything), but there are so many weapons buried pre-buyback and so many still off the books. HOWEVER, the fact that they are not READILY available is what reduces shootings. Sporting rifles sold in Walmart is stupidity. It's asking for trouble.

/rant

If the people have more guns than the Government, and enough people are united against Government policy, then we have the power to keep them in line, which is what they don't want.

Is this trolling?

last edited by JohnnyD at 21:52:14 17/Apr/07

Heh, people.

Well the idea is the police wouldn't need to rush the building... they just stroll in casually after it's over to take notes.

infi, you are aware australia has strict gun control? right? so why is it you don't draw any scrap of understanding of how gun laws have made australia safer? if the very place you live in is a testament to what good can come out of gun control and your sitting there arguing against it, in a thread about another mass murder, your in pretty bad shape...

thats why air marshalls did not exist at the time.

yeah they did actually

thats why air marshalls did not exist at the time

orly?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943716,00.html

In 1970 there were 40 hijackings on U.S. airlines; and to halt the illegal seizure of commercial aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Customs Service in the same year initiated the sky-marshal program.
...
At its peak in 1973, the sky-marshal program had 1,050 men flying selected U.S. routes.

do they know why he did it yet?

if you are trying to say gun control means fewer death by guns you are foolish.

people are murdered by many means and guns are equally as lethal as any of those.

the aus government only limited access to semi-autos. this noob in america used pistols. get a clue.

The invention of gunpowder was the technological precursor of humanities evolutionary demise.

The Galactarian Bible states this.

the aus government only limited access to semi-autos. this noob in america used pistols. get a clue.

They were semi-automatic pistols. Get a clue.

and right on cue, the WBC blames it on fags

classy

meh

"Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement."

last edited by infi at 00:21:19 18/Apr/07

Yeah but watch ya team mates fall when FF is on

QFT

They were semi-automatic pistols. Get a clue.

QFT x 2

I try not to take sides in this argument, but it just seems so hilarious that the people who are pro-right-to-bear-arms continually say stupid things or present absolutely specious and/or contradictory arguments.

Edit: And in the time it took me to post, another gem is presented. The article above states that gun-related deaths continued to decline at the same rate as pre-buyback. I love the professionally presented empirical research quoting both sources of data and rates (such as percent of decline).

last edited by N-Dude at 00:24:16 18/Apr/07

we dont need gun control we need bullet control.

reference:

i stab you

stabbing or beating are the most common forms of homicide. i feel anti-gun people are barking up the wrong tree. go blame someone else hippies.

^^ and it continues. Congratulations. You have broken me.

Infi: if the very place you live in (Australia) is a testament to what good can come out of gun control and your sitting there arguing against it, in a thread about another gun mass murder....f***.

what ever colour helmet you got from the doctors, i dont care; its on way too tight.

gun deaths in rapid decline after buyback

youll notice your articles talk about homocides, not gun deaths infi.

I dont have a lot to add to this thread other than saying that

1) American gun laws are f***ed up
2) I is anti gun and i is arab
3) Glad i dont live in america
4) Werd to Imnt, infi is just itching to get shot in the f***
5) America should try and solve their own peace problems before even thinking about establishing "peace" in other countries.

oh and infini, you dont really put a grain of s*** into what you type.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi108.gif

i know to you this crunchy peice of evidence that you gobbled up into that void behind your eyes, releasing a torrent of infomatic nutrients into that tiny cluster of neurons at the base of your spinal column must have been overwhelming. but if you link statistics that illustrate how low the gun deaths are (in comparison to anything) while submitting that the gun laws and restrictions are ineffective, your amazingly stupid. im speechless...

you know what infi, it would be really funny in a non-morbid, totally ironic way if you got shot tomorrow.

you know what infi, it would be really funny in a non-morbid, totally ironic way if you got shot tomorrow.

Or slit to death >:)~


http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/329/fatknife8zcli9.gif
His funeral will be next tuesday.

last edited by Suckah-Free at 02:35:02 18/Apr/07

he also worked for the united states postal service.................

look out for the posties!

I'd rather ban all guns (except for the cops and army) and take my chances.

Modern Firearms are just too lethal.

FFS! You dumb f***ing idiots (America). If you didn't give people these guns then s*** like this wouldn't happen.

Worst c***ry ever!

Well, as it turns out, this guy has been planning the event for some time. He purchased his Glock over a month ago and another .22 just last week. I would think that with just a little resolve, he would have been able to obtain the weapons from various other sources even if the laws of the US didn't make it so easy.

The student (Cho) apparently wrote a play last semester about killing students and a professor. He was also well known for his other gory works. Another student who was in the same play write class said he almost never spoke to anyone and spent most of class time looking down at his desk with a cap pulled low over his eyes.

On face value, it looks like Cho had some serious mental health problems which have gone unnoticed / ignored. The campus has something like 26,000 students, so, tragically, I can see how this would be possible.

look out for the posties!

they go postal!

thats about the first time i've ever heard booyah say something remotely true..

What is also true is the big dint in your forehead.

What is also true is the big dint in your forehead.

Ironically, That is true. lol.

That's true three times now, including this one, bitch.

look out for the posties!



they go postal!

I used to be a posty...

Yer, now yoa'll better listen to what I have ta say!

WHAT THE FARK, THATS 8 HOURS OF NOTHING!!! DIE!!!

Campo starts serving Beer at 11... well they use to.
They did this to Surveyors and we had some Maths class in the Arvo, those of us that could turn up would be late, loud and on more then one ocassion, fall down the lecture stairs.

They never gave us a break over 1hr for the rest of our course.

(Sorry for the late responce, been ~300k from anything electrical beside my car) for 2 weeks.)

Infi,

Here I am thinking all this time you were only a f..ked up halfwit now I realise you're just a complete f..kwit.

look i am not "pro-gun" but i wonder why guns are singled out. goddamn it, all the other things in this world which cause fatalities every day and are commonly available, yet one mass shooting and a massive costly buy back erupts.

i don't own a gun nor would i get one unless the s*** was about to go down i.e. civil armageddon.

i guess it gets back to my resentment of our gradual erosion of civil liberties.

If I saw a guy with a gun shooting, I'd run.
A guy with a Knife, I'd wait, because I think I could out run.

More people would wait and see for a knife, more people could rush a guy with a knife.

Guy with a gun, could mow down more people, more quickly.


Also, University Staff/Cops were more to blame then guns, in this particular case.
2hours between shootings? If thats correct, thats f***ING crazy.

mmm, talented and sensitive!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html

pretty f***ed up stuff, especially if there was a disturbance even before that occurred u think they would of warned the student and teaching bodies or locked down the university.







however just in bad taste i gotta say i wonder how many headshots he got :|

if you are trying to say gun control means fewer death by guns you are foolish.

people are murdered by many means and guns are equally as lethal as any of those.

We might as well allow rocket-launchers to be carried in public because murders will occur "by any means" and rocket-launchers "are equally as as lethal as any of those".

f*** your logic has a consistent pattern of being extremely flawed :)

/cue "damn anti-gunners" fall-back.

if you are trying to say gun control means fewer death by guns you are foolish.

you really are retarded, the fact is if better gun control existed this clown wouldn't have been able to do what he did with the kind of cruel efficiency he did. an *exchange* student had no trouble getting 2 semi-auto weapons and enough bullets to go on a rampage...

stabbing or beating are the most common forms of homicide. i feel anti-gun people are barking up the wrong tree. go blame someone else hippies.

yeah man, cause a nerdy asian guy is going to be about to run around a university and beat 32 people to death, he wasn't jet li. f*** it amazes me how utterly clueless you are.

the issue of gun control in my opinion is like nuclear armament, it only works when the people with the trigger are rational and responsible. america's policy on guns is completely at odds with the logic of its nuclear policy. some short anti-social asian guy in north korea doesn't have the right to bear nuclear arms, why should some short anti-social asian exchange student have the right to bear fire arms?

america needs to man the f*** up, grab a shield and f*** these nra deads***s over. make some laws. if you want a militia, you can have one, but it has to be registered, and guns can only be owned if you are a part of said militia (or better yet can only be owned by the militia itself) and can only be carried when you are wearing the militia uniform. no problems with the constitution there.

how is an international student allowed to buy guns

it's america. you don't even need a liscence in alot of places.

copy/paste from wikipedia

Virginia allows unlicensed open carry of a handgun that has a capacity of twenty rounds or less, unthreaded barrel and no collapsible stock. (Most handguns fall under this category). Open carry is defined as the gun's true nature is not hidden from general view.

Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders are exempt from:

* One gun a month rules
* Rules regarding open carry firearm restrictions (see above)
* General College Carry Restrictions[27]
* Gun Free School Zone act, CHP holders are allowed to have guns on school grounds in their personal vehicles as long as they stay in the car
* Ban regarding firearms in VA General Assembly.

Virginia CHPs are shall issue.[28]

Open Carry is done throughout the state mainly by Concealed Carry Permit Holders as they enter alcohol serving restaurants as required by state law. However, in more rural parts of Virginia it is more common as a CHP costs money that some rural residents may not be able to afford.

In urban areas, open carry is extremely uncommon, but not unheard of nor illegal under Virginia State law. However, local law enforcement has been known to stop and question individuals who do so.

Under Virginia code, localities may no longer regulate the firearms with sole exception of regulation of discharge of firearms.[29]

NFA34 weapons are allowed under Virginia state law but machine guns must be registered with Virginia State Police.

when you think about america's gun love; its in their constitution, which they would die for, but its also killing 50, 000 of them a year.

Its been revealed this morning that Cho was judged to be a danger to himself and others back in 2005. He was referred to mental health officials by a Judge.

All this and he could still purchase firearms legally. OMFG.

Also, it turns out he's posted a video, photo's and other documents to NBC's New Yorks office between the two sets of killings.

One of the 11 photos he sent was this one below (edited by NBC obviously)

Edit, thanks H.B

http://users.bigpond.net.au/et/images/cho.jpg


last edited by E.T. at 11:38:27 19/Apr/07

look i am not "pro-gun" but i wonder why guns are singled out.

The major function of a gun is to shoot something, usually something living. If it isn't a farmer that living thing is usually a person. So a majority of use of the major function of a gun is to shoot a person.

A knife, for example, has a major function of cutting something. This can be many, many things. Rope, cardboard, tape, etc, yes people are included too. However the difference here is that cutting people is not the majority of use of a knife. I use a knife almost everyday to prepare food.
This is why it is silly to ban a knife and not a gun, for example.

If the major use of the major functions of an item is to kill/maim people, I'm all for banning or restricting it.

Also, it turns out he's posted a video, photo's and other documents to CNN's New Yorks office between the two sets of killings.

NBC actually.

what a sick f@#k

I think he has played Tombraider too much. Is is to early to start making bad taste jokes?

It's never too early if it's directed at him.

Understatement of the year but this fella just was not right in the head.

Dubya said 'the ppl who were killed were in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

Many think that the 'wrong place' is America.

yeah man, cause a nerdy asian guy is going to be about to run around a university and beat 32 people to death, he wasn't jet li. f*** it amazes me how utterly clueless you are.

Man I love this comment, nuff said about the gun debate.

how many guns were used in 9/11?

how many guns were used in 9/11?

How many guns were involved in the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

Well ok quite a few beforehand.

The real question you should be asking is:
What did the government do to avoid such events happening again?

how many guns were used in 9/11?

^ lol

ok ok my turn! how many drops of water are there in the ocean?

Max Relevance ++

last edited by Suckah-Free at 13:29:12 19/Apr/07

How many guns were involved in the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

Careful, someone might call the analogy police and have you thrown in jail for that one

He said something about doing this for god and he would die like Jesus or some crap like that. I wonder how Jesus would feel about him been used as motivation to kill innocent people in his name. I reckon he would pretty cross about it.

I'm not sure if the point you are trying to make infi is the fact that people will always find a way to harm themselves or others. But it is definitely possible to put fail-safes in place proportional to the possible damage caused in order to avoid such things happening again. Not that they are necessarily successful in doing so.

A guy with a knife is going to have a hell of a lot more trouble killing a large number of people in a public place than someone with a gun. So arguably, assuming that the government is meant to keep the welfare of the public as a priority, some mechanisms needs to be in place to mitigate the damage people can do to themselves and others. Is this the erosion of personal responsibility?

Regardless I'm still imagining some crazy ninja guy flipping out and killing everyone as ninjas are known to do from time and thats why nFs post wins this thread.

He said something about doing this for god and he would die like Jesus or some crap like that. I wonder how Jesus would feel about him been used as motivation to kill innocent people in his name. I reckon he would pretty cross about it

Ah very punny :P

Welcome to the Crusades, want to make this a religion thread? ;)

I had a quick look for some stats on gun-related deaths in the US, as mentioned by the late Bill Hicks in one of his routines. I found some info which, while largely heresay (as I haven't verified these numbers "officially") looks fairly accurate in comparison to other sources I have seen quoted.

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
from: http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

And yes, these stats weren provided by a anti-gun group in the US. And sure the US has a much larger population.

But percentage wise they are still way out in front when it comes to killing themselves as evidenced by the article below.

Here's a more academic account:

During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

NB: UMI = Upper Middle Income and HI = High Income.

More info here: Academic Journal Article extract

Careful, someone might call the analogy police and have you thrown in jail for that one

Bah I thought it was just as bad as the analogy I was responding to, which was after all my entire point.

I will endeavour to make more valid comparisons in future :P

a ninja with 35 shuriken would be very dangeorous.

my point is that regardless of the means available to a potential mass-murderer, if that person is bent on causing injury to others they will find a way to do it.

banning guns is not the answer - focusing on mental health and regulating access to dangerous weapons through licensing and aptitude tests are far more appropriate than just blanket banning firearms when the populace will inevitably one day need these firearms to protect themselves from unwanted guests.

I don't want nutjobs to be in possession of guns either as they are lethal weapons but no more lethal than motor vehicles or commercial passenger jets (which require licensing too, BUT THEY AREN'T BANNED).

when the populace will inevitably one day need these firearms to protect themselves from unwanted guests.

Protect us from what? Ze Germans?

I don't want nutjobs to be in possession of guns either

Sell yours immediately.

I don't think "banning guns" is the issue.
Stricter gun control coupled with a focus on prevention - mental health issues addressed and education strengthened would seem the logical next step.

Of course people are going to get guns if they want them. But making them harder to get means less guns out there which means less guns are sold, bought, stolen etc etc.

when the populace will inevitably one day need these firearms to protect themselves from unwanted guests.

WTF? Who are these unwanted guests? Terrorists? Indonesians?

And inevitably? How is it inevitable that we will need guns? Last I heard we had armies and police to protect countries from outside threats, not roving bands of hillbillies who are untrained and desperate to kill something, anything.

I used to have a boss who was a private school army cadet military obsessed warmongering fat f***. This is the sort of drivel he would spout. "Oh but we needs guns because what if we get attacked?" Mate if we get attacked and our MILITARY fails, I don't think a bunch of gun toting yokels who shot some cans off a fence in their backyard are gonna do jack s***.

my point is that regardless of the means available to a potential mass-murderer, if that person is bent on causing injury to others they will find a way to do it.

Killing 32 people with a knife takes a lot more skill and time then it does with a firearm.

if you think that our brief period of civil "rest" that we presently enjoy will stay like this forever I wish you the best of luck.

this little thing called ancient and modern history tends to suggest otherwise.

PS When I said

I don't think "banning guns" is the issue.

I meant that an across the board blanket ban on all firearms would be ineffective and I would expect anyone advocating such a measure would be fairly unrealistic and misinformed.
eg Sports shooting ie target shooting etc is a legitimate use of a firearm in civilian possession.
Strict gun control isn't about banning ALL guns, just regulating it to the point where it is very difficult to get a gun in the first place.

It is not about "banning" all guns, just about reducing risk to the community. You could argue that people die in car accidents and we don't ban cars, but there are still fairly strict laws governing their use eg speed limits etc. given that cars are considered by most people to be a necessity. A car license is not as easy as filling out a form and waiting a predetermined period. There is a theory and practical exam, both of which are fairly stringent (although not as tough as they should be IMO). While this doesn't stop all fatalities, it certainly reduces the risk of inexperienced and incompetent people on the road. Why not the same with guns?

you really are retarded, the fact is if better gun control existed this clown wouldn't have been able to do what he did with the kind of cruel efficiency he did. an *exchange* student had no trouble getting 2 semi-auto weapons and enough bullets to go on a rampage...

pretty sure he was a permanent US resident

if you think that our brief period of civil "rest" that we presently enjoy will stay like this forever I wish you the best of luck.

If you think that 50 odd years of civil rest is brief enough to be put into scale with ancient and modern history then there is no hope left for you.

and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13).

der

ninjas use swords

http://www.animoids.com/images/animated/AnimatedNinja.gif

I'm pretty sure they were...(sobs)...Asian.

banning guns is not the answer - focusing on mental health and regulating access to dangerous weapons through licensing and aptitude tests are far more appropriate than just blanket banning firearms when the populace will inevitably one day need these firearms to protect themselves from unwanted guests.

First of all, let's consider the logistical difficulties of what you're offhandedly suggesting.

Licensing and aptitude tests? Who is going to pay for that? More importantly, who is going to perform them?

I sure as f*** don't want my tax dollars going to a system that will be almost UTTERLY USELESS at preventing "the wrong person" from getting a gun - just so we can have MORE GUNS on the streets.

Secondly - unwanted guests? I'm not sure if by "populace" you're referring to us as a group, like there's some possible future need where we might have to band together to fight off, as fpot suggests, ze germans. Or if you mean like, people breaking and entering, sort of thing. Clarify?

edit oh wait I just saw this:

this little thing called ancient and modern history tends to suggest otherwise.

Ah, so you are implying that we may experience a World War, or something like that.

Well thinking about it historically, what good is citizens owning handguns going to do? If some population holds out against your force of trained soldiers invading, they'll just carpet bomb you.

Sorry, but that justification just will not ever work. You're talking about a completely massively unlikely event and saying that everyone having guns is justified by it.

last edited by trog at 17:11:37 19/Apr/07

Wow, laying waste to 32 people with a 9mm and .22 =\

Humans are so fragile and yet capable of so much destruction :(

.22's are weaksauce.

nutjob

vids he sent the news office

part1




and part 2

I think it'd be harder for these sprees to happen if compact weapons were banned. Is there really a good legitimate reason for the public to own a handgun anyway? Even if they wanted a firearm for home defense, wouldn't a rifle be adequate?

Though I suppose sawn-off shotguns and collapsable stock weapons could still be fairly easily smuggled in, especially under those big emo trenchcoats like the one cho was wearing.

I think one of the other big problems is the fact that many of the states wish to hold onto their powers rather than giving them over to the federal arm of the government. Many states have far stricter gun laws, but since there is obviously no border security between states, even if one state wishes to ban firearms all together, you can just drive out to another state, pick up what you need and return home again, just a weekend job with some planning.

Without a blanket firearm policy, it's rather pointless trying to push through with legislation changes in your own territory.

On the topic of self defense though, it's a pity nobody had a decent range tazer or something. Rather than equipping firearms for self defense, surely there are other less functionally ambiguous weapons to protect yourself, which could be better promoted instead of firearms?

Heck, even a smoke bomb might have helped, someone mentioned ninjas right? :p

see dont read that reliogous crap ,bible/koran,etc.

like 32 people is a big drama out of 6 billion ffs anyway.it happens move on.

my point is that regardless of the means available to a potential mass-murderer, if that person is bent on causing injury to others they will find a way to do it.

banning guns is not the answer - focusing on mental health and regulating access to dangerous weapons through licensing and aptitude tests are far more appropriate than just blanket banning firearms when the populace will inevitably one day need these firearms to protect themselves from unwanted guests.

I don't want nutjobs to be in possession of guns either as they are lethal weapons but no more lethal than motor vehicles or commercial passenger jets (which require licensing too, BUT THEY AREN'T BANNED).

you really just don't get it. handguns have 1 purpose alone: too kill people. they are useless for hunting, they get you to the shops, they won't get you england to see your cousins wedding. nope, handguns are purely to kill people. anything else they do is secondary to that.

banning guns doesn't stop people being wack jobs, what it does is removes the tool they can use to kill f***ing 30 people in less than an hour (and 2 earlier on that morning). sure, he could have done the same or worse if he took the controls of a plane. the big difference is the pure efficiency of a handgun and causing death. a handgun being wielded by someone with the ability and motivation is the f***ing hand of god. you point, pull a trigger and that person is dead. now why in the f*** do you want that ability available to any random? a car can kill, a plane can kill, but you don't just point either and end someones existence in an instant. 9/11 took millions of dollars, hundreds of people and years of planning to pull off. it was an impossibly well planned terror attack. it wasn't a college student, a postal worker or an unemployed mental retard walking into a crowd and killing dozens of people. what made 9/11 so frightening is the horrific scale and the level of planning, what makes what happened this week and others like it so scary, is also the horrific scale but also how simply planned and easy it was.

he didn't train in afganistan for 3 years, he didn't learn to pilot a plane, all he did visit walmart and buy 2 guns and a bucket of ammunition.

why are guns such a horrible thing? because you put the ultimate power, to end human life, potentially in the hands of someone who has no responsibility to anyone else, no respect for life and in this case a point to prove and a grudge to settle.

some bulls*** paranoid delusion that society is looking at imminent collapse is no reason for people to own a handgun. everyone owning handguns IS the failure of society.

f*** me ... I must be wrong ... I agree with nF

whatever your opinions are about the new silverchair album, they are totally wrong

they won't get you england to see your cousins wedding.

how many cousins do you have in england nf ?

i had 4 weddings and funeral all in the one year

whatever your opinions are about the new silverchair album, they are totally wrong

Its s***, I wish it was good but its not. Maybe after radio plays it in to the ground I'll have absorbed it into acceptance.

what about 30 odd people that stood there and got shot,doesnt that say alot about modern people and modern life ,what were thinking about ,who they can sue? defend yourself ffs .his kill ratio suggests to me he had time to aim at vital organs or head .maybe most of them were to worried about their own life to risk it defendin g someone else.a guy at range with an assult rifle i can understand killing 30 or so but one (untrained i guess) guy with 2 9mm pistols at close range killing 30 plus people raises questions i reckon.

CSI: QGL

you should pass that info to the virginia police, cause i'm absolutely sure nobody has considered that

I'd say defending yourself against someone with two 9mm handguns isnt quite as easy as you make it out to be. People would have been scared and trying to hide, not trying to zerg rush the guy. As to what they were thinking, they were probably thinking if I don't act like a hero, I might survive.

cause u can out run or dodge a bullet easily right, moron.

they were probably thinking if I don't act like a hero, I might survive.

Exactly, most of the times heroes are just people that got lucky in the situation, if someone rushed him 95% chance they would of died, 5% chance they would of taken him down... id prefer to sissy bolt and save my ass, unless i had my bow then id take him down from 100 meters

I believe a student tried to assist the first victim, and was immediately shot dead. Perhaps there were other such incidents.

hide behind a door and when he comes in.. backpunch

What could possibly go wrong?!

maybe most of them were to worried about their own life to risk it defendin g someone else.a guy at range with an assult rifle i can understand killing 30 or so but one (untrained i guess) guy with 2 9mm pistols at close range killing 30 plus people raises questions i reckon.

Yes, I think the average CS player could have easily taken him out as well, you're quite right

(PS, your post is completely and utterly silly)

If computer games are the problem, then I don't see why they can't be the answer too?

Yes, I think the average CS player could have easily taken him out as well, you're quite right

Haha, reminds me of a SA article a while back:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/us-vs-taliban.php

Counter-Strike players are known throughout the world as being the most aggressive, obnoxious, hyperactive creatures in existence. They're single-minded nutballs who only take a break from playing Counter-Strike to talk about guns, eat, update their clan site, write stories about guns, eat, draw pictures of guns, or eat guns. This mindless, one track devotion makes them the perfect killing machines... and since they claim to already be so knowledgeable in guns and the art of killing, they won't even need any training! All we do is box them up, ship them across the sea, load em into another plane, and drop them out of a plane over Afghanistan! Parachutes would be optional. The ensuing confusion would render the Taliban helpless:

COUNTER-STRIKE PLAYER #1: "DUDE! Afghanistan is just like de_dust!"
COUNTER-STRIKE PLAYER #2: "Double-you tee eff?!? This AWP is a lot heavier than in the game! How the f***-zor am I supposed to jump around with this?!?"

They sure are....?

Well that didn't work....


last edited by Chakas at 23:10:20 19/Apr/07

a car can kill ... but you don't just point either and end someones existence in an instant.

what the f*** are you on? this happens daily. 1 gun mass murder in how many years since columbine and everyone is OMG BAN DE GUNS!!

32 people dead. In one go.
Not counting the thousands of others.

32 people dead in a single Traffic Accident and there would be hell too.

Guns are designed to kill. Car's are designed to not kill.

1 gun mass murder in how many years since columbine and everyone is OMG BAN DE GUNS!!

Actually I think there's a number of other valid reasons people are saying that. And there's actually been a few of these things since Columbine (my quick count is 20 people killed at schools in those incidents collectively).

Question: What would make schools in the US safer - less guns, or more guns?

more guns because you can never get rid of all the guns. If you outlaw the guns then only outlaws will have guns

what the f*** are you on? this happens daily. 1 gun mass murder in how many years since columbine and everyone is OMG BAN DE GUNS!!

when was the last time someone got behind the wheel of a car angry with rich people and sluts, and drive it into a crowd and killed 32 people.

people die in cars as the result of accidents, its tragic and not ever completely avoidable. letting people legally buy a gun without a license and without a real purpose is stupid, seeing all it takes is one suicidal person to snuff out 32 lives. you'll also notice in australia that all cars are required to be registered, all drivers are required to licensed, 3rd party insurance is mandatory and an effective demerit system is in place for people driving in an safe way. in virginia, the only restriction for semi-auto hand guns is that you can't buy more than 1 a month. you can legally carry one in most public areas so long as it is visible.

also, comparing guns to cars is about your stupidest attempt at proving your f***ed up point so far.

understand this: handguns are for killing people, civilians don't need them. at all. ever.

infinite stupidity.

hold on, while I get my gun! I need to cut my steak!


I'm in whole hearted agreeance that anything thats sole purpose is to cause harm to other people, (because seriously, who shoots a fox on a farm with a handgun? or who shoots a bear with a handgun? or who shoots an old bull that was hurt with a handgun?) should be banned and destroyed.

Let's also look at it from another side. ACCIDENTAL deaths from guns are VERY low in australia because there's not a gun in every house for the kids in the household to get and accidentally shoot someone with.

And let's look at fire-crackers? Since queensland banned firecrackers and fireworks from the general public back ages ago, I'd like to know the statistics of the number of kids who've blown their hands off with fireworks/explosives now, vs back in the days when they were allowed to?

It's not only INTENTIONAL deaths we should look at and compare, but ACCIDENTAL deaths also. I'd be willing to bet my left testicle that accidental deaths from hand-guns etc would have dramatically dropped after the buyback?

And sure, your research could say that gun death rates had already slowed before the buyback, but there's no evidence to prove the other side, where if they hadn't outlawed guns, would the rates rise dramatically as our society changed and refugees and immigrants made their way into Australia, and our population rose.

I think we had the smartest approach which was to eliminate the product of death, not the person who bears the product of death.

By the way, does anyone mind clicking post for me, I've got to go find a new parking spot for my handgun, I think the meter just ran out and I'll be buggered if I'm gonna get a parking fine while posting on QGL!

more guns because you can never get rid of all the guns. If you outlaw the guns then only outlaws will have guns

this is my point. why wouldn't you want the law abiding citizens to be armed, and only have the criminals and wackos packing heat. i mean seriously, cut your balls off while you're at it.

this is my point. why wouldn't you want the law abiding citizens to be armed

OH I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN VIRGINIA.

until this guy opened fire, he hadn't broken any laws. same with colombine. same with dunblane. same with port arthur. these people weren't criminals until the mass murders.

so tell me why wouldn't you want law abiding citizens to be armed?

why wouldn't you want the law abiding citizens to be armed, and only have the criminals and wackos packing heat.

yeah good point, obviously what is needed is for all wackos (ie those people planning a massacre, or those unbalanced enough to do so on the spur of the moment) to come forward and identify themselves so they can be banned from owning handguns and semi-auto rifles.

i should put more trust in people i guess, i mean surely someone with homocidal and suicidal desires wouldn't lie.

it seems reasonable to me that 10 people could take on 1 armed man and overpower him rather than do nothing and get shot anyway.

Seriosuly, what part of:

GUNZ BRO GUNZ + BAD PEOPLE = BANG BANG TO GOOD PEOPLE, dont you understand? Anyone with any sort of common sense will tell ya that more guns does not solve the problem, that's why shootings as such happen in the first place.

I dont know why you guys bother with this clown anyway, surely he's on something other than ass crack.




last edited by Suckah-Free at 01:32:14 20/Apr/07

it's very brave of you to say that idontwananame. I'd like to see you think of that idea when you're risking death.

Any hero can stand here now and say that you could easily overpower him, but when you're in that situation, I know where i'd be... I'd be running to the nearest ticket booth buying a one way ticket to getthef***outofheresville.

and to whoever it was that said it was cowardly or some s*** that people weren't trying to overpower him, I think it's an idiot that plays the hero, these people had families, so to play hero and leave their families behind, maybe even kids behind would be irresponsible. Self preservation so they can look after kids/loved ones is what should've really been their first priority. Second priority, would then be to safely save someone else from harm's way, but not first.

Well it's not like they had a lot of warning. Half of the class probably would have had holes in them before they realised what was going on. I think it would have a strange psychological effect on me if I saw a mate of mine bleeding and writhing all over the floor whether I'd been shot or not. I'm sure some people probably went into shock too, which would've just made them easier targets.

I think even just having the common sense to escape is commendable.

last edited by icewyrm at 02:41:26 20/Apr/07

The wikipedia article mentions one victim as a member of faculty who heard the shooting and 'came downstairs to see if he could help'. If this is true it should illustrate the disdain that the offender had for heroes.

that said, this guy fired a lot of bullets from the same gun, he must have reloaded a lot, it's a shame someone couldn't have whupped his arse during one of those breaks

everyone had probably quite rightly barricaded themselves into classrooms by that stage. the offender seemed to have no problems entering classrooms and shooting through the door people trying to keep them shut. every university classroom I've seen has lockable doors, what was he doing, kicking them down?

^ did you miss the part where they said he was Asian? Asians are born by kicking their way out of their mothers womb.. like duh

fair enough - i was thinking he looks like a poof, not enough of an axe to roundhouse kick a door like chuck norris

but the fact that he's asian.. hmm

check out this piece of s***

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article...2&in_page_id=34

"This is the face of the teenage student who may have sparked the biggest gun massacre in US history."

what garbage journalism.



on a different note this article is pretty interesting

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/VATech/story?id=3056168&page=1

its a forensic psychiatrist talking about the video's cho sent to NBC

"If anybody cares about the victims in Blacksburg and if anybody cares about their children, stop showing this video now. Take it off the Internet. Let it be relegated to YouTube," Welner said. "This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe.

Gunman kills 33 in uni rampage ( 1 2 3 4 ... 6 7 8 9 )

My guess is the three dots take up more room than a simple 5

Kat makes another invaluable contribution to qgl forums.

Hi infi, maybe this info will help your cause..


Canada has a similar amount of firearms as the US, allthough their gun kill rate is far less, I think it is on par with the rest of the world. Perhaps you should focus on why Canada can have lots of guns and not die from them alot, while the US cant it seems.

The dude who killed 33 people aquired the guns about 30 days prior to the event. So restrictions on guns probabaly wouldnt have helped much in this case, only would have made it harder/more expensive for him to get them. This may have had a small chance of stopping him using guns.

The dude also had a history of anti-social behaviour, I think he set fire to something or other at one point.

The police knew he was a maniac and couldnt/didnt do anything about it.

You could arguee that guns aren't the problem in this case. It could be said it is similar to blaming games for game-style homicides.
This guy was a very sad/depressed young man, who tried to get help several times and the system failed him, and the 40+ people killed/injured. Unfortunatly this case cannot be used to justify the banning of guns. It can, however, be used to justify the overhaul of the mental health system of America and similar countries with similar mental health issues.
Untill that is addressed events like this will continue to happen.

Enjoy.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 10:34:42 20/Apr/07

nope, that didn't help infi's ridiculously misguided cause at all

I'm all for banning guns. I really think most civilians dont need a firearm of any type. Livestock farmers would be the exception. Security guards I would say are borderline. Sport shooters should be able to own a gun with heavy restrictions.

Infi needs to refocus his argument on things that make sense :P

^ lol how long b4 the nuke?

ultimatley its americas problem not ours.
interesting to see what happens though... (probably nothing)

i think infi is as much of a nutter as this guy was.

WTF was he thinking in this shot?

http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/et/images/laraCho.jpg

infi.

Guns for self defence is a misnomer, why ?
In my opinion ...

• to safely store a gun in your house it needs to have a trigger lock and be stored in a gun safe. Maybe even with ammunition stored in a different location or the firing pin removed. To prevent accidents with over inquisitive young people. So in the case you do need it, you have to open a safe, remove a lock, and go to the other location and get your weapon. In which time you could have rung the police and got the hell out of the danger probably
  
• it escalates the violence in the situation, you have brandished deadly force, for the "crim" to continue their crime they must now apply deadly force, you have made it kill or be killed. At Taekwondo we teach people in a self defence situation if you get attacked, hands up and open not clenched, talk to the attacker in a calm tone and not to loud, to try de-escalate the situation.
  
• you have to be willing to kill someone, even if you think you are fine with it, it doesn't mean you won't be affected if needed to use such force.
  
• self defence is "reasonable force", shooting someone dead probably is excessive force in most situation, so you kill someone get some baggage and may end up in prison.
  
• you better be good with that gun, or you just gave the "crim" a gun to shoot you with.
  
• it increases the number of weapons available, I'll know you argue you can them anyway and you can, but its significantly more difficult and expensive.
  
• it means crims have to get better weapons and are more likely to use them for fear of the victim defending themselves.
  

"But laws don't stop guns being available"
True, There is a big difference between going to your local department store and buy a couple of high powered, semi automatic pistols and having to join a club and pass a licence test or knowing some for of serious criminal.

I doubt that Virginia Tech guy would have got 2 high powered semi automatic pistols with that much hollow point ammunition here.

I have been trained in 9mm browning pistols, .223 F-88 Aussteyers, 5.56 F-89 minimi, Mag58's, m72's, CharlieG's, "22"'s, shotguns. And because most of the training (all but 22's and shotties) was military I learnt to shoot them at humans, the vast majority of targets I shot at were human silhouettes and in the case of the electronic range they were human images. I have done live falling plate shoots in urban and and "jungle" environment. Been a member of a small bore rifle club and a skeet shoot club. Thankfully never had to actually shoot at someone. But if I had to, I think I could...
And after saying all that, never have ever felt "I wish I had a gun, I don't feel safe".

Guns serve a single purpose, and that is killing, they are not a life jacket, seat belt, or a helmet (or some other safety device). If guns make you safe, then why should countries be prevented from getting nuclear weapons ? they are just trying to stay safe.

i have to agree with obes again...

to my mind a hand gun is a point and click killing device, and everyone having a gun on them would not in anyway make the world safer. its completely counter-intuitive to say that.

to take it to the extreme, it'd be like if instead of hand guns, everyone had a big red button on their forehead that instantly stopped their heart. i sure as hell wouldn't feel safer knowing that anyone around me could kill me if they, on a whim, felt the need to.

this is my point. why wouldn't you want the law abiding citizens to be armed, and only have the criminals and wackos packing heat. i mean seriously, cut your balls off while you're at it.

In addition to the other points made above, the other obvious reason is that if you do find someone with a gun, then you can instantly assume they're not a law abiding citizen and take further action against them.

lolz ET

too much publicity for this guy

far too much

it's important to get mental health issues out there for discussion but this is just going overboard and giving other homicidal nutbars ideas

Yeah there will be other nutters out there thinking that can beat 32 people and they will also know the attention that will create afterwards...... man I hate the media.

When was the last time someone did something good that got this much coverage?

Yeah there will be other nutters out there thinking that can beat 32 people

that'd make a good computer game

Refer here:

my joke was posted before?

Nuked before.

nothing like racist jokes about tragedies to really make you look classy

too soon eh?

yeah we only like irwin jokes round here.