Printable View
Since I'm in this field - tracking discipline for students - developing PDA app's to handle building lockdowns - student evaluations - I would rather see who the person was that could sink to this level.
I'm not offended by seeing his video - I'm more interested in knowing what makes a sick mind like this tic.
The other networks are taking jabs at NBC for this - but not for any reason other than sour grapes.
I agree with that as long as the training and license are reasonably priced, just like with driver's licenses. I don't support ideas that would allow Hollywood celebs, top corporate officials, and their bodyguards to be armed while us "great unwashed" couldn't afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I know that whenever I've mentioned any kind of required firearms training in conservative or libertarian slanted discussion forums I've gotten flamed pretty good. Most are concerned either by the elitist angle, the slippery sloop analogy or they're simply just annoyed with the government being in their business.
Actually it is pretty cost effective if you're at it for a while. After you get past the price of guns and ammo all you're paying for is fuel and your license. When I was a starving student, For 40 dollars I could get enough red meat, bird meat and enough fly tying materials to last a year. Add another 40 for a freshwater license and I got fish added to the menu. Add another 200 bucks for fertilizer and seed and I got a half years worth of vegetables. Of course eating the same thing every other day sort of sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I took that hunters safety class when I was 11. It was actually a very good class and out of the 30 or so people in it, it probably saved a life or two.
I picked up a book on bow building, I haven't read it yet. I'm still waiting on the parts for the new fly rod I'm building to show up. My next project is a driftboat, then I'll probably start on a recurve bow. Long bows are nice and I'll probably get one in a couple years for my boy to learn on, but It's difficult to get one to shoot enough FPS to hunt any big game with.
BTW It's not flippant It's the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
^+1^
And what does that symbol mean??Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcoder
Agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Agreement as PG said, I was going to put only +1 but there is a 4 min characters rule so I added the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I wasn't counting squirrels;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Seriously, though, I never calculated it based on a need for food. I was only counting elk and deer, and I see I have wildly miscounted. I ignored the cost of the weapons and ammo, and was basing the calculation on the amount people were paying for liscense and elk tags vs the amount of meat they were getting in a year. Since that is a relatively tricky animal to harvest, meat hunters can spend a significant amount of time, and still only harvest every other year or so. Had I added in all the various options in the sportsmans packs available today, the cost per pound would have dropped to pennies. Add in fish, and it would be VERY cheap indeed.
so most people agree with the concept of being able to defend themselves, after all any civilisation without a defense is just asking to be conquered.
however, that doesn't mean that everyone should have a nuclear weapon at their disposal.
so personal defense is allowed in some countries meaning that martial arts machettes and guns are legal.
It is PERMITTED to post more than one sentence per post.
you should ask a moderator that question :D
Penegate does raise an interesting point though, moderator = adjudicator = judge = justice
is a terrorist a person that does random acts of violence, or is a terrorist doing the acts of violence because they feel victimised either personally or acts done to their country or their beliefs?
justice implies a balance; for a wrong act there is supposed to be compensation to balance the injustice.
if we had justice at all levels of society as well as internationally, would we be neutralising and minimising the terrorist theat?
with a system based on perfect justice there would be adequate compensation for all victims meaning there would be no logical reason for terrorist activities, leaving only the insane to worry about.
they said on the news the psychiatrists didn't admit him to hospital, so what was the reason for the killing, he referred to himself as jesus the archetypal innocent victim, what was the source of the injustice he was responding to?
Learning C - Stick to one post.
Ok a few things - this post at times has become borderline and if people dont continue to respect other peoples comments we will have to close it!
My views are simple, I live in the Uk where guns are fairly rare. I've read alot about people saying they want to carry guns to defend themselves? Well doesnt this just esculate into I carry a gun you shoot me I shoot you blah blah and then your all dead? It seems a very 'caveman' approach. Prehaps I'm incorect but thats my view.
Also if you have a look at the number of school shootings in the US isnt that because guns are so avalible and carying one is just normal?
What we are seeing is an extreme incident where a person was obviously messed up in the head. But non the less he was able to obtain a couple of guns. Surley having the option for crazy people to get guns isnt the best way?
I offer sympothies for the people involved in this.
Pino
Guns have been in American society since the beginning (of America, that is), but school shootings have not. It is easy to blame guns for the problems, and I tend to favor that, despite it not being the case. The real problem is much more difficult, and we really hate difficult problems. After all, society as a whole is much less violent than it was fifty years ago. Back then, the violence was not as random as it now is, but lynching, mass violence, organized violence, etc. were much more prevalent. Much of that has gone away from all parts of society except a few (inner city slums, for one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pino
As for the cause of the seemingly random, isolated, incidents of violence that are pretty common in this society, everybody picks their own bogeyman to shoulder the blame. Evangelicals say it is immorality, conservatives choose liberal attitudes, liberals choose conservative crap, other groups (with no particular name or creed) choose movies, videogames, etc. Which one is right? I certainly don't know.
Therefore, I will place the blame squarely on TV, and anybody who disagrees with me is, of course, and idiot. Bah! Humbug!
are you sure he was crazy, apparently he was examined in hospital and they evaluated him as sane. Sane people do sometimes undertake terrorist activities if they feel victimised. It is easy to dismiss anyone capable of performing a mass killing as insane, however, that would be shortsighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pino
Insane is barely a technical and medical term.
Do you think this person knew compasion? Knew what love was?
Everyone feels rage - that's a normal passion. Having the other parts of your personality in place to counter your rage moments is what is expected.
I would venture to guess this person had many negative personality traits and conditions. Obviously not enough to be committed (with the system we have in place today) - but then most criminals get out of jail after serving a sentence to once again commit some heinous act.
So one hospital stay that didn't result in the proper folks seeing the full depth of his depravity is an indictment of the mental health system that we all ignore...
I heard that he was ruled a danger to himself and others by a magistrate. I had not heard that he was ruled to be sane, but that he just wasn't considered sufficiently dangerous to be committed. That's a very hard thing to do in VA because of the wording of the laws of that state.
the ability to kill people doesn't define insanity, a soldier who presses the button on a smart bomb that kills several hundred people is not necessarily insane. I read the opposite SH, that he wasn't ruled insane. what was the reason that he had for killing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Computer games
I did it all for the nookie :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Well, I do not know one person that carries a gun on themselves. Most people in the US do not carry firearms. Even in States where concealed carry is legal, most public government buildings and just about every private business bans guns from their premises. So it's a rather inconvenient self-defence weapon to have while going about one's daily business. There are far more inexpensive and sufficiently effective self-defence weapons to choose from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pino
The real usefulness of a gun is for self-defence in protecting your home from intruders. If the burglar has a handgun, you will be immediately disadvantaged. That should not be the case and therefore I would never support a law that disadvantaged a homeowner from protecting their property. (publicized case in point: http://dynamic.cnn.com/apps/tp/video.../video.ws.asx? )
The Virgina Tech shooting was a failure in the system. Why this individual's background check came clean when he was sent for mental treatment previously is beyond me. Hopefully, that will be something that will be remediated.
From what I've read the results of his court ordered mental health hearing did not qualify him for inclusion in the databases searched for firearm purchase background checks because it did not result in him being committed to a mental hospital involuntarily. I think we'll see an expansion of the coverage of this law to include any kind of court ordered mental health care due to this incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pino
Of course, this would only prevent a person bent on such mayhem from obtaining the weapon legally. They could still get their hands on a firearm in various illegal ways ranging from straw purchases made from legitimate dealers to the black market.
He came back clean because he was not convicted of any crime. That is the way it should be. He was arrested for stalking and the person that he was allegedly stalking dropped the charges. <-- that was the problem. You can't go and torpedo due process just because someone slipped through the cracks. Any cop and over zealous district attny can arrest someone, that doesn't mean they are nutts or actually comitted a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
I didn't hear one way or another about sanity, I just heard that he was ruled a threat. That's a pretty anemic ruling, but as others noted, he had committed no crime up to that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
I have heard a long discussion on the technicalities of VA law regarding this issue. The way it is written, he has to have physically threatened a person before the state is legally allowed to intervene. All he had was disturbing writing, and disturbing behavior. In some states, the laws are written such that this pattern of behavior is sufficient to intervene, but not in VA.
Now, some might say that people should have acted because they had warnings, but under VA law, they could have been held civily, and possibly criminally, liable for most actions. This tied their hands in the abscence of a directly stated threat. Bet that law changes right fast.
so if we want to actually learn anything about how to protect the community from such acts in the future, given that he wasn't ruled a threat to himself or the community and not commited involuntarily, we need to find out what he was reacting to; why did he kill 33 people. he left videos, a 25 page document and other material. clearly he wanted to make a point, what was it? only with such evidence can we draw any conclusions regarding his motives and state of mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
given that the material was posted to the media, it will either be drawn out as long as possible, or if too politically sensitive, banned by the government. ;)
Isn't it interesting though that both Switzerland and Norway both have free gun laws similar to that of the US. Yet the rate of deaths by firearms in Switzerland is something like less than 1% and Norway is just over 2%. The US is over 7% (I think).
I'm not entirely convinced that the free gun laws are at fault. In Switzerland it is common for automatic rifles to be carried in cars, yet there are hardly any gun crimes.
I for one would blame the attitude difference to guns between the US and Switzerland. In the US guns are glorified in the mass media of movies and music (especially Rap, R&B and Hip-hop) so it is not really surprising that they are used more in the US to kill innocents
As he was a US resident since 8 he was legally entitled to purchase handguns, which he did. There is no way this guy could have been stopped from the beginning.
I for one would question the response of the police. This guy shot two people, went back to his apartment for 2 hours, then proceeded to the other side of the campus to kill another 30.
What in the world were those police doing for two hours!?! If they'd followed this guys movements in reverse from the scene they'd have known he was a resident. They could have then arrested him at his own apartment and saved 30 lives. Instead, the world gets to watch a local cop, running (although as he was way over 300lbs it was more like walking fast) to where the guy was murdering 30 innocent civilians. Heads should roll for the lack of police training and response
One of the things that struck me when I saw the footage he made of himself (and I've only seen a small amount of it) was that this guy seemed to think life was like the movies. He behaved like a wierd combination of 'Persecuted Carrie' and 'Out-For-Justice Rambo'.Quote:
guns are glorified in the mass media of movies and music
That seems to be a fairly common trait in the US. Your generals all wear dark glasses and chew on cigars, half you citizens seem to think they're John Wayne while the other half seem to think they're Tom Hanks and you're president clearly thinks he's the white hatted cowboy in a 50's western.
These are, of course, sweeping generalisations seen through the eye of a liberal Euro-Weenie media so I'm sure they're not accurate but that really is how you guys come across sometimes. Actually, it's often one of your more endearing qualities (though obviously not when it turns into an all out psychosis like it did with this guy).
From what I heard the police followed what turned out to be an incorrect lead. They mistakenly surmised that the death of the girl in the dorm house was committed by her boyfriend and they pursued that lead off campus. I have not heard a connection between the girl that died in the dorm and the shooter yet. If it is indeed just a random killing then it would be very hard (if not impossible) for the police to find the shooter in the matter of a few hours. Therefore I don’t think we can blame the police for any kind of lack of response. It’s easy to look back in hindsight after everything has happened but the police can only go on the information they have and then follow the most promising leads first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
X
Wasn't it his ex-girlfriend? And the reason he started the rampage was beacuse she dumped him...so he killed both her and her new boyfriend
Nope. I think that was originally reported in initial reports but that isnt the case. The latest that I have heard is they are still looking for a link between the girl and the shooter. The guy that was killed was the dorm resident who came to see what was going on. There was no relationship between the guy and girl that got shot in the dorm room, other than the guy was the resident of that dorm. That is why they thought it was possibly the boyfriend of the girl and some domestic thing initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
X
Xanith is correct, but one other item: From the original reports, the dorm shooter was not identified as being oriental, and I have not yet heard any solid evidence that the dorm shooter was the same guy....other than the fact that the gun was the same. For days, when this was all over the news, the police were very carefully avoiding saying that the two shooters were the same person, which had plenty to do with the dorm witnesses saying the shooter wasn't oriental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
In addition to that, this was the first time in history that a mass murderer took a two hour break to shoot videos of himself before returning to the crime. They were justified in assuming that they should be looking somewhere other than campus.
The police did a fine job, and could only have done better if they had the clarity of hindsight.
The report I heard was that the magistrate ruled that he was a potential threat to himself and others. I have heard no subsequent report stating otherwise. That simply wasn't direct enough under VA law. They require an immenent threat, not a theoretical one. He made no overt threats, and therefore, in VA he couldn't be touched.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
:ehh: When did our president start thinking?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Two murderous incidents on a campus that has had no murders in the last 6 years - on the same day? Probability would seem to favor the same individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...-tech-shootingQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
apparently he was held for one day and was not deemed a danger to the public.
the report quotes him as saying:
"You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," he says, apparently reading from his manifesto. "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
who is he referring to? what happened to him to make him feel so persecuted? we need access to the raw information to determine what was really going on in his mind.
My guess is he was referring to his classmated seeing as that was who he decided to mow down with bullets.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Typical school shooting. The little guy who is sort of shy and different getts picked on to the point of doing something insane. Go figure, Damn teenagers need to be a lot nicer to each other.
well that could well be it :D, was he responding to bullying?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I think they have compiled it all here.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
http://www.crazydudesthoughts.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Sure does, but the police were not saying that it was the same person for several days, they couldn't place the shooter in the dorm, and the first eye witnesses that came forward identified the shooter as not being asian. Oddly, the events have dropped out of the media I have seen before this got resolved. On the other hand, I have stopped paying attention to the media because other issues have come up, but maybe this has been resolved in the meantime.
It is the very nature of the media. They are only interested in current affairs so anything more than a week old is usually discarded, unless it's a particularly slow news day.
Besides, what more is there to say? Whether the guy had reasons or not, the killing of 32 innocent students/teachers was totally unjustified and so he will always be seen as a mass murderer
Definitely rap. The Black death rate is over twice the white and hispanic death rates by firearms. It is for the most part an affliction of black urban youth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Unfortunately, the far higher absenteeism of black fathers from families seems to be the driving cause.
That and white guys can't dance, play basketball, or shoot straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
When you have a group of people who are being raised by people who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own ridiculously stupid actions and use their race as an excuse for such behavior then that is what you get. A bunch of lazy kids who blame everyone under the sun for their self inflicted problems. it's about time people stop and say to themselvs "Wait a second, I the one with the malfunctioning brain".
Hey, I just came up with a brilliant idea, Lets all tie a red rag on our heads and kill people who don't wear red rags on our heads. That is a sure fire way to pay my mortgage and feed my kids.:rolleyes:
I never got to read this thread all the way through, I just wanted to comment on everything I've read by masterblaster so far:
Don't enter a discussion and start calling people names, saying their opinion is BS - if that's what your God fearing upbringing with loads of spanking brought you, I think I'd rather go for the "sissy" one I had with parents that could control me without turning to physical abuse.
There's a lot of different people and opinions on this forum, and each and every one of them should be respected in their own right - even yours.
:lol: :lol: So you know enough about the situation to accuse my parents of abuse, imply that I believe in a god, and state that I don't respect the opinions of others all without reading the thread.
I fear no god or man, my parents did not abuse me and I picked up an m-16 at the age of 17 to fight for the freedom of other people to express their opinions no matter how utterly ridiculous they may be. I think I've earned the right to tell another man that I think his opinion is BS. Just like he has the right to tell me the same about my opinion. Take your PC krap and file it in your krack.
Might as well stir this pot again, since there was another school town shoot out in Moscow Idaho.
This time, however, no less than two armed citizens came rushing to the scene: The first one was shot three times before he even saw a target. The second one was mistaken for a shooter by the police, and spent the rest of the day in custody. The second guy may not actually have been trying to respond to the shooting, he may have just been driving past, and happened to be armed. In any event, the police thought he was connected to the shooter, and took him away.
As for the first guy, he did just what people were wanting at VA Tech: As soon as the shooting started, he grabbed his weapon and headed towards the firing. The first bullet hit lungs, liver, and a kidney, which took him down. He was then shot in the neck and shoulder, and the third bullet hit his leg. He survived all this, though he may never truly recover.
The police asked that people not get involved, as they are just as likely to get shot by the police, who will not be too particular if they see a non-uniformed individual carrying a weapon during a shoot-out.
So now we had a madman on a killing spree, but the armed citizenry got involved....and went 0 for 2.
My point is: Having a gun isn't enough. If you are up against a suicidal killer, odds are good that he'll be MUCH more motivated to shoot you than you will be to shoot him, so you need more than a gun and good intentions: You need luck, as well. You need an opening in which to use the gun, and you need to be able to respond against somebody who definitely will have the initiative. The first guy, in Moscow, never even had a chance.
They probably should have simply learned how to shoot before they tried to play hero. Your point about "Having a gun isn't enough" is 100% accurate. You have to know how to use it.
He knew how to use it fine, I would guess, but it sounds like he never got a look at the shooter, who had a better position, and had clear targets. One thing about homicidal maniacs: They can pretty much assume that EVERYBODY is a target, whereas police and everybody else have to make sure of who they are shooting at. You NEVER have the initiative in this case. The policeman who was killed in the shootout had the same problem. He probably died while trying to determine what the situation actually was as far as: one shooter or more, where he/they were located, what they were intending.
Never an easy situation, nor would VA Tech have been any easier. So far, with few exceptions (Texas State comes to mind), the shooter has generally had time to shoot themselves before anybody else was able to take control of the situation.
Maybe, I don't know any details of what went down. Sounds like a moron ruinning aimlessly into the middle of someone elses fight without knowing what was going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Why would that be difficult? It is close quarters combat and I guarentee all that moron was doing was pointing and shooting. It is a simple as drawing your gun, aiming center mass on the guy and squeezing off rounds. Preferably from behind some sort of cover. Hell, even if 5 unarmed guys rushed him head on, he wouldn't be able to kill all 5 before someone brought him down. It takes a healthy man 2 seconds to sprint 20 yards, trust me he is not shooting 5 charging people dead in less than 2 seconds. One person probably, two people tops.Quote:
Never an easy situation, nor would VA Tech have been any easier. So far, with few exceptions (Texas State comes to mind), the shooter has generally had time to shoot themselves before anybody else was able to take control of the situation.
That was pretty much how it souded to me, too. The article said that he saw sparks in front of him where bullets were striking the pavement. Yet he went forward. Generally, it is better to advance when they are shooting somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Sure, but he has already drawn. That guy was pointing and shooting pretty well. All he had to do was aim center mass on you, and squeeze off a couple rounds. That's one step less, so you had best find a way to make sure you have the time to take that one step. We all expect the other guy to die. Of course, if you are armed, you have that option, but you shouldn't assume that it is the best option in all circumstances.Quote:
Why would that be difficult? It is close quarters combat and I guarentee all that moron was doing was pointing and shooting. It is a simple as drawing your gun, aiming center mass on the guy and squeezing off rounds.
The situation almost never happens. That PA flight was one notable exception, and everybody died, but they were going to anyways. If you are one of 5 unarmed people rushing a gunman, he may only be able to shoot 2 if you are all well timed. Figure out the payoff ratio of different strategies, and I think you would have reason to suspect that others in the five will not rush with you. You have to rely on the altruism of four other people, or else you will die for no gain.Quote:
Hell, even if 5 unarmed guys rushed him head on, he wouldn't be able to kill all 5 before someone brought him down. It takes a healthy man 2 seconds to sprint 20 yards, trust me he is not shooting 5 charging people dead in less than 2 seconds. One person probably, two people tops.
On the other hand, I agree that in such a situation, you have to take action, and if you can't get all targets out of danger, then an aggressive stance is the only one with any chance of saving lives. Having a gun would be advantageous, but you have to calculate the value of having a useable gun in that, exceedingly rare, situation, versus the value in all the other instants. It's the calculation I make whenever I consider my long distance pack loads, and a gun has never made the cut. I don't think they would in school, either. You calculate the odds of various types of threats, and allocate your supplies based on dealing with the most likely threats. People have suggested that guns are light. That may be true, but they also deal only with a narrow range of VERY rare threats. Were I to carry that weight, it would have to be in clothing, rather than a gun, if I wanted to maximize my likely advantage. The same risk calculation can be done for schools, and it has been done. Rare situations still arise, but you can't be preparted for absolutely everything, and sometimes people die.
In fact, eventually, we all die, and most of us die from something that could have been prevented had we made different choices.