Massacre at Virginia Tech! (sad)

[brad.dude03]

I'm an advocate of extreme-leftist politics, go to hell. What good has it ever done you to have the right to brandish weapons? Sure, you can defend yourself, but in a kind of country that Stalin was trying (and failing, as all Communists will, sadly) to create, you shouldn't even NEED to be worried about defending yourself. Guns, and weapons don't ever do anyone any good, and this shows why.
In an idealistic world, we shouldn't need to defend ourselves, but unfortunately, in this day and age, we do. The problem is, how can you force someone to use a weapon for self defense instead of for violence? You can't. Unless you increase the penalties for weapons related crimes, it ain't happening, and even then people will still break the law.

PS I tend to be a blunt person myself, but that was just rude. I would have accepted your response as an opinion, but the fact that you don't give me any evidence WHATSOEVER as to why i'm a "fucking moron" aside from quoting my post in its entirety, just pisses me off.

If you're going to flame me, then bring some god damned facts to the table.

 

[Deathell]

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=3745e6044570b3b0821f5fdb252191fadcdba263

Gave me the chills.

 

[dofys]

I'm an advocate of extreme-leftist politics, go to hell. What good has it ever done you to have the right to brandish weapons? Sure, you can defend yourself, but in a kind of country that Stalin was trying (and failing, as all Communists will, sadly) to create, you shouldn't even NEED to be worried about defending yourself. Guns, and weapons don't ever do anyone any good, and this shows why.
In an idealistic world, we shouldn't need to defend ourselves, but unfortunately, in this day and age, we do. The problem is, how can you force someone to use a weapon for self defense instead of for violence? You can't. Unless you increase the penalties for weapons related crimes, it ain't happening, and even then people will still break the law.

I agree. There would be stupid people out there, dumb enough to take a weapon and attack someone for no good reason or maybe a dumb reason. I'm just wondering what is their problem? At least they can do is get on with their lives and talk to someone or get help. Instead of taking their frustration they have and put it on someone else.

 

[lorothrigs]

I'm an advocate of extreme-leftist politics, go to hell. What good has it ever done you to have the right to brandish weapons? Sure, you can defend yourself, but in a kind of country that Stalin was trying (and failing, as all Communists will, sadly) to create, you shouldn't even NEED to be worried about defending yourself. Guns, and weapons don't ever do anyone any good, and this shows why.
In an idealistic world, we shouldn't need to defend ourselves, but unfortunately, in this day and age, we do. The problem is, how can you force someone to use a weapon for self defense instead of for violence? You can't. Unless you increase the penalties for weapons related crimes, it ain't happening, and even then people will still break the law.

PS I tend to be a blunt person myself, but that was just rude. I would have accepted your response as an opinion, but the fact that you don't give me any evidence WHATSOEVER as to why i'm a "fucking moron" aside from quoting my post in its entirety, just pisses me off.

If you're going to flame me, then bring some god damned facts to the table.

I realized that I didn't put any evidence in it so I edited it with facts and such. Oh, and maybe the purpose of giving us the right to bear arms was to make sure that the government COULDN'T do that to us.

 

[dofys]

I realized that I didn't put any evidence in it so I edited it with facts and such. Oh, and maybe the purpose of giving us the right to bear arms was to make sure that the government COULDN'T do that to us.

Or maybe to defend ourselves if an invasion is taking place or someone is a crazy person trying to kill you for no good reason.

 

[Tonks]

(his name has not been released)

Yes, it has.

A chilling picture emerged Tuesday of Cho Seung-Hui — a 23-year-old senior majoring in English — a day after the bloodbath that left 33 people dead, including Cho, who killed himself as police closed in.

 

[lorothrigs]

Or maybe to defend ourselves if an invasion is taking place or someone is a crazy person trying to kill you for no good reason.

Precisely. But you must understand, the reason this law was past was probably so that they couldn't do to us what the British did. The British forced themselves in their homes, tried to burn our weapons(We would have been in pretty bad shape if they had won the Battle of Concord.).

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.

It clearly states that to remain free we need to be able to protect ourselves. From our government or any who try to invade us.

 

[demonsofdante]

Brad, you have to realize the realities of the Constitution. The right to bear arms is the 2nd amendment and one of extreme importance in the freedoms granted by the Constitution.

However if one amendment is pulled (namely the 2nd amendment) then that opens the door for the challenge of the entire Constitution. Either its all right or its all wrong. THe right to bear arms should never be infringed. It should however, be protected through protecting the safety of the American people. There should be restrictions and requirements to the aquisition of firearms to insure the security that it is no abused.

 

[dofys]

Precisely. But you must understand, the reason this law was past was probably so that they couldn't do to us what the British did. The British forced themselves in their homes, tried to burn our weapons(We would have been in pretty bad shape if they had won the Battle of Concord.).



It clearly states that to remain free we need to be able to protect ourselves. From our government or any who try to invade us.

Yes, we all understand what would happen when we're defenseless against war enemies, criminals, or killers.

 

[lorothrigs]

Yes, we all understand what would happen when we're defenseless against war enemies, criminals, or killers.

That's not even what I said.

 

[SuPa-]

The right to bear arms simply states that a citizen of the United States can freely own a firearm (not illegal) for his or her self defense
That's my interpretation

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, Stalin (as I said like EVERY Communist leader, past, present, and future) will be corrupt and make mistakes. But i'm defending Communism in general here, and the things that Stalin was supposed to be standing for. As you should know, a Communist society is supposed to be a sort of utopia. Thus, in a utopian society, there should be absolutely no need for weapons, because you shouldn't need to defend yourself from anyone, much less the government! Communism was created as a government that was devoted to serving EVERYONE no matter what their social standing is.
Unlike Capitalism, which tends to serve only those who have lots and lots of money, Communism wants good things for everyone. So i'll agree, in this 'Purge' Stalin went against everything that Communism stands for, because he is there to better the people, not to kill them.

Regardless, here's an interesting bit on the Second Ammendment. It states that you can 'bear arms' which Wikipedia (as well as the Oxford dictionary) states as "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

I believe this has absolutely nothing to do at all with Civilians being allowed to carry and keep weapons, but then i'm Canadian, so what do I know about American laws. By all means correct me.

Furthermore, being able to carry arms would not solve problems if your government decided to 'Purge' your country. Sure, you could form into a Rebellion, become Terrorists for the freedom of your country, but it wouldn't do any good. All you would do was lead to more death, (death of the citizens taking up arms against their government [aka treason] or death of the soldiers they are fighting against) and suppose that you toppled the government. Look at some of the countries in the world today. The government crumbles, and finally the rebels fighting for freedom take over. What happens? More fighting because someone else wants a chance to play God.

I realize the necesity to bear arms, but my point is that people should bear them in self defense, not for violence against others, and certainly not for fear of the government. How you can make this happen is the question.

In response to other comments added: A helluva lot of good it would do you, if some country is invading you with stealth bombers for your citizens to get out there with their 22's and shotguns to stop the invaders. That's why America has an army, folks. The citizens wanna take up arms: join the freaking army.

The reason the British did what they did was because you people decided to break away forcefully. You brought it upon yourselves really.

 

[lorothrigs]

Yes, but the fact that all citizens have weapons would be a major deterrent to any leader. I mean the difference between having no weapons and everyone having weapons is a pretty major factor in any decision a corrupt ruler would make. I guess I understand what you're saying about Communism and the lot, but saying Stalin was right was what led me to say you were a fucking moron. But still, the fact remains that Communism fails in a realistic world.

 

[demonsofdante]

Communism assumes everyone is willing to share and has no self interest or goals and will work for the good of the state. This is in no way possible due to the human condition and our inability to lead a life without self interest.

Also with communism you get payed the same regardless of how much you work or how important your works is. You know how that turns out? People dont work. Nothing gets done. Communism fails. Leaders become dictators and people are oppressed to "solve the states struggles."


All government has issues as do all conflicting interpretations of the law. There will always be issues but the best way to form a stable government is to ensure the "freedoms" of the people as to keep them statisfied with their government.



Read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli for some nice insights on government

 

[lorothrigs]

The Second Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So, saying we can't have guns is entirely unconstitutional. As someone else said, if this is changed, then all the others can be changed as well. This is what some call a landslide effect. It would just be very, very bad.

 

[brad.dude03]

Communism fails in a world where there is no perfect leader. That's the saddest part. Communism has the best of intentions, it wants nothing but equality for the people of the State under one glorious ruler who is selfless and uncorrupt. But then enters the problem. Such a leader does not exist, and will never exist. And so Communism will fail, time and time again.

I do not justify all of Stalins actions as being right, obviously he did some terrible, terrible things during his reign, and I do not wish to and cannot say that they were right. I just like to think that for at least a little while (perhaps at the beginning of his reign) Stalin was thinking with the intentions of the people in his mind.

The fact that he even got himself involved in the Cold War (aka the worlds biggest pissing match) proves how foolish he was, and it saw the downfall of the USSR. You know why? In order for Communism to operate, the money has to go back to the people. Communism has no budget for the military. With the USSR building nukes left and right, they wasted money that needed to go back to the people, and they eventually brought the ruin of their own empire down upon their own heads with their pride.

And why can't the constitution be changed? Does it mean that you have been living this false lie under these false rules? No! It means that the constitution needs to be updated to deal with modern problems, and to get rid of things dealing with problems that don't even exist any more.

It's like making a program. Do you only put out one version of it? No, you update it to fix things and to add new features that are relevent to what the users are doing with the program at the time, and getting rid of old features that are no longer used or are outdated. This is precisely the way the Constitution should work.

 

[lorothrigs]

Communism fails in a world where there is no perfect leader. That's the saddest part. Communism has the best of intentions, it wants nothing but equality for the people of the State under one glorious ruler who is selfless and uncorrupt. But then enters the problem. Such a leader does not exist, and will never exist. And so Communism will fail, time and time again.

I do not justify all of Stalins actions as being right, obviously he did some terrible, terrible things during his reign, and I do not wish to and cannot say that they were right. I just like to think that for at least a little while (perhaps at the beginning of his reign) Stalin was thinking with the intentions of the people in his mind.

The fact that he even got himself involved in the Cold War (aka the worlds biggest pissing match) proves how foolish he was, and it saw the downfall of the USSR. You know why? In order for Communism to operate, the money has to go back to the people. Communism has no budget for the military. With the USSR building nukes left and right, they wasted money that needed to go back to the people, and they eventually brought the ruin of their own empire down upon their own heads with their pride.

And why can't the constitution be changed? Does it mean that you have been living this false lie under these false rules? No! It means that the constitution needs to be updated to deal with modern problems, and to get rid of things dealing with problems that don't even exist any more.

It's like making a program. Do you only put out one version of it? No, you update it to fix things and to add new features that are relevent to what the users are doing with the program at the time, and getting rid of old features that are no longer used or are outdated. This is precisely the way the Constitution should work.

Which it does, but the Second Amendment is still very necessary to this day.

 

[brad.dude03]

I agree on the necessity. The question still remains: how can you stop people from using guns for the wrong purposes? That's precisely what needs to be done here after this sad event.

 

[demonsofdante]

You cant prevent it. You cant predict or control human actions. There are just ways you can prevent or discourage them from falling in the wrong hands.

 

[Shadow_Fox]

For the record, he was in the US for around 15 years, and he had been developing some disturbing mental problems for about a year, including playrights about sex, death, killing, etc, not a good mix.

 

[Jacek]

why did you delete my "Pwned" comment?... damn usa lovers

 

[iCrayon]

Canada FTW

 

[Herio-san]

Needless to say some of you are making light of a very serious situation. The fact of the matter is that someone could just walk onto a campus with two loaded pistols (one being a semi-auto) and unload shots into a dorm. Then, two hours later, enter the engineering building and unload multiple clips of ammo without any police intervention. Because of the colleges lack of immediate action and the police's delayed response (for whatever the reason) around 30 people, people with hopes, dreams, familys and a future ahead of them will not see today, or tomorrow or anything else. They wont have children or get married, they wont get to live their lives or work in the profession they worked so hard to align themselves for. Instead, they get nothing, all because some idiot was angry because his girlfriend was sleeping around. Its a very sad concept in reality.

 

[brad.dude03]

Canada FTW

Being an Ontarioan, I agree.

And hey, Sansui called me a dumb bastard for being ignorant towards the US, so Jacek, deal.

@discussion: but since human control (control over the use of the weapons) cannot be obtained, why not just get rid of the weapons altogether? I mean honestly, do you REALLY need to have a gun? Would you feel so insecure if you didn't have one? Honestly, whats the point? Okay, you go hunting. Fine. You can get a license to obtain and use a gun for hunting purposes (or something of the sort),

But what else can it be used for? Self defense? Not likely. What are the chances that if a gunman attacks you, you will just happen to be carrying a gun, and you can subdue or kill said gunman using your weapon. Highly unlikely, and its better left to the police since they know what they're doing.

So what else? You can't really use a gun for much else, so why do you need one? If you just take them away, then there goes a crippling blow to gun-related crimes in your country.

 

[Denu]

Guns would merely be sold illegally on the blackmarket and everyone else, who do not intend to commit a crime but are worried about their home being invaded by someone who is, cant go out and get their own to defend themselves. Thus they too would resort to buying them off the blackmarket. I dont think outright banning guns would be a good thing. I think better gun controll (including a pschological exam and a background check), increased awareness, and teaching people who register to buy a gun to know how to use it safely and how best to defend themselves. Furthermore yearly check ups on the gun should be manditory. That way the guns can be better kept track of (if the person lost it then they will suffer a heavy penalty) and to make sure the guns are being taken well care of and are in an acceptable condition.

 

[Sansui]

Being an Ontarioan, I agree.

And hey, Sansui called me a dumb bastard for being ignorant towards the US, so Jacek, deal.

@discussion: but since human control (control over the use of the weapons) cannot be obtained, why not just get rid of the weapons altogether? I mean honestly, do you REALLY need to have a gun? Would you feel so insecure if you didn't have one? Honestly, whats the point? Okay, you go hunting. Fine. You can get a license to obtain and use a gun for hunting purposes (or something of the sort),

But what else can it be used for? Self defense? Not likely. What are the chances that if a gunman attacks you, you will just happen to be carrying a gun, and you can subdue or kill said gunman using your weapon. Highly unlikely, and its better left to the police since they know what they're doing.

So what else? You can't really use a gun for much else, so why do you need one? If you just take them away, then there goes a crippling blow to gun-related crimes in your country.

As long as the government has guns, I want guns. Hell as long as people will break into homes and steal things, I want guns.
As long as the police have guns i want guns.
As long as people like brad walk the earth I want guns.

 

[lorothrigs]

On Darwin's stand point, this "massacre", if it could be called such, is what this world needs. Prevent overpopulation and the instigation of Survival of the Fittest rules. People these days are stupid as hell. Go ask some random person where...say "China" is on a map. Or russia. or...brazil. Ten bucks says they have no idea where the fuck it is. We need survival of the fittest again. Lol. Sorry I just had to go on a very controversial rant.

As long as people like brad walk the earth I want guns.

Quoted For Truth.

 

[Mecheon]

So, I've been doing some "research" (IE: Reading other posts at forums and such) into this

Turns out the state in which this happened allows/ed people to carry sidearms without so much as a liscence. Just walk into a store, buy a gun, hey look you're now armed without so much as a slight check to ensure that you're not Nucking Futs

If that is not lax, then I do not know what is

If parts of America don't have gun liscences, then I insist that they get some interest in this program, because it slightly limits the ammount of nutcases who get their hands on guns

And face it, the ammount of nutcases in America prooves that they should have some sort of way of ensuring that less nutcases get their hands on guns

 

[Tonks]

@discussion: but since human control (control over the use of the weapons) cannot be obtained, why not just get rid of the weapons altogether? I mean honestly, do you REALLY need to have a gun? Would you feel so insecure if you didn't have one? Honestly, whats the point? Okay, you go hunting. Fine. You can get a license to obtain and use a gun for hunting purposes (or something of the sort),

But what else can it be used for? Self defense? Not likely. What are the chances that if a gunman attacks you, you will just happen to be carrying a gun, and you can subdue or kill said gunman using your weapon. Highly unlikely, and its better left to the police since they know what they're doing.

So what else? You can't really use a gun for much else, so why do you need one? If you just take them away, then there goes a crippling blow to gun-related crimes in your country.

If police couldn't use powerful weapons such as guns to protect people, we would live in a much scarier place. Guns are here. It's not like every person is going to bonfire all the guns in the world, purging them. People like power.

 

[brad.dude03]

No! I'm just talking about civilians bot being able to own guns. Police, sure, obviously anyone in an army, national guard, what have you position that requires them to carry a gun, yeah, they can still carry it.

But, as Mecheon said, gun laws would work. In Canada everything has to get licensed (at least here in Ontario anyway) and it's all such a bother, but we don't have any nutcases going around plastering brains against the wall now do we? If the security was that lax about guns in their state, then they sort of brought that upon themselves (I don't mean in such a horrible way, I mean that like a bad shooting was bound to happen so they would get a wakeup call, and hopefully this one is it)

"as long as people like brad walk the earth" So i'm a zombie then o.0

Sansui, you don't even bloody need a gun. Honestly, how hard could it possibly be to subdue a 125 pound 15 year old, especially by someone of your size? Exactly. I'M the one who should be carrying the gun xD

PS lorotherigs The last time I said that Americans as a whole were completely ignorant of the world around them, I got flamed, so yeah, you know my beliefs here anyway xD

 

[SuPa-]

The only thing I didn't get about the VT shooting is that no one tried to stop the shooter... But that's just too much to expect I guess... And yet some saved others lives at the costs of their own when they could've done the same while stopping OTHER lives being lost as well, by taking down the shooter with them, and maybe some help.
Sorry if this offends someone, but it's the truth... Many lives could've been saved if a few people just overcame their fears of a guy holding a gun.

 

[iCrayon]

spud man, would you try and fight a crazy korean with a gun?

 

[SuPa-]

No, not by myself... Maybe with 5 other people I would (and there were a lot of people there)... And there'd be a good chance only... 2 or 3 would get shot?
By the way... I think my name is SuPa-, not "spud man"

 

[Sansui]

yea it doesnt make sense, 10-20 people in class, they could have all charged at once and took him down long before 30 people got shot. But its human nature to run and hide to save yourself.

 

[iCrayon]

spud man i guess your right...but i could take him...*cough* he might pull out some crazy jackie chan or jet li moves...MAYBE ONG-BAK MOVES!

 

[Deleted member 126647]

spud man i guess your right...but i could take him...*cough* he might pull out some crazy jackie chan or jet li moves...MAYBE ONG-BAK MOVES!

Jesus, it's a serious thing that happened, how can you just joke about it so stupidly?

Some people really amaze me sometimes.

 

[brad.dude03]

I concur, that joke was tasteless in the extreme. 32 people just died, and you want to joke about oriental fighting stereotypes? Just wow.

I suppose that they certainly could have overpowered him, but honestly, it would be insane. You would have to have a lot of balls to rush a gunman weaponless. It's just not realistic to have the people band together, all they're concerned about is the fact they are completely vulnerable, the other guy has a gun, they don't, and that one shot from that thing could end their life. If all that was going through my head i'd want to get the hell out of there too.

 

[lorothrigs]

Alright, how about you try having a guy rush into your classroom and you take him out. We have this little thing called "survival instinct", it kind of helps(well helped, we don't really need it anymore...) us survive. Don't criticize what you have never been through. Honestly, we can all imagine ourselves jumping over a desk and just pwning the dude. But in reality, how many people would actually be able to get themselves to do it?

 

[dofys]

The killer would probably kill at least 40% or more of the class if they charged at him. Maybe just like 3-5 people if he sucks at shooting or is afraid.

 

[Jacek]

Found this:

The only guy who tried to stop the killer was named Slav from Poland. He blocked the door, and saved 10 people in a small room with that.

Poland ftw

 

[Razorbrain]

ever seen My Super Sweet 16 on MTV? now, that made me want to kill, and im not joking now, i really want to kill those damn spoiled girls

call me crasy, but my friends that was watching with me agreed

 

[brad.dude03]

Found this:

Poland ftw

Wasn't he a WWII vet?

 

[Ham Ham]

Forbiding people to buy weapons is a very bad idea.
A bandit can enter in your house absolutely certain then you dont have a gun. he is absolutely certain there is nothing that can harm him. He can enter, kill and thief sure that doesnt any danger.

 

[brad.dude03]

But how can he possibly harm you if he doesn't have a weapon? If you don't have a weapon, then he doesn't, unless he smuggles it, in which case penalty would be very high, so it would [hopefully] be unlikely. Even if he has a knife, a household item can easily defend against that, and your chances of surviving being stabbed are greater then your chances of surviving a bullet wound.

 

[Herio-san]

But how can he possibly harm you if he doesn't have a weapon? If you don't have a weapon, then he doesn't, unless he smuggles it, in which case penalty would be very high, so it would [hopefully] be unlikely. Even if he has a knife, a household item can easily defend against that, and your chances of surviving being stabbed are greater then your chances of surviving a bullet wound.

Likewise, if he entered my house and knows i have guns. The penalty would be higher.
On a seperate note, It was illegal for the shooter at VT to have the guns anyway (he was in the country on a visa from what i understand which makes selling weapons to him illegal). Not to mention the serial numbers on the sides and butt of the guns were filed off (also illegal). Besides, whos to say someone didnt buy the guns for him?
As far as the lisencing/test debate goes: Even with lisences/tests etc. Who's to say someone wouldnt buy a gun for someone else? Theres no preventing it.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yeah, but if you're ever caught using the gun, for any purpose, legal or illegal, you're screwed because you don't have a license to use that gun, or own that gun.

 

[The guy who needs help]

if no 1 can get his hands on guns this wouldn't have happened
thats all i have to say

 

[Deleted member 126647]

That's the same as saying "If guns were never invented this couldn't have happened."

If people couldn't get their hands on guns, history would be completely different, and probably half of us wouldn't even exist.

 

[iCrayon]

chriz has a point there

 

[aarkshark]

Linky to offical report

Did you guys here that 33 students were killed in a college campus shooting? Virginia Tech; this guy went to a dorm in the morning, killed a bunch of people. Then later on, walked into class and killed 33 students, teacher, then himself. Worst school shooting in U.S. History. Just happened today...

Pfft. Amature.
But, for real.... Thats pretty bad. Seriously, that guy had some serious issues, either mentally or socially. (IE:Bullied into depression. Depression=Anger, anger=rage, rage=homicide.)