Massacre at Virginia Campus

[bandwagon]

So it appears that the murderer, Cho Seung-Hui, had warning signs written all over him. Given a history of stalking with attempted arson and disturbed writings suggesting a violent predisposition, a rigorous background check on police and medical records prior his gun purchases would have revealed it.

In the UK he would never have got a shotgun licence with that sort of background. As it is much harder here to get a gun on the black market because there isn't the same sort gun culture, this event would have been much less likely to happen in the UK given the same players. I'm not saying it wouldn't, -just much less likely, hence much less frequent over time. Because of longstanding gun control.

It also appears that it isn't that he didn't try creating havoc without guns, but he didn't have too much impact.

[Blademaster]

Parihaka, I was looking at the crime statistics. I was kinda surprised to find out that India was ranked lower than America. I thought it would be higher than America due to its insurgency troubles. Then I looked closely at the country profile of US and India and found out that the rape for India was 15,000 as compared to American with 89,000 rapes. Then it was clear. US had better reporting of crimes than India. Rape is a violent crime like murder but some people will argue that murder is definitely much harder to hide so murder reporting in India may be taken at face value than rape reporting. So I concede at this point.

But I looked at the second crime statistics and found out that for murder with guns per capita, India is like ranked in the bottom. So it goes to prove that banning guns doesn't really decrease murder rates because if it did, you would have seen India be on the lower rungs on the murder per capita like you see on murder with firearm per capita.

[Blademaster]

So it appears that the murderer, Cho Seung-Hui, had warning signs written all over him. Given a history of stalking with attempted arson and disturbed writings suggesting a violent predisposition, a rigorous background check on police and medical records prior his gun purchases would have revealed it.

In the UK he would never have got a shotgun licence with that sort of background. As it is much harder here to get a gun on the black market because there isn't the same sort gun culture, this event would have been much less likely to happen in the UK given the same players. I'm not saying it wouldn't, -just much less likely, hence much less frequent over time. Because of longstanding gun control.

It also appears that it isn't that he didn't try creating havoc without guns, but he didn't have too much impact.

He never had a red flag on his record because he was never cited for violence nor had any prior history. From all accounts, he was a law abiding citizen who never got in trouble with the law nor had any domestic disputes. So how does writing an angry letter find its way to law enforcement? If you are advocating that every English Department should send those kind of letters to law enforcement agencies, you will get ACLU screaming out of their heads and breathing on the agencies' necks and the English Departments' necks. Moreover, it smacks of one of those environment you see in communist or fascist countries where every neighbor reports their neighbors to the secret police.

Moreover, he bought the guns way before this incident. He may have bought guns for legal reasons in the first place but then later on, he just snapped and simply took his guns out and went on a rampage. Notice that he bought guns before he started exhibiting "mental problems". So tell me how will a background check work?

[bandwagon]

But I looked at the second crime statistics and found out that for murder with guns per capita, India is like ranked in the bottom. So it goes to prove that banning guns doesn't really decrease murder rates because if it did, you would have seen India be on the lower rungs on the murder per capita like you see on murder with firearm per capita.

I don't think you can draw direct comparisons between different societies using just statistics, and far less draw conclusions, without correcting for the numerous variables. You'd have to find a potential or expected level of gun related deaths for each society and then see if a ban -short or long term- makes a difference. E.g. on the whole a nation with greater social deprivation and strife has much more inter-personal conflict and crime of all kinds and therefore a much greater level of expected murders. Simply noting a high level of gun related murders despite a ban on ownership compared to the US says absolutely nothing about the potential effect of a ban in the US.

A country like Switzerland, where guns litter the street (virtually, and albeit mostly rifles) have low levels of gun crime, because there is little social deprivation and low levels of crime and conflict, and not because everyone has a gun to protect themselves.

[bandwagon]

He never had a red flag on his record because he was never cited for violence nor had any prior history. From all accounts, he was a law abiding citizen who never got in trouble with the law nor had any domestic disputes. So how does writing an angry letter find its way to law enforcement? If you are advocating that every English Department should send those kind of letters to law enforcement agencies, you will get ACLU screaming out of their heads and breathing on the agencies' necks and the English Departments' necks. Moreover, it smacks of one of those environment you see in communist or fascist countries where every neighbor reports their neighbors to the secret police.

Moreover, he bought the guns way before this incident. He may have bought guns for legal reasons in the first place but then later on, he just snapped and simply took his guns out and went on a rampage. Notice that he bought guns before he started exhibiting "mental problems". So tell me how will a background check work?

I heard it was more than angry letters. He was referred for counselling. And I cannot see that stalking and arson would not have involved the police. This should have led to confiscation of any weapons if the right laws were in place. It seems he bought the 9mm only a few weeks ago.

[Parihaka]

Parihaka, I was looking at the crime statistics. I was kinda surprised to find out that India was ranked lower than America. I thought it would be higher than America due to its insurgency troubles. Then I looked closely at the country profile of US and India and found out that the rape for India was 15,000 as compared to American with 89,000 rapes. Then it was clear. US had better reporting of crimes than India. Rape is a violent crime like murder but some people will argue that murder is definitely much harder to hide so murder reporting in India may be taken at face value than rape reporting. So I concede at this point.

But I looked at the second crime statistics and found out that for murder with guns per capita, India is like ranked in the bottom. So it goes to prove that banning guns doesn't really decrease murder rates because if it did, you would have seen India be on the lower rungs on the murder per capita like you see on murder with firearm per capita.

I agree entirely. I'm still working through the stats but what you point out about India struck me as well. I'm trying to find the gun ownership per capita but no luck.
I'm wondering about attitudes to violence rather than methods of killing.

[SnowLeopard]

I guess I'm going to have take this "day" in stages. Maybe.

Yes Martial arts can be lethal.

However, before you learn the art, you are taught self restraint and that if is for self defence.

Martial arts is not superficial, it embodies the spiritualism and deep philosophy.

Originally, yes ..... but not now. Now it has gone far beyound that where the goal is to put people out of action. It is not nice, there is no spiritualism to it, it is for survival, and defense barely comes into it. It comes into it because it is activated for defensive reasons but beyond that, there is pulling no punches, it is putting enough violence into him to put him on the ground so he doesn't get up.

And even when it was for sport, the philosphy and spiritualism was questionable. Mine is judo and I was taught as a teen that when the start word of Hajime is given, at -ji, one is half way across the mat to slam into one's oponent with O Soto Gari so a second or two after -me, the match is over, one has won. A lightning strike. It would only work on the opening match of the tournement but doncha know, such tactics seem so unphiilosophical, so unspiritual.

Of course, that just may be Americans.

Use of a gun requires no pre training of any self restraint!

Yes and no. Anyone can probably pick up a gun and shoot it. But to shoot it accurately over distances involves the ability to rapidly calm one's pulse, body, so to put rounds on target. There is a purpose for that sling.

My own 'philosophy' that got me to like weapons have been honed by the Wild West, in the form of comics and cowboy movies!

That which got me into marksmanship was probably judo. I'm a security professional; I know how to use weapons, be it a gun or HtH.

However, my restraint in the use of weapon has been honed by the restraint that I imbibed from Oriental philosophies.

My restraint is the Constitution, my citizen and religious beliefs.

I see others in India. We are very volatile but rarely we resort to weapons to decide the argument. It is not in our culture.

That does not mean that those whose culture has been shaped by the gun and weapons are wrong!

What interest me is the issue how when hitting foreign shores, the same man who has no background of Gun Culture can convert so easily to such an alien philosophy! And be so mindlessly lethal bringing misery to the rest of the peaceful community!

And it may be the culture of a particular person but before one can assume that a particular element of a culture is wrong, it must be studied. For example, I shoot but I do not hunt. Do I believe that others should not hunt deer? No, for two primary reasons. First of all, what will stop the developer from building condos where deer roam is not the tree hugger but the sportsman who wants to hunt. Lose a little to save others. Secondly, I have studied Eskimo/Inuit (depends where on the map that the term is used) cultures and I know how important hunting is for their society. Knowing that, I cannot say that it is unimportant for another society simply because I don't see the point.

But heading back towards the point, if, say, I was told to kill someone, then I would do it with the best weapon for the job. If I can take him out at 500 yards with a rifle, okay, that's the way. If I have to be somewhere else and wiring C4 to his car is available, okay, that's the way (assuming; I've only had one lesson with C4 and that orientation was years ago). If he comes at me where I don't have a gun and I have to slam his occipital, club him down with a maglight, okay, that's the way. If I'm part of the crew that brings his aircraft and SAM's together, okay, that's the way. And so forth.

It's really not about guns. It's about the will to kill other people. If someone has it, they'll find a way.
--------------------------------------------------------
(Children of soldiers seemed more willing to kill than those of non soldiers because the soldier passes such willingness on to their offspring thru attitude.--a notation in a study in the 70's, (wtte))

[Confed999]

My prayers to the victims, their famlies, and friends...

[Confed999]

One can literally destroy any anti-gun argument by uttering two words, "Kennesaw, Georgia"...

[SnowLeopard]

Consider the difference threshold between pulling out your handgun, -which you owned already because it is your right-, and making a bomb. You'd have to be a dedicated longterm nutjob like the Unabomber to bother with the latter. There is simply no precedence for using a bomb in a fit of rage. They are tools of cold-blooded political or religious terrorists, not immature people with grievances, scorned lovers or regular nutjobs. In the UK, the closest comparable society, where there is gun control, only very rarely do you hear of people running amok with alternative weapons. OK on one occasion many years ago a Samurai sword. That's about it.

The founding fathers may have been aware of the alternatives people would employ if the second amendment was not implemented, but they would not have foreseen automatic pistols etc., or been aware of the potenial kill power each gun owner could readily present to society.

I'm afraid you are not understanding the issue when it comes to various weapons that be used by criminals. A bomber does not have to be a "dedicated longterm nutjob like the Unabomber" to accomplish a purpose and yet, he may operate in a fit of rage.

A "successful" bomber only needs to set off a few bombs to accomplish success. He sets off one, he's real. But he can call it in any time, whatever his mood is, and still be successful because each bomb threat must be taken seriously whether there is a real one or not.

Further, bombs can be a kind of chess game, at least to him, IMHO. Say he calls one in, the place is evacuated, and no bomb is found in the building .... but then one goes off where all the evacuatees are. That's sort of a reversal of the trick the Viet Cong might play, of ambushing the evacuation route. Incidently, I was rather shocked yesterday when a classmate said, things like that occur in the far east, not America. I'm too calm to say B***S***! to him but the basic thing in rescue casualities from a bombing, anywhere, is to rush in, grab the casualities, and rush out .... entirely for that ambush reason.

But what this all comes down to is that it is not an instant one to one matching that the criminal will grab the best, biggest, easiest weapon for him to do a crime. He might but a lot of the time, the criminal goes with what works for him.

Ie, the common weapon for rape is the knife because the threat of disfigurement to a woman is very powerful. If someone likes planting bombs and remember, he doesn't need to plant them all the time, he's not likely to pick up a pistol to kill people just because it is available. An airway killer may pick that method because he gets to control when his victim dies. And so forth.

It's not necessarily the biggest boom for the buck but rather, what works for them.
-----------------------------------------------------
("Works for me!"--Det. Hunter, (wtte), "Hunter")

[JAD_333]

JAD 333, I can copy and paste just as many "prevailing thought" decisions as you supporting MY claim that the 2nd Amendment was indeed put there for the reason I submitted.

However, I won't do that.

Let's just take a look at what the 2nd Amendment states;

"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. "

For some reason I don't think they had native american raiders or bears in
mind when they inserted that phrase.

The bears and indians reference didn't come from me.

The amendment came about in part because of pre-Revoluionary War fears that Britain would attempt to disarm the colonists. When the war was over, people wanted a guarantee their new gov't couldn't do it either. They saw it as protection from a dictatorship as well as a way to raise troops to repel an invader.

Times have changed, so it seems. Some regulation is good and there is some. Perhaps not enough... But if the inconceivable happens and we are invaded, woe to the invader. There's enough firepower in private hands to make it a living hell for them.

cheers

[chankya]

Consider the difference threshold between pulling out your handgun, -which you owned already because it is your right-, and making a bomb. You'd have to be a dedicated longterm nutjob like the Unabomber to bother with the latter. There is simply no precedence for using a bomb in a fit of rage.

I agree, Statistically and anecdotally it's great but I also think that it's practically impossible for gun control to work in America. Guns are too culturally ingrained for them to be removed easily. And in the short term in all likelihood only the law abiding turn their guns in and then it goes downwards from there.

[sappersgt]

My prayers to the victims, their famlies, and friends...

I think we can all echo this sentiment.

I guess I'm going to have take this "day" in stages. Maybe.

It's sad that so many were killed. No one was able get to him until he killed himself. A single step and just a few inches deflection will take you out of the line of fire. This is why you keep a two second separation between you and your assailant. Anything closer and he will get to your gun before you can shoot him. It may sound simple (it is) or easy (it's not) but only if you know how. If you don't know how then looking down a 9mm barrel is just like looking down a 105mm howitzer barrel. That alone will freeze you into place until it's too late.

[Officer of Engineers]

Africa is still governed by tribal instinct which required people to survive on killing, usually animals and occasionally other hostile tribes!

Sir,

His bloodlust was up and once the killing frenzy starts, he ain't any different from the Rwandan butchers.

Also as Ray pointed out, it is not valid to compare statistics between different societies and draw conclusions. Too many variables.

Answered above.

32 with a KNIFE?

It would take too long and someone would have overpowered the idiot.

Guns speak faster.

Sir, I stated stabbed 12 times. I don't think you can do that can of damage with a knife. Someone will fight back. An axe, however, could do just as much damage just as fast. Hence, the name axe murderer.

Colonel.

Molotov cocktail is no bomb.

That is something that is used by children! ;) :)

Very true, Sir, but it doesn't take much for me to make a simple fuse and mix in a few extra ingredients that would have an extremely lethal effect.

If memory serves, Sir, Molotovs have killed more than a few tanks, the last big usage was Tianamen Square.

[smilingassassin]

What interest me is the issue how when hitting foreign shores, the same man who has no background of Gun Culture can convert so easily to such an alien philosophy! And be so mindlessly lethal bringing misery to the rest of the peaceful community!

The guy was apparently a very disturbing individual, as some who knew him or had experiences with him could tell you. I wouldn't be surprised if Parenting played a HUGE role in this guys implosion. Also he apparently once wrote a very graphic and disturbing play for an asignment, which promted his teacher to advise counciling. He refused and the councilors said they couldn't force him to take part. Now we have 32 dead students, forcing him to undergo counciling doesn't seem like a bad idea after the fact.....

The whole issue of gun control and violent video games always comes up after a tragedy like this. In the case of video games, I've played them for over 12 years and I've never killed, craved a handgun or had distrubing thoughts. It all comes down to parenting IMO.