Third Party & Independents Archives

Deadliest Massacre in US History Strikes "Safe" VT Campus

As we take the time to mourn the terrible tragedy that occurred today on the campus of Virginia Tech , brace yourself for the countless TV pundits now flooding the airwaves and cable news programs with their opinions on how the availability of guns is compromising the safety of college campuses.

But what you won't hear much of - if at all - is the defeat of a bill that would have allowed students to carry guns to school, and a spokesman from Virginia Tech who had the audacity to call his campus "safe" as a result of the bill's defeat.

It was a massacre today; 33 dead in what is being called the worst shooting incident in American history. And of course the liberal media and anti-gun reporters are all over it - blaming such tragedies and the ones before today on the availability of guns.

But let's for a second draw this theory out to its logical conclusion and realize that it's the EXACT opposite. We want to blame everything on the availability of guns yet 32 innocent students and faculty members died today because there were NO guns on campus...except for the ones being wielded by the killer of course.

And with gun control that's what you’re going to get every time: a defenseless populace in the crosshairs of a deranged killer who magically finds himself in possession of a gun despite a ban or law saying he can't have one.

Tom Snediker, liberal contributor for Watchblog wrote today: "I personally do not want to see the 2nd amendment overturned and think that the number of murders in this country are about something broken in our culture that the easy availability of guns in this country just makes the problem worse."

What availability? Liberals have done everything in there power to strip the availability of guns in the place where they seem to be needed most: the college campus!

Last year the Virginia House of Representatives killed House Bill 1572, a proposal drafted by Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League that would have allowed students and employees to conceal weapons on college campuses.

Anti-gun advocates were giddy over the bill's defeat. In a statement made shortly after that should make all Americans sick today, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said with a smile: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Just how safe, Mr. Hincker? So safe that because your students can't bring guns onto campus more than 30 of them had to die today? Well it looks like one person decided he wasn't going to follow the toothless law and couldn't have been any more successful in his plan to kill as many people as possible.

But Mr. Hincker isn’t alone of course. The selfish Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police were also against the bill. And why not? By the very nature of their job they're allowed to protect themselves.

And if you've been following the timeline of events, protecting themselves is about all the police in Virginia know how to do, despite two hours in between the first and much deadlier second shooting.

About one year ago a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, regardless of the fact that he had a concealed handgun permit. You see, even though this student was qualified to carry a handgun and was seen by the state as someone who could conceal one in most places, a ridiculous and deadly policy allowed for him to be punished because he was forbidden to carry one on campus.

Opponents of legislation that would allow law-abiding students and employees to bring guns onto campuses have no rational arguments to make in opposition but can only harp about how the availability of guns makes the environment dangerous. We don't know if there's any truth to that claim, but we do know just how dangerous it is on college campuses without that much needed legislation.

Posted by Scottie at April 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Comments
Comment #216927

Scottie

the truth will set you free. it will also bring out the gun banners screatching with talons drawn to attack you. nice job.

Posted by: dbs at April 16, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #216928

Well, I’m 100% pro-2nd Amendment, pro-NRA, and I own several guns, but I don’t really think that students should actually be allowed or encouraged to bring guns to class. That sounds like overkill.

It’s interesting though, considering that Virginia’s new Senator, Jim Webb, carries a handgun for personal protection, to think that Virginia would continue to deny students the same right.

I think you should be allowed to have one in your dorm room, and at times when the s*** hits the fan as it did today, you should be at least have the ability that anybody else in society has to defend yourself.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 10:44 PM
Comment #216931

Yep, more guns will fix the problem. Ever pay attention to history?

We’re supposedly the worlds only super-power. I’m beginning to think we’re especially stupid!

We choose to ignore history! Terrorism must be met with a WAR on terrorism (even if we attack someone that didn’t attack us) and GUN violence must be met by allowing more “bone-heads” to wield guns. Yeah, it makes sense to me!

If everyone’s packing we’ll see a decrease in gun related crime. JUST LIKE A CENTURY AGO! Damn we’ve gone backwards fast!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 16, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #216932

KansasDem,

I’m wondering if it is you who is not remembering ‘history’. Yeah, about a hundred years ago we tried this ‘prohibition’ thing. it created a violent underculture and increase in violence. Wow, why does this all sound so familiar…?

And the ‘wild west’ as you describe it was anything but wild. You are falling prey to the inventions of Hollywood, not the reality of what actually occured during tha time frame.

OF course, it helped that the guns of the time were the most innacurate you could imagine, actually hitting someone with a gun was most often pure luck…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #216934

KansasDem, how are you looking at this tragic situation and getting anything about “attacking people who didn’t attack us” or a commentary about a superpower’s war on terrorism?

A foreign exchange student, enjoying the generosity of this country, breaks every law on the books about firearms and slaughters our countrmen, and you seize upon it as yet another opportunity to criticize and attack America, its customs, traditions, and its right to self-defense.

Typical.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment #216939
A foreign exchange student

What is the source of this information?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 16, 2007 11:39 PM
Comment #216943

HERE.

I heard it on the news too. Like everything else, this is preliminary info, but it does match the description and seems to be the best info so far.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #216947

Rhinehold,

I’m wondering if it is you who is not remembering ‘history’. Yeah, about a hundred years ago we tried this ‘prohibition’ thing. it created a violent underculture and increase in violence. Wow, why does this all sound so familiar…?

Huh? So, let me see if I’m getting this right. If we ban alcohol on campus a violent underculture will rise up on campus?

I don’t recall prohibition being about the second admendment, but….ummm….O.K.

Prohibiting guns on campus seems reasonable to me, but I’m not sure what this has to do with this situation in Virginia Tech. Perhaps we should also ban nutcases from campus. Or maybe male Asians in their 20’s.

Posted by: Batman at April 17, 2007 12:24 AM
Comment #216949

I was wondering if this had anything to do with people laughing at his driving skills?

Posted by: Don Imus at April 17, 2007 12:32 AM
Comment #216950

Batman,

Do you seriously not see a correlation with the prohibition of certain substances and the violent underculture that has come up as a result of that, one of the main reasons for the increase in gun violence over the past 40 years?

And to combat that some want to enact another prohibition on an inantimate object and not the behavior that a small percentage of those who use that object (in this case a gun) irresponsibily?

As for prohibiting guns on campus, how well did that work out for VT today?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #216954

Sure I see that correlation, but what does it have to do with Virginia Tech?

To combat gun regulation fear some people want to arm everyone…that’s equally nuts. I can see it now… VT becomes like Baghdad. They put the Admin building in the green zone…….

Again, I said it seems reasonable to me that a prohibition of guns on campus makes sense on a campus like VT. I don’t know about you, but I never felt the need to be armed in class. Sure I didn’t like some professors, and yeah I got my heart broken by some coeds, but then I’m not a psycho.

Wouldn’t banning asians and leather jackets have been effective at VT? How about intensive psychological screening of every student every day?

It’s nutty, IMO, to talk about gun control or 2nd admendment rights in regard to a nutcase on a bucolic campus. It makes absolutely no sense, except political grand standing.

Arming campus police, increasing readiness for dangerous events, keyed access to buildings, are things that might make sense.

Posted by: Batman at April 17, 2007 1:25 AM
Comment #216957

Batman,

No one is suggesting arming everyone. However, last year there were students who did want to carry a small weapon for their own safety (travelling at night between classes, around campus, etc) and petitioned that the law making it illegal to own a gun on campus at all be lifted. The gun control lobby fought and won, the ban on guns on campus was kept in place.

The result? Someone who wanted to break the law had no problem violating that one and brought guns on campus. No law abiding sensible honerable individual had a gun that could have stopped the killer in his tracks before he killed 33 people.

How would any of the things you suggested has possibly helped?

but then I’m not a psycho.

Most people aren’t.

Posted by: rhinehold at April 17, 2007 1:56 AM
Comment #216959

Rhinehold:

Are you refering to VT when talking about a gun ban? I have no idea if that is the case there, but tend to doubt it. Most schools do ban contraban which include drugs and firearms or explosives as policy. An urban school might be a dangerous place at night, but I went to a surburban school and was unaware of anyone fearing nighttime on campus. I noted that many of the students felt very safe there at VT.

None of the things I suggested may have helped, but then neither would most students carry a gun at 7 or 10 in the morning on a rural campus, even if allowed. So how would your proposal help?

That was my point. This was a random act unrelated to Gun control or the 2nd admendment.

Posted by: Batman at April 17, 2007 2:19 AM
Comment #216961

And think he just got here from red china and isn’t that politically Interesting and his target’s are White’s isn’t that called murder for race reason’s And what about the guy with the web page? with murder picture’s? so who let this evil rat inside the USA? “our so called Government”.
oh yes are the cops a joke or what?

Posted by: Fred Dawes at April 17, 2007 3:24 AM
Comment #216963
Are you refering to VT when talking about a gun ban?

Yes.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770

Virginia Tech’s ban on guns may draw legal fire

University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting “unauthorized possession, storage or control” of firearms on campus.

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student’s name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech’s ban on guns dates back several decades.

Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university’s internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.

“I think it’s fair to say that we believe guns don’t belong in the classroom,” Hincker said. “In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear.”

Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU’s policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.

“It’s extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at … whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they’re not,” Briggman said Tuesday.

Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had “never been tested” and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2007 3:46 AM
Comment #216965

Rhinehold,

History doesn’t change. Only interpretation of history changes. Prohibition of alcohol was an utter failure. I’m not talking about “prohibition” of guns! I’m talking about common sense laws.

While we no longer “prohibit” alcohol it’s certainly regulated. It’s harder to buy alcohol than it is some firearms. It seems lately that we just keep going backwards.

Kansas has a “concealed carry” law now, but a large number of places are “off-limits”! Just imagine being a thief! Wow, just hit the parking lots outside a sports stadium. Since no guns are allowed inside you’re almost guaranteed to find handguns in many cars.

I don’t want to see our right to own firearms go away, but we’re getting more and more stupid about reasonable regulation. More guns aren’t going to fix this problem. That would be like pooring gasoline on a fire.

It’s just too damn easy to buy a gun in the USA.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 17, 2007 4:28 AM
Comment #216966

“you seize upon it as yet another opportunity to criticize and attack America, its customs, traditions, and its right to self-defense.”

Hardly LO. Just shortly before these shootings Bush held yet another press conference “promoting” his war on terror to keep us safe at home. Well, he didn’t, and he can’t. When the leader of the world’s only super-power promotes “pre-emptive” war as a solution to terrorist attacks it speaks volumes about his small-mindedness.

Knowing Bush as I do I’m sure he’ll create a “team” to look into this and then he’ll ignore their recommendations.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 17, 2007 5:04 AM
Comment #216970
Knowing Bush as I do I’m sure he’ll create a “team” to look into this and then he’ll ignore their recommendations.

Ah, I see.

At first I thought it might be hard to connect this somehow to pathological hatred of Bush, but I see you’ve overcome that obstacle very easily.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 17, 2007 6:33 AM
Comment #216971

O.K., Rhinehold,

Well, I guess that guy didn’t save the day. You still failed to explain how this would have made this incident different and how this incident impinges on gun control or 2nd admendment rights. Don’t you believe VT has the right to control behavior of people on their property?

They stopped the guy authorized to carry a gun. It’s too bad they didn’t catch this nutcase guy before he unloaded his clips. If there wasn’t a rule about guns and he was stopped, they’d have no reason to detain him would they? Gee, that would’ve been real comforting to the victims.

I really have no problem with someone authorized to carry weapons, with reason to carry one, having a gun. Again, what’s your point?

Posted by: batman at April 17, 2007 7:10 AM
Comment #216994
And think he just got here from red china

Actually, no. He’s a South Korean national. Plus, he’s not a foreign exchange student, as someone else claimed. His family lives legally in America.

Can we please rely more on verified facts instead of provocative speculation in cases like this?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 17, 2007 9:59 AM
Comment #217032
He’s a South Korean national. Plus, he’s not a foreign exchange student, as someone else claimed. His family lives legally in America.

Can we please rely more on verified facts instead of provocative speculation in cases like this?

Hey, LawnBoy, you just ruin another unique occasion to blame gun violence on a foreigner!!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #217057

LO,

Define pathological please.

Do I not have reason for my disgust with this administration? Remember this:

“The President stated at the October 10th White House Conference on School Safety that he believes that funding education is a local responsibility. Initial reports suggest Congress is also not moving to restore or expand funding for school safety. Congress must view school safety as a public safety issue, not an education funding issue. Violence and crime in and around our schools is a matter of protecting the safety of our children and teachers. Federal grants cuts made in school drug and violence prevention programming, school security, and school emergency planning funding for the past five years should be restored and incrementally expanded in the manner we have built upon funding to protect the rest of our national infrastructure.”

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/white_house_school_safety.html

Seems like Bush and his “do-nothing” Congress ignored many of the recommendations, eh? Typical, very typical, every decision is based on ideology. Ignore the facts!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 17, 2007 1:14 PM
Comment #217061

Every time something happens involving a gun we here the same old crap from the left. “Guns are killing people. We need to ban them.”
HOGWASH! A gun has NEVER killed anyone. The fact is EVERY act of murder has been committed by a person. Not some object that can’t even move without some person picking it up.
If the libs would just let the laws we have against committing murder be enforced and the harshest penalty their is be enforced we’d see a whole heap less murders being committed. While the death penalty isn’t designed to be a deterrent to crime, it does have that effect. When folks know that murdering someone can cost them their lives most will think twice about it. But if they know that some bleeding heart judge won’t give them the death penalty and most likely slap them on the wrist a lot of thugs won’t even think before killing someone.
Also an armed public IS a safe public. Despite what the left wants us to believe. Put yourself in the place of a criminal for a minute. If you were going to rob someone who would you chose?
A. The person you know has a gun?
B. The person you think might have a gun?
C. The person you know doesn’t have a gun?
If ya chose A or B your a hell of a lot braver than most thugs. Or a hell of a lot dumber.
A criminal aint gonna risk getting shot robbing someone they know has a gun.

Batman

Perhaps we should also ban nutcases from campus.

Who’d teach the kids then?

KansasDem

It’s harder to buy alcohol than it is some firearms. It seems lately that we just keep going backwards.

BULLHOCKY!
I have NEVER seen or heard of anyone having to have their fingerprints taken, pass a background check, and/or waiting up to 10 days to buy alcohol. And if someone tells ya they have you have my permission to call them a %$*@: liar.
I know, ya can illegally buy guns. And ya can also buy alcohol illegally. Or anything else ya want to.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 17, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #217063

I don’t think the police, state governments, or federal government can do anything to make schools safer. How do you stop a person that wants to die and will kill as many innocent people as he can?

He’s going to die anyway. Why would he care about breaking the law? Are we going to punish him after he’s dead? It’s foolish to think we can’t stop people like that with laws.

Armed police at campuses doesn’t make sense. The campus police wont know who’s good or bad because the psycho killers look like students. Unfortunetaly for campus police, psycho killers know exactly who to kill first because of the uniforms campus police wear.

If you’re going to have undercover police in class rooms, why not just let conceal carry permit holders carry?

You would need an undercover police officer in every class room to make schools safe. It’s not a feasible solution.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at April 17, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #217065

Correction: “It’s foolish to think we can stop people like that with laws.”

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at April 17, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #217073

Concerning the sentiment on banning guns which some on this blog have expressed and a lot of BBC readers apparently think is the solution: How? I don’t think it practical to go door to door in the US and collect guns. Folks won’t give them up. If that’s the case, then it is really a moot arguement.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at April 17, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #217143

Ron Brown,

Then folks know that murdering someone can cost them their lives most will think twice about it.

Except for the huge part that don’t even think once before murdering, that is…

If you were going to rob someone who would you chose? A. The person you know has a gun? B. The person you think might have a gun? C. The person you know doesn’t have a gun?

D. The person you know has money.

A criminal aint gonna risk getting shot robbing someone they know has a gun.

Nice theory to explain gang killing…

I wonder how many of people who actually trigger their gun when facing somebody did think about doing it *before* doing it. It can’t be 100%. It can’t be 0%. Where reflex stop? Where mistake stop?

Whatever. You own a gun, you’re always 100% responsible for what you do with it, right. That’s personal responsibility. Let’s put Cheney in jail, he badly wounded someone with its weapon. What? How could it works both way???

Anyway, another deadly day in Iraq, meanwhile.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 6:57 PM
Comment #217151

Philippe
Gangs don’t rob each other. They just kill each other for territory to commit their crimes in. And then they shoot indiscriminantly from moving vehicles because they’re to chicken to go face to face with someone that can shoot back.

I wonder how many of people who actually trigger their gun when facing somebody did think about doing it *before* doing it. It can’t be 100%. It can’t be 0%. Where reflex stop? Where mistake stop?

Where does reflex stop and mistakes begin in a fatal car wreck?
If your pulling a gun on someone ya better be thinking. Ya could end up dead if your not.

Whatever. You own a gun, you’re always 100% responsible for what you do with it, right.

100% RIGHT!!!!

That’s personal responsibility.

And personal responsibility does stop there. Unless your a liberal. Then personal responsibility doesn’t apply because the government is gonna to be responsible for ya.

Let’s put Cheney in jail, he badly wounded someone with its weapon.

No argument here. Chaney aint anymore above the law than you or me. And that’s the thing that gets me. If it was you or me we’d be sitting under the jail for a trick like that.

What? How could it works both way???

It shouldn’t, but it seem that politicians can do anything they want and get away with it.

Anyway, another deadly day in Iraq, meanwhile.

Yeah is was. And that gripes my ass too.


Posted by: Ron Brown at April 17, 2007 7:29 PM
Comment #217153

BTW Philippe, a criminal is less likely to rob someone with a gun than someone without. Even if they know that the person with the gun has a large amount of money on them. That’s one reason armored car employees carry guns. Yeah I know, they do get robbed now and again. But not like they would if they didn’t have guns.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 17, 2007 7:34 PM
Comment #217159

I grew up in Georgia. About the time that gun control laws were first being passed, we laughed at them thinking no one in their right mind would sllow anyone to take away their right to guns. The city of Kennessaw Ga even went so far as to pass their own version of gun control. Every household was required to posess a working firearm. They offered exemtions for anyone who wanted one and they never enforced it, but the result was a dramatic decrease in break-ins.
There was a slight increase in the surrounding areas though.

“I wonder how many of people who actually trigger their gun when facing somebody did think about doing it *before* doing it. It can’t be 100%. It can’t be 0%. Where reflex stop? Where mistake stop?

“Whatever. You own a gun, you’re always 100% responsible for what you do with it, right. That’s personal responsibility.”

Just like you are personally 100% responsible for what you do with anything you own. The fact that the object is a gun doesn’t add or deminish responsibility.

“Let’s put Cheney in jail, he badly wounded someone with its weapon. What? How could it works both way???”

Can you say….. ACCIDENT?

Posted by: tomd at April 17, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #217165

tomd
What part of GA? And do ya still live there?
I remember when Kennesaw passed that law. I think they should have enforced it.
In fact maybe we need to make everyone 16 and over carry a gun. Then watch crime take a nose dive.
I have a friend that’s all for that. He claims that the first three years will be very violent and bloody. But then everything will quite down because all the idiots will be dead.
He just might have a point there. But if he keeps his hat on nobody will notice. :)

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 17, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #217171

Ron,

I was born in Woodstock and raised in Atlanta and north. Still have family in Columbus and Dahlonega. I left to follow a career a few years ago. Going to bed now. Cleaned my guns last night. (Love the smell of gunoil in the morning.)

Posted by: tomd at April 17, 2007 8:10 PM
Comment #217174
That’s one reason armored car employees carry guns. Yeah I know, they do get robbed now and again. But not like they would if they didn’t have guns.

But not like they wouldn’t if they didn’t have money. I mean they carry guns because they fear escorting money will increased the risk to meet people with guns. Remove the money, and this fear will drop quite all.
Well, maybe not in the USA, because fear of violence seems to much the newest untold culture these days.

I say remove the guns, and this fear of being shooted at will drop.

Carrying a gun sounds so like a preemptive self-defense act to me. While it could make its owner feel safer, it make the non-owners less safer just because, as you said, “you never know”. The fear level rise. They eventually start to behave unusually. Fear does this to people. And from unusual behavior comes the unexpected.

Pro-guns are saying it wont anymore if more people could carry a gun. But people will resist it, as the 2nd amendment can’t force them to have an arm, right. So, gun people vs unarmed people stressing situation will continues to happened, at the same frequency than people having a gun meet people they can’t know if they have gun like them.

Reducing this frequency is easy: forbid people to meet strangers. Er, no, sorry, I mean limit allowed gun carrying!


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #217175
Can you say….. ACCIDENT?

Can you say RESPONSABILITY?
You can’t have it both ways.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #217183

Anyway, that’s your kids killed in schools, not mine. I’m off for bed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #217187

This issue of guns has been hotly debated between Americans for some time now, but I can’t quite figure out why Europeans seem to take such a passionate and active interest in it. I honestly wonder, and would like to hear an explanation if there is one.

Unlike, say, foreign policy, foreign aid, the environment, or even the economy—almost any other issue—this is a facet of American life which is very unlikely to effect those living in other countries unless they are on vacation here and happened to have very, very bad luck. Why this is such a pressing issue for huge numbers of foriegners doesn’t make sense to me. Why this obsession?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 17, 2007 9:23 PM
Comment #217232

Good question LO. Very good question.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at April 18, 2007 1:11 AM
Comment #217234

By the way, I was raised in Woodstock, GA. I have family in Kennesaw and Canton.

I live on Little Rock AFB, Arkansas right now and I do miss Georgia. A great state.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at April 18, 2007 1:14 AM
Comment #217248

It’s now come out that this has little to do with gun control, but Mental Illness and society’s inability to deal with it.

His teacher and others were well aware of the problems of the shooter and went to police and administrators, but was told nothing could be done.

Frankly, his parents should have been contacted and if they failed to be able to respond, a mental health evaluation should have been done.

I once had a friend when we were in our twenties who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. I had no knowledge of his history. He had quit his job, been doing speed for days, gave away his car, and invited thugs into his house at two in the morning who later came back to rob his roomate.

When I approached his roomate about doing something about Doug, even though he had grown up with Doug he offered no help. No one wanted to do anything. I convinced Doug in the early morning hours to go talk to his parents, after he had ranted about his millions and other nonsense. I used his competitve desire to prove this to me, to lure him into a meeting with his parents. I suspect he wanted help, but could not face his diminishing sanity. His parents got him placed in a hospital. I lost touch with him and do not know what happened to him, but I always reject the notion that nothing could have been done. Most of the time, there were people who knew and did little or nothing.

This is truly a healthcare and apathy issue.

Posted by: gergle at April 18, 2007 4:05 AM
Comment #217251
This issue of guns has been hotly debated between Americans for some time now, but I can’t quite figure out why Europeans seem to take such a passionate and active interest in it. I honestly wonder, and would like to hear an explanation if there is one.

Because that gun culture is one of the few highly different points between europeans and americans.
Differences are as interesting as similarities, but they make a better debate platform.

Why this is such a pressing issue for huge numbers of foriegners doesn’t make sense to me. Why this obsession?

Because I’m interested in other culture. It’s not limited to american one. I’m also interested in asian ones too.

You call it obsession, I call it cultural openess.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 5:06 AM
Comment #217263

Ron Brown wrote:
“And then they shoot indiscriminantly from moving vehicles because they’re to chicken to go face to face with someone that can shoot back.”

And guns being legal and freely available stops this?

More from Ron:
“The fact is EVERY act of murder has been committed by a person.”

Let us pretend that every person had a magic button that could be pressed when we wanted someone instantly killed, would that be legal?

More from Ron:
“Put yourself in the place of a criminal for a minute. If you were going to rob someone who would you chose?
A. The person you know has a gun?
B. The person you think might have a gun?
C. The person you know doesn’t have a gun?”

How would a thief know if a person was carrying a concealed weapon? Did the definition of “concealed” change when I was asleep last night?

Sorry, Ron, more questions:
“I remember when Kennesaw passed that law. I think they should have enforced it.
In fact maybe we need to make everyone 16 and over carry a gun. Then watch crime take a nose dive.
I have a friend that’s all for that. He claims that the first three years will be very violent and bloody. But then everything will quite down because all the idiots will be dead.
He just might have a point there. But if he keeps his hat on nobody will notice.”

Do “idiots” not have the same right to life as the non-idiots?

Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 18, 2007 8:31 AM
Comment #217271

“Let us pretend that every person had a magic button that could be pressed when we wanted someone instantly killed, would that be legal?”

Yes We have that now. The magic button is called a gun. Having the button isn’t illegal. Pressing the button for the wrong reason is illegal.

Now, Let’s change the question just a little. Pretend that every person has a magic button that could be pressed when we wanted the shit beat out of instantly, would that be any more legal?


““Put yourself in the place of a criminal for a minute. If you were going to rob someone who would you chose?
A. The person you know has a gun?
B. The person you think might have a gun?
C. The person you know doesn’t have a gun?”

How would a thief know if a person was carrying a concealed weapon? Did the definition of “concealed” change when I was asleep last night?

That’s the point. given the 3 choices:
A. The person you know has a gun?…Maybe at a gun show or NRA convention.
B. The person you think might have a gun?…Maybe someone in a state that allows someone to carry a concealed weapon.
C. The person you know doesn’t have a gun?…Maybe a state with heavy gun regulation or a college campus.

If you were the thief, which would you choose?

“Do “idiots” not have the same right to life as the non-idiots?”

That question made me think.. Everyone, Idiot or not are entitled only to the rights they are willing to defend and protect. The idiots tend to give them up more freely than others.


Posted by: tomd at April 18, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #217277
Yes We have that now. The magic button is called a gun. Having the button isn’t illegal. Pressing the button for the wrong reason is illegal.

Unfortunatly, this illegality always comes too late to avoid death(s).

Now, let’s move ownership to illegal, and every second between owning and pressing that button is a second when you can avoid death(s).

given the 3 choices:

A. The person you know has a gun?…Maybe at a gun show or NRA convention.

B. The person you think might have a gun?…Maybe someone in a state that allows someone to carry a concealed weapon.

C. The person you know doesn’t have a gun?…Maybe a state with heavy gun regulation or a college campus.

If you were the thief, which would you choose?

I will choose to have a gun because in A and B I still have the suprise effect on my side *and* I’ll target the guy with the more money.

Wait. Real thieves does that, right?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment #217297

Dutch
Yeah, idiots have the same right to life as everyone else. Until they prove they’re an idiot and start pulling guns on someone that has one too, that won’t hesitate to use it in self defense against someone dumb enough to pull a gun on them.
But I was stating what a friend told me about what he thinks about carrying guns. The opinion expressed aint necessarily mine.

tomd

That question made me think..

So that’s what I’ve been smelling burning! :)

Everyone, Idiot or not are entitled only to the rights they are willing to defend and protect. The idiots tend to give them up more freely than others.

And they also tend to do things that get them killed more than someone that’s not an idiot.

Philippe
True thieves do target the guy with the most money. Unless they know he has a gun. Then 99% of the time they’ll choose someone without a gun even though they might have a less money. Thieves want as much money as they can get, but very few are willing to risk getting killed for it. But then I don’t know about where you are, maybe they do.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 18, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #217303
Thieves want as much money as they can get, but very few are willing to risk getting killed for it. But then I don’t know about where you are, maybe they do.

As in France pretty much all people don’t carry a gun, our thieves just target the guy with the most money. Simple.
Our gun control policy here didn’t reduce robery, but death due to robery is rare. Between losing money or life, people here choose the later.

Weirdo frogs, they does the same between money quantity or life quality. We’re so insane…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 18, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #217581

The schools are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Colleges see tough choices on troubled students

Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #217637

This is why these things are happening:

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at

This is the kind of societal thing that we need to teach our children. It is about respecting others and their differences, and how we manage anger and teach our children to manage anger.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #217683

womanmarine,

I see as much wealth envy in that link as I do him being laughed at and picked on.

Posted by: tomd at April 19, 2007 7:07 PM
Comment #217703
This is why these things are happening:

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at

Now there’s a really good reason to murder 31 people. Reckon I’d be justifed then. And so would everyone else. We’ve all been laughed at. Howcome 99.9% of us aint out there killing everyone?
Sorry that’s one of the worst excuses I’ve seen for murder.
I believe that this idiot would’ve done this or something worse anyway. There’s no doubt he was deranged. He just used getting laughed at as an excuse.
But the shrinks, most of who are nutcases themselves and don’t know their asses from a whole in the ground, will analize him until they’re blue in the face and use this stupid excuse to justify his actions.


Posted by: Ron Brown at April 19, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #217717

Ron:

The point is that these kinds of things tend to push unstable people over the edge. Would you disagree with that? I know you’re smarter than this comment:

We’ve all been laughed at. Howcome 99.9% of us aint out there killing everyone? Sorry that’s one of the worst excuses I’ve seen for murder.

I’m not and I don’t think anyone else is trying to excuse him or any other perpetrators. I’m trying to wrap my brain around what might have caused an unstable person to go over the edge. I don’t think we’ll ever be able to reliably predict or stop this kind of behavior. I would be happy if we could try to lessen the incidence.

But the shrinks, most of who are nutcases themselves

Having worked in the field and have many family members that work in the field, I have to disagree. This is part of why help is less available for unstable people, the stigma ideas like yours attach to mental instability or what you perceive to be weakness or evil.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 10:24 PM
Post a comment