Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Shooting Rampage at VT

Shooting Rampage at VT (Page 12)
Thread Tools
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
It's so obvious why this happens.
CNN.com - Mourning for victims of German school rampage - April 26, 2002

CTV.ca | Student killed in Montreal shooting rampage

Montreal suffered three school shootings

Looks like a lot of Canada on this last one. Must be b/c they're so close to the US. Or maybe we should ban French in schools, since there's a high correlation b/w that and gun violence.

And for the fans of audio-indoctrination:

NPR : School Shooting Prompted U.K.'s Tough Gun Laws
( Last edited by finboy; Apr 23, 2007 at 08:36 PM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2007, 02:41 AM
 
What I said was obvious is that if you don't have gun control laws then you have regular killings. Those links only go to prove that. Of course you cannot eliminate such acts entirely but you can reduce them. The UK and Germany certainly don't have 2 school killings a year and even if you took Europe as a whole (with a similar population to the US), the frequency is still way down.

Those who say it has nothing to do with the gun laws in the US are effectively supporting the notion that you can have unhindered access to guns and loads of guns in circulation and there's no price for having this "freedom". I just think it's obvious that there's a reaction for every action.
( Last edited by Troll; Apr 24, 2007 at 07:53 AM. )
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2007, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
That's a lost point on most people. If you said that free speech didn't apply to PA Systems (electronics, not around in 1789) or typewritten documents, or the Internet, or the recorded voice, or TV because they weren't around back then, you'd be laughed out of town.

So... gun rights only apply to those guns that existed when the Constitution was written. Right.
Perfect argument!

"Darling, the Johnsons have gone nucular. We need one of our own!"

"Yes, dear, but the car needs a new transmission first. It'll have to wait till next month."
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2007, 06:28 AM
 
The idea of the second amendment in the US-contitution was that the membe-states be able to organize a well regulated militia that could always defeat the federal standing army, if somehow it chose to invade one or more member states.

It was thought that the sheer number of militia-members, made up of trained and armed civilians, could easily discourage and repel any invasions by the standing federal army. The writers of the constitution had the political idea, that a standing federal army would pose security-problems to the member states, in times of peace.

All that was true during these times, but things changed considerably since then:

1. The member states don't have anymore well regulated militias, the national guard, that was once such a concept is now highly dependent on the federal government.

2. Technology led to the development of fighter-jets, rockets, tanks, nukes..., that give the federal standing army such a strength and advantage that no militia can repel an invasion by it, no matter how many members the militia could recruit from the general population.

In order to recreate the balance of power, as wished for in the constitution, between the federal standing army and the armed civilians of the member-states, , that can organize in militias, it would be necessary to equip civilians with anti-tank-rockets, radar-installation-technology with ground-to-air-anti-aircraft-rockets, and a few nukes here and there, and a lot of other things, like nightvision.googles, landmines, miniguns, artillery... and a lot of ammunition-caches for these and more, and of course sophisticated training in the tactical and strategical use of these..

Taliesin
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2007, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
2. Technology led to the development of fighter-jets, rockets, tanks, nukes..., that give the federal standing army such a strength and advantage that no militia can repel an invasion by it, no matter how many members the militia could recruit from the general population.
The NRA obviously needs Guerilla Warfare and Suicide Bomber Departments.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2007, 06:12 AM
 
I don't know if it's right, but I have heard, that back in the days of the wild west, towns used to disarm people entering them, in order to prevent shootings when men get drunk and start brawling.

"Don't drink and shoot" was the slogan I guess.

Taliesin
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2007, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin View Post
I don't know if it's right, but I have heard, that back in the days of the wild west, towns used to disarm people entering them, in order to prevent shootings when men get drunk and start brawling.

"Don't drink and shoot" was the slogan I guess.

Taliesin
well, that's kind of what happened here, the campus bylaws disarmed people. So people didn't take firearms onto campus. Aside from a mentally unstable mass murderer.

In 2002 in Virgina another shooter set about killing people, he was stopped by armed citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2007, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by moodymonster View Post
well, that's kind of what happened here, the campus bylaws disarmed people. So people didn't take firearms onto campus. Aside from a mentally unstable mass murderer.

In 2002 in Virgina another shooter set about killing people, he was stopped by armed citizens.

Appalachian School of Law shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He was stopped by armed citizens who happened to be police-officers from other districts:

When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms.[5]

At the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personally-owned firearms.[6] Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armour.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C.,[8] pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevy Tahoe. As Bridges later told the Richmond Times Dispatch, he was prepared to shoot to kill.[9]

Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.[11]

There has been dispute about this account of events, with Besen saying that before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people.[12] Either way, once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Police reports later noted that two empty eight round magazines designed for Odighizuwa’s handgun were recovered. Most sources (including those quoting a Virginia State Police spokesman) state that when Odighizuwa dropped the gun the magazine was empty,[13] although some initial reports suggested the gun still held three rounds of ammunition.[14]
This shooter got stopped and arrested by police-officers from other states, who happened to be there to study, and after the shooter was finished with his rampage and exiting the building.

The newest shooting though was different, the shooter committed suicide after the rampage.

The question though remains, could the newest shooter be stopped, if the campus had allowed every student and teacher to carry weapons? Probably, but at what price? The additional weapons in teacher's and student's hands would have led to just as many casualties, although stretched over a longer period of time.

Taliesin
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2007, 09:44 PM
 
I heard the other day that one of the things that alienated the shooter at VT, when he was younger, was his language difficulty. I wonder how it would be different if he'd received the right support in learning his new country's language sooner.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:48 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,