Virginia Shootings - 33 confirmed dead.

[TFMF]

A gunman opened fire at a university in Virginia killing 32 people. The gunman later commited suicide bringing the death toll up to 33.

 

Full Story

 

There is even a video available to download where you can see the event. Just shocking.

[Centurion]

It's really saddening that this kind of thing keeps happening... I can't even imagine what the families of the victims must be going through. BTW, was the gunman also a student?

[TFMF]

Investigators offered no motive for the attack. The gunman's name was not immediately released' date=' and it was not known if he was a student.[/quote']

 

Not as of yet.

[Centurion]

Virginia massacre gunman is named

 

Police have named a student who shot dead at least 30 people at a US university as Cho Seung-hui, a 23-year-old from South Korea.

 

He was studying English and had been living on the university campus. He killed himself after the rampage.

 

Police said a gun found at the scene was also used at an earlier shooting in which two people were killed.

 

It was the worst gun massacre in US history. A memorial service is to be held at the university on Tuesday.

 

Full text

[Megalith]

I heard this guy did this cuz his girlfriend had dumped him. I don't know if she was a victim.

 

Also on our news they were saying how the gun laws in virginia are the most lax in the US but the gun lobbyists argued that if more people had guns he would not have been able to do this.... this made me ask myself 2 questions

 

1/ if the place where you can get a gun with no background check no questions asked (except that you haven't already bought a gun that month) is where this happens then how come where they have strict controls this hasn't happened?

 

2/ since when is it that guns are to be encouraged to take into a classroom?

 

Imo they should be banned and also wtf didn't they do a lockdown? heads surely must roll from the result of this.

[Centurion]

I agree. And if some idiot did this mess because his girlfriend dumped him or whatever, imagine what "the terrorists" could have done... I honestly don't understand why the US in general don't see gun control as a matter of national security.

[Megalith]

i can understand it as a matter of rights in a way, but to say you have the right to bare arms to defend yourself also means that you have the right to use these guns. considering the Christian history of the US the gun thing is very hypocritical. i wonder how many bible belt clergymen have guns? would they break one of the 10 commandments of the book they hold so dear? guns don't kill people Psycho's do, you let a psycho have a gun what happens?

[MrDad]

I heard this guy did this cuz his girlfriend had dumped him. I don't know if she was a victim.

 

Also on our news they were saying how the gun laws in virginia are the most lax in the US but the gun lobbyists argued that if more people had guns he would not have been able to do this.... this made me ask myself 2 questions

 

1/ if the place where you can get a gun with no background check no questions asked (except that you haven't already bought a gun that month) is where this happens then how come where they have strict controls this hasn't happened?

Do you mean other places with strict controls in the US like LA, Chicago and NYC, where they have metal detectors in the school or other countries like the UK and Japan where there are also less stabbings and beatings which must obviously due to strict laws prohibiting the possession of knives, fists and feet? 

 

2/ since when is it that guns are to be encouraged to take into a classroom?

 

Imo they should be banned and also wtf didn't they do a lockdown? heads surely must roll from the result of this.

They're not. Heads will roll, that is certain.

[Centurion]

Do you mean other places with strict controls in the US like LA, Chicago and NYC, where they have metal detectors in the school or other countries like the UK and Japan where there are also less stabbings and beatings which must obviously due to strict laws prohibiting the possession of knives, fists and feet?

 

No US expert here, but that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, places with strict controls and places with no controls.

 

BTW, I'm not anti-gun. I just think that people shouldn't be able to buy  guns without a lot of bureaucracy.

[Megalith]

I heard this guy did this cuz his girlfriend had dumped him. I don't know if she was a victim.

 

Also on our news they were saying how the gun laws in virginia are the most lax in the US but the gun lobbyists argued that if more people had guns he would not have been able to do this.... this made me ask myself 2 questions

 

1/ if the place where you can get a gun with no background check no questions asked (except that you haven't already bought a gun that month) is where this happens then how come where they have strict controls this hasn't happened?

Do you mean other places with strict controls in the US like LA, Chicago and NYC, where they have metal detectors in the school or other countries like the UK and Japan where there are also less stabbings and beatings which must obviously due to strict laws prohibiting the possession of knives, fists and feet? 

I aint heard of 32 people bein knifed or beaten to death by some psycho? also this is the worst atrocity of its kind in the US. Maybe just coincidence it happens in a state where gun laws are lax? I'm not sayin that legislation stops people from killing each other, but it reduces the numbers.

 

In The UK there have been Massacres too (the Hungerford and Dunblane Massacres)

 

The hungerford massacre led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988[1], which banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds. The Hungerford Report had demonstrated that Ryan's collection of weapons was legally licensed.

 

The Dunblane Massacre led to The Cullen Inquiry which recommended tighter control of handgun ownership as well as other changes in school security and vetting of people working with children under 18. However because the Hungerford massacre also involved a legal gun owner killing with his legally held guns, public feeling turned against private gun ownership, allowing a much more restrictive ban on handguns to pass.

 

Needless to say no such events have happened in the 10 years since. Perhaps public feeling in the US will change like in the UK and something will change.

 

2/ since when is it that guns are to be encouraged to take into a classroom?

 

Imo they should be banned and also wtf didn't they do a lockdown? heads surely must roll from the result of this.

They're not. Heads will roll, that is certain.

Exactly so just what do the gun lobbyists mean by saying if more people had guns this wouldn't happen?

[MrDad]

I heard this guy did this cuz his girlfriend had dumped him. I don't know if she was a victim.

 

Also on our news they were saying how the gun laws in virginia are the most lax in the US but the gun lobbyists argued that if more people had guns he would not have been able to do this.... this made me ask myself 2 questions

 

1/ if the place where you can get a gun with no background check no questions asked (except that you haven't already bought a gun that month) is where this happens then how come where they have strict controls this hasn't happened?

Do you mean other places with strict controls in the US like LA, Chicago and NYC, where they have metal detectors in the school or other countries like the UK and Japan where there are also less stabbings and beatings which must obviously due to strict laws prohibiting the possession of knives, fists and feet? 

I aint heard of 32 people bein knifed or beaten to death by some psycho? also this is the worst atrocity of its kind in the US. Maybe just coincidence it happens in a state where gun laws are lax? I'm not sayin that legislation stops people from killing each other, but it reduces the numbers.

 

In The UK there have been Massacres too (the Hungerford and Dunblane Massacres)

 

The hungerford massacre led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988[1], which banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted the use of shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds. The Hungerford Report had demonstrated that Ryan's collection of weapons was legally licensed.

 

The Dunblane Massacre led to The Cullen Inquiry which recommended tighter control of handgun ownership as well as other changes in school security and vetting of people working with children under 18. However because the Hungerford massacre also involved a legal gun owner killing with his legally held guns, public feeling turned against private gun ownership, allowing a much more restrictive ban on handguns to pass.

 

Needless to say no such events have happened in the 10 years since. Perhaps public feeling in the US will change like in the UK and something will change.  Yet gun violence in the UK is rising at a significant rate. 

2/ since when is it that guns are to be encouraged to take into a classroom?

 

Imo they should be banned and also wtf didn't they do a lockdown? heads surely must roll from the result of this.

They're not. Heads will roll, that is certain.

Exactly so just what do the gun lobbyists mean by saying if more people had guns this wouldn't happen?

I believe the theory is that well armed and law abiding citizens would have dropped the VT shooter before he could rack up his record body count.  Pass all the gun laws you wish.  Until the underlying problems are dealt with, the killing will continue. 

[Megalith]

True, i agree the underlying issues need to be dealt with. One of these is that people who are not in their right mind should not legally be able to have access to firearms. Quite how tho a law abiding citizen would drop this shooter when he was inside of a school is beyond me? It seems to me that these lobbyists are suggesting that students should bring guns into schools.

 

The issue about why the school wasn't locked down tho is one that needs to be answered, so far as i know it is simply a case of flicking a switch and all doors in the entire school are locked. this would have prevented a large amount of these casualties. The only possible reason i can see as to why lockdown wasn't implemented was that the killer would possibly have been locked in a room with students who he probably would have shot. None the less it is a Government requirement that lockdowns are enforced in these situations.

[Amnot Borg]

I believe the theory is that well armed and law abiding citizens would have dropped the VT shooter before he could rack up his record body count.  Pass all the gun laws you wish.  Until the underlying problems are dealt with' date=' the killing will continue.[/color']

 

That is indeed the theory. Personal defense and proper knowledge of it.

 

If everyone present had a hand gun or tazer or something used as a distance weapon, there would have been less casualties but mostly everyone at the scene.... just ran around screaming.... waiting for someone else to save them. Sometimes, you have to be able to do it yourself.

 

:(

 

It'll be a dark day in Hades before my guns are missing.

[Megalith]

I believe the theory is that well armed and law abiding citizens would have dropped the VT shooter before he could rack up his record body count.  Pass all the gun laws you wish.  Until the underlying problems are dealt with' date=' the killing will continue.[/color']

 

That is indeed the theory. Personal defense and proper knowledge of it.

 

If everyone present had a hand gun or tazer or something used as a distance weapon, there would have been less casualties but mostly everyone at the scene.... just ran around screaming.... waiting for someone else to save them. Sometimes, you have to be able to do it yourself.

 

:(

 

It'll be a dark day in Hades before my guns are missing.

 

fair enough but did you ever take your guns into school? for that matter is it accepted by schools to have it's pupils equipped with weaponry while on school premises? i know in the schools i was at that if you had weaponry on you the police would be called and you would be suspended or expelled immediately. There are times and places for weapons mostly at the shooting range imo.

[Amnot Borg]

Defensive weaponry can be as simple as canned mace or pepper spray if you are close enough to your attacker to defend yourself or anyone else nearby. These can sometimes be carried into schools. Guns allowed on campus or any other offensive weaponry? No, I don't think so. But if he was willing to shoot other people then the rules of society/security on that campus weren't going to slow him down. We are lucky he didn't bring a hidden bomb that could have done more damage. He was unstable and upset. Someone should have helped him before he caused that much trouble and suffering.

 

School lockdowns on a campus the size of VT? How would that work? It's basically a small village not one building.There were many dormitories and educational locations that couldn't be sealed all at once.

 

It's just a personal opinion that a well educated/properly trained person should be able to carry personal defensive protection. I don't believe in a strong military. I believe in a strong citizenry. Big Brother should be the individual not the government.

 

That could have resulted in possibly 2 deaths not 33. Cho would have had many bleeding holes and wouldn't have been able to shoot more than one person.

[Megalith]

Theres not much that can be done once this type of psychopath has flipped and i completely agree that something should have been done before he got that bad. What can be done however is to try to prevent people with this kind of disposition from having access to weaponry.

 

This guy wasn't ya gun toting drug dealing pimp type of person he was an intelligent male who was smart enough to be sent to an american university from a korean background.

 

tbh the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening is to restrict the buying and carrying of firearms just like it is with buying parts that can make a bomb. In the UK if you have a gun license there are strict rules about where they can be kept i.e. in a locked box at the gunclub. Of course people have illegal firearms and yes people do use guns to shoot people but there is a huge difference between a drug dealer shooting another drug dealer and a guy whos lost his mind going on a killing rampage.

 

The easier it is for people to get access to guns the more chance you have that this will happen, its basic probability. Do the citizens of the US really need to have guns to protect themselves from their fellow man?

 

The argument for guns is the same as that for poison. people use poison to kill people. sometimes a crazy person tries to poison as many as they can, but there are strict controls in place about buying poison why is it not the same for guns?

 

One gun full with bullets can kill a lot of people? are all those extra chambers there incase you miss 6 times? i'm sure if you missed that much you would be dead anyway.

 

Basically if you limit the number of chambers in guns and the amount of ammunition that can be supplied or carried then events on this scale would not happen.

 

The issues of unlicensed gun holders and drive by shootings etc are nothing to do with the issue here, yes its not good when anyone gets killed by guns but mass killings can be contained by simple measures.

[Chiggy]

The British Government shut down the majority of gun clubs since the Dunblane massacre and banned hand guns.......figures show that this has done nothing to curve gun crime in fact it has increased.

 

Many guns are now brought into the UK from former communist countries that are swarming with fire arms.........they sell them at car boot sales!

 

The Virginia Incident was indeed tragic. I can understand why people freeze in pure terror when someone is pointing a gun at them.......but upon seeing the fate of their friends why didnt anyone try and rush the one man? What I mean is if you knew you were next to be shot why not struggle, because really there is nothing to lose if your going to die anyway.

[TFMF]

The Virginia Incident was indeed tragic. I can understand why people freeze in pure terror when someone is pointing a gun at them.......but upon seeing the fate of their friends why didnt anyone try and rush the one man? What I mean is if you knew you were next to be shot why not struggle' date=' because really there is nothing to lose if your going to die anyway.[/quote']

 

I think you answered your own question there. They freeze in terror.

[Chiggy]

I always thought if people knew they were about to die that they would at least struggle...........its called survival instinct. Supposedly this happened onboard one of the aircraft used in 911.

[MrDad]

Theres not much that can be done once this type of psychopath has flipped and i completely agree that something should have been done before he got that bad. What can be done however is to try to prevent people with this kind of disposition from having access to weaponry.

 

This guy wasn't ya gun toting drug dealing pimp type of person he was an intelligent male who was smart enough to be sent to an american university from a korean background.

 

tbh the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening is to restrict the buying and carrying of firearms just like it is with buying parts that can make a bomb. In the UK if you have a gun license there are strict rules about where they can be kept i.e. in a locked box at the gunclub. Of course people have illegal firearms and yes people do use guns to shoot people but there is a huge difference between a drug dealer shooting another drug dealer and a guy whos lost his mind going on a killing rampage.

 

The easier it is for people to get access to guns the more chance you have that this will happen, its basic probability. Do the citizens of the US really need to have guns to protect themselves from their fellow man?

 

The argument for guns is the same as that for poison. people use poison to kill people. sometimes a crazy person tries to poison as many as they can, but there are strict controls in place about buying poison why is it not the same for guns?

 

One gun full with bullets can kill a lot of people? are all those extra chambers there incase you miss 6 times? i'm sure if you missed that much you would be dead anyway.

 

Basically if you limit the number of chambers in guns and the amount of ammunition that can be supplied or carried then events on this scale would not happen.

 

The issues of unlicensed gun holders and drive by shootings etc are nothing to do with the issue here, yes its not good when anyone gets killed by guns but mass killings can be contained by simple measures.

Unfortunately, making something illegal doesn't make it go away.  Were that true, I would never see junkies or crack whores in my city.  The VT killer was at one time arrested and committed to a mental institution because he was viewed as a danger to himself and others, yet he was released only with advice to get outpatient counseling.  This man did not "just snap" and his actions were foreseeable.  This is the pattern time after time with mass killers.  If only these people were dealt with appropriately when they first gained the attention of authorities, murder sprees like this would be even more rare than they currently are.