Virginia Tech Shootings

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
How would my carrying a gun protect me from somebody who has a gun?

I think the idea is you shoot his ass before he shoots yours...

EW

quote:

I think the idea is you shoot his ass before he shoots yours...

That'll work then...

I say leave the USA to rot.

How come Canada has almost as many guns but is so much more responsible?

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

I think the idea is you shoot his ass before he shoots yours...

So, that would make my gun the offensive weapon, wouldn't it?

Or would my gun still be the defensive weapon because I used it in a preemptively defensive way...?

I heard a quote from Bush's speech on this sad tragedy: "...in the wrong place at the wrong time". Incredible - as through this was a normal (or worse, acceptable in some way)event, as though they were crossing the road when the bulldozer came past.

On gun laws - I've read that NZ has more firearms per capita than any other country. Indeed, despite our very successful laws (license the owner, very restrictive nature of handguns and military assault weapons with associated high security, designated traffic routes and monitoring of club usage), it's still pretty easy for the crimnal element to get hold of a weapon. Oh well, at least there's no need for metal detectors in schools here.

quote:

Or would my gun still be the defensive weapon because I used it in a preemptively defensive way...?

That's right, if you are absolutely sure that you are about to be shot and you consider the only way to prevent this is to shoot that person yourself then it is a defensive action to shoot.

Of course, how much better if nobody had the weapons in the first instance?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Will the Virginia Tech shootings be considered an act of terrorism?

No, just a lifestyle choice.

Won't be long before you can get a package deal of 50 students, a blow job and a facelift.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Yes, of course it is an overreaction, but a gun only has one purpose.

....and this ONE purpose is to.....?

Cheers

Don

In this part of the world to try and shoot the damn foxes that eat my chickens...

Regards,

Willy.

From EE Times, an electrical engineering trade rag:

"The horror of what happened Monday at Virginia Tech University is slowly beginning to sink in. Among the 32 victims were at least three engineering professors known around the world for their work. Liviu Librescu was an internationally known lecturer on aeronautical engineering. Librescu's impressive credentials fill a very long page on Virginia Tech's Web site. Kevin Granata, a professor of engineering science and mechanics at Blacksburg, was a veteran. Granata's research focused on biomechanics and robotics. G.V. Loganathan, 51, was born in Chennai, India, and was an award-winning professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech since 1982. The engineering profession is poorer for their passing, and for the tragic deaths of their students and all of the victims of this senseless act. "

A waste of life and potential all around.

David

quote:

What percentage of US citizens own a gun? I think it is around 40%.

Its about the same here in Norway (Lots of hunting).

No-on would go out and shoot anyone in Norway.

Its too cold to go out...

Right on, m8. But its getting warmer every day now. (Exept three inches of snow 8- April. )

But I think its deeper than just a lot of guns.
Didnt Michael Moore make a movie about this gun-related problem some years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Yes, of course it is an overreaction, but a gun only has one purpose.

....and this ONE purpose is to.....?

Cheers

Don

Err....fire a bullet at someone.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Yes, of course it is an overreaction, but a gun only has one purpose.

....and this ONE purpose is to.....?

Cheers

Don

Err....fire a bullet at someone.

Err....fire a bullet, at what or who is at the discretion of the shooter, surely?

I am also intrigued by this "if you have a gun yourself you can shoot in self defence" attitude. Emptying a clip in the general direction of a perceived threat carries its own risk...

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I am also intrigued by this "if you have a gun yourself you can shoot in self defence" attitude. Emptying a clip in the general direction of a perceived threat carries its own risk...

Taking your point, if the bad guy has a gun and you've got a banana, you are at something of a disadvantage.

EW

US Law - the fact that, so far, the courts have upheld the individual's right to bear arms is not necessarily the way it will be in the future. I'm not sure how it SHOULD be, but we definitely have gun problems here.

Terrorism - if the murders had been accompanied by a note documenting some political principle, then I could call it terrorism. This sounds like a sick individual taking his anger out on people who were accessible to him - not terrorism.

Effect of tougher gun laws - I think they're essential. Even demanding that gun owners be trained in using their guns would be an improvement. But I agree it would take a long time to change our behavior, since many of our cultural norms/myths are positive towards using guns.

Self-defense - how many gun owners in the US can use their weapons effectively? Not enough, I believe, based on the number of accidents that are reported.

None of this takes away from the grief of the parents, families, and fellow students of the victims and the shooter.

Regards.

Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I am also intrigued by this "if you have a gun yourself you can shoot in self defence" attitude. Emptying a clip in the general direction of a perceived threat carries its own risk...

Taking your point, if the bad guy has a gun and you've got a banana, you are at something of a disadvantage.

EW

If however the person you think is a bad guy is actually someone holding a banana or a chair leg and not a gun, and you kill him and sevaral others in "self defence", you will look a right prat won't you? But I dare say you would rather be a prat than dead.

Is it not true that, apart from suicide, the next highest cause of death by firearm is "accidental" shooting, and then crime related shooting?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Barry:

[QUOTE] But I agree it would take a long time to change our behavior, since many of our cultural norms/myths are positive towards using guns.

Ban tv and film violence. Ban violent computer games. Ban guns. Problem solved within one generation. Many here have pointed out that gun ownership in some countries is as high as it is in the US and yet gun crime is far less - it just so happens there is less TV violence in these countries.

'According to the American Psychological Association, by the time they are 11 years old, the average American child has seen on TV some 8,000 murders, and 100,000 lesser acts of violence and brutality - and that doesn't count the real murders and violence on the news' - read more Here .

If not for the fact that the treatment of victims of gun shot wounds in the US is by far the best in the world the murder rates in the US would be very very much higher. The treatment of GSWs in the States is as good as it is because they get way more practice!

'According to the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps, a wound that would have killed nine out of ten soldiers in World War II, nine out of ten could have survived in Vietnam. Thus, by a very conservative estimate, if we had 1940-level medical technology today, the murder rate would be ten times higher than it is. The magnitude of the problem has been held down by the development of sophisticated lifesaving skills and techniques, such as helicopter medevacs, 911 operators, paramedics, cpr, trauma centers, and medicines'. More Here

Another reason why the murder rate is not even higher in the US is due to amount of violent offenders locked up in prisons.

'The prison population in America nearly quadrupled between 1975 and 1992. According to criminologist John J. DiIulio, "dozens of credible empirical analyses … leave no doubt that the increased use of prisons averted millions of serious crimes." If it were not for our tremendous imprisonment rate (the highest of any industrialized nation), the aggravated assault rate and the murder rate would undoubtedly be even higher'.

The myth that there is no link between violence on TV and violent crime has to be exposed at every opportunity.

Aggression & TV

Bhutan - A perfect example

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Yes, of course it is an overreaction, but a gun only has one purpose.

....and this ONE purpose is to.....?

Cheers

Don

Err....fire a bullet at someone.

Err....fire a bullet, at what or who is at the discretion of the shooter, surely?

That is exactly what I blimmin' said!!! :

quote:

The gun didn't do this, it was the person carrying it,

Yes. That is my point. A gun is an inanimate object until someone wants to get one and use it. Let's look at why people want them in the first place. IMO, someone with a gun is an indication of something being wrong somewhere.
A gun is to fire a bullet at someone. Whether it gets fired at loads of people or no-one is irrelevant, it's only reason for existence is to fire a bullet, so one has to look at why someone wants one in the first place. If it is self defence, then it is because something is wrong and someone feels threatened by someone else having a gun. It's a self perpetuating problem, and something has gone wrong.
It is no answer to say that I'll have one myself just for protection and I hope never to use it. If you have one, you've crossed that line where you have equipped yourself with something that is only intended to shoot another person. That is when the decision is made, not when the situation to use it arises, because that is when it just becomes a blur and reason is suspended.
This argument is the whole driving force behind the nuclear arms race. It's nuts.

Why do you insist that the sole purpose of firearms is to shoot people?

Well, I guess I could stir my coffee with a gun, but it'd look a bit strange in Starbucks.
You're dying to say otherwise, so please enlighten me.

Very glib, but hardly an answer to my question.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:


Well, I guess I could stir my coffee with a gun, but it'd look a bit strange in Starbucks.

That would depend whether you were stirring your coffee in a Starbuck's in Brighton or a Starbuck's in the USA.

Nigel may care to suggest that one might only use a firearm to practice target shooting but Rasher could come back with the point that target shooting is a possible method for honing marksmanship as a means of being better able to kill another human or animal.

Nigel could than offer that guns are often used merely to kill animals but this is also problematic imo.

Guns were invented and developed to kill humans and this is what they have been used to do the most and they will continue to be used for this purpose until such time as they are banned for good.

Spoilsport

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Why do you insist that the sole purpose of firearms is to shoot people?

Because I can't think of another reason for their existence.
As an example then, a quick Google says that a Glock 17 handgun (whatever that is) is a common street weapon. Please tell me its purpose for existence if not just to kill people. I really can't think of any other genuine purpose for it, and I'll be amazed if you can Nigel. Go on, Glock 17, let's start with that.