Shooting Leaves 22 Dead at Virginia Campus

[ScottSA]

I see you have nothing to post that could give you any credibility, or any credibility that it is not intolerance and war that are the rpomoters of this type of mass shooting?

Again why were the police slagging bodies out by the ankles and legs, they disrupted the crime and disrepected the bodies?

I think it's secret weather balloons that cause it. Prove me wrong with credible evidence.

The disrespect to the bodies is because the empire is just going to make soylent green from them and they wanted to hide the conspiracy by disrupting the crime scene.

[scribblet]

The police et al have been slow and careful with this crime scene as they know they will be under a microscope.

Its okay for armchair critics who think they know everything to slag the police, but they are human being sputting their lives on the every day for us, and they have done very well.

[ScottSA]

Its okay for armchair critics who think they know everything to slag the police, but they are human being sputting their lives on the every day for us, and they have done very well.

Nonsense. The police are imperial troopers, and when no one is looking they put on those mr clean suits with helmets and downtrod innocent victims.

[Argus]

I have to agree with argus - the problem with these young lads, they seem to have many social problems and no responsibility. On the broader compass, the moral decay of liberal societies really tampers with folk’s self-respect, self-worth and dignity of themselves.

I call absolute nonsense to both your and Argus's comments. The boys from Columbine were NOT from a broken home, they were from an entitled community. There was a school shooting in Amish community for pete's sake.

These types of shootings seem to be done by young men who have no purpose or focus in life, who, despite being reasonably privileged (you seldom see ghetto boys going on rampages in schools because people don't like them) are jealous of others, unhappy at their lot in life, cynical, jaded, spoiled and care little for others. The punks in Columbine had little parental supervision - and the guy who killed those Amish kids was not Amish. He was another whiny jerkoff who brooded about the imperfections of his life for years. Poor me! Poor me! I hate you all! It's your fault I don't have a perfect life! I'm gonna get you all! And it won't be my fault! Oh no! It's your fault! You made me do it!

These type of actions are the result of glorifaction of; war and violence, and the denigration of people's worth into nothing more than human capital at best, and scum of the earth at worst.

Bullshit. There have been scores and scores of such shootings over the last couple of decades, well before there was any war. How many school shootings and massacres took place in the late forties, with all those people coming back from six years of war? How many gunmen went on rampages at college and high school campuses in the twenties after the horror of WW1?

And ALL these ideologies are derived from the right of centre, capitalistic, intolerant, war/violence mongering, misogynist, xenophobes in our society. These things are the REAL things that tamper with 'folks self respect, self worth and dignity.

Utter drivel. In fact, the Right calls for individual self-reliance and responsibility. The Right believes people are responsible for their own lives, their own actions. By contrast, the Left coddles killers and criminals. The Left believes that it's all the state's fault, all society's fault, that no one is responsible for their own actions and decisions, that we must feel pity and regret for their failures and help them. This is entirely in keeping with the mindset of such killers, that their imperfect lives are society's fault, their school's fault, their work's fault, and that other people must be punished for not sympathizing and helping them enough.

It is the Left which has allowed anyone and everyone to give free reign to whatever selfish behaviour they wanted to engage in. It is the Left which has broken down the family unit, broken down societal mores and society's structured behaviour codes. Young men no longer know what is required of them, what behaviour they ought to engage in, what standards they should be meeting, because the Left says there is no standards because everyone should just do whatever they want. A certain mindset finds this intolerable, requires structure, requires a path and a goal, and there are none.

[myata]

Well, I'm not sure that argument (it could happen anywhere so it's just sad and nothing can be done, etc) actually holds water. There're two major contributors in this kind of crime: 1) someone gone off the track, completely and for good; and 2) a gun (especially, high power high volume automatic killing gun).

While #1 is pretty much universal (i.e. indeed can happen anywhere, although it can be argued that perhaps, the incidence per capita would be a bit higher in the places with little or no social net and highly stressed life), readily available #2 is what makes all the difference. Other than US and very few other places, guns wouldn't be a common notion of everyday life. So, a psycho could go for a knife, or hand tool etc and injure one, two, several people. With an assault gun, death toll increases by order of magnitude.

Add to it that with trivial availability of guns, so many trivial crimes (mugging, robbery, etc) will end up in death or serious injury.

But what's on the upside? How does one benefit from being able to carry a gun, if any criminal can (and will, in all likelihood) do the same?

[Charles Anthony]

But what's on the upside? How does one benefit from being able to carry a gun, if any criminal can (and will, in all likelihood) do the same?

The benefit is simple: you can pay bodyguards to carry guns and protect more than just themselves.

Your school or shopping center can hire an armed body-guard to protect the students or the customers. That way, not everybody HAS to carry a firearm.

[ScottSA]

So, a psycho could go for a knife, or hand tool etc and injure one, two, several people. With an assault gun, death toll increases by order of magnitude.

Or a psycho could go for a bomb, and kill hundreds instead of tens. We ought to ban propane, gasoline, fertilizer, kerosene and baking soda. Or a car in a crowd, or poison in a cafeteria or a hundred other things that can cause death on a much larger scale than guns. Let's ban everything and live in bubbles.

There is nothing, nada, zero (0) we can do to stop this kind of thing in a free society, and the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety.

[M.Dancer]

So, a psycho could go for a knife, or hand tool etc and injure one, two, several people. With an assault gun, death toll increases by order of magnitude.

Or a psycho could go for a bomb, and kill hundreds instead of tens. We ought to ban propane, gasoline, fertilizer, kerosene and baking soda. Or a car in a crowd, or poison in a cafeteria or a hundred other things that can cause death on a much larger scale than guns. Let's ban everything and live in bubbles.

There is nothing, nada, zero (0) we can do to stop this kind of thing in a free society, and the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety.

Go ahead and by afew hundred pounds of fertilizer and see if any comes to check on your rose bushes....

[ScottSA]

So, a psycho could go for a knife, or hand tool etc and injure one, two, several people. With an assault gun, death toll increases by order of magnitude.

Or a psycho could go for a bomb, and kill hundreds instead of tens. We ought to ban propane, gasoline, fertilizer, kerosene and baking soda. Or a car in a crowd, or poison in a cafeteria or a hundred other things that can cause death on a much larger scale than guns. Let's ban everything and live in bubbles.

There is nothing, nada, zero (0) we can do to stop this kind of thing in a free society, and the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety.

Go ahead and by afew hundred pounds of fertilizer and see if any comes to check on your rose bushes....

Fine, I'll use propane. I can buy enough to level VT and everything within miles around it and no one would check. Anyway, I'm sure you see the point I'm making.

[myata]

... the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety.

Again, and those famed benefits (of freedom - to carry couple of loaded automatic handguns or an assault rifle, etc) are?

[sharkman]

... the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety.

Again, and those famed benefits (of freedom - to carry couple of loaded automatic handguns or an assault rifle, etc) are?

I'll bite, lawbreakers and whackos will always carry guns and other weapons. When law abiding citizens are attacked as happens far too often lately, they can defend themselves.

[BubberMiley]

It is the Left which has allowed anyone and everyone to give free reign to whatever selfish behaviour they wanted to engage in. It is the Left which has broken down the family unit, broken down societal mores and society's structured behaviour codes. Young men no longer know what is required of them, what behaviour they ought to engage in, what standards they should be meeting, because the Left says there is no standards because everyone should just do whatever they want. A certain mindset finds this intolerable, requires structure, requires a path and a goal, and there are none.

Now, if there was a Left in Virginia to speak of, you might even be able to convince someone that theere was something to your overgeneralized blame-mongering. Since Virginia is one of the most convervative areas in the world, I would suggest that once again you're full of shit.

I think it's foolish to try to ascribe the actions of one mentally ill individual to society at large, be it blaming war, movie and videogame violence, or the alleged collapse of the traditional family.

[myata]

I'll bite, lawbreakers and whackos will always carry guns and other weapons. When law abiding citizens are attacked as happens far too often lately, they can defend themselves.

You mean, routinely carry an assault rifle to defend yourself from a potential attack?

[BubberMiley]

I think those who think that everybody carrying assault weapons would make for a safer society would qualify as wackos as well.

[sharkman]

I'll bite, lawbreakers and whackos will always carry guns and other weapons. When law abiding citizens are attacked as happens far too often lately, they can defend themselves.

You mean, routinely carry an assault rifle to defend yourself from a potential attack?

What kind of dolt response is that? Having a hand gun in one's home would help one defend one's family. Why did you assume I meant an assault rifle from my comment?

[guyser]

I'll bite, lawbreakers and whackos will always carry guns and other weapons. When law abiding citizens are attacked as happens far too often lately, they can defend themselves.

You mean, routinely carry an assault rifle to defend yourself from a potential attack?

What kind of dolt response is that? Having a hand gun in one's home would help one defend one's family. Why did you assume I meant an assault rifle from my comment?

Can you say that knowing all the restrictions on gun ownership? Trigger locks etc?

[kimmy]

We now know that Cho Seung Hui was investigated by police a couple of years ago after stalking complaints by two women. We know that he was committed to a mental institution at that time, and that he was described as likely a danger to himself and others at that time.

He was also investigated by campus police when his English teacher found his graphically violent creative writing to be so disturbing that she contacted university officials about him.

I don't understand how people can argue that the United States has adequate gun control laws when *this guy* was able to purchase a gun legally and easily.

I can appreciate that it's difficult to guess who *might* become violent, and that psychological screening of anybody who wanted to buy a gun would be impractical.

But here is a guy who psychologically screened himself. He made himself known to the authorities as a stalker and a mentally ill person with a disturbingly violent imagination, and was committed to a mental institution for the protection of himself and others. If the system can't flag *this guy* as somebody who shouldn't have a gun, then obviously the system just isn't adequate.

-k

[M.Dancer]

But here is a guy who psychologically screened himself. He made himself known to the authorities as a stalker and a mentally ill person with a disturbingly violent imagination, and was committed to a mental institution for the protection of himself and others. If the system can't flag *this guy* as somebody who shouldn't have a gun, then obviously the system just isn't adequate.

-k

Quite right. Beyond all extraneous measure of gun control it matters more who is allowed to own guns than the kind of guns they own.

That is why I believe that anyone desireing to own a firearm should be given a psychological screening, the same way as anyone wishing to drive a car needs an eye test.

[Rue]

May I change the topic just a tiny bit. Today I noticed in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Toronto sun and Toronto Star they all chose to run pictures of the gunman on their front pages with sensationalist headlines and then the inside stories sensationalized this mad boy's behaviour by repeating his words.

The television was no better playing out his tapes.

Now I ask you guys this. Why? Can this story not be explained without showing his pictures and without playing back his words or repeating his babblings?

How is that relevant to the story. How does referring to him as the devil or repearing his clearly mentally ill phrases help explain the story.

For me, part of the problem is when a mad boy kills, our media repeats what they do and give it a platform of legitimacy. We keep doing that with violent crime the way we portray it. We titillate and sensationalize and glamorize it and of course we all know by next week there will be a made for t.v. movie and best seller.

So we can talk about gun control or what makes mad boys tick but sorry today I am confused just as to who is more mad, this idiot boy, or the media who choose to repeat his story by sensationalizing it.

Could we not report this story in a calm, objective manner, simply stating what happened. Showing his face is one thing, showing him with his guns, why? Explaining his motivations or informing us he left manigestoes is one thing-but do we need to read them?

Did any of us suffer from not being able to see the Paul Bernardo tapes?

I am sure you guys know what I mean.

I just don't know anymore who isn't insane and that includes myself of course.

[Rue]

"if the system can't flag *this guy* as somebody who shouldn't have a gun, then obviously the system just isn't adequate."

I think the above words sum it up for me Kimmy. And what I don't get is this. The U.S. and its states have the exact same Highway Traffic Act offences as our Canadian provinces when it comes to drinking and driving. They do understand a car is a weapon when someone is drunk and must be taken away from people who drink and drive. They understand a car is a privilege not a right adn people who drive must be properly screened. However when it comes to guns-the gun is seen as an unquestionable right and no you don't see any legislation like with drinking and driving that says-a gun is a weapon-its dangerous-the person handling it must be properly trained and screened. anyone can get one. No mental competency test, no skills test.

So for the life of me Kimmy I don't get it. I have been trained to use a gun and that is precisely why I am the last person you will ever see with one.

I do admit one thing that I have no answer for though. I know there is a HUGE difference between someone who uses a rifle to hunt to feed themself like an aboriginal or rural Canadians.

To me people who use rifles to get their food because of the very nature of the exercise don't abuse the rifle and understand the delicate nature between nature and their need to hunt.

What I am spitting about are recreational hunters who simply want to kill things and make a mess and leave it or

people in cities who I do not believe should have guns at all.

I respect the fact that for people in rural areas or who are native, using a gun is not glamorous, its not fun...its what they do to survive.

SO what I am saying is yah I would like there to be control and screening but I would like such people differentiated somehow and not lumped in with us city jackasses.

I also myself do not believe in recreational hunting but I do respect the fact that many hunting clubs and associations are strict in promoting respect and use of the rifle. I think when we tak gun control we necessarily get into two debates, the debate as to gun control in the city and the debate as to using gusn for hunting. Me personally I understand subsistence hunting but not recreational hunting as a sport. I appreciate that is only my personal opinion and that many Canadians feel recreational hunting is properly licensed and regulated.

Me, I don't trust anyoen with a gun although if I had a choice I would prefer it to be in the hands of a police officer, soldier,

aboriginal or seasoned subsistance hunter.

[scribblet]

But here is a guy who psychologically screened himself. He made himself known to the authorities as a stalker and a mentally ill person with a disturbingly violent imagination, and was committed to a mental institution for the protection of himself and others. If the system can't flag *this guy* as somebody who shouldn't have a gun, then obviously the system just isn't adequate.

-k

I don't think he was actually 'committed' if he had been, he probably wouldn't have been able to buy the gun.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/detentionord_1_070418.pdf

37.2-819. Order of involuntary admission forwarded to CCRE; firearm background check.

The clerk shall certify and forward forthwith to the Central Criminal Records Exchange, on a form provided by the Exchange, a copy of any order for involuntary admission to a facility. The copy of the form and the order shall be kept confidential in a separate file and used only to determine a person's eligibility to possess, purchase, or transfer a firearm

[ScottSA]

To everyone who thinks that this can be somehow prevented by screening, like those who somehow think 911 could have been prevented by screening, how exactly do you propose to do it? At the campus level? The municipal, state or federal level? Round up everyone who some panel of psychologists deems "weird"? And then what? Forbid then from coming on campus? Forbid them from buying guns? Lock them up without charge and without having committed a crime? Electroshock therapy? Platoons of psychologists descending on schools everywhere to round up the "potentially" dangerous kids and browbeat counsel them into normalcy?

The truth is that for every whacko who goes off his rocker and kills someone, there are thousands just like him who don't end up killing anyone. "Warning signs" are always seen in retrospect, but there are millions of people displaying the same "warning signs", and no one really knows what the "warning signs" are anyway until after the fact. Until such time as psychologists are able to divine the future, there is simply nothing to be done.

[Riverwind]

To everyone who thinks that this can be somehow prevented by screening

May I suggest a very simple screening mechanism: anyone who seeks to purchase a handgun is, by definition, a potential killer so should not be allowed to have one. Anyone who does not want a gun can purchase one.

[Charles Anthony]

To everyone who thinks that this can be somehow prevented by screening, like those who somehow think 911 could have been prevented by screening, how exactly do you propose to do it? At the campus level? The municipal, state or federal level? Round up everyone who some panel of psychologists deems "weird"? And then what?

I do not agree with it but is being attempted across the ocean.

Every child to be screened for risk of turning criminal under Blair justice plan

A new-style "11-plus" to assess the risk every child in Britain runs of turning to crime was among a battery of proposals unveiled in Tony Blair's crime plan yesterday.

The children of prisoners, problem drug users and others at high risk of offending will also face being "actively managed" by social services and youth justice workers. New technologies are to be used to boost police detection rates while DNA samples are to be taken from any crime suspect who comes into contact with the police.

The Guardian

May I suggest a very simple screening mechanism: anyone who seeks to purchase a handgun is, by definition, a potential killer so should not be allowed to have one. Anyone who does not want a gun can purchase one.

Makes sense to me. It would probably be cheaper too.

[M.Dancer]

I personally have owned in the past a few rifles and a target pistol but don't anymore. I want to get a black powder smooth bore (.45 or .50) and a shotgun. I want the shotgun becasue I like eating fowl.

I would be willing to take a psych test and even keep them in a police lock up. And if I could convince my wife.....