Shooting At Virginia Tech
 

22 dead...including shooter

watching cnn

some victims shot in classroom at ambler johnston and norris hall

Wrong man...
 

just wrong :(

I don't particularly care for this week (April 19th is this Thursday) and it is already off to a sad start.

This time of year always seems cursed...my good friend...his birthday is April 19th...I'm beginning to understand why he hates celebrating it. Something bad always seems to happen. :(

:distress: :distress: :distress: Those poor people...

Geez, now the feds are saying 32 are dead - lunacy :shrug:

I can't even watch the tv Brian...I'm getting the chills

I just can't understand what goes through the mind of someone who would do something like this. It's chilling. :distress:

Another horrific reminder of what a gun happy nation the US. is ..I doubt this tragic carnage will even register with the NRA freaks.

i have a lot of friends who go there -- thankfully, they're safe but i cannot believe this :distress: i haven't yet turned on the news but i've been reading the updates.

It takes more than a gun to make someone want to kill.

True.. but being able to pick one up at the local Walmart certainly makes it easier when someone decides to.

I think you are correct. I also agree that the NRA is way misguided and mostly dead wrong.

However, if the authorities would enforce the laws already in place, it would likely be a lot harder to get a gun.

I did a google search of "virginia gun control law" and some interesting articles came up.

In the end, I think people ought to be able to own guns (not machine guns) - but the govt. should heavily regulate them. For example, you ought to have to go to your local police station each year to do a ballstics test and to rereister your gun, so that the authorities know it is not stolen, etc.

As for this, this is a horrible tragedy that I think any gun control could not have prevented. But, I suppose we shall have to see where the gun(s) was obtained.

I just can't believe that as early as it is in this incident, we're already blaming the gun. I mean, I have a gun. I don't feel bad about that, and I get really pissed when people try to make me feel like I should (I'm not saying that you are.. but people have before).

If there's blame to be passed, it should be passed on us for wanting to go soft on killers by trying to eliminate the death sentence. If you have nothing to lose and you know you won't be executed for it, there's really no incentive to not go postal on people when you've finally had enough.

Banning weapons will never be enough. And really, that just creates a huge black market for even more dangerous weapons. This dude apparently busts into a room wearing a vest of ammo. You don't buy automatic ammunition like that at Wal-Mart, even if they are Satan's keepers. You can get a hunting rifle there, but it'd take a hell of a lot of effort (without anyone fighting back) to take down 22 people with a rifle like that.

^^^

I am unsure that this gunman would have been deterred by the DP because he likely thought he would get the DP for this premeditated act. That, and the liklihood that he seemingly is deranged. But, he is dead, so we will never know his mental state unless there is some other evidence like a note, conversations with friends, etc.

Well, I mean, that kind of reinforces the point that there are people out there who just don't give a damn, and nothing will ever change that. Everyone can't be rehabilitated or fixed, and you can't stop bad people from happening. That's why taking away guns isn't really the best option. I mean, if somebody comes in my house at me.. I really just have to say I pity the poor bastard. Without a gun, I'd be an easy victim, even for an unarmed man.

this is just so heartbreaking, my heart goes out to all the students & the parents, family & friends of the dead:distress: :distress: ~

I say if you are going to commit a heinous act like this because you are pissed off at the world - do the world a favor and kill yourself instead.

my heart is with the mothers getting the horrible news their child was a victim.... and even more with the one mother who will hear her child was the perpetrator. i weep for them all.

I agree with you 100% there. I can't rationalize the act, and I won't even try. Because, like you say, it is heinous. I just don't think it will stop, ever. There will be more. This will spawn more, and every hateful little piece of **** out there is going to try to outdo the other ones. These school shootings go in waves of copycats, y'know? Why people can't just be decent to each other is beyond me.

Hearing this new today both saddens and scares me. We really aren't prepared for disasters like this. How was this person able to KILL more than 30 people before he died? Maybe I'm cynical, or maybe it's because I used to work with psych patients, but the threat of something like this happening is very real for any school anywhere. But most people I talk to at the school I work at never even think about it, let alone try to have a plan for what they would do. :distress:

Just awful.

Did cross my mind for a sec', who knows this might just be the thing to tip the balance in favour of banning weapons.

I have always feared that our next terror attacks will be like this. Gunmen bursting into schools, hospitals, etc. America values children and education more than many other things, and really, I'm just surprised we haven't been hit with multiple shootings like this. That really doesn't take a lot of planning.. show up and fire.. and a lot of the terror training videos have shown them working through buildings set up like schools. It's bad enough that we have Americans treating Americans like this, without giving the rest of the world the privilege of watching it. :distress:

That'd take a constitutional amendment. Not happening. Snowball's chance in hell. Besides, banning the weapons won't get rid of them. It will just make them illegal.

^well, you've got to start somewhere, right?

Just the point I was attempting to make some Americans are so attached to their guns and the easy availablity of them that it creates a vicious cycle of violence.I highly doubt the death penalty would be a deterrant to the person that commited this massacre..He most likely understood either way he was going to die either by his own hand or law enforcement's when he began this horrible act.

To be fair, there is no Constitutional right to own handguns, etc. - that is in the pain language of the Constitution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms ; http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/beararms.htm

But, the United States Supreme Court, much like it did in Roe, created this Constitutional right. Id.

To me, the thought of the Founding Fathers wanting to ban all guns is ridiculous. But, be that as it may, it is a Court defined Constitutional Right.

In any event, clear cut Consitutional Rights (like the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression - from govt. interference) are not without limitations. For example, the govt. can pass a law prohibiting the press from printing lies as well as a law making it illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This are obvious limitations. The Court has also upheld limitations on the right to choose to terminated a pregnancy in the first trimester. So, clearly, the govt. can regulate the purchase and carrying of guns in the interest of a compelling need for public safety - it already does this my prohibiting ex-cons from owning/possessing weapons.

That is the Con Law lesson for today - donations appreciated :D

If there were some way to get rid of all the guns at once and ensure no more guns ever entered the country, I'd be all for it. But, as long as they are here, I think people ought to be able to own them for protection. Also, I think you ought to have the right to hunt on your land and not have to buy meat from the grocery store.

This, of course, does not mean I support owning machine guns and the like. They ought to be banned.

How about at home? With parents and children talking to each other.. dads not beating the living hell out of moms in front of their children.. etc. etc. etc. etc.

The problem is way too complex for an answer as simple as "ban the guns".

People have been killing people since the dawn of time. We can't stop it, and it's only going to get worse and worse until the end of time finally comes.

In a weird way, it kind of makes me think that God has this messed up sense of humor. Like, he's promised us all these wonderful things when we die, but thanks to the actions of the earliest humans (and all of this is supposedly), we're doomed to long periods of suffering before we can see these rewards. In turn, we end up fearing death.. instead of seeing it as a gate to the better after life. Am I ****ed up for thinking that?

I know this. But she's talking about banning all weapons.

Lord Child - that and a laundry list of other things :D

:xoxo: :xoxo:

That would not take a Constitutional Amendment.

The USSC could correctly find no clear Constitutional right exists as it is a judicially created right.

Same thing for Roe.

Sure the problem is more complicated, but you can't deny that with legal guns, you facilitate gun killings. It's just too easy to say "we can't stop people from killing each other so let's not do anything about it".

Maybe just my simplified thinking: in the Netherlands: guns are pretty much illegal. Guess how few people die of gun-related incidents in this country compared to the USA.

Even an item in the bill of rights?

They can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands. I will be mightily pissed if they think for one second I will stand by unarmed while criminals run around with black market weapons. F that.

1 - Times were a bit different then, to say the least. I'm pretty sure that 911 wasn't around yet to call for help if someone was trying to break into your house.

2 - I'm not giving you a damn thing. You'll just buy another lawn jockey.

...parents teaching their kids that they should kill them before they kill us..... :shrug:


BTW - I don't really have an opinion about guns. Just playing devil's advocate.

I'm not saying don't do anything about it. But don't deny innocent people the right to protect themselves. How easy is it to smuggle **** into this country? I mean, Good Christ, you can smuggle PEOPLE into this country. We are ****ed every way around it.. in almost every situation that comes up, we're damned if we do and we are damned if we don't.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you explain?

And you know, we already have a ban on automatic weapons.. but, it appears this case had an automatic weapon. Hell lot of good that did, no? Especially since you can easily rig any semi-automatic weapon to be automatic with about 20 bucks in parts and a little bit of spare time.

The Second Amendment states:

The construction of that sentence clearly speaks of the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms. A person is not a well regulated militia.

This is a common misconception.

Again, to be fair, the Founding Fathers certainly could not have imagined the govt. banning all arms as seen here http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Here is a nice synopsis of the case law on this (footnotes omitted) :

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.


In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made. At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

I don't know. It says the right of the people. Not the right of the people that form the militia.

I mean, we can talk this all we want. But you have to know that the government is not going to ban guns. Too many donors own guns. :laugh:

'kay, but what is it again that you're trying to protect yourself from? The guns in the first place? I couldn't imagine having a gun, but I couldn't imagine being in the situation where I'd feel I'd need to have one at home either. I'll give you that, the situation in our countries is very different there.
Then again, there's been murders in my city as well. Maybe we just have a different reaction on that here.

I won't comment on that 'smuggle'... let's not get started on that one.

Listen Sugar Teets - I am putting your likeness on the next one :wavey: Actually, my black neighbor wound up with mine to match the one he already had. Of course, he also had a collection of Mammy Fans.

I gotta write a book someday :eek: