VA Tech shooting and politics (THIS IS THE THREAD FOR TALK OF "gun control", ETC)

[oFia]

Based on another message board that's been discussing this almost all day... it's only a matter of time before it goes very political... imo of course. I'm starting this out of respect for people who have friends/family/acquaintances at VA Tech and don't know if they are safe - let alone alive.

Currently the people on CNN are bashing whoever they can think to bash to blame someone for this. Personally I'm finding the media involved in this worse than the officers...

Here's something to start it ...

from godhatesamerica.com

WBC to Preach at Funerals of Virginia Tech Dead

WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).

The LORD God Almighty is your terror, and you refuse to acknowledge Him. He has appointed over you terror (Lev. 26:16). We keep telling you how this is going to get worse and worse for you, and you keep trying to shut us up with new laws and lame government action. You might as well accept the fact that as long as we draw breath, we will use that breath to preach to you. Our prophecies are true. Your children are dying in the streets of Iraq, the mountains of Afghanistan, and the hallways of your own schools. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

From wikipedia

Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. (born November 13, 1929) is the pastor and leader of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an independent Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps is also a lawyer and founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm. WBC is listed as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[1] He is known for preaching with slogans and banners denoting phrases such as "God hates fags," "AIDS cures fags," and "Fags die, God laughs (or mocks)," and claims that God will punish homosexuals as well as people such as Bill O'Reilly, Coretta Scott King, and Howard Dean, whom his church considers "fag-enablers".[2][3] His church says he is a "Five-Point Calvinist".[4]

Phelps and his followers frequently picket various events, especially military funerals, gay pride gatherings, and high-profile political gatherings, arguing it is their sacred duty to warn others of God's anger. When criticized, Phelps' followers say they are protected in doing so by the First Amendment.[5][6] President Bush recently signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act in response to Phelps' protests at military funerals.[7]

Phelps says that he is a preacher who believes that homosexuality and its acceptance have doomed most of the world to eternal damnation. The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both, although his daughter Shirley says that only 80% are related.[8]

The group is built around a core of anti-homosexual theology, with many of their activities stemming from the slogan "God hates fags," which is also the name of the group's main website. Gay rights activists, as well as Christians of virtually every denomination, have denounced him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech.[9]

[The_Jazz]

OK, I'll admit - I don't get it. What does Westboro Babtist have to do with CNN bashing anyone and everyone? If anything, it seems like the media would just be a conduit for the Westboro agenda and would be fairly blameless as such.

What am I missing here?

[oFia]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

OK, I'll admit - I don't get it. What does Westboro Babtist have to do with CNN bashing anyone and everyone? If anything, it seems like the media would just be a conduit for the Westboro agenda and would be fairly blameless as such.

What am I missing here?

They don't have anything to do with each other - except that they are two different reactions to the shooting. I was posting some news related to the shooting that was political in nature - along with some of my thoughts on CNN's coverage. I would have posted something gun control related, along with what I already posted, if I could have found a source let alone known where to look.

[ShaniFaye]

Im sorry, but I thought all the questions they asked during this last press conference were poignant questions. They said themselves they only locked down a building that they said they *thought* the shooter wasnt even in anymore.

I was not at all impressed with the police person they used, why even have him there if he's not going to answer any questions?

[dksuddeth]

Fred Phelps and his church is the last place anyone of sane mind should consider a statement from about anything of any importance.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Fred Phelps and his church is the last place anyone of sane mind should consider a statement from about anything of any importance.

Dk, I'm sure this thread will turn towards gun control at some point, and you and I will take our usual positions. At this particular point, however, we are in complete and total agreement. That is notable.

[roachboy]

i am sure that the reverend phelps wonderful sentiments will be a real solace to the other students at va tech, to the families of those who were killed or wounded, and to the wider community. i am sure that all will be grateful for such christian words, such christian expressions of empathy and compassion. who wouldnt be?

cnn is obviously in pure reactive mode, its reporters running around to get any stray bit of bite-worthy response to help them give the illusion that the story is somehow under control. whatever. tv news lives for this kind of stuff, all scurrying about and breathless, idiotic reportage.

why anyone watches cnn--or any television "news" outlet in the states--and confuses it with information is beyond me.

[flstf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I'm still waiting for the details but my initial thought was how could someone shoot over 60 people in close quarters without someone shooting him back.

I think that the proper place for the gun debate is in Politics. Let's try to keep that separate here.

To directly answer the question, I was always more concerned with how hung over or sore from a workout I was going to be in class than going there armed. I can't imagine that there are really any college students that carry on campus, when it is legal, especially a campus in a small town like VT.

I just saw on the news that guns are not allowed on campus. The victims were sitting ducks.

[roachboy]

wait: are you actually suggesting that university students should turn up for class strapped?

that's a batshit idea.
any argument that you could possibly make for it simply treats the arbitrary (today's massacre) as necessary and proceeds from there to stand rational thinking on its head. i dont see any point in debating such a ridiculous position. it is not worth taking seriously.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by flstf

I just saw on the news that guns are not allowed on campus. The victims were sitting ducks.

and the doors to the building were chained shut.....from the inside. no police help coming for awhile.

[dc_dux]

flstf....last October, the 10 little Amish girls in their one-room school house were sitting ducks as well. Nearly 8 years ago, the high students at Collumbine were unarmed? Would you have suggested they all should have been armed?

Do you presume these horrific acts, that happen with such relative frequency in this country (as compared to other western countries) are the result of gun control?

Why dont you think the might be the result of the "gun culture" in this country, which would more reasonably explain why it occurs here and not elsewhere?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by roachboy

wait: are you actually suggesting that university students should turn up for class strapped?

that's a batshit idea.
any argument that you could possibly make for it simply treats the arbitrary (today's massacre) as necessary and proceeds from there to stand rational thinking on its head. i dont see any point in debating such a ridiculous position. it is not worth taking seriously.

why is that a 'batshit' idea roach? over 30 kids are dead, even though there was a law that was supposed to prevent someone from carrying a gun on campus!!!!!! I'm told that this 'shooter' killed himself at the first sign of someone with a gun, who happened to be a cop, now how many lives might not have been lost had this coward been confronted by another student with a gun?

why is it a batshit idea to defend yourself with a gun? even on campus? It certainly is NOT a ridiculous position after todays events.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

flstf....last October, the 10 little Amish girls in their one-room school house were sitting ducks as well. Nearly 8 years ago, the high students at Collumbine were unarmed? Would you have suggested they all should have been armed?

Do you presume these horrific acts, that happen with such relative frequency in this country (as compared to other western countries) are the result of gun control?

Why dont you think the might be the result of the "gun culture" in this country, which would more reasonably explain why it occurs here and not elsewhere?

There are nearly 300 million people in this country and less than 5% of them commit crimes with guns.....how the hell is that a 'gun culture'?

[dc_dux]

I'm trying to picture those 10 amish girls defending themselves with a gun last october.

Dk..perhaps you can respond to my question as well. WHy do you blame gun control and not the culture of guns?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I'm trying to picture those 10 amish girls defending themselves with a gun last october.

Dk..perhaps you can respond to my question as well. WHy do you blame gun control and not the culture of guns?

as I stated above, the so called 'gun culture' only exists in the mind of those that hype up the episodes of gun violence. Gun control is to blame because NONE of those kids were allowed, by law, to arm themselves for defense, which in this case was obviously warranted.

[dc_dux]

So you think its warranted for every high school and college student to carry a gun to class?

Is that really the learning environment you want?

I can see the logic of older school kids carrying guns to class in today's Iraq or even Israel...But how do you explain that these repeated episodes of school shootings happen in the US and not other western countries with stricter gun control laws?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So you think its warranted for every high school and college student to carry a gun to class?

Is that really the learning environment you want?

Is it the one I want? no, but if one looks at the reality of the world today, at a minimum then the teachers in schools should be armed and the college kids, who are adults by the way, should be armed. Everybody freaks and says 'but they could flip out and go batshit and start shooting people.....well WTF happened today? Someone went out and started shooting people.....in a GUN FREE ZONE. Great law there folks.

[roachboy]

any argument that you could possibly make for it simply treats the arbitrary (today's massacre) as necessary and proceeds from there to stand rational thinking on its head. i dont see any point in debating such a ridiculous position. it is not worth taking seriously.

i generally do not quote myself, but in this case, dk, since you immediately did what i said you (or anyone else who tried to defend such a lunatic position) would do, i break my little rule and do so.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

How do you explain that these repeated episodes of school shootings happen in the US and not other western countries with stricter gun control laws?

nobody can explain this, without any degree of factuality anyway. stricter gun laws in other nations has done zero for a crime rate, but in this country, supposedly strict gun laws has only increased school shootings.

Originally Posted by roachboy

i generally do not quote myself, but in this case, dk, since you immediately did what i said you (or anyone else who tried to defend such a lunatic position) would do, i break my little rule and do so.

you can't defend your OWN lunatic position roach. The only thing you can do is call anything that would hint at a logical solution 'a lunatic position'. Did a law keeping guns off campus stop this crime? not even close. Now how can a law that denies a person to carry a gun for self defense be considered anything but lunatic, considering todays incident? Tell us how a student carrying a gun for self defense would have made this tragedy any damn worse?

[dc_dux]

dk....We're not going to change any opinions here. I can only be thankful that you represent the minority on this issue.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk....We're not going to change any opinions here. I can only be thankful that you represent the minority on this issue.

and yet, there are over 30 dead because a majority opinion failed to prevent it.

What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right.

[dc_dux]

You can rationalize your "armed" nation any way you want..and I'll stick to my responsible, as well as popular and right postion.

I'm sure we'll see more polls.....these are several years old, and not that they are likely to have any impact on you. I am linking just so you see how much of a minority position you represent:

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You can rationalize your "armed" nation any way you want..and I'll stick to my responsible, as well as popular and right postion.

so, in your mind, it's right that over 30 people died because they shouldn't be carrying guns on campus. thanks. somehow I don't see that as right, though im sure its popular.

yeah, i'm certainly persuaded by polls.

[dc_dux]

Its not right when one innocent person dies by gun violence, particulary the thousands of kids who die each year as a result of suicide or accident because of the easy access to guns in their house.

I've had my say...I'm done.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its not right when one innocent person dies by gun violence, particulary the thousands of kids who die each year as a result of suicide or accident because of the easy access to guns in their house.

not to belittle the loss of life, but if a kid commits suicide, even with a gun, he/she certainly is not an innocent victim. So the question you should be asking yourself is 'should people be allowed to defend themselves at the cost of others being victims of gun crimes'? If you answer no, then what is your plan to guarantee keeping people free of being a gun crime victim?

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I've had my say...I'm done.

or loosely translated, 'this is how I feel about it, can't support it with facts and logic, so i'll just say my piece and skedaddle'.

[dc_dux]

or loosely translated, 'this is how I feel about it, can't support it with facts and logic, so i'll just say my piece and skedaddle'.

If describing it that way makes you feel better...thats cool.....just dont shoot me!

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If thats makes you feel better...thats cool.....just dont shoot me!

why would I shoot you? or do you think i'd shoot you simply because I carry a gun?

[dc_dux]

lighten up

[wakelagger]

its a lot easier to shoot someone if you're carrying a gun than without

[Rekna]

oh great another gun control thread that will get no where. One side will claim if everyone had guns this wouldn't have happened and the other side will claim that if the shooter didn't have the gun this wouldn't have happened.

[debaser]

Originally Posted by wakelagger

its a lot easier to shoot someone if you're carrying a gun than without

True. It's a real pity the only one with a gun today at VT was the homocidal maniac, huh?

Originally Posted by Rekna

oh great another gun control thread that will get no where. One side will claim if everyone had guns this wouldn't have happened and the other side will claim that if the shooter didn't have the gun this wouldn't have happened.

Not everybody should have guns. But when responsible people are prevented from having guns then there is no recourse to an event such as this other than waiting and hoping he doesn't get you before the cops come.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

or loosely translated, 'this is how I feel about it, can't support it with facts and logic, so i'll just say my piece and skedaddle'.

No, it means that there is no point in using facts and logic to argue with you, because it will go absolutely nowhere. Why the hell would anyone want to argue with someone who isn't open to even the remotest possibility that he/she might be wrong? Where is the discussion in that?

Dead horse, anyone?

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I can see the logic of older school kids carrying guns to class in today's Iraq or even Israel...But how do you explain that these repeated episodes of school shootings happen in the US and not other western countries with stricter gun control laws?

To imply that this is something that only happens in the United States is disregarding the truth:
Osaka school massacre - Ikeda, Japan; 2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

Where I went to high school, we had a Police school resource officer, he was a visible presence and he walked the hallways with a nightstick and gun in his belt. This was not an innercity school either, it was in a city of a population of 125,000. For a high school, his presence was enough, and we were located 60 miles from Colombine.

What happened today was at a university. The people who attend are by law, adults. I beleive that if people were allowed to carry guns instead of having a "gun free zone," somebody else might have had a gun and put a bullet in this shooter's head before the death toll hit 32.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by wakelagger

its a lot easier to shoot someone if you're carrying a gun than without

it's also a lot easier to be shot without a gun than when you can shoot back.

Originally Posted by abaya

No, it means that there is no point in using facts and logic to argue with you, because it will go absolutely nowhere. Why the hell would anyone want to argue with someone who isn't open to even the remotest possibility that he/she might be wrong? Where is the discussion in that?

Dead horse, anyone?

please show me what facts or logic would show that this could be prevented.

[pig]

ultimately, there is no way to stop such things; in the end its just a fucking horrible thing that happened. in dk's world, a legally carrying person would inevitably get drunk, or pissed off, and would shoot the fuck out of some people before someone reacted. or would incite a shoot out on campus, with no one knowing who they were really shooting, but goddamn it someone is shooting at them and they're shooting back. and i'm sure there would be legal penalties for doing so, and if this kid had been caught there would have been legal penalties for him. i really can't see how a college campus could ever be a relaxed open place for learning when a significant portion of the kids are packing heat. and the fucking hormones and the alpha social competition and the peer pressure and the alcohol and the drugs? i just think that's a really really really bad idea.

Originally Posted by dk

it's also a lot easier to be shot without a gun than when you can shoot back.

and dk i don't think that sentence means what you think it was supposed to mean

[abaya]

Explain Iceland... the country where even the police don't carry guns. As a result, gun violence is not a problem here, period. The only people who own guns are goose-hunters, and there are very few of those.

Want to come and try to arm everyone here? It won't work. It's about the culture.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by mirevolver

I beleive that if people were allowed to carry guns instead of having a "gun free zone," somebody else might have had a gun and put a bullet in this shooter's head before the death toll hit 32.

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to tell. Most college students living and studying in a small town are more worried about grades, relationships and the continuation of the good time than the threat of firearm violence to their immediate safety. Those going to school in larger cities may place a higher value on it, but only because the chances are higher of an incident.

That said, no one anywhere ever predicted this kind of thing. One of my coworkers who lives in the suburbs is licensed to carry a gun (long story). He and I talked about this today, and he pointed out that security in our building is a joke. They're there to deter theives, not mass murderers. He's not about to start carrying his gun to work because "something may happen". If there's a reasonable threat he will, but he thinks that it's too much of a pain to carry it, despite his right to do so.

And that, I think, is the much more likely outcome if guns had been allowed on campus.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by pigglet

and dk i don't think that sentence means what you think it was supposed to mean

yeah, that didn't turn out right.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to tell.

Probably the most correct statement of the day regarding whether a student would have been armed or not.

We, on another message board, predicted that something like this would happen after the VA legislature let a house bill die in subcomittee that would have let students and faculty carry concealed on campus.

[JStrider]

on the Texas Tech Campus guns are not allowed because its a public university, therefore government property and your not allowed to bring guns on it. just like courthouses or capitals.

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by abaya

Explain Iceland... the country where even the police don't carry guns. As a result, gun violence is not a problem here, period. The only people who own guns are goose-hunters, and there are very few of those.

Want to come and try to arm everyone here? It won't work. It's about the culture.

And Switzerland has fully automatic assult rifles in 14% of homes, with a murder rate average of 1.2 per 100,000 over the years of 1999-2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime). What works in Iceland, works in Iceland and may not work anywhere else, the same goes for Switzerland. What works in one country is not the end all solution for every country.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

That said, no one anywhere ever predicted this kind of thing. One of my coworkers who lives in the suburbs is licensed to carry a gun (long story). He and I talked about this today, and he pointed out that security in our building is a joke. They're there to deter theives, not mass murderers. He's not about to start carrying his gun to work because "something may happen". If there's a reasonable threat he will, but he thinks that it's too much of a pain to carry it, despite his right to do so.

And when I was in a university in a major metropolitan area, I never went to class thinking someone would walk in and unload a clip into the classroom. In this country, that's not a realistic expectation for what will happen in a day's events. What I'm saying is if people were allowed to have guns on them, someone just "might" have one, and that could have made a huge difference in the number of dead.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

We, on another message board, predicted that something like this would happen after the VA legislature let a house bill die in subcomittee that would have let students and faculty carry concealed on campus.

I sincerely hope that there is no joy being taken in that prediction on the other board.

And again, I doubt that there would have been any students returning fire. It's not their major concern. There might have been professors, but then again there might not. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.