Another shooting in America

[jofeb04]

more information here

You can say anything you like about my brother. I'm actually sort of middle ground on the gun issue. I do see his point that someone pulled the trigger. But I also see the point that we as a nation are perhaps not benfitting from having so many guns.

However, I still think this is more about a very disturbed man who was probably not fit to bereleased to society. And he certainly shouldn't have been allowed to buy and own guns given his history. I think the hospital who referred him back to the University for counselling has some explaining to do.

On the BBC news website now...

"He was referred to a mental health unit outside the Virginia Tech campus on 13 December for evaluation amid concerns he was feeling suicidal, police said.

Private medical records from the mental health facility remain confidential, but Cho was referred back to university authorities for counselling after his assessment and had no further contact with campus police. "

Oh, however, my brother most certainly does not lack reasoning power. He has his faults, but a low IQ is indisputably not among them.

Eulosis - You miss the point. I was trying to point out how meaningless that statement is. ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people.")

We all know that guns don't kill people magically on their own. But that is exactly what they do when a person is using them exactly as intended. That is why many people are calling for tighter controls on their sale - because they are weapons of destruction and death.

But, that is the crux of the whole debate. Do you want hold the gun responsible or do you want to hold the person who shot the gun responsible? Do you want to take a way the right of law abiding citizens in the hope that few guns will lead to fewer deaths? And will fewer guns lead to fewer deaths?

If Sho mass murder was planned and he had not had guns, he may very well have found other means.

Those London Tube bombings of July 7th didn't use guns. But, they did kill a lot of people.

I do see both sides to the gun debate in general. But, in this particular case it is not just down to the availability of obtaining a gun legally. Cho was very sick and I think the authorities could have prevented this tragedy.

Of course nobody wants to hold inanimate objects responsible for the deaths caused. And nobody said they did.

[Please do leave this argument, as it is a logical fallacy called "Straw Man" - i.e. you are attacking a position that is not held by anybody.]

This debate is not about whether the person doing the shooting or the gun in his hand is the responsible party (that would be a very bizarre debate indeed). This debate is about whether there is a problem with very easy access to toys that very easily kill.

Sure, the guy was psychologically disturbed by most accounts and even spent time in a mental institution.

Again we come back to the easy accesibility of guns:

How was it even possible that such a disturbed person with a history of mental illness was able to legally get a gun? Shouldn't there at least be the simplest of background checks before trusting a lethal weapon into someone's hands???

I just read that one of the guns this used his shooting spree in VTech was a semiautomatic weapon. Probably why all injured kids in hospitals have several bullet wounds.

How can sale of a semiautomatic weapons be rationalised by the "self defense" argument?

Actually it's quite easy to rationalise semi-automatic weapons on the grounds of self defence.
American gun owners tend not to be trained how to use them and thus a precision weapon isn't actually that useful since they are unlikely to hit anything. Thus you need to get off a lot of rounds in order to be a credible deterrent.

[Please do leave this argument, as it is a logical fallacy called "Straw Man" - i.e. you are attacking a position that is not held by anybody.]

So no one on this thread is suggesting that the answer is to control the availability of the guns?

Controlling the availability of the guns isn't the same as holding the guns responsible. Sure, this guy could have probably killed a person or two without a gun. Killing 30 people in a spree, without using a gun ... well, if it was possible, someone else would have done it by now. But no, these sprees always happen with guns.

Maybe everyone should have equal access to bombs, as well? Just so that it's not just the bad guys who have bombs? Don't blame July 7th on the bombs!

Have you seen the BBC story of the video he left? This man was truly disturbed and he most certainly could have killed mass numbers without a gun. Oh I don't know, poison the water, paison the air in the heating system (American heating systems typically blow warm or cold air into the room through a vent as opposed to the radiator that is common here in the UK). It would be quite easy to take out ever greater numbers.

If the gun isn't responsible, what is removing it going to achieve?

As I said earlier, I'm not actually firmly on either side of this fence. But, I do see that both sides have a point. And so I'm trying to explain the one side isn't some freak radical and that other completely sensible. Is it worth questions if we want to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. And it is worth discussing whether making the guns illegal will actually produce the desired result Ireduce killings).

If guns remain legal, I don't mind. If they were all taken away, that wouldn't ruin my day either. But, let's balance the debate instead of claiming that Americans are all violent nut jobs and implying that Amreica cause this sick man who incidentally was not American to do what he did by failing to control the avalability of guns.

Hmm, I am a psychopath in a rage. Do I

a) try and get hold of some poison, find out how the water supply works and how to access it, and add the poison (presumably extremely strong poison given the dilution factor in a municipal water system);

b) find a different poison, presumably one in gaseous form, and place in somewhere in a heating system where it would affect more than one room (and not kill me instantly); or

c) wander into a gunstore and buy a gun, no waiting period required, lots of cheap ammo, and then wander onto an open and unprotected campus, blasting people.

Gosh! Difficult choice!

Notquitecockney has hit a valid point.
Whereas few would argue for the right to own bombs, what about the right to know how they are made ?

Like anyone with a decent technical education I can build weapons, and part of my contempt for Moslem militants is that they build such crap ones. My cat could kill 50 people on the tube, and the most recent bombers couldn't even make the bomb go off. That's actually mildly hard, but solvable if your brain isn't fried by a 24*7 fight against a psychosexual disorder.

Interestingly enough, a large % of the engineers, including nuclear, that went to university with me were Arabs & Moslems.

Okay, interesting point. I wonder how many killings are a result of the gun being immediately available. And how many shooting deaths are premeditated.

However...

"well the thing about guns is that once people buy them in the US, they quite often put them in a holster and carry them around at all times."

Surely you jest?! I have lived in Chicago, Kansas, Houston, and Los Angeles. And the only people I have ever seen anyone walking around with a guns in their holsters were policemen/women.

The crazy things people say about America!

but people don't have to be able to make decent bombs as they aren't governed by any laws ..they just have to cause panic/injury

it seems from the video that this killer could equally have made a bomb of some sort

but very probably a gun has an appeal

for a start you see each victim, you have control of their fear

it is a different psychological experience and that is part of what a gun killer uses it for

and they can train and anticipate

I think by decent bomb DC means it explodes when and where it was intended to explode. I mean if you make a bomb, you set it down, you push the botton, and nothing happens it hasn't really served it's purpose.

Look, you can't have it both ways. The US murder rates are much much higher than the British ones. (US 5.5/100K, UK 1.5/100K)

Either:

a) The relatively easy availability of guns make it easier for Americans to kill each other.

b) Americans are hotheaded maniacs and would kill each other will tofu and sponges if that was all they had.

(Ok, I lie, there is:

c) Socioeconomic and historical factors make murder more likely in the US. I do think this is partly true.)

So, the idisputable reason that there are more murders per person in the US than in the UK is because gunns can be legally owned?

I dare say this adds a bit more insight into the possible causes of the Virginia Tech tragedy.

And all the deeply disturbed people live in the US? The UK has deeply disturbed people. They just can't get to the guns as easily as the American nutters. Thank goodness.

I think you mean Korean "nutters".

I found the Korean reaction to this interesting..apparent;ly they were expecting a huge backlash against koreans in america

an anerican killed a child in a road accident in korea and when that happened 100,000 protested and us citizens were attacked

So, then, do you think Americans are maybe calm and tolerant people??????