Virginia Shootings II: Shoot Harder

Bob The Monkey

Bogey wrote:

Sorry to interrupt the conversation, but we need to cap this.

Somebody please make a new thread.

Bam!

Creative_Evil

I was waiting for "shooting thread 2, the shootening".

Bob The Monkey

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

Doodmann

Sami wrote: »

Callous thread title aside, in Imaginary America where there is no 2nd amendment and guns are outlawed, this shit still would have gone down.

Or it could have been worse. He could have bombed something.

Lord Dave

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

What is gun culture and how did it make a crazy man go crazy and kill 33 people?

arod_77

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

Because banning guns would prevent people from remembering.."oh yeah..remember when we used to have the right to bear arms?"

Bob The Monkey

Oh, and people saying this shit would have happened regardless of gun-legality are, I believe, wrong. This guy essentially conducted mass murder on impulse (although I understand he had long term psychotic problems), something that was doubtless contributed to by the fact a firearm was only a few minutes and a few hundred dollars away. The ordeal of acquiring a firearm illegally would, in every likelihood, have been such an arduous experience that it would have been impossible to perform on such an impulse and, in addition, would be sobering enough to deter most potential impulse-murderers.

These facts are entirely made up by me, of course, but I think they're fairly rational.

As7

Doodmann wrote: »

Sami wrote: »

Callous thread title aside, in Imaginary America where there is no 2nd amendment and guns are outlawed, this shit still would have gone down.

Or it could have been worse. He could have bombed something.

Or maybe it wouldn't have happened at all.

Carnivore

2nd amendment is pretty retarded.

I liked the family guy version.

potatoe

i'm with doodmann

give everyone guns to cut down on bombings

Sami

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

Oh, and people saying this shit would have happened regardless of gun-legality are, I believe, wrong. This guy essentially conducted mass murder on impulse (although I understand he had long term psychotic problems), something that was doubtless contributed to by the fact a firearm was only a few minutes and a few hundred dollars away. The ordeal of acquiring a firearm illegally would, in every likelihood, have been such an arduous experience that it would have been impossible to perform on such an impulse and, in addition, would be sobering enough to deter most potential impulse-murderers.

These facts are entirely made up by me, of course, but I think they're fairly rational.

There wasn't anything impulsive about this.

The dude wrote an 1800 word manifesto and you think it was impulsive?

Bob The Monkey

Lord Dave wrote: »

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

What is gun culture and how did it make a crazy man go crazy and kill 33 people?

I'm assuming that you're playing devils advocate here, because the concept of gun culture is pretty simple. Guns play a far more prominant role in American culture than in any other western culture I'm aware of: it's part of the constitution, there are huge and influential national groups dedicated to the discussion and enjoyment of firearms, ownership of such weapons is legal, etcetera etcetera. It doesn't take a leap of faith to imagine that the prominence of the gun in American culture relative to other cultures somehow contributes to your gun problem.

And I think that when people flip out, this 'gun culture' makes it far more likely that the resultant out-flippage will result in the brandishing of a firearm than in a country where such a culture was absent.

Please point out if I've said anything terribly outlandish, because I think everything I'm saying is fairly rational.

Edit: From what I've read, the 1800 word manifesto you speak of was never actually about murder. It was him railing on women, the rich, and figures of authority in the way many badly adjusted teenagers do. The only difference with this guy is that one day he flipped out and went on a massacre. Plenty of teenagers across the world wrist extended diatribes on their hate and disdaine for the opposite sex and those in positions of social superiority because that's what angsty teenagers do.

potatoe

This is our world now. The world of the electron and the switch; the beauty of the baud. We exist without nationality, skin color, or religious bias. You wage wars, murder, cheat, lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop me, but you can't stop us all.

Noom

Electric shootaloo?

Carnivore

Sami wrote: »

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

Oh, and people saying this shit would have happened regardless of gun-legality are, I believe, wrong. This guy essentially conducted mass murder on impulse (although I understand he had long term psychotic problems), something that was doubtless contributed to by the fact a firearm was only a few minutes and a few hundred dollars away. The ordeal of acquiring a firearm illegally would, in every likelihood, have been such an arduous experience that it would have been impossible to perform on such an impulse and, in addition, would be sobering enough to deter most potential impulse-murderers.

These facts are entirely made up by me, of course, but I think they're fairly rational.

There wasn't anything impulsive about this.

The dude wrote an 1800 word manifesto and you think it was impulsive?

Hand written with the blood of an innocent child?

As7

I think we should give grenades to every man women and child in an effort to curb the threat of illegal cannons.

Bob The Monkey

Noom wrote: »

Electric shootaloo?

This was my second choice.

That and "Bride of Shooter".

Bogey

Bob makes some very excellent points.

Also, Noom. I thought of that title too!

Sami

Carnivore wrote: »

Sami wrote: »

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

Oh, and people saying this shit would have happened regardless of gun-legality are, I believe, wrong. This guy essentially conducted mass murder on impulse (although I understand he had long term psychotic problems), something that was doubtless contributed to by the fact a firearm was only a few minutes and a few hundred dollars away. The ordeal of acquiring a firearm illegally would, in every likelihood, have been such an arduous experience that it would have been impossible to perform on such an impulse and, in addition, would be sobering enough to deter most potential impulse-murderers.

These facts are entirely made up by me, of course, but I think they're fairly rational.

There wasn't anything impulsive about this.

The dude wrote an 1800 word manifesto and you think it was impulsive?

Hand written with the blood of an innocent child?

Sounds pretty fucking impulsive to me

Also dudes, I'm not saying everyone everywhere should have guns just because, but banning guns is not the appropriate response to this tragedy, nor will it prevent further ones of this scale.

Doodmann

potatoe wrote: »

i'm with doodmann

give everyone guns to cut down on bombings

not quite my point but...sure. Seriously though the guy was fucked up. I am under the opinion that if someone wants to kill a lot of people they will. A gun just happens to be the most popular way of doing it. The whole impulse thing seems like an excuse to talk about gun control. The guy had a history of disturbing psycological problems.

Zephos

i'm telling you guys, cars kill way more every year than guns and are extremely easy to find.

ban the fuck out of cars.

SA

So, have we found out if this dude played violent video games yet?

Rage

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

That's a pretty big "might". Horrible shit happens to people every single day. How will diminishing a 'gun culture' prevent that...

If someone with enough malice and determination to cause great pain and suffering did not have a gun, they would find another way to leverage those terrible acts.

What if this kid decided to steal a heavy truck and just plow it through the next VT football pep rally? The gun just makes violence that much more glorified and accessible...but banning guns will never stop violence.

Wren

he had CS and Starcraft on his computer

but you know, Korean, so no surprise there

Zephos

jack Thompson assured us that he does

Bogey

SA wrote: »

So, have we found out if this dude played violent video games yet?

Asian. College. Student.

[Edit - Dammit, bested by Wren! gg ]

potatoe

Doodmann wrote: »

potatoe wrote: »

i'm with doodmann

give everyone guns to cut down on bombings

not quite my point but...sure. Seriously though the guy was fucked up. I am under the opinion that if someone wants to kill a lot of people they will. A gun just happens to be the most popular way of doing it. The whole impulse thing seems like an excuse to talk about gun control. The guy had a history of disturbing psycological problems.

a lot of the time, lack of tools stops me from doing just about anything

Sami

Sami wrote: »

Also dudes, I'm not saying everyone everywhere should have guns just because, but banning guns is not the appropriate response to this tragedy, nor will it prevent further ones of this scale.

fuck you bottom of the page

Carnivore

Zephos wrote: »

i'm telling you guys, cars kill way more every year than guns and are extremely easy to find.

ban the fuck out of cars.

Not as a percentage.

Ill bet there are less than 10 traffic deaths per million car journeys made.

While it is reasonable to expect more deaths per gun in the world.

As7

SA wrote: »

So, have we found out if this dude played violent video games yet?

Looks like he was a total art geek.

OMG THE EMOS ARE REBELLING!

SA

Zephos wrote: »

i'm telling you guys, cars kill way more every year than guns and are extremely easy to find.

ban the fuck out of cars.

Plus they emit carbon. I think you're on to something.

>.>

Wren

but a huge majority of college students play video games. millions of people do, in fact. but for some reason these shooting sprees are very rare and have occured long before video games ever existed. but I know Im just preaching to the choire here

Dead Legend

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

Oh, and people saying this shit would have happened regardless of gun-legality are, I believe, wrong. This guy essentially conducted mass murder on impulse (although I understand he had long term psychotic problems), something that was doubtless contributed to by the fact a firearm was only a few minutes and a few hundred dollars away. The ordeal of acquiring a firearm illegally would, in every likelihood, have been such an arduous experience that it would have been impossible to perform on such an impulse and, in addition, would be sobering enough to deter most potential impulse-murderers.

These facts are entirely made up by me, of course, but I think they're fairly rational.

besides the fact that he had a gun weeks in advance, right?

right?

i mean, am i fucking right?

or the fact that they have background checks?

Doodmann

potatoe wrote: »

Doodmann wrote: »

potatoe wrote: »

i'm with doodmann

give everyone guns to cut down on bombings

not quite my point but...sure. Seriously though the guy was fucked up. I am under the opinion that if someone wants to kill a lot of people they will. A gun just happens to be the most popular way of doing it. The whole impulse thing seems like an excuse to talk about gun control. The guy had a history of disturbing psycological problems.

a lot of the time, lack of tools stops me from doing just about anything

thank god your not motivated cuz we'd all be screwed.

Zephos

From the CDC website

vehicles 43,432 293,656,842 14.79 14.65

firearms 29,569 293,656,842 10.07 9.95

Cause, Number of deaths, Total Population, Rate, "Age adjusted rate"

Butters

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

Lord Dave wrote: »

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

What is gun culture and how did it make a crazy man go crazy and kill 33 people?

I'm assuming that you're playing devils advocate here, because the concept of gun culture is pretty simple. Guns play a far more prominant role in American culture than in any other western culture I'm aware of: it's part of the constitution, there are huge and influential national groups dedicated to the discussion and enjoyment of firearms, ownership of such weapons is legal, etcetera etcetera. It doesn't take a leap of faith to imagine that the prominence of the gun in American culture relative to other cultures somehow contributes to your gun problem.

And I think that when people flip out, this 'gun culture' makes it far more likely that the resultant out-flippage will result in the brandishing of a firearm than in a country where such a culture was absent.

Please point out if I've said anything terribly outlandish, because I think everything I'm saying is fairly rational.

Edit: From what I've read, the 1800 word manifesto you speak of was never actually about murder. It was him railing on women, the rich, and figures of authority in the way many badly adjusted teenagers do. The only difference with this guy is that one day he flipped out and went on a massacre. Plenty of teenagers across the world wrist extended diatribes on their hate and disdaine for the opposite sex and those in positions of social superiority because that's what angsty teenagers do.

He was 23.

potatoe

Butters wrote: »

He was 23.

perhaps physically

did you read that play?

mind of a 14-year-old

Bob The Monkey

Rage wrote: »

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

I seriously don't understand the "if people want a gun, then banning guns won't stop them getting one" point of view. I mean, to me, it's ludicrous. The main problem in America right now seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) the gun culture, which is more likely to be the root of these problems than the actual legality of the weapons themselves.

However, in banning the ownership of firearms, the gun culture is immediately diminished: the 'right to bear arms', presumably a reference point for pro-guns spokespeople, is immediately diminished; the influence of the NRA would be necessarily reduced; and the strength of the gun in American culture would (not instantly, but eventually) suffer a serious hit.

The kind of hit that might prevent these massacres from happening every few years, saving hundreds of innocent lives.

That's a pretty big "might". Horrible shit happens to people every single day. How will diminishing a 'gun culture' prevent that...

If someone with enough malice and determination to cause great pain and suffering did not have a gun, they would find another way to leverage those terrible acts.

What if this kid decided to steal a heavy truck and just plow it through the next VT football pep rally? The gun just makes violence that much more glorified and accessible...but banning guns will never stop violence.

I might have gone for a pretty big might, but you've said something that's an even bigger 'might' and stated it as fact. The reality is, firearms distance the gunner from the murder. There is an element of detatchment in a gun murder that's not present in a knife attack or otherwise. Just click, bang, dead, next. Assuming that somebody with no access to a gun would perform an atrocity on the same level is, frankly, inaccurate.

And did you read my post where I said that banning guns wouldn't directly stop violent acts, but would serve as a catalyst to the dissolution of gun culture, something which I blame for the vast majority of massacres in America?

bsjezz

part of the problem is the entire phenomenon of the 'gunman' itself. it's kind of semantic - the fact that we have a word, a concept, for this figure, it becomes a much more potent risk.

someone flips out, or is pressured by their society to act in a way they don't gel with, or feels themselves in an impossible position. what are their options? i'm sure it's only (fairly) recently that one of the neatly-packed options that comes to mind is: 'flip out with a gun in a crowded place and kill everyone i can, followed by myself.'

(and that's a much more feasible option if you can buy the tools at wal-mart)

i agree with pretty much everything bob the monkey has said.

Carnivore

In america your teen years apparently last until 28

Faricazy

Bob The Monkey wrote: »

The ordeal of acquiring a firearm illegally would, in every likelihood, have been such an arduous experience that it would have been impossible to perform on such an impulse and, in addition, would be sobering enough to deter most potential impulse-murderers.

DING DING DING DING NO NO NO NO NO NO

I mean I don't know about the boondocks, but in major cities an area where you can easily acquire an illigal firearm is merely a train-ride away.