Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

virginia tech shooting


dmarc117
 Share

Recommended Posts

i have to admit i'm kind of amused at all the posts lamenting how this reflects on american parenting culture, yada yada yada. this puke was born and raised in korea, correct?

No, he's been here since (I think) 1992, so he would be 8 or so when he got here. Not so much an American parenting issue as a parenting issue in general perhaps, though I have seen multiple times where a pair of parents have been what would be described as excellent, yet their kid has still gone bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 406
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think there would be a couple of million hunters that are not happy. And they're armed too... :D

 

FBI Stats:

 

In the US there are 200 million REGISTERED guns. 67 million gun owners. No law other than total banishment of all current guns has a chance. 67 million gun owners versus Rosie O'fat and BarbaraBoxer? Wonder who wins that battle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conceptually I have no problem with the idea of "gun training" being required before the purchase of a fire arm. The biggest problem I have with this idea is the big boost in the cost of purchasing a gun. Additionally I'm not quite sure what this buys you. Explain to my why Cho would not have passed ... he seemed to be fairly proficient with the pistols he purchased? Or are you saying that the gun training will also include a psych evaluation?

 

Yeah, that could be an indirect benefit of formal gun training: an experienced, responsible gun owner gets to size up the noob and get a feel for whether he or she is a total nut job. Not so much a formal "pysch evaluation," more of an informal interview. Many job applications require references because potential employers want to get other human beings personal reflection on the applicant. "Gun training" could, in theory, serve a similar purpose. I think this Cho characther would likely have failed in that regard, given how disturbed and anti-social he was.

 

Anyways, I appriciate your candid response. These discussions typically degenerate into the on-line equivilent of monkeys flinging feces and I'm thankful this one hasn't... yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he's been here since (I think) 1992, so he would be 8 or so when he got here. Not so much an American parenting issue as a parenting issue in general perhaps, though I have seen multiple times where a pair of parents have been what would be described as excellent, yet their kid has still gone bad.

 

 

Just read his sister graduated from Princeton :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude was accused of stalking on two prior occasions, and admitted to a mental health facility two years ago.

 

Uh, yeah, it should be perfectly legal for nutjobs like this to own guns.

 

 

Va. gunman had 2 previous stalking cases By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer

2 hours, 52 minutes ago

 

BLACKSBURG, Va. - The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.

 

Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.

 

He said the woman declined to press charges and Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system. During one of those incidents, both in late 2005, the department received a call from Cho's parents who were concerned that he might be suicidal, and he was taken to a mental health facility, he said.

 

Flinchum said he knew of no other police incidents involving Cho until the deadly shootings Monday, first at a girl's dorm room and then a classroom building across campus. Neither of the stalking victims was among the victims Monday.

Edited by i_am_the_swammi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember Virginny executes more people than any other state besides Texas so we believe in keeping the right to kill bear arms free and clear for almost everyone. Killing Bearing arms is a pastime here.

Edited by TimC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that could be an indirect benefit of formal gun training: an experienced, responsible gun owner gets to size up the noob and get a feel for whether he or she is a total nut job. Not so much a formal "pysch evaluation," more of an informal interview. Many job applications require references because potential employers want to get other human beings personal reflection on the applicant. "Gun training" could, in theory, serve a similar purpose. I think this Cho characther would likely have failed in that regard, given how disturbed and anti-social he was.

 

Anyways, I appriciate your candid response. These discussions typically degenerate into the on-line equivilent of monkeys flinging feces and I'm thankful this one hasn't... yet.

 

 

 

Really, a gun safety course as a pre-requisite to gun ownership seems like a very good idea to me. My one reserveration is that this would increase the cost of purchasing a gun and doesn't really do anything toward controlling the illegal use of firearms. What it could very possibly accomplish is the reduction of accidental injuries/deaths ... and that could very well make it worth doing.

 

Before I would sign off on such a requirement I'd like to know more about the course itself, pre-requisites, costs, and graduation criteria. Who would maintain records? Would re-certification be required (like right to carry)? How would instructors be selected and trained? Would it be a generic fire arm saftey course or would there be specific types of classes (pistols vs rifles vs shot guns etc).

 

Having said all that I don't think it is appropriate to have a firearms instructor making psychological evaluations based on behavior observed in a firearms safety course. This seems like a very subjective and inefficient method of determining someone's mental state ... not to mention it is would likely be hard enough for trained professionals to diagnosis the mental state of potential gun owners strictly on the observed behavior in a firearms safety course, and you want an untrained person to make this psychological evaluation?

 

So ... while gun safety course might very well have value and might be worth doing ... I don't think they go towards elimination of criminal activity with guns at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you want an untrained person to make this psychological evaluation?

 

 

After yesterday, I'll take a chimp. If it means keeping guns out of the wrong hands, absoulutely.

 

You continue to make points about "Criminals will always be able to get guns". Perhaps. But something tells me a petty criminal would be much less likely to graduate to gun-use if it meant a mandatory 3-years+ behind bars for owning one.

 

But really, don't you think broader regulation/restictions would keep guns from the insane/disturbed, such as this lunatic who had been admitted to a mental institution just two years ago??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But really, don't you think broader regulation/restictions would keep guns from the insane/disturbed, such as this lunatic who had been admitted to a mental institution just two years ago??

 

 

 

Don't you think mental health-based regulations could deter such lunatics from seeking help and preventing a disaster in the first place? Your intentions are sound, but I think it will be more effective to better proactive measures of identifying dangerous individuals than attaching more restrictions on their potential tools for destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, a gun safety course as a pre-requisite to gun ownership seems like a very good idea to me. My one reserveration is that this would increase the cost of purchasing a gun and doesn't really do anything toward controlling the illegal use of firearms. What it could very possibly accomplish is the reduction of accidental injuries/deaths ... and that could very well make it worth doing.

 

Before I would sign off on such a requirement I'd like to know more about the course itself, pre-requisites, costs, and graduation criteria. Who would maintain records? Would re-certification be required (like right to carry)? How would instructors be selected and trained? Would it be a generic fire arm saftey course or would there be specific types of classes (pistols vs rifles vs shot guns etc).

 

Having said all that I don't think it is appropriate to have a firearms instructor making psychological evaluations based on behavior observed in a firearms safety course. This seems like a very subjective and inefficient method of determining someone's mental state ... not to mention it is would likely be hard enough for trained professionals to diagnosis the mental state of potential gun owners strictly on the observed behavior in a firearms safety course, and you want an untrained person to make this psychological evaluation?

 

So ... while gun safety course might very well have value and might be worth doing ... I don't think they go towards elimination of criminal activity with guns at all.

 

 

 

Very good points here.

 

I would add to this: Perhaps the cost to take a course like this should be tax deductable, since it is done in an effort to exercise a constitutional rights. Also, perhaps a written psychological evaluation could be given to each person looking to take this course, and the evaluation could be used to profile protentially problematic owners. Further evaluation could then be recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good points here.

 

I would add to this: Perhaps the cost to take a course like this should be tax deductable, since it is done in an effort to exercise a constitutional rights. Also, perhaps a written psychological evaluation could be given to each person looking to take this course, and the evaluation could be used to profile protentially problematic owners. Further evaluation could then be recommended.

 

 

In addition, a program that would require a gun owner to petition the state for ownership might be a good idea. The petition might then be made public prior to its consideration, giving neighbors and acquaintances an opportunity to voice a disenting opinion if there is reason to think someone shouldn't be privileged enough to own a weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition, a program that would require a gun owner to petition the state for ownership might be a good idea. The petition might then be made public prior to its consideration, giving neighbors and acquaintances an opportunity to voice a disenting opinion if there is reason to think someone shouldn't be privileged enough to own a weapon.

 

That will never happen in the US, nor should it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to make points about "Criminals will always be able to get guns". Perhaps. But something tells me a petty criminal would be much less likely to graduate to gun-use if it meant a mandatory 3-years+ behind bars for owning one.

 

we already have very vigorously prosecuted laws with very stiff penalties for possessing a gun in the commission of a crime, and for convicted felons possessing guns.

 

i dunno, if you really think that incidents like monday's could be prevented by stiffening gun laws, i just think that's incredibly naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we already have very vigorously prosecuted laws with very stiff penalties for possessing a gun in the commission of a crime, and for convicted felons possessing guns.

 

i dunno, if you really think that incidents like monday's could be prevented by stiffening gun laws, i just think that's incredibly naive.

 

If lying on your background check/application for a gun isn't a felony, it should be. Most applications ask if you have any mental disorders. Sure, the person can lie. But in that event, if for some reason the system got a hold of a whack-job like this Cho *before* he commits a crime with his legally purchased gun, we'd have grounds to throw his ass in jail and take that gun away from him due to his status as a felon.

 

If I lie on my tax return, that's a felony. So I don't see why that standard couldn't apply to gun-related applications, assuming it doesn't already. While it obvioulsy wouldn't solve the overall problem of gun violence, it could help prevent some instances. And the "inconvience" to otherwise law abiding citizens would be nil because society should be able to expect decent, responsible gun owers are going to fill out those forms truthfuly in the first place.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If lying on your background check/application for a gun isn't a felony, it should be. Most applications ask if you have any mental disorders. Sure, the person can lie. But in that event, if for some reason the system got a hold of a whack-job like this Cho *before* he commits a crime with his legally purchased gun, we'd have grounds to throw his ass in jail and take that gun away from him due to his status as a felon.

 

If I lie on my tax return, that's a felony. So I don't see why that standard couldn't apply to gun-related applications, assuming it doesn't already. While it obvioulsy wouldn't solve the overall problem of gun violence, it could help prevent some instances. And the "inconvience" to otherwise law abiding citizens would be nil because society should be able to expect decent, responsible gun owers are going to fill out those forms truthfuly in the first place.

 

 

i'm sure lying on those applications is already a crime, or at the very least grounds for revoking the permit. also, defacing a gun to remove the serial number is a felony, so he was already a criminal before he went on his rampage without changing the laws. but how on earth can chit like that be effectively investgated and prosecuted before anything happens? expecting that to happen simply isn't realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm sure lying on those applications is already a crime, or at the very least grounds for revoking the permit. also, defacing a gun to remove the serial number is a felony, so he was already a criminal before he went on his rampage without changing the laws. but how on earth can chit like that be effectively investgated and prosecuted before anything happens? expecting that to happen simply isn't realistic.

 

Well, I wouldn't expect anyone to catch the fact that a serial number has been filed off his gun, because you'd need to examine the gun to know that. Being able to verify representations on a filed application is a quite a bit more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is to be able to attack someone in the act of clambering through the bedroom window, which is open in summer. While both hands are occupied doing the climbing, Mrs M would gut the burglar like a fish. Home invasion is an entirely different story and so rare I'm not going to worry about it any more than I worry about being hit by a meteor.

 

 

ok.. well i just dont know what kind of neighborhood you live in, the crime rate in your area, etc.. if you live in a typical home, what is to keep the guy from coming in through another window elsewhere? if you are both worried enough to keep a knife and bat by the bed, no matter what the odds are of you ever using them, i dont see what could keep you from having a gun as well. i dont know if you have kids or not, but you could keep all 3 by the bed if its just the two of you. or at least in a safe spot if there is kids involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information