VTech

Pages

AuthorTopic: VTech
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #25
How, exactly, do you propose that unarmed students attack a man with two guns? I'll admit to limited knowledge of handguns, but it seems quite reasonable to me that a charging mass of students would just have meant easier targets. A small mob would have just been a dead mob, and a large mob is both rather hard to assemble while someone is shooting at it and quite likely to result in, say, 40 dead even if it gets the gunman in the end.

That's not altruism, that's stupidity.

—Alorael, who also doesn't think that he'd be able to think clearly enough to organize anyone even if they were thinking clearly enough to help. Attacking a man with a gun alone from a significant distance is suicidal when the man apparently knows what he's doing.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #26
Iwo Jima.

Battle of the Bulge.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #27
It's impossible to determine how you'll react in the face of death. As someone who suffers from anxiety and jumps at every noise at night because of it, I'll explain it to you. You freeze up, your heart starts to beat faster, faster, faster, so hard that it feels like it'll rip out of your chest. You begin to feel woozy, you lose your balance, your mouth goes dry, and you lose control of your legs. Your brain screams RUN, HIDE, DO SOMETHING TO GET AWAY!!! If it becomes bad enough, you will actually black out. It's not a fun feeling. Fortunately the more you experience this emotion, the more control you have over it, and the braver you become.

I suspect that the first kids were killed while still in shock. I doubt they knew how to react, and just dove for cover while their brains took in the information. The students in the other classrooms probably thought that they could get away safely before the gunman reached them, so no decision to try and stop him was ever made. People reacted to their first instinct, which is to run. You can't blame people for trying to take the safest way out. Unfortuately, this time, it ended with 33+ people dead.

I'm tired of people coming up with reasons and excuses for why people kill each other. There is no excuse for killing an innocent. Murderers, it doesn't matter where they came from, who they are, what mental conditions they have, or how hard their lives are, when it comes right down to it, they're all ego-maniacs. They feel like some wrong has been done to them, so they're going to go make people pay for it. They're extremely self-centered and act like whiny children. Children with dangerous weapons.

Peddlers of these weapons deserve just as much blame for these crimes as the murderers. It's sad to see how some of these crimes could have been avoided if the criminal lacked the means of purchasing his deadly instrument.
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #28
It's not as easy to hit moving targets with a handgun as one might think. It's even harder to fire accurately with a gun in each hand. It looks cool in movies, but reliable handgun firing requires a second hand for support. One has a decent (pardon the unintended pun) shot at evading mortal wounding, while lunging under the influence of fierce adrenaline at one young man.

My point is not that it can be done with any guarantee that no one is going to be wounded or killed. Wounding of someone is at least likely. Would you be willing to risk that on behalf of many fellow Americans and friends? Conversely, it is virtually guaranteed that far more are going to be wounded and killed by default, if no one takes action. The point is being willing to risk personal harm on the behalf of many others. Bullies are usually not anticipating resistance. It's not as difficult to surprise and fluster them as one might imagine. They are cowards at heart.

Again I'd ask, what happened to our heroism, our sense of self sacrifice on behalf of others? If ten, five, or even three students were to rush in unison one person ten feet away, there is a good likelihood they would take him down. The average American college kid in Virginia probably grew up playing many hours of shooting and fighting video games, exulting in their eventual prowess. That macho bravado evidently doesn't translate into real life circumstances.

I mourn the lost and wounded. I also mourn the seeming death of real courage and self-sacrifice in our nation. It would seem we do not equip our youth for bravery and selflessness in the face of personal risk. If you find yourself caught in a similar situation in the future, please don't roll over and die and let those around you die.

There is strength in numbers, in cooperation. The spirit of competition over cooperation that infects the modern industrial world leaves us to live and die alone. It is those who join forces in collaboration who survive and thrive. Lone individuals are prey to lone predators. If it happens to you, see if you can find it in yourself to rally those cowering next to you under the desk, and take the traitor to humanity down.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

-S-

EDIT: tidying up

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:38: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7331
Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by WiKiSpidweb:

I can't comprehend why a person would feel the need to express their emotional problems by taking the lives of others.
Oh? I can quite understand it, actually. All too well. Picture this: You arrive at a place every day and are constantly harassed, bullied, punched, poked, your things are thrown around, your so-called friends turn on you, gossip is rampant about you, and not in the good way... The list goes on. Now, this is one day. Picture this as one week. Now, a month, Now, ten months.

Congratulations. You have just pictured my school year of 2005-2006. Many times I wanted nothing more than just to be left alone, other times I wanted to punch them until they cried like a little infant. The line "Just Kidding" was much overused.

Such is the world we have created. The person who was doing the shooting was in direct responsibility to their actions, yes. Now, I ask you: Who do you think were the first people who were shot? The people who got along with this person, or the people who harassed them day in and day out?

--------------------
You Shall Die Laughing: http://www.worfthecat.ermarian.net/converted

The Roost: www.roost01.proboards104.com. Birds of a feather flock together.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6193
Profile Homepage #30
Syn: A man walked into their classroom with guns blazing. Most likely everybody was still in their seats, and even if they had time to jump up, there is no way they had time to organize a rush on the gunman. Perhaps somebody DID try to rush him, but simply failed. How do you know that there weren't individuals who realised their only chance for their and their friends survival was to somehow stop the gunman, but simply couldn't do so. Barring an organized effort, which I doubt many classrooms had the time to put together, attacking the gunman will almost inevitably fail.

The later classrooms perhaps had some warning, but there are definitely better things to do with your time than to decide that when the gunman enters you will all jump him. Like, say, barricading the door. (Which several classrooms DID do, and survived because of their quick action.)

Regardless, nobody is in a position to say that unarmed civillians 'should have' charged an armed man.

--------------------
Guaranteed to blow your mind.

Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot?
Posts: 900 | Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
Profile Homepage #31
What Laz said.

--------------------
"You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus
Spiderweb Chat Room
Avernum RPSummariesOoCRoster
Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things.
Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #32
Laz is absolutely right. Blaming the victim is sickening, especially in cases like this, where the victims are clearly innocent, at least as much as anyone can be. Moreover, some people did try to help.

Sarasaphilia is also right, in another sort of way, and it's a point that Salmon made earlier. We talk sometimes about how easy it is to be cruel over the Internet because people are faceless here, but we forget how easy many of us find it to be cruel face-to-face, too. It's worth remembering that no act of kindness is ever wasted, and a small good deed may turn out to have been a much bigger one than we'll ever know.

That's what we, as individuals, can do, but it's hard to know what we, as a society, should do.

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 14:21: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Agent
Member # 4574
Profile #33
By God. I'm terrified. I lived in that town. My parents attended that college. The results of this massacre are going to be huge.

The University of Texas tower sniping only killed sixteen people. Yet that prompted the creation of SWAT. I can only hope this results in the repealing of the Second Ammendment in the Constitution.

A replacment of course would need to be made. Make it so that civilians can only get small caliber pistols, and by passing a test. Make it so that the Department of Fish and Game makes it so that it is required to have a hunting license to buy a gun. Also, make it harder to get said licenses. Make it so that nothing on this scale happens again.

--------------------
All praise the greatest mod of all time! Long live Master Aran!
Posts: 1186 | Registered: Friday, June 18 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #34
I'm not quite sure why people need handguns in the first place...
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #35
Synergy: Let's not be armchair generals here. It is easy to sit back and state what people could have done and we would like to think we would act bravely in the same situation. However, it is very difficult to act unprepared at a moment's notice unless one has had the training/experience to do so. Let us not judge the victims of this crime. Chances are we will never know all the details.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
Profile #36
Synergy did bring out something that has been in my mind since I first heard about how many people died. How experienced was Cho Seung-Hui with guns? As Synergy pointed out, shooting is not easy. It takes a lot of strength and determination just to shoot, let along shoot at the right object in the right place. All of the deaths, him being able to lock the classroom without giving time to anyone to stop him, him having purchased the guns, seems too planned out. It’s just awful. It’s sick, twisted, and sad. Ultimately it’s just that: awful.

I do think that Synergy is wrong to jump to conclusion. No one knows for sure what was done, on the students’ part, to stop Cho. And it’s really hard to put yourself in that position. People react to things differently, and no one is wrong to react how it’s naturally to them. I remember an occasion where my sister and I lit a pan on fire. Her first reaction was to run, mine was to call for help, and my cousin’s was to get the fire away from us (even if it meant throwing the pan to a place where it might’ve caused more damage). It’s easy to say “This is what should’ve been done” or “I’d do this if I were in that position”. But at the time that is happening you feel as though you’re on slow motion and things are happening too quickly for you to reason and think. Thus, you react by instinct.
Something like this doesn’t happen randomly, in my opinion. You can’t look at the bullies and say “It’s their fault”. Or look at the parents and say “They should’ve done more for their children; they should’ve been more involved”. I believe it’s a combination of things. Parents, bullies, whether that person had any friends, whether he/she received love, and ultimately it narrows down to the person itself. You can have two different people and summit them through the same things, and I’m sure they’ll turn out differently. Some are emotionally and mentally stronger than others. This is why we should never think we know exactly how our actions will affect another person. Just because you feel like you are strong enough to handle something does not mean that others will handle it the same.

My sincere condolences to all the families and friends of those involve. May they find peace and calm through this horrible time.

And Sarasaphilia: I’m sorry that you have gone through what you have. I do understand that some people are hurt in a daily basis. But in situations as this, it’s completely un-acceptable. Sometimes I look at law cases of people that have been raped and tortured, and whom decided to take revenged on who hurt them. And I say “that’s understandable, not right but understandable”. But where do you cross the line in being so hurt that you just want to hurt back even if it’s not to the person who caused you pain to begin with? I’ll restrict to comment on this. I will say that I find less sympathy in me for them.

Edit: I should stop taking longer to post.I feel as if I'm repeating what y'll said.

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 15:02: Message edited by: M. ]
Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #37
It is not ownership of firearms that makes a murderer, if that was the implication behind the notion of repealing the second Amendment to the Constitution. There are millions of law-abiding citizens that own guns and who would never dream of using those guns except in sport (hunting) or self-defense. There are some folks who have actually suggested that if the lily livered liberals hadn't emasculated gun ownership, it may have been possible that some of those college students could have had concealed weapons permits and been carrying at the time of the massacre. It is likely, due to the heavy load of courses required to get such a permit, that any CWP person could have taken down that gunman with one shot.

Some universities don't allow their Public Safety officers to carry weapons at all, probably because they fear some public relations fiasco. The long and short of it is that this guy was determined to do damage, and he was able to do so. We should let the "professionals" worry about policy changes and be more concerned about our own backyards. To reiterate - if you are in school, or have a job, or drive a car, or talk on the phone, or breath; be nice to five strangers today. Smile at someone. Let someone cut in front of you. Tell that telemarketer that you aren't interested and have a nice day. Plug a parking meter. Just do something to make a difference.

To Marlenny - Society has decided that society has the authority and responsibility to punish crimes against members of society. This disconnect is hard on some people, and they feel that nothing has been done to assuage the wrong they have experienced. It's real hard to un-do a rape. Having the rapist spend time in a prison doesn't un-do the rape, and so it may be necessary to take "revenge." The main reason eye-for-eye was not accepted by society is the fallability of justice. Without proof, how do we (society) know that the punished was guilty? As is evidenced in many debates in this forum, people are obsessed with the idea of proof, and of absolutes. Were I in charge of making some decisions, and I had to decide what to do if a woman killed her rapist, I would choose to misdemeanor her for some junk charge like illegal discharge of weapon within city limits.

About Synergy - Some people react with instinct, and others don't. My instincts have always had me leaping to save someone or catch something. My wife tends to react the opposite way, by withdrawing or freezing up. Neither way is right, but it sure is nice to know that both exist in society.

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 15:07: Message edited by: Spent Salmon ]

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #38
I just want someone to explain to me why civilians actually need handguns and semi/full-auto rifles.

Explain to me why it's better to own a gun than to restrict access to guns. You cannot fight evil with more evil!

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 15:09: Message edited by: Enraged Slith ]
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #39
I do have to think that the lives of the thousands of people who die each year to gun violence outweigh the hunting-for-pleasure needs (or target-practice-for-pleasure or whatever) of millions.

If I could save ten people's lives by forcing a thousand to find a new hobby, I'd do it.

There's a terribly thorny problem of enforcement, however.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 7638
Profile #40
Our culture does glorify violence, but so do the Japanese and the Chinese. The Chinese have a very violent culture (over 20 distinct divisions in history)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China
but the murder rate their is a fraction of it in the United States. Maybe Asians really are smarter.

--------------------
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981

"But what ... is it good for?"
--Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Monday, November 6 2006 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #41
I own rifles because I hunt for food.

I own a pistol because there are cougar and bear that live in the woods around me. I carry when I am out fishing or hiking so that if I was to be attacked I could either scare the animal or kill it.

But honestly, why the heck do you feel enabled to require a motive check for weapon owners? No one is running around asking prospective car buyers why they need a car and then checking the list of reasons to see if they will be granted that right. No one asks why a person buys or possesses anything that commonly kills people, except of rifles and handguns. Why is that?

Edit - splng

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 15:18: Message edited by: Spent Salmon ]

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #42
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

If I could save ten people's lives by forcing a thousand to find a new hobby, I'd do it.

What if instead you concentrated on keeping firearms away from people that are restricted from owning weapons? We already have a system in place that ensures that firearms are only legally sold to a subset of our population. Your proposal to allow human life to serve as a counterbalance to human liberty and pursuit of happiness seems like a slippery slope.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #43
Salmon -- Because guns are specifically designed to kill/injure things. While it is possible to use cars, knives, and paint to kill, they have other uses namely transportation, cutting, and, well, painting.

Unfortunately, banning guns probably will not work. It will not prevent people from getting them if they really want them. While it might make it more difficult, those truly motivated can get almost anything.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #44
quote:
Originally written by Spent Salmon:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

If I could save ten people's lives by forcing a thousand to find a new hobby, I'd do it.

What if instead you concentrated on keeping firearms away from people that are restricted from owning weapons?

That's probably what I'd end up doing in practicality.

quote:
Your proposal to allow human life to serve as a counterbalance to human liberty and pursuit of happiness seems like a slippery slope.
You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That's a restriction on your liberty, yet you aren't out in the streets protesting it. We already recognize that there is some amount of reasonable restriction on our liberty, and the only real question is how much for what benefit.

The benefits of people having guns seem minimal. The real benefits (self-defense, for example) could be achieved by other means.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #45
quote:
Originally written by *i:

While it might make it more difficult, those truly motivated can get almost anything.
Absolutely. 100%. That is the motive behind my earlier posts, in that preventing the motivation is 100% effective in reducing painful swelling and massacres. Only when it was suggested that law-abiding citizens be penalized by society for the actions of criminals do I protest.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #46
Anyone who perceives that my point was about blaming victims is assigning unwarranted intent to my words. Nor did I state that "the students should have done so and so." I commented on what apparently simply did not happen, and continually seems to not happen in these situations in recent American history. I am wondering aloud why does it not, and what does this say for American values? I am promoting the thought that we may well consider doing and thinking differently, should we be faced with such a dilemma.

-S-

--------------------
A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
Profile #47
quote:
Originally written by *i:

Unfortunately, banning guns probably will not work. It will not prevent people from getting them if they really want them. While it might make it more difficult, those truly motivated can get almost anything.
By that rationale then there'd be no problem with legalizing drugs, allowing teenagers to drink before age 21, or anything of that kind. I think that something is done by making them difficult to obtain.
Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #48
quote:
Originally written by Spent Salmon:

I own rifles because I hunt for food.

I own a pistol because there are cougar and bear that live in the woods around me. I carry when I am out fishing or hiking so that if I was to be attacked I could either scare the animal or kill it.

But honestly, why the heck do you feel enabled to require a motive check for weapon owners? No one is running around asking prospective car buyers why they need a car and then checking the list of reasons to see if they will be granted that right. No one asks why a person buys or possesses anything that commonly kills people, except of rifles and handguns. Why is that?

Edit - splng

Rifles and handguns are made for the express and sole purpose of killing, unlike cars, knives, or household chemicals.

EDIT: I say this as someone who grew up with guns. I don't see guns as evil. But they really have no place in cities.

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 15:37: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6193
Profile Homepage #49
Banning guns isn't going to get rid of the many guns already in the country. A determined criminal will always be able to buy black market guns, while the man who wants a gun to protect his family likely isn't going to acquire one illegally. The man who committed the shooting was clearly very determined, I don't believe that stricter gun laws were going to stop him.

Edit: A lot got said between this post and the moment I hit the reply button....

[ Tuesday, April 17, 2007 15:40: Message edited by: Lazarus. ]

--------------------
Guaranteed to blow your mind.

Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot?
Posts: 900 | Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00

Pages