Virginia Tech massacre, what will the reason be?

(1/4) > >>

d-_-b (April 17, 2007, 08:19:58 AM):
News 24 Article - What motivated campus killer?
Wikipedia - Virginia Tech massacre

At this point it just seems like senseless killing! I also shaw on article on Google news where one news agency selling it as a 'Child with inner rage exploding in a rage of gun fire', they also chucked the 'It's a terrorist attack' out of the window.

All I can say it's sad... very sad. If any of you guys find new post or articles on the killings please share it here!

Regards,
bluegray (April 17, 2007, 09:10:39 AM):
Hectic...
bluegray (April 17, 2007, 10:42:47 AM):
This quote makes my skin crawl:
Quote
More than 30 000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States every year and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country. But a powerful gun lobby and support for gun ownership rights has largely thwarted attempts to tighten controls.

Advocates of gun ownership rights saw Monday's massacre as evidence of the need to relax gun laws rather than tighten them.

"All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

"The latest school shooting at Virginia Tech demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen."


Source: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleId=304914
d-_-b (April 19, 2007, 07:35:52 AM):
Well they released information of who the killer was... and he planned it :'(

He also sent a package to a American news agency... filled with notes, videos and photos... I also heard on the news that he added some strong opinion of Christianity and Hedonism, but I couldn't find any information on the Wikipedia article just by a quick scan(I will wait for some news agencies to report more theories).

Bluegray on the Wikipedia article posted in my first post they had the following to say about gun laws:
Quote
The massacre reignited the gun control debate in the United States, with proponents of anti-gun legislation claiming guns are too accessible (and hence Cho readily acquired them) and proponents of gun rights and the Second Amendment claiming guns are not accessible enough (and hence none of Cho's victims were armed in the gun-free "safe zone", so none of them were able to defend themselves from his attacks). Note that the much-debated federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is not an issue in this incident; that law applies only to elementary and secondary schools, not to colleges and universities.

I do feel it's a good point. Gun-free zones is not a solution if a madman can still get their hands on to a gun(or in this case two guns) I will call this once again human error *duck* not that I'm justifying it but you can't blame something else for what people do: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Regards,
Mefiante (April 19, 2007, 10:04:44 AM):
Quote from: Wikipedia
The massacre reignited the gun control debate in the United States, with … proponents of gun rights and the Second Amendment claiming guns are not accessible enough (and hence none of Cho's victims were armed in the gun-free "safe zone", so none of them were able to defend themselves from his attacks).
"I'm an arsonist and I say that you can fight fire with fire! So lift the restrictions on napalm, potassium chlorate and phosphorus right away!"


… I will call this once again human error *duck* not that I'm justifying it but you can't blame something else for what people do: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Please explain this "human error" oddity because the above reads in effect as, "Cho, a human, acted in error when shooting all those people, and he did so because of human error." If this interpretation holds, it would be a tautology that doesn't address what prompted the "human error" in the first place, or what allowed it to continue and escalate to the proportions it did. After all, everyone wants to know why Cho went ballistic.

"Ovens don't bake pies, people bake pies." That's true enough as far as it goes, but when setting out to bake a pie, you'd be a bit, … uhm …, stuffed without an oven — which doesn't, of course, prevent you from seeking an alternative means of baking.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page