Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
Honestly i dont think this has to do with video games..movies..etc. I know plenty of people who watch violent things who are not violent themselves (myself included) I think the problem is there are people who are already suseptible to commit violent acts (due to psych problems...bad parenting...etc) and after becoming entranced in a video game they might act violently toward people...

I agree. However, we are living in a society that looks for things to blame so that personal responsibility cannot be figured into the equation. The media is an easy enough scapegoat.

Originally posted by grover
Justin Oldman: If you killed your lunch with a handgun more power to you (I thought your personal info said that you were blind though) but you are the exception to the rule. be that as it may, guns have one purpose and that is to kill.

Checking I see that your personal info says that you are legally blind.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by grover]

The fact that a legally blind person can own or shoot a gun should scare anyone on the US, even the gun nuts.

I haven't heard how he got there. I might very well take you up on it at some point BUT I do not drink and drive.... BUT it is right out near my bike mechanic's shop (AllSport, a block or so in from 419 on Colonial) So who knows.... nag me about it...I am easy.

I was wondering when the violate video game angle would surface. Any time this happens everyone wants to blame every thing but the reason or persons who commited the violence. Same thing as Colorado everyone blamed Manson and music and video games and every thing but the idiots who picked up the guns and killed. I have never seen a gun walk it's self into a school and open fire. This is tragic yes! This is just a part of our history as a nation. My thoughts go out to the families who lost. I don't sit back and break this down as to what would have caused this. It's simple this guy..NOT kid..guy was twisted and had some wires crossed. The worse is yet to come. Some political official is going to get a bug up his ass to impose ANOTHER law thats going to do nothing to bring these 31 people back.

Justin I do not hate guns nor is there any rage concerning them... I have marksman and sharpshooter ribbons from the military, I grew up around them and I know how to handle them... I just don't care for them. If I needed one for food, that would be one thing, but I don't. I see no need to have one for protection, though if I lived in an inner city I might. I just find the hubris from organizations such as the NRA counter-productive and see nothing wrong with good, strong, practical, enforced gun control laws. America is the most violent of the 1st world countries and in my humble opinion it is in large part (though not entirely) to our obsession with guns, and their absurdly easy access.

Of course the violent nature of America and especially that of the south has a long history... Toqueville commented on it in his "Democracy in America" published in 1833 (I believe)

[edit on 17-4-2007 by grover]

Regarding the recent reports about the shooter, why aren't anti-depressants not on the scape-goat list?

I am saddened by what has happened. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
However....

"The big question to ask about proposals for new laws and policies is not whether they sound reasonable, but what damage they can do when they are used unreasonably."
-Thomas Sowell

Edmund Burke, 1784: "The people never give up their liberty but under some delusion."
[Contrast the above with U.S. Senator Joseph Biden's statement: "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come" as reported on 18 November, 1993, by the Associated Press.]

Samuel Adams [Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (1788?) (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)]: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." [Contrast the above with U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds' statement: "If it were up to me we'd ban them all" as reported on 9 December, 1993, by CNN.]

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1787-88): "Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..."
[Contrast the above with Attorney General Janet Reno's statement: "Gun registration is not enough. I've always proposed state licensing... with some federal standards." as reported by the Associated Press and by ABC on 10 December, 1993.]

Hermann Goering, 1936: "Naturally the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933: "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."

The second amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are very good reasons they wrote those words.

Originally posted by vox2442

On your second point - I disagree with the sentiment. If you require a gun for defence, you have already lost control of the situation. If someone has a gun in your face, odds are you`ve made a few mistakes to get you there - and having a gun on you probably won`t do much to resolve the situation.

Well, sorry to tell you that might be true in some cases, but most often it is not. There are enough criminals out there that would put a gun to your face and shoot for any reason, without any of those reasons being your fault.

And with someone like myself a gun being pointed at me at close range, I can take it away from the perp.

No rethoric, and no bs. I have trained in Ninjutsu (that's how it is called in europe) Kempo Karate, and Tae kwon do since age 9, and trained sparring in friendly fights with friends trained in different schools of martial arts. I have also trained in the use of firearms and close combat skills in the military since the 90s, and still go to the local shooting range to train my marksmanship. But I never have had the urge to even point a weapon at anyone over any dispute.

If you are lucky enough to find a good sensei, the first thing you learn in Martial Arts is to use your legs and run if you can, as long as the perp don't have a gun or can throw a knife at you.

Second thing you learn is if you can't run and can't talk your way out, use everything you find around you as a weapon.

Third thing you learn is that if the perp is good in close combat skills, and has a knife you can always use your arm to block even if you get cut, it is better than getting the knife stucked in your gut, even though normally you won't need to do that.

Anyways, with most perps you only need to get to the second option, but if you are not so savvy in close combat skills, or if the perp is bigger than you or armed, a gun will make sure you are not the victim.

I have been in three situations when i had to use either option one or two, and just in one situation when I had to use close combat skills.

Now, even though I don't carry a firearm on me, I do have legal firearms in my home, and the glove compartment in my car.

I would never use a gun unless someone in my family is going to be harmed, or I am too far away to use close combat skills and the perp has a gun or a knife. But if i got no choice i will use a gun before any harm comes to anyone in my family, any innocents or myself. No buts, or ifs.

Originally posted by vox2442
An old guy at a gun range told me that when I was 18, and I`ve come to see the truth in that.

And maybe life will teach you quite differently in time for you to understand that advice you were given is not always right, or maybe it will be too late if you ever get unlucky enough to get a gun in your face and that's the last thing you see.


[edit on 17-4-2007 by Muaddib]

It looks like this guy bought both his guns legally - how much are they worth over the counter?
I don't really pay much heed to the conspiracies relating to this incident, but his death rate in such a short time frame does seem rather incredible and I wonder how a student would be able to afford two guns in a matter of weeks?

Oh, so when I read that on there about explosive devices that was not found. I guess I missunderstood. Cause I saw that on the warrent papers. I don't do law stuff very much. sorry.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Shar]

Yeah, it's just the police have to have a list of what they are searching for (which is the first page you read) as well as other information like "when, where, and why." On the last page you'll see a list of seized items...

If I were my brother I would of known that. He's a captain with the police department in his town. Was also an MP. So he know's all about this stuff. Me nothing.

Been a huge deal around here on UF's campus. Dunno if you heard ImpliedChaos, but I guess they're encouraging students to sign up for some cell phone thing where UPD can send out mass text messages to everyone in the event that something is happening. This would probably be more effective than emails.

Something I found interesting - UF was planning on holding a seminar this week for police and Alachua County people in case of events such as this happening - before the shooting happened. Odd. Now they are using it and drawing lessons from it and coming up with more possible ways of responding quicker.

This is off the subject of gun laws, and im sure most of you have stopped questioning what took place during the VT shooting.

But I want to bring this back up

I just cant seem to fathom, how one man could end thirty lives with in a half an hour. Not to mention wound more than twenty others.

Maybe Im in a state of shock, im not sure.

Everyone is questioning why he did it, I steal cant get passed how the man did it. Most medical personal who were on the seen, said that there was not one person wounded or dead, that had not received at last three rounds. I am not trying to be morbid here, but how ever many shots the guy fired 150 of the rounds hit there intended target.

The simple fact of the matter is that the human body can sustain a great deal of punishment. the shooter was probably being overly mythodical, using a rythm of sorts to pace his efforts. Will it turn out that he was trained in basic firearms use? I don't know. The average person can be lethal with just a few minutes of training.

The speed and pace of his attack suggests that he had a high degree of intent as he engaged. The fact that he wasted so many rounds on doors suggests that he was running on raw hate and agression. The timing of his suicide suggests that he had some idea of just exactly when he wanted to do it. We're never going to know for sure.

@ Blitz

It must be the shock because I'm not surprised at the fact that he could shoot so many people so quickly, when you have a large magazine capacity it doesn't take long to pump out a lot of rounds. I shoot semi-regularly and even the 10 rounds I load into my 30 round clip for the M4 goes surprisingly quickly, as does the 15 rounds for my Beretta when I shoot it. Semi-auto means your only real limitation to rate of fire is the speed of your trigger finger, the capacity of your magazine, and the speed with which you can switch magazines.

Yeah those kind of guns are meant to kill and kill quickly.

It's not the old west days where you have to load pull the cock and then shoot.