• silverwhisper said on Apr 18, 2007....

  i feel that politicizing this tragedy so soon after it's happened is in bad taste.
  
  ed

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 18, 2007....

  I posted this in response to a Liberal Politician that had already started using this shooting for his own political agenda.  He's not going to be the last and I'm sure he wasn't the only one thinking "oh good, now I have something to use as an example for my gun policy".  Horrible, isn't it?  But true....
  I'm not rich, but I'd place every red cent I have that somewhere in the Hildabeast's and Obama's campaign... this tragedy comes up.  They're just smart enough to sit on it for a bit so they don't outrage their liberal voters.
  
  You're a smart man Ed and so I refuse to believe that you're naive enough to believe that this isn't already politics.  Unfortunate that it always comes down to that, but it's the truth.
  
  This shooting isn't even about gun control, nor is it about passing the blame.  That's all I'm hearing though.   "Whose fault is it?  What was done wrong?  Someone has to be to blame for this"....and so on.  Fact is, someone is at fault... a 23 yr old young man who had no regard for human life.  It's no one else's but his.  Some of the parents of the deceased and injured are already talking about suing the school.  3 DAYS AFTER THEIR KIDS WERE KILLED! ... and you criticize me for politicizing this?  Give me a break.
  
  
  

• Zayda said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Just because it's already being politicized by others doesn't mean that you have to contribute to the politicizing of it.
  
  
  You could make the choice not to, but you chose to instead.
  
  
  Ed's right it's in bad taste, very bad taste on your part and the part of the others who are politicizing it.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 18, 2007....

  brennee lee: it's happening on both sides of the aisle, and i think those people ought to be ashamed of themselves, whichever side they're on.
  
  i've seen a few blogs about it here on SC already, so all i'll say is this: we disagree.
  
  ed

• Meshalinia said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Is it tragic, yes. Do we all feel a bit of empathy for the families of those involved, yes. Do you know anyone/live in the area that it happened, personally no. Other then praying for the families and a general wow that sucks feeling what else are we supposed to say about it? Of course things are going to take a political spin! All tragedy does. How fast would you say Columbine became political? Or 9/11 even? Pretty damn fast if memory serves. Granted gun control seems like a sleazy cousin compared to child safety/bulling/exposure and terrorism, but tragedy is tragedy no matter how big how small.
  As for bad taste IMHO that would be asking the families and friends of the dead to endorse gun control, or thinking about filing a lawsuit so soon (if this is indeed fact). Not writing a personal uncensored journal about your opinion.
  

• genalonewolf said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Politics aside, it is in bad taste that we do nothing about it. We don't say anything because we are not a part of it or whatever. Brennee is right on several issues here and I say again fuck the politics. IF there was no law preventing professors or students for that matter, the guy would have benn taken out before a larger number of people were killed.
   
  I don't care who should be ashamed or whats political or not. What I am more worried about is when the next attack on our children is going to happen? Who is going to stop it and who is going to keep it that way? Certainly not those who want to get rid of guns altogether. Ok maybe a little political, but seriously.
  How many criminals would think twice or even three times before commiting a crime knowing that their victoms were armed? Not very damned many.
   
  Think about this. What Brennee said was true. We spend more money on protecting our money than we do our children. What the fuck is wrong with that? Alot!
   
  A poll taken in prison, the worste fear a criminal has is the thought that their victoms are armed and ready to fight back. And what is wrong with that? Nothing.
  Now I heard about the families of the victoms wanting to sue the school for the loss of their childen at VA tech, what the hell could the school have done about it?  Short of patting every single person coming or going from the campus (which is unheard of anyway), nothing.
   
  Lets look at all sides of this and stop jumping down others throats who post in hopes of maybe changing something horrible into something decent and good!

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Zayda, Mesha, Gen:  Thanks for commenting
  
  Ed: I did make the mistake of not including both sides of politics in my argument.  I have a horrible habit of not considering it when I (of course) strongly lean one way. We agree then to disagree... and thanks for commenting.
  

• silverwhisper said on Apr 18, 2007....

  i think we've all got some pretty strong feelings about the matter, and when we've got a lot of strong feelings, people are bound to disagree. i've gotten a little distance on the matter and i will try to come back to this later in the week.
  
  ed

• NotesFromTheCenter said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Guns don't kill people? We've all seen that kid. How many people do you think he would have been able to kill without his guns?

• genalonewolf said on Apr 18, 2007....

  You are correct guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are just the instuments that people use to kill other people. Guns don't kill people all bt themselves!!!!!

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Notes... Do you really think that kid wouldn't have found a way to kill the young men and women at Virginia Tech considering how insane and determined he was?  In fact, he could have found a way to inflict even more damage if he really wanted to.  Look at Timothy McVeigh... that man probably never touched a gun in his life and he killed 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing.  That's a devastating number of deaths involving 0 gunshot wounds.  My point... it's going to happen if there's someone sick enough to conjure it up and wants it bad enough.
  
  Like Gen said, it's the madman behind the gun that kills people, not the gun itself.  So No, guns don't kill people and I stand firmly by that.

• NotesFromTheCenter said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Yes, I really believe 32 people would not be dead if that young, mentally disturbed man could not buy guns. And here's why.
  People make the bomb argument as if any idiot can build a bomb. If that was the case, the Iranians wouldn't have to train the Iraqi insurgency on how to do it. Tim McVeigh had training. The average person does not know how to build a bomb that could really kill a lot of people. But anyone can go buy a gun, hold it to someone's head and pull the trigger. It requires no skill or knowledge.
  When people make the bomb argument, I wonder when the last time was that a student used a bomb to kill several of his fellow students on campus? Or how bomb violence stacks up compared to gun violence in America. If it's just as easy, how come no one does it? Do you know how to build a bomb that could kill 32 people? I sure don't.
  Would you be able to smuggle a half ton of fertilizer or other bomb component under a dorm or academic building at a campus with 20,000 students without being seen? I sure couldn't.

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 18, 2007....

  After I stopped laughing....
  
  First... yes, any idiot can build a bomb.  I actually have first hand knowledge of this one.  I come from a very very small town in Ohio.  There were 23 people in my graduating high school class.  50 in the class before us.  One of the "idiots" in the class before us was arrested... not long after graduating... for building bombs in his basement.  Not some simple firecracker crap... OKCity type bombs.  It takes common materials and some written instructions.  Not genius.  I also wouldn't bring the Middle East into this considering we're talking about bombs, not nuclear weapons.  In case you didn't know, there's a difference.  I highly doubt the Iraqis don't know how to build a simple bomb.
  
  Why don't average people build bombs?  Because they aren't crazed sociopaths who like to mass murder people.  Also.... it does not take a half of ton of fertilizer to build a bomb. In fact, 1 gallon of gasoline (used properly) is the equivalent of 13 sticks of dynamite.  It's basic chemistry combined with an average education.  You really should study up on it before spewing this junk.
  
  
  

• oldog said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Well, I have a few weapons still, guns that I have painstakingly built, or reworked. They are in some cases things of beauty, with exotic wood stocks , trim, and polished internals....In fact a gun never survived long in my house without being altered, modified , improved.... Given an alternative, I would never shoot someone , as my preference is the blade... Yup I am the fool who would take a knife to a gunfight!

  lets consider a  confrontational case where I pull my pistol .... Now not shooting someone means I was 'brandishing' it or 'threatening' (both crimes under most states laws), or possibly if I pointed it, thats considered "Assault With A Deadly Weapon", a felony in most states.. However, if I modulate my voice slightly, and speaking softly , I get a bit closer, and my one handed pocket knife comes out effortlessly, and I  start cleaning my finger nails with it??? no harm done ,no rules violated , and a difficult situation resolved, or,..... Well , you get the Idea?     LOL   No recriminations about those nasty handguns, no politicizing about a concealed carry weapon, and  yup , one way or the other the situation is resolved up close and personal. My Way.....I do have a CCW and have a pistol which I carry in the trunk of my car, for security, unless going to a really bad place, the waterfront, or on a long road trip where you never know what contingency you need to be prepared for... Am I "A crazed nut with his hair on fire"? dont think so, but I also dont intend on loseing.

  Go to a supermarket in someplace like santo domingo, and you will see a guy armed with a shotgun , or maybe two standing at the front door. Do we need that here? nope, just more armed citizens who can have the weapon  in the school ,on a bus, or anyplace else except a court house police station , or a Bar ( things get too crazy in bars)   :D

• oldog said on Apr 18, 2007....

  Oh, about bombs, they're KISS Simple , up to and including crude nuclear weapons .... You might get radiation poisioning building one, but its more about bringing enough fissionable material together to  create a critical mass ( this can also be accomplished by detonating some explosive in a sealed container in such a way to compress something like U-235 to that critical state) but the best  would just be a few Molotov cocktails.... the trick here is to find bottles that can break easily, and good liquid soap to mix with the gas. now thats a device thats truly wicked, dangerous, and accessable to the masses.  also cheaper by far than a decent gandgun, so lets drop the crap about guns being too available, etc in an effort to legislate them off the face of the earth. wont work ,isnt necessary....

• NotesFromTheCenter said on Apr 18, 2007....

  So what percentage of people would you say can build bombs (I'm guessing MAYBE 1 percent)? Versus the percentage of people who can pull a trigger (only people without fingers or good use of their toes would fail to qualify here, I think)? How about the people on this blog? How many of you feel confident in your ability to build a bomb that would kill nearly three dozen people?
  Again, if it's so easy, where are all the bomb crimes in the US? I think we all know there are literally thousands of gun crimes, by comparison. So, statistically speaking, it's fairly obvious that this kid would be much more likely to use guns and not bombs, and that he would probably have no idea how to even make a bomb. Is that not obvious? And yet the issue is not even bombs -- they are of such infrequent use, comparing them to guns isn't even apples to oranges; it's like apples to wrenches.
  So let's take a position here, other than regurgitating a slogan that the NRA paid an ad agency to write. Are you saying that the fact that an individual with a history of mental instability can buy guns is not a problem? Simple yes or no. Do you feel safer knowing that this loophole exists? Yes or no. This isn't about banning guns altogether. It is very much about banning crazy people from buying guns. Oh, but wait, that's a slippery slope, so let's let psychopaths continue to have unfettered access. That was the intent of the founding fathers, right?
  And, finally, has a nuclear bomb been detonated in the Middle East without my knowledge? Or anyone's knowledge? It is the simple shop bombs and improvised roadside bombs that the Iranians are helping the Iraqis build, as has been widely reported.
  Might be something for you to read up on.

• mom said on Apr 18, 2007....

  I have been wanting to say something about this whole mess.  Everytime I open a web page there is a picture of the guy who did this.  I get nauseous by it.  So many lives taken.  We spend a lot of time arguing about the mechanics of it all.  I may not be related to any of those students or faculties and I may not know ahy of them.  I still feel a sense of loss, also part of me is shaken that anyone could do such a thing.  We have had a moment of silence but it would do us good to give a few days to think about what has happened.  Some Sc'ers on here had actual ties to VA Tech and will need time to mourn and gather their thoughts.

• ALIENated said on Apr 18, 2007....

  What a tragedy. I am not for wacko gun control, collecting every gun out there.
  We have the right to bear arms so liberals will not enslave us at some point. 
  However, I am for limiting sales of weapon-type guns--automatic weapons,
  machine guns, that sort of things. No one needs that to shoot Bambi on a
  hunting trip. A couple of points. If everyone was possibly armed, the wack
  job would probably never set foot on campus with his intentions because he
  would not know how many barrels would be pointed back at him. Also, if
  we arm everyone, then every wack job out there would have a gun. Not 
  just the crafty wack jobs. Maybe there should be weapons in every room
  for the teacher to pass out. The problem is, these kinds of things happen
  so far between, everyone gets tired of the measures that are taken 
  immediately after something like this happens. Who is not tired of the
  hassels at the airport that started after 9/11?
  

• oldog said on Apr 18, 2007....

  well, lets consider for a sec..... middle eastern dirvishes and jihadists ..... tribal, primitive, use rt. hand to eat , the left hand , well uuugh!  sure they arree having a hard time with conventional explosives....Back in '53, I did a lil' research in the library, figured out how at the ripe old age of 13... Bright? yes, but actually its that simple , even a cave man could do it creating a low order nuke by banging two 14 lb chunks of U-235 together over his head!.(just needs the fissionable material... )... now consider the molotov cocktail again.... dumbassed simple, take out a tank" throw a few in a dorm ,an assembly in the auditorium, heck I am not going to write a training manual for the terrorists, or copy the anarchists cook book for you, but there are bombs ,fire bombs, etc that my 12 year old grandson could build had he any interest. Yup he is smart, yup he eats with both hands, but he just isnt motivated along those lines. Now if I  made a big deal about Trinitrotoluene (tritonol to you army pukes) T.N.T to the hoi polloi.....I imagine he would could reproduce it before he turns 13.... My 15 year old grand daughter who is a junior in college, now she probably could go out and create a new  concept in high order detonations, if she wasnt such a damn liberal! mores the pity

• Meshalinia said on Apr 19, 2007....

  I firmly believe if you can bake a cake you can build a bomb. That aside, a press pack was sent to the media BEFORE the wackjob opened fire and killed 33 people take a look at some of those photos and tell me he wouldn't have found a way. Also i'm interested to know if his guns were legally purchused 

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 19, 2007....

  Old:  Ok, my husband is 100% on your knife wielding bandwagon.  Pretty creepy, but a valid point. And of course I agree with you on the gun stuff.... obviously.
  
  Notes: Again... Yes.. it's easy.  Old makes a good point about it so read that so I don't have to keep repeating myself.  No, the kid never should have been able to buy a gun, just on the fact that he isn't even an American citizen.  That's not even to mention his mental instability.  Also, it was the first amendment that allowed him access to the gun.  The authorities felt (at the time) that forcing him out of class for his writings or putting him in a mental institution would be denying him free speech.  Oh, and the thing about the nuclear bomb in the Middle East... reread my comment because that's not what I said.
  
  Mom: thank you for commenting
  
  Alien: Completely agree
  
  Meems: Yes, he bought them legally.  The man that did his check said that he seemed like a bright young man and he was nice. LOL
  

• NotesFromTheCenter said on Apr 19, 2007....

  OK, so maybe we're reaching some agreement here. I would love to see come out of this a requirement for psychiatric evaluations before people are able to buy guns. As I've said on my blog, the way the system is set up now, we would have been completely dependent on the gun shop owner to determine that this guy was nuts. Not only is that crazy, it's a ridiculous and unfair burden to put on the gun shop owner. That shop owner is carrying terrible guilt now, when meanwhile the system was set up to fail him from the start. But I'd have to believe a trained psychiatrist would have flagged this kid immediately. He was, by all accounts, consistently visibly disturbed and had a history of mental illness. What could be simpler than some requirement that would deny crazy people access to firearms? Maybe it won't completely stop them from hurting people, but I'm all for making it harder. There are people who want to eliminate Americans' ability to own guns completely. I'm not one of them. Hunting, in particular, is a great American tradition. But I have to think that even the founding fathers, had they seen this guy wandering around town, would have supported disarming him. It's sensible, and yet people will fight it tooth and nail, and I strongly suspect this requirement will never be implemented. Certainly not under the current administration. And, finally, to clarify, I have never said that a person could not learn to build a bomb. I have said "The average person does not know how to build a bomb that could really kill a lot of people." And why would he bother learning, given the easy availability of guns? And in parts of Western Europe that have implemented gun control, it's not like everyone is running around with TNT in their pockets.

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 19, 2007....

  One more point Notes, and then we can agree on some things and agree to disagree on others.
  
  Europe and Australia both went door to door confiscating guns.  And now their violent crime rate has skyrocketed.  The bad guys still have the guns and the good guys are now walking around as undefended targets.  So keeping with your point, they have no need for making bombs cause only the good guys have no guns.
  

• NotesFromTheCenter said on Apr 19, 2007....

  BrenneeLee,
  While what you are saying can, in theory occur, the statistics don't bear it out in many developed countries.
  The US has a murder rate that has been hovering around 5.5 per 100,000 people, which is actually better than it has been in the past (about half of those are firearm related). Italy and Germany have murder rates of less than 1, Spain is about 1, and the highest in Europe (Finland) is less than 3. Last I knew, Australia hovers between 2-3.
  The notion that gun control has not been successful in many European countries is a myth. Where it has not been successful is in some of the countries of Latin America and Africa, where gun control laws exist but the willingness and resources to enforce it do not. Those countries maintain higher murder rates than America. But the US murder rate significantly trumps that of Western Europe and has for some time.
  Anyway, it's a good debate. I hope some action comes from this, particularly concerning people with serious psychological problems. Thanks for having me over and keeping the debate open.

• oldog said on Apr 19, 2007....

  Something else to consider; there are approximately 500, 000 deer tags issued in Minnesota alone! other states more, or less. but the number of armed americans is staggering! AQ fundamental reason that this country cannot be overwhelmed, taken by force, and also why the police, the military and govt agencies cannot turn our country into a dictatorship...... Cause Americans can and will shoot back!An isolated incident like this cant take away the fundamental right of citizens, to have those very arms that guarantee our freedom. Maybe we need to weed out a few more nutjobs like the current shooter, but being Asian , a "visitor to our country" etc, we wouldnt wanna offend a particular group because one member is obviously a bit demented, would we? Being good liberal citizens, nope , we will only screw with full fledged citizens born here , I guess. And be sure they arent any minority group either.

   

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 19, 2007....

  Notes:  Not a myth... in fact, I could put up dozens of links where you can find this information.  Instead, for the sake of wasting space.... all you have to do is Google "Violent crime rates in Europe" or something like that.  I never said it was lower that ours. My point was that it has increased since getting rid of the guns while our rates steadily decrease.
  
  Old:  I agree... again.  We have a problem with political correctness in our country that won't allow us to profile possible psychopaths and so we're just left to deal with things as they come along and in the mean time, try not to offend any of the softies.
  
  Correction on my last post though, England and Australia confiscated, not all of Europe.  Sorry...
  

• kelly said on Apr 21, 2007....

  "A poll taken in prison, the worste fear a criminal has is the thought that their victoms are armed and ready to fight back."
  
  
  Now that's a factoid that needs a reference/source. 

• mom said on Apr 21, 2007....

  I remember once I read some wisdom........ Guns don't kill people, postal workers do.

• rightwingwizard said on Apr 21, 2007....

  Gun control is a very emotional issue no matter which side one is on.  As to whether it is 'too soon' for the debate to happen, before the echo had faded into memory in Virginia from the last fatal shot the 'get rid of the guns' crowd had flocked into the blogosphere calling for more laws banning personal ownership of guns.  In order to level out the playing field it is incumbant upon the more sane among us to speak out on the matter. 
   
  Understand this, if someone is determined to do harm he/she will do harm.  A way will be found.  Forget about other methods for a moment.  As soon as the general population is disarmed the only people with guns will be either the government or the criminals.(If an individual with criminal intent wants a gun, he/she will get a gun.  They are easily obtained illegally.  Most violent crimes involving guns are committed with guns illegally obtained.)  I see little difference between the two groups when my personal security is at issue.  Some say "we don't want to take away gunsd for hunting and sport. just guns designed to kill people (assault weapons, fully automatic hand guns ect.)  If you believe that I have a nice piece of oceanfront property in North Dakota you might be interested in.   The lefty loonies will not be satisfied, once one class of guns in outlawed, they will go after the next class and so no until the have succeeded in disarming America.   I don't want to live in that America.  I fear this more than anything else the elitist left is trying to do.  It is then that we will truely be sheep watched over by a pack of wolves on one side and a pack of jackals on the other.

• rightwingwizard said on Apr 21, 2007....

  BTW, Brennee is absolutely correct. Violent crime involving the use of firearms is steadily increasing in Europe and Austraila.  Look it up!  Wolves on one side, Jackals on the other.  Remember that when you hear the knock on the door.

• cotteralladams2 said on Apr 21, 2007....

  I think America needs to support the strictest of gun control legislations and ban outrightly most citizens' right to own and use a weapon.  That said, I feel that it is nice to know that at least Americans have a right to self-defense when in Canada if you defend yourself, you are considered under the law an assailant who is participating in altercation, and then are put in the same category as the assailant.  They have banned any legitimate right to self-defense including tasers and red pepper spray.  Socialist-radical leftist fools have supported this, insisting that legislation protects people and that the cops will intervene when necessary but we should just 'put up with it' till they come by leaving the house or 'walking away from the situation'. 

  They also do not give them decent sentences or remand them to mental hospitals, those who should be held accountable for their actions, these types who assault, commit break-and-entries, stalk people, threaten to kill, sell drugs, etc.  Apparently, if you legislate all rights to self-defense it protects the human rights of 'assailant-perpetrators' who are also 'victims with rights' and it will remove any impetus to harm someone.  Okay, putting a person who is a victim in the same category as the assailant is really smart.  The rate of assault as documented in the U.S. is 3 out of 100.  In Canada, it is 7 out of 100.  I am talking assault of a sexual nature.

   

  In the U.S. if someone had assaulted or stabbed the assailant in the VTM, he would have been a hero who saved lives.  In Canada, they would have done an investigation and taken him into custody, worrying that he 'upped the ante', 'stepped in and crossed the line, not respecting the protocol of the law and authority of the police', 'violated the rights of the assailant', 'engaged in an altercation with another', 'excessively enforced self-defense', or whatever line they want to legally give you. 

   

  Then he would be charged and the media would have let loose on how he violated the law and put the assailant at risk, as if this nut was more important than the lives he took.  Human life is more important than misguided notions by Crown Prosecutors who make a lot of money slamming charges on people whether they deserve it or not, getting a long record of convictions and shoving stupid British colonialist era civil laws down the throats of Canadians to respect and uphold laws taken out of a book that is over 135 years old and not our own domestic reformed civil law based on modern times and needs.

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 21, 2007....

  Mom: Too funny... I like that
  
  Rightwing: Thank you, I think you just said what I've been trying to say although I find myself stumbling over my tongue most times.
  
  Cotter: I have to admit that I'm a little lost on the Canada stuff.  Although I should keep up with it, I don't.  Having said that,  it's your first sentence that I 100% disagree with.  Strictly restricting our right to own and bear arms would have nothing but a negative impact on this country.
  

• BrenneeLee said on Apr 21, 2007....

  Kelly, you asked for references and at the time, I couldn't just think of any, but on Gen's behalf, I looked some up for you.  You can look them over... one of them is old but I don't really have time to dig deep. 
  
  NRA Article
  Actual Book Written on it
  
  
  And I'm sure there's more than one book on it.  Anyways, hope that helped.
  

Comment on "Guns Don't Kill People"

Currently tagged	Guns gun control VA Tech I prefer a knife self-defense bad taste Virginia Tech really victims rights (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously