Gunman kills 30 at US university

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dennis

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
2,676
Location
Trowbridge
Shame the gunman is dead; they could have flown him to Bagdhad and let him single handedly take on the insurgents!
 

Alekseys

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2006
Messages
39
There's no way they'll change their gun laws, the gun manufacturers based in America are making a killing :!: from their sales. It's just like arms traffiking, but at home.
 

Coxster

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
9,244
On the news they had one university official who pretty much said that all students should have had guns as it would have helped them to defend themselves :roll:
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,559
On the news they had one university official who pretty much said that all students should have had guns as it would have helped them to defend themselves :roll:

Yup - and put the number of casualties up by a factor of ten...
 

mbonwick

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2006
Messages
6,203
Location
Kendal
Apparently the gunman was an student and shot his ex-girlfriend. There's the motive. He wanted to get back at her, and chose to take as many people as possible with him.
 

Max

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
5,371
Location
Cardiff
Apparently the gunman was an student and shot his ex-girlfriend. There's the motive. He wanted to get back at her, and chose to take as many people as possible with him.

Not neccessarily. He appears to be fairly mixed up:

BBC News said:
Cho reportedly left behind a "disturbing note" in his dormitory room, said to be nine pages long.

ABC news said he wrote: "You caused me to do this."

The Chicago Tribune newspaper said the letter railed against "rich kids", "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus.

It seems to me that he was disillusioned with American society in general. It reminds me of Holden in the novel 'The Catcher in the Rye' (some of you may have read it). He was very disillusioned with the 'phoniness' of the people around him, and it eventually drove him to insanity. I don't think there was any motive as such, he had just lost it a bit, and had lost all sense of reason.
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,602
Location
London
What I dislike is how the media permenantly harrass the story, and the slightest development is 'breaking news'
 

frasier

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2005
Messages
62
Calling for the banning of guns really is relevant in this situation.

This is a terribly sad event, obviously. But the point here is about the "gun culture" in the US, and this is in part due to their Constitutional Right to own a gun. The legality of such weapons doesn't seem to have a lot of effect on this sort of behaviour I would argue. This sort of incident transcends such an argument simply because someone who would kill this amount of people in such an attack could get hold of a gun very easily on the black market.

The legality of guns is more legitimately argued in my book when discussing how they are used in more "ordinary" crime, such as muggings and single shootings, and even accidental shootings in the home, rather than such a mass murder shooting.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
51,509
Location
Yorkshire
Calling for the banning of guns really is relevant in this situation.
Indeed it is.

The legality of such weapons doesn't seem to have a lot of effect on this sort of behaviour I would argue.
What's your evidence? Here's mine: gun crime is very high in America, where many people own guns which are readily available. Gun crime is not so high here, where not many people own guns.

It's hardly rocket science is it?

I'm sure the USA will not see it that way, but then the country is led by someone with an IQ that is rather lower than the average human (though not for much longer, obviously).
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,438
Location
Cambridge
gun crime is very high in America, where many people own guns which are readily available. Gun crime is not so high here, where not many people own guns.
It's hardly rocket science is it?

I'm sure the USA will not see it that way, but then the country is led by someone with an IQ that is rather lower than the average human (though not for much longer, obviously).

You'd then have the question of whether to go further and ban clubs, bats, knifes, ropes, candlesticks and lead piping. Where is the line drawn?

Murders will happen whether guns are allowed or not in America.
 

Craig

Established Member
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Messages
3,958
Location
Newcastle
You'd then have the question of whether to go further and ban clubs, bats, knifes, ropes, candlesticks and lead piping. Where is the line drawn?
The main purpose of a gun is to kill something fairly easily from a distance. The things you've listed there mostly have more mundane uses and require the assailant to be "up close and personal" where the reality of what they're doing is more prominent.
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,438
Location
Cambridge
The main purpose of a gun is to kill something fairly easily from a distance. The things you've listed there mostly have more mundane uses and require the assailant to be "up close and personal" where the reality of what they're doing is more prominent.

Very true, but then in this case the gunman went up close, certainly the range of a stone's throw, rather than sniping from 400m+ away from the target.

I wonder what it would have been had a gun not been involved. However always remember that even if guns are banned, people still have access to them illegally.
 

16CSVT2700

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Messages
1,835
Location
Gdansk
Banning guns is not the answer.
We've (the UK) banned semi-automatic weaponry and handguns after 2 seperate events and yet there is still gun crime.

Criminals are still managing to get a hold of handguns and other weapons through underground black markets.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/ said:
Facts & figures In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:
  • 16% reduction in the use of handguns
  • 9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
  • 6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences
Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year.

So whoever's got a scheme that will definatly work and rid us of gun crime, please, step forward.
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,438
Location
Cambridge
Banning guns is not the answer.
We've (the UK) banned semi-automatic weaponry and handguns after 2 seperate events and yet there is still gun crime.

Criminals are still managing to get a hold of handguns and other weapons through underground black markets.

So whoever's got a scheme that will definatly work and rid us of gun crime, please, step forward.

Ban underground black markets :P
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,335
Location
South West
There's no way you could police it though...

I think it's impossible. Ever since the first person made a gun, they were going to be around for years, maybe forever.
 

frasier

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2005
Messages
62
What's your evidence? Here's mine: gun crime is very high in America, where many people own guns which are readily available. Gun crime is not so high here, where not many people own guns.

It's hardly rocket science is it?

Perhaps not.

But then perhaps reading could be called "hardly rocket science", but yet you've failed to read my post.

Your point is firstly not relevant to my post whatsoever. If you read what I said:

"The legality of such weapons doesn't seem to have a lot of effect on this sort of behaviour I would argue. This sort of incident transcends such an argument simply because someone who would kill this amount of people in such an attack could get hold of a gun very easily on the black market."

This sort of behaviour, as in killing sprees. No amount of illegalisation will prevent people like Cho getting weapons is my argument. Leading on from this your argument on gun crime is not relevant to my argument as I do not deny that the avaliability of guns does have an affect on gun crime. I am saying that this particular incident and those like it will not be prevent by illegalisation, not that the gun crime rate in general would not be affected, which is what your evidence may support.

And at any rate, guns are easily obtainable in Canada and Switzerland - yet they have fairly low levels of gun crime. There is more to this than simple legality.

I'm sure the USA will not see it that way, but then the country is led by someone with an IQ that is rather lower than the average human (though not for much longer, obviously).

What possible relevance does that have to anything?
 

Alekseys

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2006
Messages
39
Damn, Frasier has hit the forum yet again. He's simply too good at arguing, it makes me very uncomfortable.

The guy could've got his mits on a gun irrespective of legality. What this incident has done is really illuminate the whole gun rights issue. The general public are currently more sensitive to gun rights and similar issues because of the shootings, the issue is more open to debate. It's like how people only get really riled after a terrorist attack, for example.

There is a case for banning guns in America, the primary reason being that the gun crime and homicide-by-gun rate are so high. There's a clear link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of gun crime, hence banning them would save lives. For a start, the feasibility of this is questionable, how could this be enforced? There are so many guns going around that it would be a difficult if not impossible job controlling them. A huge black market would be generated instantly.
Another issue is the huge pro-gun lobby in America who would sooner turn terrorist than give up their M-16s. There is also a lot of support for gun rights from the public because it's written in the constitution.

The issue also runs deeper than the circulation of guns and the correlation with gun-crime; it comes down to the attitude of Americans themselves, who are more likely to use guns as weapons than people of other nations where guns are popular.

Personally I think a ban on guns would be a great move, but the millions of Americans who don't see eye-to-eye with a rather rationalist argument obviously prevent that.
 

ChrisCooper

Established Member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
1,787
Location
Loughborough
And at any rate, guns are easily obtainable in Canada and Switzerland - yet they have fairly low levels of gun crime. There is more to this than simple legality.

That's a very good point, there are lots of countries with quite liberal gun laws yet they don't have anything like as big a gun problem as America, infact at least in terms of the industrialised world, America seems the only country with a particular problem. Most of the gun crime in America is from illigally bought and owned guns anyway, so a ban wouldn't have much of an effect. The only real issue I think America has is that the gun issue has spiralled to the point where guns have become almost standard equipment in some areas, from the serious criminals, to the petty criminals, and to the ordinary citizens. This does increase the chances of guns being used in all incidents. It's even a problem with the police, with far more people being shot by police than in other countries, since they will routienly go in with guns drawn, leading to much greater risk shooting innocent people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top