At least 21 dead at Virginia Tech

[connoisseur series500]

No, because I didn't get a chance to pipe in yet.

Guns should be outlawed. It would take a long time to empty the streets of them, and it wouldn't entirely stop killings, but it would help an awful lot. It would help prevent murders of policemen. It would likely reduce the numbers of dead in these mass killings.

I don't understand the "right" to own a gun--especially a handgun. Handguns aren't designed to shoot bears. They are meant for human targets. I don't buy the "I need a gun for self defence" argument. If someone comes into my house at night, he'd find his head on the wrong side of a Louisville slugger. If he's got a gun, then I'm cooked. If handguns are outlawed then my Louisville slugger would do just fine.

Fuck guns!

I remain deeply depressed and disturbed by these senseless killings. Sadly, it seems that a major tragedy like this has to occur before any decent sensible reform gains any traction. We've got to do something about this.

[connoisseur series500]

For the record, I do not own a gun but have often considered it. Each time, I've rejected the idea.

The main problem is that if I used a gun for protection, I might end up killing someone. That would be like killing myself. I'd imagine that it would be very difficult to overcome such an action. No one wins in that transaction, baby. Neither the dead person nor the alive and "protected" person.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

I don't buy the "I need a gun for self defence" argument.

Why? It's perfectly rational. Let's start with how Rousseau's 'Social Contract' -- you relinquish certain rights in exchange for personal protection by the state -- is seriously flawed. Now dialing Blacksburg S. VA........ring, ring, ring....

[porcy62]

No, the reality camp.

If there is a market for something, people will manufacture. If not here, offshore. But guns will still exist, and they will still be obtained. Only in this scenario mostly by the people you really don't want having them.

With very same argument I could support the legal growing of opium and cocaine in the Appalachian Mountains.

[porcy62]

I don't buy the "I need a gun for self defence" argument.

Why? It's perfectly rational. Let's start with how Rousseau's 'Social Contract' -- you relinquish certain rights in exchange for personal protection by the state -- is seriously flawed. Now dialing Blacksburg S. VA........ring, ring, ring....

If Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were right you're are living in a primitive and unefficient society. If they were wrong, I don't see any rationale reason for not solving any argument like a western movie, the fastes is right, the slowest is wrong, and dead. And you could spare a lot of tax money for jails and courts. Now you can dial Blacksburg and ask to parents what they think about firearms...

Ah, yes, move the thread in the political forum.

Edited April 18, 2007 by porcy62

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I don't buy the "I need a gun for self defence" argument.

Why? It's perfectly rational. Let's start with how Rousseau's 'Social Contract' -- you relinquish certain rights in exchange for personal protection by the state -- is seriously flawed. Now dialing Blacksburg S. VA........ring, ring, ring....

No state undertakes that, Weizen.

The arguments for and against gun control are almost certainly irrelevant in relation to an incident like this. Talk about gun control in relation to armed robbery or drive-by shootings. Britain has probably the most restrictive gun control regime in the world, but it doesn't stop incidents like those at Hungerford in 1987

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre

or Dunblane in 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre

Basically, in these cases, we're dealing with nutters, not rational people like criminals and gang members.

MG

[Claude]

If guns are allowed for self protection, then the owners should also get police training and pass psychological tests, so that it's certain they know when NOT to use a gun and they don't abuse of it.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Claude

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

If guns are allowed for self protection, then the owners should also get police training and pass psychological tests, so that it's certain they know when NOT to use a gun and they don't abuse of it.

Do you think the police know when not to use a gun?

MG

[Claude]

They have detailed instructions on how to deal with criminals. That's why I trust the police more than armed "self-defending" citizens.

[porcy62]

I don't buy the "I need a gun for self defence" argument.

Why? It's perfectly rational. Let's start with how Rousseau's 'Social Contract' -- you relinquish certain rights in exchange for personal protection by the state -- is seriously flawed. Now dialing Blacksburg S. VA........ring, ring, ring....

No state undertakes that, Weizen.

The arguments for and against gun control are almost certainly irrelevant in relation to an incident like this. Talk about gun control in relation to armed robbery or drive-by shootings. Britain has probably the most restrictive gun control regime in the world, but it doesn't stop incidents like those at Hungerford in 1987

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre

or Dunblane in 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre

Basically, in these cases, we're dealing with nutters, not rational people like criminals and gang members.

MG

Exactly.

[porcy62]

They have detailed instructions on how to deal with criminals. That's why I trust the police more than armed "self-defending" citizens.

At least they are supposed to have. Anyway I agree with you.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

They have detailed instructions on how to deal with criminals. That's why I trust the police more than armed "self-defending" citizens.

At least they are supposed to have. Anyway I agree with you.

Well, I agree, too, really. But quite probably not in relation to American policemen.

MG

[Neal Pomea]

What I can never understand, in instances of killers such as this, is how a person loses track of empathizing with other people. To not have any consideration for the pain being inflicted on others by one's actions is the terrifying hallmark of insanity.

I was listening to an interview about possible brain defects in mass murderers -- damage to a part of the brain believed to inhibit aggression. Not brain damage that would make you a slow learner. I hope there is more research in that area.

I have seen brain scans of people who are angry (being emotional) vs. people who are solving problems (being rational) and it is surprising to see which areas of the brain show electrical activity.

[Jim Alfredson]

Putting the whole gun control issue out the door for the moment, I was disturbed to be channel surfing last night and finding little vinettes on some of the news networks, focusing on the fact that this kid was Korean.

On CNN, they were interviewing some guy from a Korean-American society. On another channel, they mentioned the president of South Korea was "stunned". It seems like the media is making a big deal about this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the media interviewing random white people after Timothy McVeigh was charged with the Oklahoma City bombing. "Hey, white guy... what do you think of McVeigh's arrest?" Who?

Seems a little fishy to me.

[Dan Gould]

Putting the whole gun control issue out the door for the moment, I was disturbed to be channel surfing last night and finding little vinettes on some of the news networks, focusing on the fact that this kid was Korean.

On CNN, they were interviewing some guy from a Korean-American society. On another channel, they mentioned the president of South Korea was "stunned". It seems like the media is making a big deal about this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the media interviewing random white people after Timothy McVeigh was charged with the Oklahoma City bombing. "Hey, white guy... what do you think of McVeigh's arrest?" Who?

Seems a little fishy to me.

I think that when you have an event like this perpetrated by a foreign national, that nationality becomes an object of at least some interest. Certainly, people in Korea are going to be asked their reactions. Does South Korea have a problem with nuts turning into mass murderers? Those are the questions to ask. Your comparison to Oklahoma City is unfair and foolish because you haven't shown the media asking random people "what do you think of the Korean killer". Their President offers commentary - that's natural. What exactly did the Korean-american society guy say? Show me random interviews seeking comment and then I'll agree its a little fishy.

[Jim Alfredson]

Putting the whole gun control issue out the door for the moment, I was disturbed to be channel surfing last night and finding little vinettes on some of the news networks, focusing on the fact that this kid was Korean.

On CNN, they were interviewing some guy from a Korean-American society. On another channel, they mentioned the president of South Korea was "stunned". It seems like the media is making a big deal about this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the media interviewing random white people after Timothy McVeigh was charged with the Oklahoma City bombing. "Hey, white guy... what do you think of McVeigh's arrest?" Who?

Seems a little fishy to me.

I think that when you have an event like this perpetrated by a foreign national, that nationality becomes an object of at least some interest. Certainly, people in Korea are going to be asked their reactions. Does South Korea have a problem with nuts turning into mass murderers? Those are the questions to ask.

Those are the questions to ask? Are you serious?

[Dan Gould]

Putting the whole gun control issue out the door for the moment, I was disturbed to be channel surfing last night and finding little vinettes on some of the news networks, focusing on the fact that this kid was Korean.

On CNN, they were interviewing some guy from a Korean-American society. On another channel, they mentioned the president of South Korea was "stunned". It seems like the media is making a big deal about this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the media interviewing random white people after Timothy McVeigh was charged with the Oklahoma City bombing. "Hey, white guy... what do you think of McVeigh's arrest?" Who?

Seems a little fishy to me.

I think that when you have an event like this perpetrated by a foreign national, that nationality becomes an object of at least some interest. Certainly, people in Korea are going to be asked their reactions. Does South Korea have a problem with nuts turning into mass murderers? Those are the questions to ask.

Those are the questions to ask? Are you serious?

Its the only serious question I can think of regarding his heritage. Do Korean males respond to disappointment/anger/whatever, in extreme cases, by going on rampages?

[Aggie87]

How can you judge all Koreans by the actions of one? That would be like judging all Americans by the actions of Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski.

He was just a messed up guy, regardless of what country he was born in.

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

No, the reality camp.

If there is a market for something, people will manufacture. If not here, offshore. But guns will still exist, and they will still be obtained. Only in this scenario mostly by the people you really don't want having them.

With very same argument I could support the legal growing of opium and cocaine in the Appalachian Mountains.

Yes, you could -- but you'd better have a side job of sorts (Ostrich farming? Ski Guide? ) to help cover your bills 'cause you'll be the first Coca & Poppy grower to go broke trying to 'farm' in the cool lufty heights of Mt Washington or Mt Adams.

[Scott Dolan]

Basically, in these cases, we're dealing with nutters, not rational people like criminals and gang members.

[(BB)]

Its the only serious question I can think of regarding his heritage. Do Korean males respond to disappointment/anger/whatever, in extreme cases, by going on rampages?

No more so than Floridians.

[Claude]

I don't understand either why his nationality would matter. Given that the murderer has lived in the US since the age of 8, he is a "product" of the US society, not the South Korean.

[Scott Dolan]

Its the only serious question I can think of regarding his heritage. Do Korean males respond to disappointment/anger/whatever, in extreme cases, by going on rampages?

No more so than Floridians.

You've got that right. And now they the right to kill you if they feel their life is in danger.

Awesome.

Cram millions of people together in a small state full of mind numbing heat and humidity (not to mention it's the road rage capital of the world), arm 'em to the teeth, and tell 'em they have a right to kill one another.

[robertoart]

What does being 'a Korean national' have to do with an individual perpetrating such an atrocity. Is this persons heritage going to become the key to the way American media choose to examine this tragedy, as it looks like it is becoming the most significant factor. America, like Australia at the moment, doesn't seem to have any insight into humanities good and bad beyond an us and them mentality. Is this going to be another 'opportunity' for the regimes (and complicit media) that operate in our respective countries to polarise people through the extremes of one disturbed individual. What about the exposure young men of this man's generation have had to simulated virtual violence, seems to me a more urgent line of enquiry than his being Korean. But that would result in the American ( Western) media having to think beyond 'the other'. How would the US attempt to understand this kind of tragedy if it was perpetrated by a Native American instead?

[Brownian Motion]

Its the only serious question I can think of regarding his heritage. Do Korean males respond to disappointment/anger/whatever, in extreme cases, by going on rampages?

No more so than Floridians.

Dan, sometimes it's best to shut the fuck up.