Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Mass Shooting at Virginia Tech...
- Thread starter sawastea
- Start date
mightymouse69 said:
There was - it's all over CNN right now.
All you can do is going in circle about it and try and find some sort of blame to place to live with such an outcome and the reality is no matter what the lives lost are still lost.
There were heros - there were students and teachers that tried to stop him and lost their own lives to save others.
Island Son
New member
mightymouse69 said:
Subzeero said:
Geez... but the point is what would you want them to do about it??? Lock him up for writing bad plays? What about "free speech"??
I'd be very interested in hearing some ideas other than "somebody shoulda done something".
Nobody can do a damn thing about it. Its fucking college where kids go to "find themselves" and do drugs and drink and other stupidass shit that makes them write things like shitty plays. If the college did anything they would get slapped for discrimination (hes korean), denying a poor foreign kid on a visa who is only trying to better himself with an education and blah blah blah. Fucking forget it.Island Son said:
Subzeero
New member
Island Son said:
Think outside the box guys. The school can provide hookers, limited to 5 times a month as part of student services. Anyone can volunteer to have sex with losers in exchange for money including college chicks already gettin it dirty in porn flicks, and GGW springbreak BS.
The university can actually profit from this, as they find any possible means to empty student pockets anyways. The hooker plan should be a mandatory part of the insurance policy the schools offer.
I mean they are already doing that for retards and disabled living in nursing homes aren't they?
S
Spartacus
Guest
that's thinking inside the boxSubzeero said:
Island Son
New member
Geez.. I already read most of the same articles.
They don't say anything about the circumstances of the fire... or the "stalkings".
I'm sure if any of them were serious or violent on their own he'd have been suspended already; it's not like he was on the lacrosse team.
Again.. if a persistent ex-boyfriend calls you at 2am a few times, is he going to be jailed and force-psychoananalyzed until he's "cured"?
There really is no effective response.
They don't say anything about the circumstances of the fire... or the "stalkings".
I'm sure if any of them were serious or violent on their own he'd have been suspended already; it's not like he was on the lacrosse team.
Again.. if a persistent ex-boyfriend calls you at 2am a few times, is he going to be jailed and force-psychoananalyzed until he's "cured"?
There really is no effective response.
Island Son
New member
Subzeero said:
and an alumni discount for the working stiffs.
Island Son said:
It was on CNN.
Yeah, no they won't do anything with the 2am boyfriend, or the abusive spouse - until you're found dead there is nothing anyone will do in your defense, police reports, hospital reports - mean nothing.
You know what the police's advice is with a dangerous spouse or ex spouse is?
Get a gun.
The irony.
82 people killed in one single event....
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html
Oh wait, arabs, we dont give a fuck lol
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html
Oh wait, arabs, we dont give a fuck lol
Raptorex
New member
mightymouse69 said:
What do you have to say for yourself now Island son? What's your defense to this, was it just the plays?
The dude was declared dangerous by a court, its coming out now.
"A court order from 2005 states that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was declared mentally ill and "an imminent danger to others," a district court clerk tells CNN."
redguru
New member
mightymouse69 said:
From NBC:
However, after the second incident, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho’s, who was concerned that he might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was voluntarily but briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.
To issue a detention order under Virginia law, a magistrate must find both that the subject is “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment” and that the subject is “an imminent danger to himself or others, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.”
b0und
New member
And how the hell did that guy have time to mail a package to NBC and write several pages in between the two shootings?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html
I mean, didn't they go look for him? After he shot his GF he just went back to his dorm room?
b0und (wtf happened there?)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html
I mean, didn't they go look for him? After he shot his GF he just went back to his dorm room?
b0und (wtf happened there?)
gotmilk
New member
velvett said:
The police usually have say on whether to lock down or not. The police actually went after some ex-boyfriend of the first girl killed. They had him pulled over at gunpoint when the second shooting began.
The police stated they believed the campus was safe since most people flee the scene of a crime. They had no idea some whacko had gone back to his dorm, made a DVD, mailed it to NBC, then walked off to shoot some more people.
P
Phaded
Guest
gotmilk said:
he made a booklet i wanna see it..
Why can't I find these damn videos?
P
Phaded
Guest
foxnews.com
He needs to be punched in the snot box
Island Son
New member
mightymouse69 said:
Huh? I said I'd reserve judgement on the other items until more information came out. He was thought to be suicidal, so he was involuntarily committed. In the initial psychiatric examination, he was also thought suicidal NOT "an imminent danger to others".
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204415
[..]
Earlier Wednesday, authorities disclosed that in November and December 2005, two women complained to campus police that they had received calls and computer messages from Cho. But the women considered the messages “annoying,” not threatening, and neither pressed charges, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.
[...]
After the second complaint about Cho’s behavior, the university obtained a temporary detention order and took Cho away because an acquaintance reported he might be suicidal, authorities said. Police did not identify the acquaintance. On Dec. 13, 2005, a magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at Carilion St. Albans, a private psychiatric hospital. The magistrate signed the order after an initial evaluation found probable cause that Cho was a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness.
The next day, according to court records, doctors at Carilion conducted further examination and a special justice, Paul M. Barnett, approved outpatient treatment. A medical examination conducted Dec. 14 reported that that Cho’s "affect is flat. ... He denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."
The court papers indicate that Barnett checked a box that said Cho “presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.” Barnett did not check the box that would indicate a danger to others.
Island Son
New member
manny78 said:
Canada population: 32,777,304. 658 for an entire year (2005)
Iraq population: 26,783,383. 233 murders today
Island Son
New member
What agenda? I'm giving some perspective to the stats.
There's a war on? Isn't that over?
anyway... enough with the hijack.. i'm done.
There's a war on? Isn't that over?
anyway... enough with the hijack.. i'm done.
Island Son
New member
velvett said:
I can't speak for Canada as a whole, but in Toronto the cops will throw him out if the cops see a single mark on you (or on a kid) if you call them with a complaint. In 10 minutes, while they stand there, he will have to pack a few clothes and leave for the night, even if he owns the house. I have friends on both sides it's happened to. They don't mess around and they don't let you withdraw the complaint, it has to go to court.
Island Son
New member
The police don't need the victim's permission to lay charges; in that case, court is automatic.CMarc said:
A
alien amp pharm
Guest
Haha, this guy showed numerous times that he was a ticking time bomb & a threat and should have been institutionalized, as suggested by the evaluations.
There is no way he should have been able to purchase a firearm.
IF YOU CANNOT EVEN ENFORCE THE RULES/LAWS ALREADY IN EFFECT, THEN PASSING MORE ANTI-GUN LAWS IS POINTLESS!
Nice job you anti-gun people.
There is no way he should have been able to purchase a firearm.
IF YOU CANNOT EVEN ENFORCE THE RULES/LAWS ALREADY IN EFFECT, THEN PASSING MORE ANTI-GUN LAWS IS POINTLESS!
Nice job you anti-gun people.
A
alien amp pharm
Guest
bluepeter said:
Look at the info that came out yesterday. Setting fires, multiple stalkings, mental evaluations, etc.
This guy should have been committed for help and it was even suggested, but yet nothing was done about it. If we do not even stop these people from performing such acts, then what good is more anti-gun laws going to accomplish?
Had the much needed action been taken, then this guy, according to law, would never had been able to purchase the firearm.
(Perhaps the word "law" was not ideal in my previous post. "procedure" would be a better choice. If we cannot even enfore procedures for obvious disturbed individuals showing dangerous signs, then new gun laws are pointless)
mountain muscle
New member
pintoca said:
Yeah we started it. America and her undying loyalty to the one true god and stuff right?
In this day and age anyone who is ready to kill for their religion, should die.
lmao, so provide me an example of the elimination of gun crimes in places where they cant be legally obtained.
Island Son
New member
alien amp pharm said:
WTF are you yelling about? Everyone did their job properly.
He was clearly disturbed, but he never threatened anyone.
From what I read, all the people took their duties very seriously in this case but there's only so much that they COULD do. They didn't let the ball drop, or ignore things "because they were afraid of being sued". I don't see any EXISTING laws and or procedures that weren't followed.
The only thing IMHO that would've stopped this is if someone had seen him making the video, or hacked into his PC for the document.
Or if there's a couple of new laws that says people who have ever been diagnosed for any mental illness automatically have a criminal record, and are permanently forbidden to be near weapons.
Yeah, see how THAT flies in the US.
P
Phaded
Guest
alien amp pharm said:
lol you know how many people are fucken like this my friend? 100's of thousands
gjohnson5
New member
For once I partially agree with the gun lobbyists. But I believe you cannot diagnose and commit every mentally unstable person before he commits an atrocity because the costs of such care are expensive, he may not be able to pay , etc.
The republicans are wrong on one issue or another. I think they are wrong on both. There needs to be more health care available AND more gun controls to stop the problem
The republicans are wrong on one issue or another. I think they are wrong on both. There needs to be more health care available AND more gun controls to stop the problem
alien amp pharm said:
gjohnson5
New member
well as soon as I get back to Washington , I will be more then an armchair quarterback. I will be on a healthcare reform lobby and I will send letters to my congressman and senators in VA to tighten those gun laws so that people with insecurites can go shooting up school.
jnevin said:
how do you want to tighten gun laws? what specifics do you mean?
jnevin
New member
gjohnson5 said:
And honestly, that's all anyone can do. Something like this will happen again. It's horrible and disgusting, but it will. I respect the hell out of you for doing what you will and making a difference that way, but things like this can't be stopped.
I found out today that my cousin's boyfriend (they both go to VT) is an engineering major and was close to the rooms where all this happened. How horrible would that be?
redguru
New member
gjohnson5 said:
Suppose that every day ten men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 12 + 18 + 59 = 100 cost of dinner
"Since you're all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.
The first four are unaffected; they still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay under the same assumptions: Now the fifth man also paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, and the ninth paid $12 leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got 7!"
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 5 + 9 + 12 + 52 = 80 reduced cost of dinner
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + (-1) + (-1) + (-2) + (-3) + (-6) + (-7)= (-20) savings on dinner
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!
And that, boys, girls, and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.
gjohnson5
New member
As the saying goes , take one for the team. The NRA and other gun advocates need to take one for the team. In a perfect world, there would be no reason to have a weapon in the first place. But in this world, good folks need to be protected from folks who would misuse their "rights"
What's interesting is that if this were a flare up of drunk drivers , noone would have a problem with changing the laws and stiffening drunk driving sentances...
What's interesting is that if this were a flare up of drunk drivers , noone would have a problem with changing the laws and stiffening drunk driving sentances...
G
Gambino
Guest
a drunk driver has no legal purposegjohnson5 said:
a gun can be used for hunting or home protection
gjohnson5 said:
the make my day law in denver.
I dont see the word ''state'' in the 2nd ammendment. IF it was for the ''state'' militia... who would provide them the guns and regulate them? The same govt they were fighting against?
gjohnson5
New member
I'm sorry , but this is not how the second amendment is legally applied
A simple google search would show application of the second amendment in court
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7
A simple google search would show application of the second amendment in court
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7
redguru said:
redguru
New member
Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito
381-1675
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.
In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.
Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito
381-1675
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.
In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.
A
alien amp pharm
Guest
Phaded said:
Ok, good point.
(but also makes me even more glad I have a firearm)
Also numerous Castle Doctrine laws. The most basic application of the 2nd amendment would be for protection inside ones home, this is common sense. Come one folks, you either believe in freedom or not. The constitution exists as a foundation for government and exists as a whole to be built upon, but the foundation is always intact.juiceddreadlocks said:
gjohnson5 said:
Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Findlaw.com
Island Son
New member
superdave said:
Didn't Florida extend "home" to mean "car" too? Essentially, justification of deadly force to protect property? (I predict laptops and cellphones are next)
mountain muscle
New member
superdave said:
Yeah it would be much more entertaining to see his face when you pulled the trigger.
Similar threads
