Deadly shooting at US university

[Osborn F Enready]

Chos problems started in the home, and were TAKEN to the school. It had nothing to do with guns, except he chose guns to execute his plan of murder suicide instead of a homemade bomb.

[Redden]

True, but the point is that all along the timeline of man there have been terrible killings, and they probably will never stop 100%.

There will probably never be a way to know what everyone is thinking and planning on doing, but there are and will be people like this man. He was obviously troubled, and his way of releasing his anger was in a terrible form. He got a hold of a weapon meant to kill, and killed with it.
I understand what you are saying Osborn.

[nmspl]

accidents like VT will happen and we simply cannot stop them from happening. It would be wise to forget such accidents and get along wiht our lives.

[Kamehameha34]

A knife is designed to cut animal meat or veges. A car is designed to get you from point to point. Your shoes are designed to protect your feet. The baseball bat is designed to play baseball. A gun is designed to WOUND OR KILL OTHER PEOPLE. It's that part that you all need to realise. This places, at the very least, an unconscious label on it.

So? Who cares what it is designed for?

What matters is what it can do. A gun is designed to fire bullets. Punish people for making those bullets go through people.

Punishment for the ownership of an instrument is idiotic.

No, we restrict items based on thier ultimate purpose.

Objects don't have will.. They don't have "ultimate purposes"..

What gives them their purpose is the wielder.

So what is stopping people from building cruise missiles in thier own backyard? Maybe they built it so they could play target practice on thier uncles farm. Yet, the law stops them from assembling one. Your argument breaks down on it's foundations.

No - actually you just described a scenario and suggested that it somehow contradicted me without connecting any dots (which you'd have been unable to do anyway).

Cruise missiles have the potential to harm, but they can also cause significant harm to those in close proximity (neighbors, etc.). They can also be activated unwillfully, or accidentally.

If no one was in the blast range, there's no problem with it.

Guns FACILITATE intent, and ENCOURAGE thier own use by simply being present. Not to mention being many times more deadly than any other thing you can pick off the ground and club someone with.

So do baseball bats.

Guns are a means. That's all they facilitate. The fact that they are deadly means nothing without intent.

Criminals have criminal intent. Criminals go into jail. Problem solved.

Don't restrict my civil liberties because you can't think of a proper way to limit gun-related violence.

In the US, it is seen as a reasonable right to own and operate a firearm. In other countries, it ISN'T. Does that make other countries fascist pigs? You have already sacrificed a lot of your 'rights' by living under a government to begin with. So please don't act like the right to own a gun is essential, because it sure as hell isn't.

Nor is your right for the pursuit of happiness.

If you are unwilling to follow the constructs of the bill of rights, stay out of my country so those that are can live without endorsement of a nanny-state.

At any cost? The cost is what you AMERICANS call a god-given right.

No, it's a government-given right.

Once again, stay out of my country if you want to start impeding the fruition of my civil liberties.

You also have the highest murder rates in the world. I don't see that being the result of a good system. If it was such a good one, I don't see why the gun argument would have cropped up to begin with.

I said best, without impeding civil liberties.

I'm not going to slash off amendments to the constitution because of your lack of ingenuity in devising a proper limitation on gun-related crime.

And that would make sense if your crime rates were low. But they aren't.

DEATH BY MURDER

The USA is nowhere to be found on any of those international lists.

And even if they weren't low - yes, it still does make sense.

[pikatore]

I've already conceded Kame, you're shooting air.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Chos problems started in the home, and were TAKEN to the school. It had nothing to do with guns, except he chose guns to execute his plan of murder suicide instead of a homemade bomb.

Interesting you should mention bombs. Did you know that in the Irish troubles quite a few IRA members lost their lives building bombs? Another interesting fact, the most deadly bombing of the entire troubles occured in Omagh in 1998, and was a 500lb car bomb. The bomb killed less people than Cho did (29 as opposed to Cho's 32), and was made, planned and executed by 'professional' (for lack of a better word) practised terrorists.

It seems highly unlikely that Cho would have been able to produce such a massive bomb and deploy it as successfuly. It is far more likely that he would have been like the deranged neo-Nazi bomber David Copeland, who used multiple nail bombs but eventually killed only three people.

Based on this fact, is it not a reasonable conclusion that had Cho been unable to use the efficient tools that are guns and been forced to use the considerably more dangerous (to himself) and much less efficient tool that is the home made bomb, then it is doubtfull that he would have been anywhere near as prolific a killer as managed to be with guns?

So? Who cares what it is designed for? What matters is what it can do. A gun is designed to fire bullets. Punish people for making those bullets go through people. Punishment for the ownership of an instrument is idiotic.

In that case, should the FBI come across a home containing the materials to construct say a 'dirty bomb' then would you not have them confiscate them and try the owner under terrorism laws, because after all a dirty bomb is just an 'instrument'?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chris the Cheese said: It seems highly unlikely that Cho would have been able to produce such a massive bomb and deploy it as successfuly.

Based on what?

Chris the Cheese said: It is far more likely that he would have been like the deranged neo-Nazi bomber David Copeland, who used multiple nail bombs but eventually killed only three people.

And again, based on what?

Chris the Cheese said: Based on this fact,

You haven't stated a fact yet.

Chris the Cheese said: is it not a reasonable conclusion that had Cho been unable to use the efficient tools that are guns and been forced to use the considerably more dangerous (to himself) and much less efficient tool that is the home made bomb, then it is doubtfull that he would have been anywhere near as prolific a killer as managed to be with guns?

Thats an absurd, illogically based conclusion, but what's new there?

Chris the Cheese said: In that case, should the FBI come across a home containing the materials to construct say a 'dirty bomb' then would you not have them confiscate them and try the owner under terrorism laws, because after all a dirty bomb is just an 'instrument'?

The average person has access with materials to make a bomb far worse than a dirty bomb. Dirty Bombs, if you are talking about nukes, are more scary than deadly when compared to alternatives, but I would expect you to chase the hype of "dirty bombs".... boogie woogie man comin to get everyone.....booo

No, It would be absurd Chris.

What material in particular?

[Chris the Chees]

Based on what?

It was a 500lb car bomb, you can't put that into a rucksack and just walk into school and it was no doubt made by experienced bomb maker who had split from PIRA and gone over to the rIRA. I very seriously doubt a 23 year old English student would have the knowledge, funds or means of carring out such an attack.

And again, based on what?

Because Copeland, like Cho, was not part of a major, well connected well funded, well armed, well trained paramilitary organisation. Copelands pipe bombs were derived from house hold materials and the explosives from fireworks. He is an example of an unconnected lunatic bomber without connections or training, which is exactly like Cho would have been.

Not that it is I who has the burden of proof on this matter. If you wish to contend that Cho, had he not had access to guns, could have made a bomb capable killing 30+ people, when professional Irish terrorists with a long tradition of violence and expertese could not manage a tally that high with a single 500lb car bomb and a lone nutter, like Cho, could not manage more than three with numerous bombs. If thats what you want to contend, then lets see your evidence.

You haven't stated a fact yet.

Actually, I have stated a 'fact', and that 'fact' is that a professional highly motivated terrorist group with a massive car bomb could not achieve a tally of 30 kills. That is a fact. It is also a fact that a lone, inexpert nutcase who planted numerous bombs in London was only capable of killing three people. They are both facts which you can investigate at your leasure.

Now do you propose that an individual like Cho could do better than a major terrorist network? And you want to talk to me about an "illogically based conclusion"? LOL

Thats an absurd, illogically based conclusion, but what's new there?

So you argue that a home made bomb would have indeed been more successful than Cho was with a gun? Well, prove it.

Dirty Bombs, if you are talking about nukes, are more scary than deadly when compared to alternatives, but I would expect you to chase the hype of "dirty bombs".... boogie woogie man comin to get everyone.....booo

That is a completely irrelevent point, and actually the reason I brought it up was because José Padilla was in the news again a few months ago and I remember the hype surrounding him a few years back, not because of the destructive capabilites (or lack of) of a dirty bomb.

No, It would be absurd Chris.

Well if they walked into your flat and found a few grams of missing Russian nuclear materials and a load of chemical fertilizer and diesel, i think you might find your self in a bit of trouble.

Oh and incidentally several British people were jailed for life last month for their plans and materials to make a fertilizer bomb.