[Mitch]

Dude: Perhaps life is a bit different than a cowboy movie...

[Donaldson Tan]

It is illegal to make a bomb at home, why not a bullet?

[Bakegaku]

It is illegal to make a bomb at home, why not a bullet?

It's still not very easy to regulate what one does at home.  Plenty of people make explosives (whether for sinister use, interest in chemistry, or just an affinity for things that go boom) even though its illegal.  It's a pain for law enforcers to track down all the meth-labs as well.  Why would creation of bullets be any easier to prevent?

Dude's comment is slightly harder to pick apart.  Do you really think the levels of belligerence brought about by fighting every week throughout your teen years is good?  Sure, people should stick up for themselves, but in the case of an unarmed person going against an armed person there's obvious danger, especially when a person hasn't experienced something like that before.  Hell, even you can't be sure you'd tackle down a guy if he pointed a gun at you.

[constant thinker]

I just realized the subject reads "Vermont Tech- School Massacre".

Am I missing something and the title is intended to be Vermont Tech or is it truly supposed to be Virginia Tech. I haven't heard of any massacres at Vermont Tech, and it neighbors my state.

[enahs]

I agree with that part of Dude's sentiment.
I have no clue how he managed to kill 32 people.
It would be one thing if this was 1 person at a time ala sniper style.

But I know for a fact that if I am in a room of crowded people and some crazy person just starts shooting everybody, I would risk my life to stop him. He is just going to kill me anyway. Sure if 10 people all charge them he might kill even 8 of them, but they were going to die anyway and those other 2 could have stopped him from killing the other 24 people that died (or whatever the situation, the bulk in this case was in 2 rooms I believe with some stragglers in the halls).

I just do not get the "hide" mentality during something like that. If he was going by finding select people, or just trying to rob everybody, hell yes, do not risk yours or anybodies life. But if somebody is killing everybody at random, and you are likely to be killed, I think you are a jackhole and horrible disgusting person if you are not willing to risk your life to save not only your life but multiple others.

That is just my opinion though. I however have also been through lots of training and know how to handle a situation like that and remain calm, and have had a jackhole in real life point a loaded gun on me with bad intentions. I can see how somebody would crap their pants and freak out in a situation like that. I just can not fathom not doing anything when somebody or a group of people are just killing lots of people at random.

There is a difference between being a "cowboy"/"hero" and being willing to give up your life to save numerous others in extreme situations.

[Dude]

Enahs,

Well said - my point exactly.  Responding to an emergency is a trained response.  I recall as a kid walking through adjacent bad neighborhoods with other kids.  When trouble came, I ran away as often as I could.  After my father and grandfather berated the hell out of me for being a coward after they found out about one incident, I decided that it would be better to take whatever beating was going to come and inflict as much pain as I could on the attackers rather than face the wrath of my father.  I suppose after the first 5 or 10 episodes, fighting becomes somewhat addictive and I was just as much to blame (i.e. just don't walk through certain neighborhoods). 

I completely understand and sympathize with the University of Texas massacre (1960's I believe) that was reported on CNN.  The report indicated that a sniper in a bell tower was picking off people with a long rifle.  Those people didn't have a chance.  They probably didn't even know where the shots were coming from.  A person with a 22 pistol?  Hell, it takes 3-6 shots to kill off a 50 lb dog with a .22 pistol.

As bakegaku indicated, I very well may have cowered and run when it was time to knock on wood.  However, I would have expected at least one person at Virginia Tech to not give the jackass who shot everybody the luxury of killing himelf (i.e. quick and painless).  Make him hurt a little before he passes.  Or better yet, make him hurt a whole lot by dealing with courts,  lawyers and prison the rest of his life (i.e. that would be much more pain than death for me).

[xiankai]

as for the fact that no one stood up to the gunman, i present one proof that i hope that would have eased your hearts;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/vatechshootings/victims/Liviu_Librescu.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000480.html

plus a clipping from my local newspaper:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/xiankai/misc/liviulibrescu.jpg

[Borek]

Note that Librescu was not an American and not 20 years old as most of stdents. No idea if it is accidental or symptomatic, but hardly a proof against Dude and Shane POV.

[hmx9123]

I agree with Borek; not only was Librescu from a different generation, he didn't grow up in American culture, thus making the point kind of moot.  He was certainly a hero, though.

On one hand, you can sit back and say 'why didn't anyone fight back?'  Unfortunately, it's easy to sit back and say that from the comfort of your chair.  You don't know how you're going to respond to that kind of emergency situation until you're in it.  I wouldn't doubt the 1 in 5 actually fighting like in Vietnam.  I think that much of that has to do with generational culture in the US, but that's a very difficult and complicated topic.

That being said, for those of us who have been in crisis-type situations where fight or flight was unavoidabe, it is a valid point to wonder why so many people were gunned down without much resistance.  With the number of people that were in harm's way, I'm surprised there weren't more who did fight back.  Personally, I'd have been throwing desks or books or whatever at the guy, but that's me and I have had experience in my life to know how I would react to a life-threatening situation (I'm not going to claim that I've had a school shooter come at me, as I doubt anyone on these forums has).

Interestingly, from what I've been able to find online, he only had 9rnd capacity in his magazines--which means he either had a lot of magazines or reloaded really quickly.

This whole situation is very sad.  One thing that needs to be addressed is why he was adjucated mentally defective and still able to purchase a firearm legally.  From what I've seen of this kid, he probably would have obtained one illegally, or made bombs or whatever if he hadn't been able to buy a gun, but to sell him one given his prior mental history run-ins with the law is pretty bad.

BTW, we're not the only country with shootings like this:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=687602007

That's from the UK--where guns have been illegal for a long time and the control laws are very strict.

[limpet chicken]

The thing that pissed me off, is that after this, the newspapers started spouting off about how the shooter was diagnosed autistic, and implying that was more or less the cause for his violence (hah, how wrong, he was just a psychopath)

Not to mention the tidal wave of similar articles it triggered off.

I am ashamed to think this sonofabitch has anything to do with me (and normally, I HAVE no shame, according to some ), as are the rest of the autie community, gives me and the rest a bad name, the way the reporting of it was handled, which nobody needs.

[hmx9123]

One thing I dislike about the media is the way they sensationalize everything.  They milked the VT shooting for all it's worth and I was appauled when the broadcast the shooter's videotaped diatribe.  They'll hype up the fact that the shooter in the UK was autistic.  If someone went berzerk and killed 5 people in a shopping mall with a chainsaw, they'd fawn over the fact that he had Slayer posters in his room.  The two main problems of sensationalistic media:
1. They promote copycat work since it definitely gains attention
2. They usually generate a lot of heuristics/stereotypes about some insignificant or irrelevant fact that then becomes somehow linked to the crime comitted.

We need some good old-fashioned sex scandals to hit the news soon.  At least copycat crimes of those aren't as big of a problem.

[limpet chicken]

I wouldn't doubt it HMX, at least the paper I get, the daily mail would, heh wouldn't they have a field day with me, weed posters on my walls, autistic, and a large collection of the kind of music the previous couple of generations would have considered to be the direct creation of Satan himself

Then again, I have been in the papers twice, neither of which was too complimentary an article, and they haven't mentioned autism or black metal yet

[dfx-]

In 2002 there were 81 deaths by guns in the UK compared with 30242 in the USA.
Thats 77 times as many in the USA than UK per head of population.  You reap what you sow. 

Really I can't see beyond this statistic. If you allow people to have guns, it is ridiculously more likely that such events will happen. You'd have to go back to mid 90s and Dunblaine in Scotland to find a similar event in the UK whereas it seems the same event happens year after year or at most a couple of years in the US.

Afterall, if the vast majority of fully fledged democratic countries can ban guns because of the dangers and still manage to function fairly and more safely, why can't the US? What is it that must be unique to the American psyche that can't deal with the loss of guns?

[Mitch]

I have no problems with a gun ban.

[dfx-]

That's the spirit but what I'm on about is what appears as an outsider to be a reluctance to broach the subject, never mind actually try to implement it..

For all the rightful horror at the time, it's gone all quiet again..waiting for the next one