NationStates Jolt Archive

The question pertains to the Virginia Tech shooter. Lots of people with their own pet theories, including a thread here that believes that "gun culture" made him do it.

What I find ridiculous is the assertion that somehow, "gun culture" caused this nutjob at Virginia Tech to do what he did, or that somehow, the guns made him do it.

As far as can be discerned from his encounters with the mental health community goes, he was a violent paranoid.

A lot of news organizations (and a lot of you) seem to be asking the question, "Why?" and some of you are coming up with "gun culture".

The vast, vast majority of gun owners never, ever use their gun to kill anyone. In fact, the numbers have been dropping (to about half of what the numbers were in 1993).

This nutjob killed people because he was fucking crazy. He was still walking around because a Supreme Court decision in the early 1980s says that you can't lock up someone indefinitely in a mental facility unless you can prove that they still constitute a danger to themselves and others - and the moment they don't appear dangerous, you MUST let them go.

Which is what they did.

In the old days, a guy like this would spend the rest of his life in a padded room doped up on Thorazine on that first encounter with the mental health facility. Not anymore. Civil rights, you know - the system MUST let him go.

As to the question, "Why?"

There isn't any "Why?" to understand.

I'm sure it all made sense to *him*, but even if we were to have his logic in front of us for the symbolism we would still all be asking "WTF??"

It's about the same as seeing a picture of Michael Jackson smearing lipstick on a chimp with an erection while the chimp holds a picture of the Queen of England and asking what in the hell is going on.

Some things defy explanation.

...or at least that's what my academic exposure to post-modernist literature and art taught me.

I liken it to this:

Imagine asking a person what 2 + 2 equals, and hearing them answer you, in absolute seriousness, "Potato." That's about what it is like trying to probe the mind of one of these lunatic malevolent narcissists.

So, why do you think he did it?

In the old days, a guy like this would spend the rest of his life in a padded room doped up on Thorazine on that first encounter with the mental health facility. Not anymore. Civil rights, you know - the system MUST let him go.

yeah! and nevermind that other people got better and still couldn't get out! you can't let civil rights get in the way of security!

wait, if guns hadn't been freely available, could he have killed 32 persons?

no doubt, he was an asian, so he had to know ninja martial arts... -_-

So what you're saying is that 'Civil Rights' made him do it?

Bizarre.

So what you're saying is that 'Civil Rights' made him do it?

Bizarre.

it all went to shit when we let them negroes vote.

He clearly had some severe problems with mental illness. Now, given that he is dead, we really cannot diagnose him with anything, but we can get hints, and suggestions towards what might have been bothering him.

This poll utilizes what I believe are generally called 'weasel questions.' Guns and gun culture should be two separate options. I'm voting 'potato.' He was mentally ill and he fell through the cracks. There were clear warning signs- he should have gotten some help.

This poll utilizes what I believe are generally called 'weasel questions.' Guns and gun culture should be two separate options. I'm voting 'potato.'

Are you saying that a gun can "make" a person do something?

Is there some special property of a gun that communicates with people and takes over their minds?

He had the small penis syndrome. Same thing with Napoleon and Hitler. They had to conquer everyone, just to prove their dick was big. Too bad we all know the truth.

He had the small penis syndrome. Same thing with Napoleon and Hitler. They had to conquer everyone, just to prove their dick was big. Too bad we all know the truth.

Ah, so paranoid schizophrenia never causes this sort of thing...

Are you saying that a gun can "make" a person do something?

Is there some special property of a gun that communicates with people and takes over their minds?


Well, lets ask you the question....If a gun talked to you and told you to shoot people, wouldn't you do it? I know i would:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Are you saying that a gun can "make" a person do something?

Is there some special property of a gun that communicates with people and takes over their minds?

yep, it enables them to kill people. that gets to the head.

No, gun culture didn't cause it, but it would be a lot harder to kill that many people if he couldn't get guns.

I read somewhere that his harassment of women was reported but not put on record due to the fact that crime statistics of colleges are released publicly. If someone put a misdemeanor on his record, would he have been able to buy those guns? I mean, clearly he did it because he was a violent paranoid... but I don't agree with throwing seemingly crazy people in asylums all the time. Being a little more strict about following through with things could've helped. They say he was referred to counseling but never went through with it. I don't know if that changes the law, but if there's some way they could've gotten him help... I mean, he was in a teacher's class and she wanted him transferred out and threatened resignation if he wasn't. He creeped people out beforehand. It was not an entirely sudden thing.

Ah, so paranoid schizophrenia never causes this sort of thing...

Pft, are you kidding? Schizophrenia is something the government made up to to make you think that they are out to get you.

This poll utilizes what I believe are generally called 'weasel questions.' Guns and gun culture should be two separate options. I'm voting 'potato.' He was mentally ill and he fell through the cracks. There were clear warning signs- he should have gotten some help.

I agree, the poll and thread are implying that having a problem with gun culture means believing that guns can "make" a person violent, which is clearly not the case.
*votes potato*

Are you saying that a gun can "make" a person do something?

Is there some special property of a gun that communicates with people and takes over their minds?

Total non sequitur. You clearly want to argue against someone who thinks that, but at least wait for one to show up before you do.

Maybe he didn't like Mondays, and that livened up the day?

Shits and giggles, perhaps (an option sorely lacking from the poll)?

Or, maybe, he was fed up with other people hurting him, and wanted out. But he didn't want to go gently into that good night; he wanted to cause as much suffering to those who'd (or who he'd perceived had) made him suffer as possible? And the advantage of that being "just about everyone" is you don't have to discriminate with your victims. Is that hard to understand?

Ah, so your answer is "Cheese grater". I see.

Maybe he didn't like Mondays, and that livened up the day?

Shits and giggles, perhaps (an option sorely lacking from the poll)?

Or, maybe, he was fed up with other people hurting him, and wanted out. But he didn't want to go gently into that good night; he wanted to cause as much suffering to those who'd (or who he'd perceived had) made him suffer as possible? And the advantage of that being "just about everyone" is you don't have to discriminate with your victims. Is that hard to understand?

Ah, so your answer is "Cheese grater". I see.

I was thinking "whisk" (of the manual variety, not those fancy electric ones), actually.

Are you saying that a gun can "make" a person do something?

Is there some special property of a gun that communicates with people and takes over their minds?
No, I'm saying that America's sick gun culture greatly contributes to the higher incidence of gun violence. Your poll fails (as do you appearantly) to see the distinction with the cultural mythos of the gun in the US and the physical objects themselves. Such a (willful?) misunderstanding drives much of the gun politics in this country.

You, like the rest of the country seem to be on autopilot on this issue, responding to an argument that you presume is being made without actually reading my post:rolleyes:

I was thinking "whisk" (of the manual variety, not those fancy electric ones), actually.

I see. And you like whipped cream and meringue?

The question pertains to the Virginia Tech shooter. Lots of people with their own pet theories, including a thread here that believes that "gun culture" made him do it.

What I find ridiculous is the assertion that somehow, "gun culture" caused this nutjob at Virginia Tech to do what he did, or that somehow, the guns made him do it.

I don't think I've seen a single person arguing that guns made him do it. Nobody is saying that guns grabbed this dude by the hand and led him into a massacre, or that guns talked him into it, or that guns have mind-control powers. Perhaps you should read people's posts a bit more carefully?


As far as can be discerned from his encounters with the mental health community goes, he was a violent paranoid.

A lot of news organizations (and a lot of you) seem to be asking the question, "Why?" and some of you are coming up with "gun culture".

The vast, vast majority of gun owners never, ever use their gun to kill anyone. In fact, the numbers have been dropping (to about half of what the numbers were in 1993).

Of course most people who own guns don't murder anybody. This is a total tangent from what people are talking about when they discuss "gun culture."


This nutjob killed people because he was fucking crazy. He was still walking around because a Supreme Court decision in the early 1980s says that you can't lock up someone indefinitely in a mental facility unless you can prove that they still constitute a danger to themselves and others - and the moment they don't appear dangerous, you MUST let them go.

Stupid civil rights.


In the old days, a guy like this would spend the rest of his life in a padded room doped up on Thorazine on that first encounter with the mental health facility. Not anymore. Civil rights, you know - the system MUST let him go.

Gosh, I guess we had better give up all our civil rights or else nutjobs are going to kill us all!!!

Forgive me for not wetting my pants over your alarmist tripe. My government has been using fear to strip away rights for so long that I can't even bring myself to pretend to give a shit any more.


As to the question, "Why?"

There isn't any "Why?" to understand.

Sure there is, you just don't know the answer and don't feel like taking the time to find out. Not everybody is as lazy as you.


I'm sure it all made sense to *him*, but even if we were to have his logic in front of us for the symbolism we would still all be asking "WTF??"

It's about the same as seeing a picture of Michael Jackson smearing lipstick on a chimp with an erection while the chimp holds a picture of the Queen of England and asking what in the hell is going on.

Some things defy explanation.

Cute image, but not really relevant.


...or at least that's what my academic exposure to post-modernist literature and art taught me.

I liken it to this:

Imagine asking a person what 2 + 2 equals, and hearing them answer you, in absolute seriousness, "Potato." That's about what it is like trying to probe the mind of one of these lunatic malevolent narcissists.

May I ask from which institution you have received your advanced psychology degree?


So, why do you think he did it?
I think I don't have sufficient information to answer that question. I'm quite sure that, given enough time and effort, it will be quite possible to determine his motives.

Are you asking why a paranoid schizophrenic chose to kill 32 people with firearms while they were at school, instead of acting out his delusions in another way?

I think the answer is probably very complex. One thing I've noticed is that most of these school shootings occur in the USA.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

I would assume there is something about US culture that causes people to react in this specific way. Other cultures have violent paranoid schizophrenics act out in other ways.

I do not think this is about gun culture, but I do think that the US glorification of gun violence in the media is at least part of the problem.

He was crazy. Shit happens. Why is everybody making such a big deal about this thing? It really doesn't matter to anyone except the wounded and the friends and family of the victims. It really has absolutely no impact on anyone else's life.

That's strange, seeing we're talking about it in an international forum. It is, undoubtedly, impacting on our lives in some way.

Yeah, it's something to talk about to pass the time. It really is a boring subject though. I'm done now. That's all I wanted to say about this.

I believe the entire massacre was equivalent to a single day's gun violence casualties in the US.

Are you asking why a paranoid schizophrenic chose to kill 32 people with firearms while they were at school, instead of acting out his delusions in another way?

I think the answer is probably very complex. One thing I've noticed is that most of these school shootings occur in the USA.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

I would assume there is something about US culture that causes people to react in this specific way. Other cultures have violent paranoid schizophrenics act out in other ways.

I do not think this is about gun culture, but I do think that the US glorification of gun violence in the media is at least part of the problem.

Yes, some commentator pointed out that Mr. Cho was simply raising the bar.

America does love its lone hero with a gun.

Cho Seung-Hui took that idea to its extreme. Why? Cos 'ee woz mad m'lud.

I see. And you like whipped cream and meringue?

Cream, yes. I've not attempted meringue for a long time, but it's OK. Bit sweet.

It really doesn't matter to anyone except the wounded and the friends and family of the victims. It really has absolutely no impact on anyone else's life.
That's strange, seeing we're talking about it in an international forum. It is, undoubtedly, impacting on our lives in some way.

Are you asking why a paranoid schizophrenic chose to kill 32 people with firearms while they were at school, instead of acting out his delusions in another way?

I think the answer is probably very complex. One thing I've noticed is that most of these school shootings occur in the USA.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

I would assume there is something about US culture that causes people to react in this specific way. Other cultures have violent paranoid schizophrenics act out in other ways.

I do not think this is about gun culture, but I do think that the US glorification of gun violence in the media is at least part of the problem.

I think that in the old days, even though there were firearms available, people didn't do the mass shootings they do today because a kid like this in the old days would have just shot himself out of despair.

Nowadays, you're actions are transmitted around the world in an instant, and the media and Internet will glorify your name forever.

So you are encouraged to be as outrageous as possible in your actions. He had to one-up the Columbine killers.

He was crazy... It really has absolutely no impact on anyone else's life.
Except in as much as it will impact how our society deals with people it deems crazy, and that is a serious issue.

Of course there is no mass media outside of the US:rolleyes:

Of course there is no mass media outside of the US:rolleyes:

Of course there have been no mass school shootings in Scotland or Germany :rolleyes:

He had the small penis syndrome. Same thing with Napoleon and Hitler. They had to conquer everyone, just to prove their dick was big. Too bad we all know the truth.

Hmmmm, I disagree, as he had a .9mm and a .22, as oppossed to two .44 magnum revolvers with 9 inch barrels.


He was still walking around because a Supreme Court decision in the early 1980s says that you can't lock up someone indefinitely in a mental facility unless you can prove that they still constitute a danger to themselves and others - and the moment they don't appear dangerous, you MUST let them go..

Yep, and lucky for all that its so. Somebody fucked up. That doesnt mean the principle is wrong. Your reasoning is ironically similar to the "ban gun due to trajedy" argument - kneejerk in nature and based on an instance where the system failed.

As I said- about as many people are murdered with guns in the US every day. The perpetrators are generally not crazy. You'd be better off locking up the sane:rolleyes:

Are you saying that a gun can "make" a person do something?

Is there some special property of a gun that communicates with people and takes over their minds?

If Tony Montana could make a friend out of one, then I guess so...

If Tony Montana could make a friend out of one, then I guess so...

That's classic, using a movie character as a factual reference...

Of course there have been no mass school shootings in Scotland or Germany :rolleyes:
And the Scottish Office, then Scottish Executive, imposed fairly sensible regulation of firearms, and a massive examination of mental health issues, while refraining from pushing forward draconian measures such as metal detectors and campus police, turning schools and universities into prisons.

Many US citizens seem aghast at the idea of any gun regulation; seeing it as a sign of impending authoritarianism. Yet the same people call for massive, invasive 'security measures' at school and university campuses.

Personally, I prefer limited gun regulation to being snooped on and searched every time I attend university.

The question pertains to the Virginia Tech shooter. Lots of people with their own pet theories, including a thread here that believes that "gun culture" made him do it.

What I find ridiculous is the assertion that somehow, "gun culture" caused this nutjob at Virginia Tech to do what he did, or that somehow, the guns made him do it.

As far as can be discerned from his encounters with the mental health community goes, he was a violent paranoid.

A lot of news organizations (and a lot of you) seem to be asking the question, "Why?" and some of you are coming up with "gun culture".

The vast, vast majority of gun owners never, ever use their gun to kill anyone. In fact, the numbers have been dropping (to about half of what the numbers were in 1993).

This nutjob killed people because he was fucking crazy. He was still walking around because a Supreme Court decision in the early 1980s says that you can't lock up someone indefinitely in a mental facility unless you can prove that they still constitute a danger to themselves and others - and the moment they don't appear dangerous, you MUST let them go.

Which is what they did.

In the old days, a guy like this would spend the rest of his life in a padded room doped up on Thorazine on that first encounter with the mental health facility. Not anymore. Civil rights, you know - the system MUST let him go.

As to the question, "Why?"

There isn't any "Why?" to understand.

I'm sure it all made sense to *him*, but even if we were to have his logic in front of us for the symbolism we would still all be asking "WTF??"

It's about the same as seeing a picture of Michael Jackson smearing lipstick on a chimp with an erection while the chimp holds a picture of the Queen of England and asking what in the hell is going on.

Some things defy explanation.

...or at least that's what my academic exposure to post-modernist literature and art taught me.

I liken it to this:

Imagine asking a person what 2 + 2 equals, and hearing them answer you, in absolute seriousness, "Potato." That's about what it is like trying to probe the mind of one of these lunatic malevolent narcissists.

So, why do you think he did it?

1) Guns didn't 'make him' do it. But, once he'd got it into his mind to do something guns made it possible for him to murder 32 people without breaking a sweat.

2) He probably did it for a variety of the reasons he listed in the media package he sent out between the two spates of killing. There is something about the way American schools exaggerate the normal school 'class' structure, that seems to isolate some people to the point they have to do something drastic.

3) You're funny. I like you. 'Civil Rights' are at fault for saying we can't lock the sane up with the crazies... and yet you can only have a gun because of... what?

Of course there have been no mass school shootings in Scotland or Germany :rolleyes:

Well, whilst there was of course the Dunblane massacre, we Scot's don't have too much of a problem with gun crime as we've never really been a nation where these weapons are so readily available, or as socially important or accepted.

We're even considering a ban on air rifles, after a toddler was shot in the head with a pellet.

I do believe the idea that "People kill People" instead of the other way round. It just happens to help a lot when you have a gun.

In the old days, a guy like this would spend the rest of his life in a padded room doped up on Thorazine on that first encounter with the mental health facility. Not anymore. Civil rights, you know - the system MUST let him go.

I was with you up till this point. No one does not deserve their civil rights, and this is an isolated case at best.

No, you shouldn't have locked him up...what should have happened is that people with mental issues should not be allowed to purchase firearms, and if they do develop mental issues any firearms they own should be confiscated. That would be a lot safer--not to mention fairer, especially to law-abiding gun owners and the mentally ill who do recover--than locking him up forever.

The question pertains to the Virginia Tech shooter. Lots of people with their own pet theories, including a thread here that believes that "gun culture" made him do it.

What I find ridiculous is the assertion that somehow, "gun culture" caused this nutjob at Virginia Tech to do what he did, or that somehow, the guns made him do it.
"Made him do it"? No. Nobody has claimed that have they? You should learn the difference between something making someone do something, and something being a factor explaining how something could happen.

And "Gun culture" =/= "guns", so your poll fails.

A lot of news organizations (and a lot of you) seem to be asking the question, "Why?" and some of you are coming up with "gun culture".
...as one contributing factor, indeed.


As to the question, "Why?"

There isn't any "Why?" to understand.
There just might be.


So, why do you think he did it?
I have no idea.

Well, whilst there was of course the Dunblane massacre, we Scot's don't have too much of a problem with gun crime as we've never really been a nation where these weapons are so readily available, or as socially important or accepted.

We're even considering a ban on air rifles, after a toddler was shot in the head with a pellet.

I do believe the idea that "People kill People" instead of the other way round. It just happens to help a lot when you have a gun.

you mean, instead of "people kill people"? </smartass>

“Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And monkeys do too. If they have a gun.”
-Eddie Izzard

guns don't kill people, but guns allow people to kill others, right?

This whole thing is most likely a combination of factors - he had a mental problem. His parents probably did their best but failed. He was angry at the snobs. And the fact that he had a gun probably gave him the illusion of grandeur (he said he wanted to inspire like Jezus, right?). And you can't deny that such an illusion of grandeur is reinforced by the government encouraging people to own guns 'for safety'.

Maybe one problem is the very unstable social system in the US. This guy is one of the many that fell through the net, and sometimes that makes people go berserk.

USA´s gun culture didnt made him do it, but it sure helped. The way he got a 9mm weapon is something totaly unimaginable here in my country, where 9mm rounds are only issued to the military and police forces. Yet, he went to a shop, showed some ID, and 5 minutes latter he got out with a very powerfull gun, 50 rounds of ammo and two clips.

Now, if he couldnt get those guns, would he had made as much damage? I very much doubt it.

But this was not the reason. As said, millions use guns, but have never done anything similar. I guess the blaim falls on the USA education system.

This guy went to the US when he was 8. Ok, I guess everyone here remembers how kids are when they are 8: they are a pain in the ass. They make fun of you because of anything; if you dont have the kind of shoes they have they laugh and point, if you do a weird haircut they never stop bothering you etc.

Imagine a 8 year old korean boy, who barely speaks english (if any), mildly fat, who wears glass and is probabily smaller than everyone else. And get him inside an american public school. Can you foresee what happens? He probabily was bullied, ridiculized, ignored and refused from week one forward.

Now, that happens everywhere in the world. But the US has one pecularity: classes are independent. That means that in each class, you have diferent people. There is not a single class that goes through the years, sharing the same classes and work.

Here in Brazil, in Japan, in Korea, and I`m pretty sure most places, it is the oposite. You have a class of 30+ people, who always use the same room, and where the teachers go to them, not the other way around. That means this group of 30 people always stays together for about all school hours. That means they become a group, a CLASS, with capital letters, so much that in many schools here in Brazil (and I´m pretty sure many other places) there are competitions between diferent classes.

And not only that, but these classes also remain for years sometimes. In my school, we had middle and high school. For 6 years, I studied with the same people, day after day, year after year, and created bonds with them. My best friends are from High School, people I´ve know for more than 10 years. I still get in touch sometimes with the others from my class, to show how strong was the bond between us.

In the US, it looks like things dont work that way. There are clubs, there are teams, but things are much more independent. Its best student, best athlete, best SAT scores, best club, but there is no class.

And that means that students have to socialize in a more indepent way, and that the only times when you can really socialize with your friends is during lunch or intervals (since everyone has diferent classes). Now, that is a real problem for the loner or shy guy, because that makes things much harder.

In classes like I`ve told, where people stay together for years, even the most loner gets integrated into the group. Since its a daily, hourly relationship, 5 days a week (in Japan, 6) relationship, even the loners find their place. I know because I was one once, but in about two to three weeks after joining the school, I found friends inside my class.

Also, in US, school seems to last quite a lot of time. So much that people lunch in school. If someone has relationship problems in school, that becomes even bigger, because the student spends most of his day inside school. If that is a sick place for him, everything becomes much worst. Here in Brazil, classes last 5 hours (about 7:20 am to 12:30 pm), and after its done, people go back to their houses and eat there. If they want to socialize with their coleages, they have the entire afternoon to do that. If they hate school, school is not half of their day, but about one fourth of it.

So, I put my bets that the cause for USA social problems and the high number of violent shooters is because of their educational system, that develops individualism and doesnt develop group skills as much. Every group in the US seems to be toward competition. There is no place for groups that are there just to help people. And I guess that is why the US has so many problems with some of its members.

With our shooter, it was the same. He was left alone for years, lonely, and tried to fit in. But he couldnt. First he tried to find the mistakes in himself, and failed. Tried, tried, tried again, for years, and failed. His mind tried to look for a solution, but he couldnt. He started to blame others. He started to hate others. He projected all his fears, hate, doubts and shame onto others, and he started to feel like he was the victim (and maybe he was). And after trying to fit in for so much time, with so much effort, he simply couldnt deal with it anymore, snapped, got some guns and tried to inflict damage.

And that is what he did.

I suspect that lack of humor plays a role. In all the decriptions and writings and pictures, I see someone who grew up almost completely devoid of humor. This is the result. I suspect he wasn't tickled enough as a child. *nod*

P.S: I'm semi-serious.

USA´s gun culture didnt made him do it, but it sure helped. The way he got a 9mm weapon is something totaly unimaginable here in my country, where 9mm rounds are only issued to the military and police forces. Yet, he went to a shop, showed some ID, and 5 minutes latter he got out with a very powerfull gun, 50 rounds of ammo and two clips.

Now, if he couldnt get those guns, would he had made as much damage? I very much doubt it.

But this was not the reason. As said, millions use guns, but have never done anything similar. I guess the blaim falls on the USA education system.

This guy went to the US when he was 8. Ok, I guess everyone here remembers how kids are when they are 8: they are a pain in the ass. They make fun of you because of anything; if you dont have the kind of shoes they have they laugh and point, if you do a weird haircut they never stop bothering you etc.

Imagine a 8 year old korean boy, who barely speaks english (if any), mildly fat, who wears glass and is probabily smaller than everyone else. And get him inside an american public school. Can you foresee what happens? He probabily was bullied, ridiculized, ignored and refused from week one forward.

Now, that happens everywhere in the world. But the US has one pecularity: classes are independent. That means that in each class, you have diferent people. There is not a single class that goes through the years, sharing the same classes and work.

Here in Brazil, in Japan, in Korea, and I`m pretty sure most places, it is the oposite. You have a class of 30+ people, who always use the same room, and where the teachers go to them, not the other way around. That means this group of 30 people always stays together for about all school hours. That means they become a group, a CLASS, with capital letters, so much that in many schools here in Brazil (and I´m pretty sure many other places) there are competitions between diferent classes.

And not only that, but these classes also remain for years sometimes. In my school, we had middle and high school. For 6 years, I studied with the same people, day after day, year after year, and created bonds with them. My best friends are from High School, people I´ve know for more than 10 years. I still get in touch sometimes with the others from my class, to show how strong was the bond between us.

In the US, it looks like things dont work that way. There are clubs, there are teams, but things are much more independent. Its best student, best athlete, best SAT scores, best club, but there is no class.

And that means that students have to socialize in a more indepent way, and that the only times when you can really socialize with your friends is during lunch or intervals (since everyone has diferent classes). Now, that is a real problem for the loner or shy guy, because that makes things much harder.

In classes like I`ve told, where people stay together for years, even the most loner gets integrated into the group. Since its a daily, hourly relationship, 5 days a week (in Japan, 6) relationship, even the loners find their place. I know because I was one once, but in about two to three weeks after joining the school, I found friends inside my class.

Also, in US, school seems to last quite a lot of time. So much that people lunch in school. If someone has relationship problems in school, that becomes even bigger, because the student spends most of his day inside school. If that is a sick place for him, everything becomes much worst. Here in Brazil, classes last 5 hours (about 7:20 am to 12:30 pm), and after its done, people go back to their houses and eat there. If they want to socialize with their coleages, they have the entire afternoon to do that. If they hate school, school is not half of their day, but about one fourth of it.

So, I put my bets that the cause for USA social problems and the high number of violent shooters is because of their educational system, that develops individualism and doesnt develop group skills as much. Every group in the US seems to be toward competition. There is no place for groups that are there just to help people. And I guess that is why the US has so many problems with some of its members.

With our shooter, it was the same. He was left alone for years, lonely, and tried to fit in. But he couldnt. First he tried to find the mistakes in himself, and failed. Tried, tried, tried again, for years, and failed. His mind tried to look for a solution, but he couldnt. He started to blame others. He started to hate others. He projected all his fears, hate, doubts and shame onto others, and he started to feel like he was the victim (and maybe he was). And after trying to fit in for so much time, with so much effort, he simply couldnt deal with it anymore, snapped, got some guns and tried to inflict damage.

And that is what he did.
Yeah, it's definitely the guns. He couldn't have built a bomb and committed a suicide bombing to get a similar level of casualties, right? Oh, and it's just a US problem. Nobody anywhere else in the world ever takes himself and a bunch of other people out. The London, Madrid, and other suicide attacks were all figments of my imagination. Some people are just defective. Because of that, some people will not live long, happy lives. Life is a bitch.

Yeah, it's definitely the guns. He couldn't have built a bomb and committed a suicide bombing to get a similar level of casualties, right? Oh, and it's just a US problem. Nobody anywhere else in the world ever takes himself and a bunch of other people out. The London, Madrid, and other suicide attacks were all figments of my imagination. Some people are just defective. Because of that, some people will not live long, happy lives. Life is a bitch.

It isn't just a US problem, and it isn't just about guns. But it is a problem in the US, and it is a problem with guns. There is something about the US that makes these crimes more prevalent - there's no point getting defensive about it... we know this already. We can see the line between the US and Canada with about the same gun ownership on either side, and people on one side of the border afraid to leave their doors unlocked, while people on the other side lack that same paranoia.

It isn't just a US problem, and it isn't just about guns. But it is a problem in the US, and it is a problem with guns. There is something about the US that makes these crimes more prevalent - there's no point getting defensive about it... we know this already. We can see the line between the US and Canada with about the same gun ownership on either side, and people on one side of the border afraid to leave their doors unlocked, while people on the other side lack that same paranoia.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJPBU00&show_article=1

BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - Long before he snapped, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui was picked on, pushed around and laughed at over his shyness and the strange way he talked when he was a schoolboy in the Washington suburbs, former classmates say.

Chris Davids, a Virginia Tech senior who graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., with Cho in 2003, recalled that the South Korean immigrant almost never opened his mouth and would ignore attempts to strike up a conversation.

Once, in English class, the teacher had the students read aloud, and when it was Cho's turn, he just looked down in silence, Davids recalled. Finally, after the teacher threatened him with an F for participation, Cho started to read in a strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.

"As soon as he started reading, the whole class started laughing and pointing and saying, `Go back to China,'" Davids said.

Yeah, it's definitely the guns. He couldn't have built a bomb and committed a suicide bombing to get a similar level of casualties, right? Oh, and it's just a US problem. Nobody anywhere else in the world ever takes himself and a bunch of other people out. The London, Madrid, and other suicide attacks were all figments of my imagination. Some people are just defective. Because of that, some people will not live long, happy lives. Life is a bitch.

Just defective doesnt explain it. Its a simple answer that doesnt explain everything.

Now, a bomb could´ve had done it, yes, but they usually require a much higher level of involvement and organization. They take more than 5 minutes and $600 to make. London, Madrid and other suicide atacks many times have ideologies working behind them, like when groups kill themselves and others to tell an idea. I doubt anywhere else in the world have as many independent outbursts of anger and rage like this one we´ve seen this weak.

Of course, its not just a US problem. It happens everywhere else in the world, for a huge number of reasons. Yet the US is the richest country in the planet, and it looks like its also the most affected. Of course, their population is much bigger, and the media explores it more, but nonetheless.

If you just say "oh, he is defective", you´re just ignoring the problem. Now, I dont think the guns are the problems, but its clearly a social problem. And I think it lies in the USA education system. Of course, their system is a reflection of the entire american culture, where in my opinion, lies the problem.

Of course, its very complex and hard to discuss, specially with people from the US, which are inside this culture, and specially because most people here who are foreign to it, including me, has never experienced it properly outside of movies, tv series, music and news.

Ah, so paranoid schizophrenia never causes this sort of thing...

No, not really. The majority of paranoid schizophrenics are nonviolent, just like the majority of 'normal' people.

Having a disorder doesn't translate to making one a mass murderer even if one happens to be both a paranoid schizophrenic and a mass murderer.

Also, in US, school seems to last quite a lot of time...

That's just rubbish. Our schools (Belgium) last from 8.20 to 4 but no one comes darting in with a military weapon to sweap up. Plus, you're contradicting yourself. Given that American kids spend so much time at school, that would give them the opportunity to bond, right? Especially in intervals, which I think (help me out here, American people) last longer than in most schools. Ours last 50 minutes. That's eating and visiting your locker, and hardly bonding.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJPBU00&show_article=1

So he was mocked, bullied and racially abused? Hmmm, I wonder why he finally snapped.

Also, in US, school seems to last quite a lot of time...

That's just rubbish. Our schools (Belgium) last from 8.20 to 4 but no one comes darting in with a military weapon to sweap up. Plus, you're contradicting yourself. Given that American kids spend so much time at school, that would give them the opportunity to bond, right? Especially in intervals, which I think (help me out here, American people) last longer than in most schools. Ours last 50 minutes. That's eating and visiting your locker, and hardly bonding.

Yes, the time would give them oportunity to bond. But it also makes it harder for outcasts to join a group and spend time with them. And that means they stand around 50 minutes alone and feeling like shit.
I remember a scene from the movie "Mean Girls". Ok, its a dumb movie, but there is a scene where the main character, a girl, is eating lunch, but cant find a place to sit down and talk. So she ends up going to the bathroom and eating inside a bathroom stall. I guess you can see the picture.

You also forgot to mention that Belgium has a far smaller number of imigrants, poverty, social, ethnic and cultural diferences, and that these have clearly influenced the outcome of this situation. And I´m pretty sure most Belgium population share strong bonds already in the fact that the entire countries population is 10 million strong.

You also forgot to mention that in Belgium kids get free education from their 2 to 6 years of life, which I have no doubt that helps the average citizen mental health.

Also, I´m talking about broader problems the US may face, which I believe lie in their educational system.

Maybe this guy just had a huge pile of bad luck with his own nature, people bitching on him, not having any humor to counter the bitches, not being very social and having a weapon shop close by.

Bummer. Goddamn.

So he was mocked, bullied and racially abused? Hmmm, I wonder why he finally snapped.

No human being does what he did because "he is defective". That is bullshit. The single most strong human instinct is that of self-preservation, and it takes years or bullying, problems and mental issues for someone to throw it out of the window.

-- SNIP --

Wow, not only is that long, but I managed to read the whole thing and after reading the article that mentions how he was picked on, I completely agree wih what you said.

In fact, I find it not surprising at all that he snapped.

People who are bullied either crack under pressure and hurt themselves, or they explode into a rage of fury and take out that anger on those who have perceived to have hurt them.

I say that having been someone who was heavily bullied. I too snapped, but I was a kid and I physically attack people who pissed me off because I could; I became what had hurt me. It is a coping method because often adults see one side of children, and don't believe the child who is saying that they have been bullied, which only adds to the problem.

Having been bullied seems to be a common characteristic amongst the students who have killed their classmates. They felt powerless but then came into something that empowered them. For some it's guns that empower them. It makes them stronger than those who had bullied them.

When you've been hurt, people in your eyes can seem more antagonistic than they actually are because you become pre-conditioned to believe that they aren't good people and that they can't be trusted.

Also, I´m talking about broader problems the US may face, which I believe lie in their educational system.

You're very much right with all the remarks about Belgium.

But that reinforces my statement that the problem can be pointed out in the weak social system in the US. Which of course includes educational system. but that's surely not the entire problem. Not every loner or loser pops 32 people just like that.

People who are bullied either crack under pressure and hurt themselves, or they explode into a rage of fury and take out that anger on those who have perceived to have hurt them.

It's probably a real factor - the fact that he was bullied. But still, not everyone who's been bullied just snaps. I've been bullied a lot too as a child, with all sorts of things (my name, my tinyness, my weird clothes,...) and I never snapped. This guy was bullied PLUS... all the rest.

Just defective doesnt explain it. Its a simple answer that doesnt explain everything. It doesn't explain everything, but we know that he was diagnosed as a danger to himself and others, involuntarily commited to a mental insitution, and that later on he went unsupervised. Nobody kept track of him or his condition. Normal people don't respond to the stresses of daily life by killing random strangers.

Now, a bomb could´ve had done it, yes, but they usually require a much higher level of involvement and organization. They take more than 5 minutes and $600 to make.[/QUOTE] A couple of days for a bomb, The killer made his video manifesto brandishing the guns. So we know he didn't just buy the guns and go on his shooting spree. If he had time to shoot video of himself with the guns he had time to build a bomb with commonly available chemicals. London, Madrid and other suicide atacks many times have ideologies working behind them, like when groups kill themselves and others to tell an idea. The mental defective put out a manifesto with his ideas and his motivations. They may not make sense to us, but I could argue that it doesn't make sense to attack the US on 9/11 and expect we won't go on a fucking rampage. Both are equally irrational. I doubt anywhere else in the world have as many independent outbursts of anger and rage like this one we´ve seen this weak. You're judging us by a very rare incident. In fact, I can only call to mind 5 incidents, including this one, where someone shot up a school, and that includes back in the sixties when a Marine with a brain tumor decided to turn sniper and kill people on a Texas college campus. Five incidents since the sixties. Not all that common, yet you feel comfortable assigning blame to our culture for such rare incidents. If someone said Islam fostered violence and pointed to all the terrorism caused by Islamists he'd be called a bigot. This isn't all that different. You're acting like a bigot.

Of course, its not just a US problem. It happens everywhere else in the world, for a huge number of reasons. Yet the US is the richest country in the planet, and it looks like its also the most affected. Of course, their population is much bigger, and the media explores it more, but nonetheless.

If you just say "oh, he is defective", you´re just ignoring the problem. Now, I dont think the guns are the problems, but its clearly a social problem. And I think it lies in the USA education system. Of course, their system is a reflection of the entire american culture, where in my opinion, lies the problem. And how have you come to the conclusion that it's the fault of our educational system and our culture? Evidence? No? Just empty speculation then. Sure it's a social problem. But it might have it's roots in how we deal with our mentally defective citizens. It might be an issue of availability of medical care for mentally ill people and balancing their rights with the protection of society.

Of course, its very complex and hard to discuss, specially with people from the US, which are inside this culture, and specially because most people here who are foreign to it, including me, has never experienced it properly outside of movies, tv series, music and news.

You don't even have to make a bomb. If you have access to any of the chemicals in the university chemistry lab (and I'm not talking anything rare or complex), you could make a vapor, that when contained within a building, would kill everyone inside before they could escape.

The death toll would have been substantially higher than 32.

No human being does what he did because "he is defective". That is bullshit. The single most strong human instinct is that of self-preservation, and it takes years or bullying, problems and mental issues for someone to throw it out of the window.

I'm sure a huge part of why he reacted that way is because he was defective. Loads of kids get bullied and don't kill themselves and others. Also, the mental issues you mention, that's what I was refering to when I called him defective.

He probably didn't do it to kill as many people as possible. He probably wanted those people he hated to fear and 'respect' him, or even just notice him for once.

It's probably a real factor - the fact that he was bullied. But still, not everyone who's been bullied just snaps. I've been bullied a lot too as a child, with all sorts of things (my name, my tinyness, my weird clothes,...) and I never snapped. This guy was bullied PLUS... all the rest.

Some people will snap but to different degrees.

I snapped slightly and took out my anger on those who did hurt me and I made this one girl's life miserable for the whole 5 years we were in high school together (this was up to grade 13). It really sucked because I was bullied because I had to wear hearing aids. They bullied me because of a disability and that hurts way more because you have zero control over it.

Why did he do it?
Lots of people with their own pet theories...the shooters usually leave a long letter.. clearly stating their reasons..

This one actually sent a full Video Manifesto to NBC..

What else do they (the public and the media) want?
It is all there.

Of course it's understandable if someone's making your life miserable, you repay the damage. But by snapping I mean what this guy did. I find it hard to imagine that this is just caused by bullying.

What else do they (the public and the media) want?
It is all there.

Exactly. Why the shoot off? The attention. And of course the media jump right on it. But that's not just an American problem. In most liberate countries, the media jumps onto anything that reeks of drama. A year ago, a Belgian boy was killed for his mp3 player. People are still placing flowers there in huge piles, the media still mention him often. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

Wow, not only is that long, but I managed to read the whole thing and after reading the article that mentions how he was picked on, I completely agree wih what you said.

...

When you've been hurt, people in your eyes can seem more antagonistic than they actually are because you become pre-conditioned to believe that they aren't good people and that they can't be trusted.

Yes, pretty much all the things you´ve said are true. Bulling really hurts a persons personality. How he copes with it really depends on each situation.

This kid really had all the factors working against him. His parents were poor, he didnt had brothers (AFAIK), didnt had other family members around (since he was an imigrant), had problems speaking english, had poor eyeshight, was a foreigner who clearly didnt look like anyone else etc. Its very bad. Since he had problems with english, his whole social skills were damaged, and as over the years everyone developed and grew, he just stood with a very childish mentality that wasnt developed due to social contact and relationships.

Now, if all these factors made him get bullied from a very young age, as much as kids (and all human beings) have a very big potential for recovery, if it happened for years, there is just no positive outcome.

As you said, people who are bullied feel hurt, fisicaly and emotionaly. Specially because the bullies are usually bigger, stronger, and in bigger numbers. Once one bullied gets a gun, he feels he can fight back. And its pretty logical actually. If someone hurts you for weeks, months, years, you must feel yourself pretty pissed off. When you cant have friends to protect you, you have to resort to something else.

He was only found to be a danger to himself, wasn't he?

The judge ruled that he was a danger to himself and others in the committment order.

The hospital ruled otherwise - that he was just a danger to himself.

Are you saying that what he did had a sense of logic to it? There are many better ways of getting all that anger of your back. I get the feeling this guy just had no one to turn to, not even his teachers. Now whose fault is that? Not ONLY the bullies, right?

It doesn't explain everything, but we know that he was diagnosed as a danger to himself and others, involuntarily commited to a mental insitution, and that later on he went unsupervised. Nobody kept track of him or his condition.
He was only found to be a danger to himself, wasn't he?
You're judging us by a very rare incident. In fact, I can only call to mind 5 incidents, including this one, where someone shot up a school, and that includes back in the sixties when a Marine with a brain tumor decided to turn sniper and kill people on a Texas college campus. Five incidents since the sixties. Not all that common, yet you feel comfortable assigning blame to our culture for such rare incidents.
Define "Shoot up a school"...
35 school shootings since 1996: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

An analysis from 2000 based on 37 school shootings: http://powerreporting.com/files/shoot.pdf

But that's not just an American problem. Bullying in America is just not at the same level as in Belgium.. at least not at the same level of the (Belgium) school I went to.

I am not saying Bulling is the reason.. as I have not yet seen the Full manifesto.
I have only seen edited bits of video.. I dont know why NBC has not yet released the whole thing.

You're very much right with all the remarks about Belgium.

But that reinforces my statement that the problem can be pointed out in the weak social system in the US. Which of course includes educational system. but that's surely not the entire problem. Not every loner or loser pops 32 people just like that.

Yes, agreed. The social system in the US is almost non existant.

They dont have free health care. They dont have a state elders wellcare system. No retirement funds or plans. No worker´s protection and rigid laws that protect the workers.

It seems to me that in the US, you´re pretty much alone, and the government doesnt own you anything. If you face a problem in your life, you are alone and have to deal with it alone. If you get old, the governemtn doesnt help you either.

There is this movie with Denzel Washington, where his son needs to have heart surgery. The surgery costs something like $200.000 alone. If he cant get it, his son dies. How crazzy is that.

I´ve met a guy during one of our travels which said he hardly goes to the doctor. He had some pains on his back, but he didnt want to go because he would waste like $100 alone just for a diagnosis.

That is pretty stressfull to the population. And I´m pretty sure many people have problems because of that.

Then why are the levels of bullying so different I wonder? Doesn't that point to some kind of bigger social problem?

On a side note, what Belgian school did you go to?

Then why are the levels of bullying so different I wonder? Doesn't that point to some kind of bigger social problem?

On a side note, what Belgian school did you go to?Le bureau @ Louvaine la neuve

dp

the shooters usually leave a long letter.. clearly stating their reasons..

This one actually sent a full Video Manifesto to NBC..

What else do they (the public and the media) want?
It is all there.

Kinda incoherent, like your posts. In fact, when the news was first breaking, I thought it was you.

I dont know why NBC has not yet released the whole thing.

I'll tell you why: it's always the same deal with things like this. NBC wants everyone to dribble until they release the full video, so everyone can dribble some more. Easy to mask it as 'respect towards the victims' or something.

Kinda incoherent, like your posts. In fact, when the news was first breaking, I thought it was you.LOL

WOW!! some kid in the US just gunned down 33 rich students.. It must be OcceanDrive !!!
:D

It doesn't explain everything, but we know that he was diagnosed as a danger to himself and others, involuntarily commited to a mental insitution, and that later on he went unsupervised. Nobody kept track of him or his condition. Normal people don't respond to the stresses of daily life by killing random strangers.


That just proves that he wasnt "defective". If he was "defective", he would´ve had done this in the start. It was a situation that gradualy went bad, and just as he had said, could´ve had been avoided. But instead of getting help, his situation just got worst and worst, until he snapped.


A couple of days for a bomb, The killer made his video manifesto brandishing the guns. So we know he didn't just buy the guns and go on his shooting spree. If he had time to shoot video of himself with the guns he had time to build a bomb with commonly available chemicals.

PLEASE, stop with this. Building a bomb is not that easy god dammit. Do you think you can just get it out of the internet, assemble the materials and build it? Have you done it? I havent, never will, and I have never searched anything related to it, but I doubt it would be easy.

And do you know what it takes to kill 32 people, using home made explosives? It would probabily take something as big as a barrel. And do you think he could´ve had made it in his dorm, with his roommate not 5 meters away? He can store his gun under his pillow. I doubt he could hide all the chemicals, chemistry tools and everything else inside his dorm. Not to mention do it in 2 days.

The mental defective put out a manifesto with his ideas and his motivations. They may not make sense to us, but I could argue that it doesn't make sense to attack the US on 9/11 and expect we won't go on a fucking rampage. Both are equally irrational.

Sorry, but both are completely diferent. In one side you have a single individual speaking babling and swearing because of his inner sick fantasies. In the other side you have an organized group of several members who all share a common ideology (and socially acepted between them) who unite and work toward a common goal.

And the US didnt went on a fucking rampage? I though atacking Iraq, when its clearly proven it had nothing to do with 9/11 to be pretty damn irational, specialy considering dozens of thousands of civilians have died and more than 3000 american soldiers.


You're judging us by a very rare incident. In fact, I can only call to mind 5 incidents, including this one, where someone shot up a school, and that includes back in the sixties when a Marine with a brain tumor decided to turn sniper and kill people on a Texas college campus. Five incidents since the sixties. Not all that common, yet you feel comfortable assigning blame to our culture for such rare incidents. If someone said Islam fostered violence and pointed to all the terrorism caused by Islamists he'd be called a bigot. This isn't all that different. You're acting like a bigot.

I also recall a guy that went inside a cafeteria with a truck and killed everyone that was inside. I also recall a full grown man who went inside a school, held hostage a number of girls and shot at them, killing 5.

US also has very high levels of violence compared to other first world countries, and the US is considered to be the richest and most powerfull country in the world. And also, US has show signs of terrorists groups that are americans themselves.


And how have you come to the conclusion that it's the fault of our educational system and our culture? Evidence? No? Just empty speculation then. Sure it's a social problem. But it might have it's roots in how we deal with our mentally defective citizens. It might be an issue of availability of medical care for mentally ill people and balancing their rights with the protection of society.

Yes, its possible. As said, it can have many possible causes, but I belief your educational system (and also social system) is not what it could be, and that is the source of many of your problems.

I'm sure a huge part of why he reacted that way is because he was defective. Loads of kids get bullied and don't kill themselves and others. Also, the mental issues you mention, that's what I was refering to when I called him defective.

I consider something defective when I buy a TV and it comes with a remote control missing.

Using the same thoughts to human beings, I consider someone to be "defective" when he has some kind of physical neurological problem, due to malformation, disease or trauma, which could cause changes in behavior and personality.

Then why are the levels of bullying so different I wonder? Doesn't that point to some kind of bigger social problem?I dont know.. I can also tell you that in Asia and Southern Europe there is much less Bulling and Taxation.. than in Northern Europe and North America.

I dont know about Australia , Africa or the Middle East.

I'm sure a huge part of why he reacted that way is because he was defective. Loads of kids get bullied and don't kill themselves and others. Also, the mental issues you mention, that's what I was refering to when I called him defective.

"Mental illness" equates to being "defective"?

Oh, you're going to make yourself a lot of friends...

This nutjob killed people because he was fucking crazy.


Hey, I bet stigmatizing mental illness really helps make sure such people seek out treatment! And I know being described with slurs and associated with murderers always makes me feel better, and not in the least bit angry!

:rolleyes:

Hey, I bet stigmatizing mental illness really helps make sure such people seek out treatment! And I know being described with slurs and associated with murderers always makes me feel better, and not in the least bit angry!

:rolleyes:

Hey, if you're so crazy that you light up the campus with a Glock, calling you names isn't really going to make things worse.

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit!

Define "Shoot up a school"...
35 school shootings since 1996: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland 16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.

March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.

April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.

Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, Netherlands One teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.

March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

Jan. 18, 2001
Jan, Sweden One student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.

Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.

April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany 13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.

April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina One teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.

Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, Argentina Three students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires.

Sept. 13, 2006
Montreal, Canada Kimveer Gill, 25, opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon at Dawson College. Anastasia De Sousa, 18, died and more than a dozen students and faculty were wounded before Gill killed himself.


define US......

there were 3 in Germany since 2000, maybe they have a problem.

He was only found to be a danger to himself, wasn't he?

Define "Shoot up a school"...
35 school shootings since 1996: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.htmlOK, I said I only remembered five. Clearly there have been more, but your list includes school shootings from other countries besides the US, and it includes many shootings where the student only targeted one person or one person and himself in the shooting. That's not the same as the random mass killings plus suicide that I was under the impression we were talking about.

And how have you come to the conclusion that it's the fault of our educational system and our culture? Evidence? No? Just empty speculation then. Sure it's a social problem.

If you want evidence, look at the numbers, look at the facts. US has the highest numbers of shootings and mass shootings.

But you don't have to feel personally offended when people say that. It's not your fault, or the fault of the American people. It's mostly the fault of the government system being very self-centered and ^some^ people falling for it. I think most Americans would be very happy with a stronger social net. Wouldn't you? I mean, you literally admit to a social factor here.

Hey, if you're so crazy that you light up the campus with a Glock, calling you names isn't really going to make things worse.

No, it won't make things worse for Cho at this point, because he's dead. It might very well have made things worse for him while he was alive, and it almost certainly makes things worse for people who are currently at risk of making the sort of choices he did. Would you really want to admit to an illness that people blamed and insulted you for having? Would you really want to seek out treatment if you knew that many people would believe that merely doing so would be cause to strip away your civil rights and treat you as subhuman and, as another poster put it, "defective"?

I still think it was insane how a person with known personality disorders could so easily get a gun, and such a huge amount of ammo for so cheap.

Read back in the thread.

The background check at the store via Federal computer network worked flawlessly.

The information wasn't in the database because the hospital had not judged him to be a threat to others.

I still think it was insane how a person with known personality disorders could so easily get a gun, and such a huge amount of ammo for so cheap.

You know, evil comes in many forms, be it a man-eating cow or Joseph Stalin. But you can't let the package hide the pudding. Evil is just plain bad. You don't cotton to it. You gotta smack it on the nose with the rolled up newspaper of goodness. Bad dog! Bad dog! And when evil is afoot, and you don't have any arms, you've gotta use your head. And when evil is ahead and you're behind, you've gotta do the legwork. But when you can't get a leg up, you gotta be hip. You gotta keep your chin up, and kick some-...

I'm betting he was or at least felt mistreated by other students and this was, to him at least, an act of vengence. Getting singled out and abused by your peers when you're young can really screw you up. Add mental illness to the equation and it just makes things a whole lot worse.

If you want evidence, look at the numbers, look at the facts. US has the highest numbers of shootings and mass shootings.

But you don't have to feel personally offended when people say that. It's not your fault, or the fault of the American people. It's mostly the fault of the government system being very self-centered and ^some^ people falling for it. I think most Americans would be very happy with a stronger social net. Wouldn't you? I mean, you literally admit to a social factor here.I do not agree..
I do think US(we) need better healthcare. But.. having a "weak social net" has nothing to do with these kind of shootings.

Its like when (FOX) O-relly uses the NJ or the Carolina tragedies to build up hate against the "mexicanos".. even if it is clearly unrelated.

let me give you an example: Canada and Germany do have a "stronger social net" than -lets say- Greece or Spain..
But apparently they have more school shootings.

*giggle* I see a really big guy with his tongue hanging out running after a nasty little demon wth a rolled-up newspaper. Funny!

But you're still right.

define US......
The United States of America with its fifty states and including the territories under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

there were 3 in Germany since 2000, maybe they have a problem.
They have a problem, but it's very small. It should not be completely discounted, though.

See, I for one have not denied that it happens in other countries, only that it happens a lot more in the US.

Do you deny that there is a problem in the US?

OK, I said I only remembered five. Clearly there have been more, but your list includes school shootings from other countries besides the US,
Yes, the first one did. And 35 of them were from the US since 1996.

The second did just have incidents from the US.


...and it includes many shootings where the student only targeted one person or one person and himself in the shooting. That's not the same as the random mass killings plus suicide that I was under the impression we were talking about.
That's why I wanted you to define "shoot up the school".
If we're talking about school shootings in general, then the number is much higher, and I felt that you gave the impression that it was only "five incidents since the sixties" which needed to be rectified.

If you were only meaning mass killings, then it's a lower number and I have no issue with you only remembering five.

I was wondering:

Back when professors and students noticed that Cho was fucking out there, why didn't they say,

"You know, Cho, sometimes, when I feel like a raving ding-dong, I find a nice bit of chamomile tea... "

That just proves that he wasnt "defective". If he was "defective", he would´ve had done this in the start. It was a situation that gradualy went bad, and just as he had said, could´ve had been avoided. But instead of getting help, his situation just got worst and worst, until he snapped. Normal people don't snap like that. There was something wrong with him from the start. Hell, he was involuntarily commited years before this incident.



PLEASE, stop with this. Building a bomb is not that easy god dammit. Do you think you can just get it out of the internet, assemble the materials and build it? Have you done it? I havent, never will, and I have never searched anything related to it, but I doubt it would be easy. Acutally I have. I made homemade blackpowder when I was 13 or so. Back then all the pharmacies weren't chains that stocked only the most popular products. You could buy Potassium Nitrate and Flowers of Sulfur as easily as buying aspirin. Carbon came from charcoal (not the cheap briquettes). I also have made an organic peroxide from hexamine (fuel for camp stoves), concentrated hydrogen peroxide (used as a swimming pool sanitizer for people on the Baquacil system) and "sour salt" (used for making sausages). I won't give the process here because even if you do it right you might blow your hand off, but it's similar to the explosive used in the London train bombings only more sensitive. If quick and dirty explosives weren't so easily made the London bombings wouldn't have happened. Those guys weren't experts.

And do you know what it takes to kill 32 people, using home made explosives? It would probabily take something as big as a barrel. And do you think he could´ve had made it in his dorm, with his roommate not 5 meters away? He can store his gun under his pillow. I doubt he could hide all the chemicals, chemistry tools and everything else inside his dorm. Not to mention do it in 2 days.
No, it wouldn't take something as big as a barrel. Of course it depends on what the explosive is and wheather or not he can get it into a packed bus or other place where people are crowded together. Granted he can't really hide the equipment in a dorm room and work on it for an hour or so while his roommate is out.


Sorry, but both are completely diferent. In one side you have a single individual speaking babling and swearing because of his inner sick fantasies. In the other side you have an organized group of several members who all share a common ideology (and socially acepted between them) who unite and work toward a common goal. And if he had met a few more babbling psychos he wouldn't have shot up the place? What about Klebold and Harris? They worked together on their school shooting. Also the idea that you can blow up a bunch of civilians and thus win a nation over for some corrupt version of Islam isn't an inner sick fantasy now?

And the US didnt went on a fucking rampage? I though atacking Iraq, when its clearly proven it had nothing to do with 9/11 to be pretty damn irational, specialy considering dozens of thousands of civilians have died and more than 3000 american soldiers. Yeah, it was irrational of Al Qaeda to think that attacking the US then sending videos promising peace if we surrender WOULDN'T provoke a rampage.




I also recall a guy that went inside a cafeteria with a truck and killed everyone that was inside. I also recall a full grown man who went inside a school, held hostage a number of girls and shot at them, killing 5.

US also has very high levels of violence compared to other first world countries, and the US is considered to be the richest and most powerfull country in the world. And also, US has show signs of terrorists groups that are americans themselves.




Yes, its possible. As said, it can have many possible causes, but I belief your educational system (and also social system) is not what it could be, and that is the source of many of your problems.
Have you considered that maybe we accept a certain level of violence in order to preserve certain freedoms? We believe that we have the right to defend ourselves and our property. We believe that Jefferson meant what he said literally when he wrote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." We, in our hearts, believe that if the government decides to scrap the constitution and become tyrannical we have the duty to overthrow that government. Peacefully if at all possible, violently if necessary. That's who we are as a people.

I don't think anyone with any sort of personality disorder should have a gun.

Sorry - they're giving people the benefit of the doubt on crazy since the early 1980s.

They can't even hold you in a facility against your will unless you have a DEMONSTRATED event that shows you're a danger to others.

You actually have to assault or kill someone first - and then the hospital has to agree you're out there.

If the hospital thinks you're fine - you walk out unless the state can say you're dangerous because you actually did something.

Read back in the thread.

The background check at the store via Federal computer network worked flawlessly.

The information wasn't in the database because the hospital had not judged him to be a threat to others.

I don't think anyone with any sort of personality disorder should have a gun.

having a "stronger social net" has nothing to do with these kind of shootings.

By strong social net I mean having the possibility to talk to someone if you're having issues. He should have had someone he could trust BEFORE things got out of hand. The people with responsibility over him (his parents and teachers) should have noticed and done something. If he's judged of as a danger to himself, then why did everyone in his surroundings just let him be? By strong social net I mean caring about others as well. And nations with a 'strong social net' have people employed to do just, and exactly, that.

They have a problem, but it's very small. It should not be completely discounted, though.

See, I for one have not denied that it happens in other countries, only that it happens a lot more in the US.

Do you deny that there is a problem in the US?



Maybe the US is a lot bigger and has a higher population than some of those other countries?

When I was teaching an English Lit class with 9 students I had one failing, when I was teaching a Geography class with 45 students I had 9 failing. Failing is a problem, I just don't know if I would blame the whole class for it, or the individual students who were having problems. (although I had many parents who liked to play "let's blame the teacher" :rolleyes: but that's a whole other story)

By strong social net I mean having the possibility to talk to someone if you're having issues. He should have had someone he could trust BEFORE things got out of hand. The people with responsibility over him (his parents and teachers) should have noticed and done something. If he's judged of as a danger to himself, then why did everyone in his surroundings just let him be? By strong social net I mean caring about others as well. And nations with a 'strong social net' have people employed to do just, and exactly, that.

They did notice. And they did what was legal to do - get him counseling, get him committed to an institution for evaluation.

And the hospital let him go, thinking he only needed outpatient care. And he never went back - all of the initiative to attend care was on himself.

Maybe the US is a lot bigger and has a higher population than some of those other countries?the EU has a larger pop than US.

same for China and India.

Sorry - they're giving people the benefit of the doubt on crazy since the early 1980s.

They can't even hold you in a facility against your will unless you have a DEMONSTRATED event that shows you're a danger to others.

You actually have to assault or kill someone first - and then the hospital has to agree you're out there.

If the hospital thinks you're fine - you walk out unless the state can say you're dangerous because you actually did something.

Well thats fucked up. Clearly they are paying a horrible price for this.

[snipped]this brings up an intersting question. he was committed and released, evaluated several times. should his rights be removed because some others deem him to be dangerious?

I have only seen edited bits of video.. I dont know why NBC has not yet released the whole thing.
because they are being carefull not to
1) show anything too graphic
2) working with the justice department thus they are avoiding showing anything that could hamper any investigation
3) avoid people overreacting with what they see.
4) milk it for all it's worth.

schools in the US have these things called "counselors" and we have these phone numbers you can call called "hotlines" and we have these people called "psychiatrists" that you can talk to........and if all else fails you can talk to your family, we have those here too.

what exactly do you think it's like in the US? do you think we all live in pods away from each other and have no contact with other human beings?

I think a lot of what foreigners think about growing up in the US they get from movies. Of course movies tend to exagerrate and dramatize conditions and events because otherwise they'd be boring as hell.

By strong social net I mean having the possibility to talk to someone if you're having issues. He should have had someone he could trust BEFORE things got out of hand. The people with responsibility over him (his parents and teachers) should have noticed and done something. If he's judged of as a danger to himself, then why did everyone in his surroundings just let him be? By strong social net I mean caring about others as well. And nations with a 'strong social net' have people employed to do just, and exactly, that.

schools in the US have these things called "counselors" and we have these phone numbers you can call called "hotlines" and we have these people called "psychiatrists" that you can talk to........and if all else fails you can talk to your family, we have those here too.

what exactly do you think it's like in the US? do you think we all live in pods away from each other and have no contact with other human beings?

nargh...

I'm not saying those things aren't there. But then, why didn't this guy make good use of them? He probably knew very well, right? Then what, was he too ashamed to do it? Then why was that? Why didn't he trust those people?

Maybe the US is a lot bigger and has a higher population than some of those other countries?
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem.

And it seems to me that even per capita the numbers for the US would be much higher than for Germany.


When I was teaching an English Lit class with 9 students I had one failing, when I was teaching a Geography class with 45 students I had 9 failing. Failing is a problem, I just don't know if I would blame the whole class for it, or the individual students who were having problems. (although I had many parents who liked to play "let's blame the teacher" :rolleyes: but that's a whole other story)
I see what you're saying. I'm not interested in assigning blame here, and I can't remember if the other poster was (can't be arsed to look back ;) ), I just hope that people face that there is a problem and try to find out what can be done about it.

That includes not just writing him of as another nutcase before all the facts are in, and in light of this (School shootings I mean) happening way too often in the past.

I could never have been a teacher :)

schools in the US have these things called "counselors" and we have these phone numbers you can call called "hotlines" and we have these people called "psychiatrists" that you can talk to........and if all else fails you can talk to your family, we have those here too.

what exactly do you think it's like in the US? do you think we all live in pods away from each other and have no contact with other human beings?

I think that people outside the US believe that. They probably believe that either we're brainwashed cultists (Scientologists or Pat Robertson Zombies) or are completely isolated people eating soylent green and never talking to one another, except to smoke crack and shoot at each other.

nargh...

I'm not saying those things aren't there. But then, why didn't this guy make good use of them? He probably knew very well, right? Then what, was he too ashamed to do it? Then why was that? Why didn't he trust those people?

Because he was a paranoid schizophrenic. It is in the nature of paranoids to do anything and everything they can to avoid treatment, hospitalization, and medication.

nargh...

I'm not saying those things aren't there. But then, why didn't this guy make good use of them? He probably knew very well, right? Then what, was he too ashamed to do it? Then why was that? Why didn't he trust those people?

maybe he felt he didn't need them?

if a person doesn't want to open up, how can you force them without trampling on their rights?

nargh...

I'm not saying those things aren't there. But then, why didn't this guy make good use of them? He probably knew very well, right? Then what, was he too ashamed to do it? Then why was that? Why didn't he trust those people?

all the mentally ill people in your country seek help of their own volition and follow prescribed treatment plans? wow. I really need to know how you guys manage that, seriously, because my bipolar mom won't stay on her meds.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem.

And it seems to me that even per capita the numbers for the US would be much higher than for Germany.
seems to you? do you have any source for this? I am really curious.


I see what you're saying. I'm not interested in assigning blame here, and I can't remember if the other poster was (can't be arsed to look back ;) ), I just hope that people face that there is a problem and try to find out what can be done about it.

That includes not just writing him of as another nutcase before all the facts are in, and in light of this (School shootings I mean) happening way too often in the past.

I could never have been a teacher :)
of course someone killing someone else is a problem, it's been going on since the beginning of time though, it's not really something that there is an easy solution to, and I am getting tired of the "it's because the US sucks" attitude I have been hearing.

nargh...

I'm not saying those things aren't there. But then, why didn't this guy make good use of them? He probably knew very well, right? Then what, was he too ashamed to do it? Then why was that? Why didn't he trust those people?

This is why:

Early signs and symptoms of schizophrenia — such as social withdrawal, unusual behaviors, anxiety and decline in daily functional abilities — may begin gradually before the primary symptoms of schizophrenia, known collectively as psychosis, are manifested. But disease onset may also be acute with the sudden appearance of psychosis.

Delusions and auditory hallucinations are the prominent psychotic symptoms in people with paranoid schizophrenia.

Delusions
When people have delusions, they believe something to be true that essentially no one else in their culture believes. A person with paranoid schizophrenia misinterprets experiences and then holds on to those interpretations despite evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

Delusions are commonly focused on the perception of being persecuted and often result in the mistrust of other people:

* The FBI is spying on me.
* Someone is poisoning my food.
* My thoughts are being broadcast over the radio.

Delusions can become complex stories, and interpretations of experiences often "confirm" the person's view of reality. For example, a traffic officer blowing a whistle is alerting FBI agents on the trail of the person with paranoid schizophrenia. A man who looks at the officer is an agent. When he uses his cell phone, he's reporting the person's location.

Delusions may result in a violent outburst if a person believes a perceived threat creates a dangerous situation in need of self-defense.

A person with paranoid schizophrenia may also have delusions of grandeur — holding the belief that he or she has superhuman skills, is famous, has a relationship with a famous person or is a historical figure. These delusions can be dangerous, as when a person believes he or she can fly and acts on that belief.

Auditory hallucinations
An auditory hallucination is the perception of sound — usually voices — that no one else hears. The sounds may be a single voice or many voices, either talking to the person or to each other.

The voices are usually unpleasant. They may give a constant critique of what the person is thinking or doing, or they harass the person about real or imagined faults. Voices may also command the person to do things that can be harmful to himself or herself or to others. They may be thematically related to the person's delusions. For example, the voices may say that the FBI is after the person with schizophrenia because of some crime they say he or she committed.

To a person with paranoid schizophrenia, these voices are real. The person with paranoid schizophrenia may talk to or shout at the voices. However, after years of relatively successful disease management, some people may learn to recognize the voices as manifestations of the disease.

One of the hallmarks of the paranoid schizophrenic is the flattened emotional affect (which everyone reported), along with next to no social contact and no peer group (which everyone reported), inability to interact in social situations (taking up to 20 seconds before responding to questions, if he responded at all), delusions about being persecuted by rich kids (while he may have been teased, these events only reinforced his view that all of them were doing it), and wearing sunglasses indoors on a regular basis (along with pulling his hat low over his face).

all the mentally ill people in your country seek help of their own volition and follow prescribed treatment plans? wow. I really need to know how you guys manage that, seriously, because my bipolar mom won't stay on her meds.

I'm getting potato-mashed here.

Of course mentally ill people don't seek help. But if a judge says someone is a danger to himself and others, they are FORCED to get help. Believe me. My dad was FORCED to get help after his second overdose and beat-up.

You may say now "there are so many mentally ill people, we can't help all of them". Okay. but maybe you could help more if George W. Bullshit would spend a little less money on weapon production and a little more on the soft sector. Maybe Cho could have gotten help then.

The sunglasses thing is here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1601-5215.2006.00165.x

only he knows why

I'm getting potato-mashed here.

Of course mentally ill people don't seek help. But if a judge says someone is a danger to himself and others, they are FORCED to get help. Believe me. My dad was FORCED to get help after his second overdose and beat-up.

You may say now "there are so many mentally ill people, we can't help all of them". Okay. but maybe you could help more if George W. Bullshit would spend a little less money on weapon production and a little more on the soft sector. Maybe Cho could have gotten help then.

and he was (from what I understand) forced to get help and released.

what more do you want?

One of the hallmarks of the paranoid schizophrenic is the flattened emotional affect (which everyone reported), along with next to no social contact and no peer group (which everyone reported), inability to interact in social situations (taking up to 20 seconds before responding to questions, if he responded at all), delusions about being persecuted by rich kids (while he may have been teased, these events only reinforced his view that all of them were doing it), and wearing sunglasses indoors on a regular basis (along with pulling his hat low over his face).

I'm sure that's all true. But then, it's very wrong to just let someone with schyzophrenic problems go, no? Didn't a judge say he was a danger to others?

and he was (from what I understand) forced to get help and released.

what more do you want?

Why did they let him go then? I can't help but ask myself that same question over and over. Why did they llet him go if they knew he had this illness?

I'm sure that's all true. But then, it's very wrong to just let someone with schyzophrenic problems go, no? Didn't a judge say he was a danger to others?

The judge said so. Then the hospital evaluated him, and was fooled by the patient. They said he wasn't a danger to others, so he walked.

The judge said so. Then the hospital evaluated him, and was fooled by the patient. They said he wasn't a danger to others, so he walked.

It's such a shame that some hospital dude, who maybe just had a headache and didn't feel like putting any more time into this boy, decided he was okay and then went on and let 32 people get killed.

He was insane. Trying to find a rational explanation for an irrational act is fruitless. Things like this happen from time to time. Just be grateful it didn't happen to you and move on as best you can.

As for why he wasn't treated or why he was released... People in those jobs to the best they can. Most of the time they get it right. Sometimes they don't. All we can do is buckle down and pay more attention.

Armchair quarterbacking is pointless.

Why did they let him go then? I can't help but ask myself that same question over and over. Why did they llet him go if they knew he had this illness?

In the US, you cannot be treated for any mental illness against your will unless you have a DEMONSTRATED act showing you are a danger to others.

Even an attempted suicide can only be held 72 hours.

If you kill someone, or bash someone in the head with a brick, and they find you're crazy, they can commit you.

Otherwise, if you haven't demonstrated it, and they don't actually believe you're a danger (and paranoids are good at fooling doctors), you'll walk out.

It's such a shame that some hospital dude, who maybe just had a headache and didn't feel like putting any more time into this boy, decided he was okay and then went on and let 32 people get killed.

Doctor. Paranoids fool doctors everyday.

So he was nuts. He did it because he was mad.

Lessons to be learned? Improve the methods for picking up on the existence of loonies.

*ducks behind cover* And reduce the availiability of firearms! Decommission those in existence! Have ammunition kept at gun clubs and ranges, and weapons without ammo at home/in different buildings!

After all, the less weapons there are, the less are used for violence.

And I know that the majority of people use them fine, yadda yadda, constitution, yadda yadda, but face it - weapons won't make you safer (it just makes the crims arm themselves better) and it certainly won't deter the govenrment if it ever wanted to exterminate people ("Oh no, sir, they've got small arms! Our main battle tanks and total air superiority can't possibly compete!").

Madmen without access to guns tend to kill less than those who can get their hands on firearms. It's easier and faster to empty a magazine into a group of people than it is to knife them one by one.

Thus: Improve social services' ability to pick up the nutcases, and reduce the availiability of firearms. Perhaps institute exams or training when you buy a gun, make it harder to buy more than one per person depending on the classification of the licence, etc etc.

However!

The most important lesson is to improve the social services, and the awareness of other people to the warning signs of mental illness.

He was insane. Trying to find a rational explanation for an irrational act is fruitless. Things like this happen from time to time. Just be grateful it didn't happen to you and move on as best you can.

As for why he wasn't treated or why he was released... People in those jobs to the best they can. Most of the time they get it right. Sometimes they don't. All we can do is buckle down and pay more attention.

Armchair quarterbacking is pointless.

Thank you. you just stopped me from going round the corner for a gun and some aspirine.

*and yes, now i'm kind of kidding*

But you're probably right about those people doing their best. Shame people are just people.

What's known of him seems to suggest paranoid schizophrenia, so what "made him do it" were imagined slights by other people (likely both real and imagined people).

BTW, to the OP: Nice loaded poll options. :rolleyes:

So he was nuts. He did it because he was mad.

Lessons to be learned? Improve the methods for picking up on the existence of loonies.

*ducks behind cover* And reduce the availiability of firearms! Decommission those in existence! Have ammunition kept at gun clubs and ranges, and weapons without ammo at home/in different buildings!

After all, the less weapons there are, the less are used for violence.

And I know that the majority of people use them fine, yadda yadda, constitution, yadda yadda, but face it - weapons won't make you safer (it just makes the crims arm themselves better) and it certainly won't deter the govenrment if it ever wanted to exterminate people ("Oh no, sir, they've got small arms! Our main battle tanks and total air superiority can't possibly compete!").
I'm pretty sure the Soviets and the US military had some pretty serious problems with citizens equipped with small arms in Afghanistan and Vietnam respectively.
Madmen without access to guns tend to kill less than those who can get their hands on firearms. It's easier and faster to empty a magazine into a group of people than it is to knife them one by one.

Thus: Improve social services' ability to pick up the nutcases, and reduce the availiability of firearms. Perhaps institute exams or training when you buy a gun, make it harder to buy more than one per person depending on the classification of the licence, etc etc.

However!

The most important lesson is to improve the social services, and the awareness of other people to the warning signs of mental illness.

I'm pretty sure the Soviets and the US military had some pretty serious problems with citizens equipped with small arms in Afghanistan and Vietnam respectively.

Yes, because Stinger surface-to-air missiles, tanks, mortars, RPGs, aircraft, and the support of a massive industrial base are totally small arms in the reach of your average citizen. :rolleyes:

Yes, because Stinger surface-to-air missiles, tanks, mortars, RPGs, aircraft, and the support of a massive industrial base are totally small arms in the reach of your average citizen. :rolleyes:

I don't know, the US troops seem to be having trouble in Iraq and apparently those people don't even have weapons of mass destruction.

I don't know, the US troops seem to be having trouble in Iraq and apparently those people don't even have weapons of mass destruction.

Again, the insurgents have access to high explosives, rocket launchers, mortars, heavy machine guns, aircraft munitions, artillery pieces, and automatic cannons.

Apart from the HMGs, these are things not widely availiable to the US citizen on a gun licence.

Again, the insurgents have access to high explosives, rocket launchers, mortars, heavy machine guns, aircraft munitions, artillery pieces, and automatic cannons.

Apart from the HMGs, these are things not widely availiable to the US citizen on a gun licence.

:rolleyes: the fact that you say this on April 19th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)is what annoys me most.

I have seen people, US citizens be able to do a lot of destruction and kill a lot of people (people I know and love) without guns, they have been able to get a hold of "high explosives" without problem.

Again, the insurgents have access to high explosives, rocket launchers, mortars, heavy machine guns, aircraft munitions, artillery pieces, and automatic cannons.

Apart from the HMGs, these are things not widely availiable to the US citizen on a gun licence.

Your complete and utter ignorance of America is showing.

High explosives, rocket launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns, artillery pieces, and automatic cannons can be purchased by anyone with a license for destructive devices from the ATF.

It's an expensive license, but some private citizens have them.

Any fully automatic weapon requires an NFA tax stamp, which is effectively a license as well. Over 100,000 are in circulation, and the number of these that have actually been used in any crime since 1934 can be counted on one hand.

Anyone can go to the feed store and buy material that can be used to blow something up - something that Smunkee mentioned. Considering that this is the anniversary of the attack in Oklahoma City by someone using just such a device to kill hundreds of people is the pinnacle of your smarmy foreign ignorance.

So you totally ignored the "aren't widely availiable" part of my post then?

Yes, you can make a bomb from easily purchaseable bits and pieces if you know how.

The Weather Underground blew themselves up because they didn't know how. McVeigh didn't blow himself up because he did know how.

The difference between building a bomb and setting off a mass-produced explosive such as an aircraft bomb is as wide as the difference between building a bomb and buying a handgun. Once you have your handgun and the ammo, it doesn't take a quantum physicist to aim and fire. Conversely, if you don't know what you're doing, you will kill or maim yourself if you try and make a bomb.

To learn how to make a bomb requires time and effort and that itself will put off many people.

So you totally ignored the "aren't widely availiable" part of my post then?

Yes, you can make a bomb from easily purchaseable bits and pieces if you know how.

The Weather Underground blew themselves up because they didn't know how. McVeigh didn't blow himself up because he did know how.

The difference between building a bomb and setting off a mass-produced explosive such as an aircraft bomb is as wide as the difference between building a bomb and buying a handgun. Once you have your handgun and the ammo, it doesn't take a quantum physicist to aim and fire. Conversely, if you don't know what you're doing, you will kill or maim yourself if you try and make a bomb.

To learn how to make a bomb requires time and effort and that itself will put off many people.

Your ignorance of firearms is now showing.

I teach people how to shoot, and most people can't hit a human silhouette at 25 yards with 15 shots on their first untrained try. So much for the idea that it doesn't take any skill.

Making a bomb is easier. It takes little time, and most farmers in the US know the mix because they have to blow tree stumps and rocks out of the ground on occasion.

Oh, and a flamethrower requires no license at all...

I don't think anyone with any sort of personality disorder should have a gun.

Well, I'd be a fan of no one having guns, but until then, I'd be bloody furious if some dimwit told me that I wasn't legally permitted to own one, despite being both sane and about as nonviolent as it is humanly possible to be, simply because I have a mental disorder.

So he was nuts...

Lessons to be learned? Improve the methods for picking up on the existence of loonies...

Improve social services' ability to pick up the nutcases...

The most important lesson is to improve the social services, and the awareness of other people to the warning signs of mental illness.

Hey, here's another idea - maybe in between alerting people to the warning signs of mental illness, we could also work on teaching them how to act like civil adults!

Honestly, if I started referring to any other class of people with the sort of slurs being thrown around in this thread, I'd be flamed out of existence in thirty seconds. Please, folks, knock it off.

Your complete and utter ignorance of America is showing.

High explosives, rocket launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns, artillery pieces, and automatic cannons can be purchased by anyone with a license for destructive devices from the ATF.

It's an expensive license, but some private citizens have them.

I repeat: ARE NOT WIDELY AVAILIABLE.

You can buy these things in the United Kingdom, too, incidentally. A friend of mine has his own armoury as part of his job, in which he has two mortars, a panzerfaust with no warheads, a Vickers HMG and an assortment of other weapons.

The difference between the Iraqi insurgent and the private US citizen is that he has access to the detritus of the Iraqi army, and the US citizen does not. IF he has the right licence, he MAY have a mortar - that alone will not stop the 1st Armoured Division from killing him and controlling his town, which is what the "Argument For Guns From The Constitution" people contend.

Any fully automatic weapon requires an NFA tax stamp, which is effectively a license as well. Over 100,000 are in circulation, and the number of these that have actually been used in any crime since 1934 can be counted on one hand.

Great. I'm not saying that they are being used in crime, I'm saying that claiming they pose a deterrent to dictatorship is laughable. Thank you for reading my posts.

Anyone can go to the feed store and buy material that can be used to blow something up - something that Smunkee mentioned. Considering that this is the anniversary of the attack in Oklahoma City by someone using just such a device to kill hundreds of people is the pinnacle of your smarmy foreign ignorance.

Anyone can go and buy the bits to make a fertiliser bomb, yes, but they have to know how. I don't. You might, as you were in the army. You could look it up - but that takes time and effort, etc etc, and that alone reduces the number of people who will use such a weapon. Again, it is not the same as going to your local army barracks and taking a 20-tube rocket launcher and 200 rockets... which is what has happened in Iraq, for example.

Your ignorance of firearms is now showing.

Really? Wow, that's interesting, given that I'm one of the few people in the UK who shoots on a regular basis.

I teach people how to shoot, and most people can't hit a human silhouette at 25 yards with 15 shots on their first untrained try. So much for the idea that it doesn't take any skill.

I never said that it takes no skill to hit someone, I said that it is easier to pick up a gun and use it than it is to put together a bomb.

Making a bomb is easier.

If! You! Know! How! The average citizen does not, and the average citizen is not a farmer!

Oh, and a flamethrower requires no license at all...

No, it doesn't. Shockingly, however, any flamethrowers will again pose little significant threat to any serious military threat to your town from any frontline US military unit, which is the thrust of my argument:

Arguing that guns protect you from your government is STUPID, because THEY DON'T. Let us assume that you are an average American. You have, let us assume, a handgun or two and maybe a shotgun or a rifle. This is ignoring the majority of people in cities who as far as I am aware are less likely to own a weapon.

Along comes a Bradley, a LAV, and a Humvee, supported by an Apache and an artillery unit a while off. Oh look - they've just killed you for resisting, without having to get out of their armoured vehicles to expose themselves to your handgun or shotgun.

it all went to shit when we let them negroes vote.

what? tell me you're joking.

:( he isn't (he is.)

He must be!

EDIT - aha, spotted your white text. You cunning fellah!

what? tell me you're joking.

:( he isn't (he is.)

My solution to this problem is to make it a federal law that you MUST carry a gun around at all times. That way when someone like that comes around and starts firing into the classroom, whip out your own guns and fire back!

He must be!

EDIT - aha, spotted your white text. You cunning fellah!

I am actually of the female persuasion for further reference. ;)

Arguing that guns protect you from your government is STUPID, because THEY DON'T. Let us assume that you are an average American. You have, let us assume, a handgun or two and maybe a shotgun or a rifle. This is ignoring the majority of people in cities who as far as I am aware are less likely to own a weapon.

Along comes a Bradley, a LAV, and a Humvee, supported by an Apache and an artillery unit a while off. Oh look - they've just killed you for resisting, without having to get out of their armoured vehicles to expose themselves to your handgun or shotgun.

You're assuming it's a situation of 1 American Citizen vs 1 US Army Tactical Unit. Sorry, that's not realistic. The situation in which an oppressive government needs to be repelled by an armed populace is more like widespread rebellion and insurgency, and if you think US (or any) soldiers are somehow immune to people with guns and the will to fight, you are sorely overestimating the power of uniforms and shiny vehicles.

Go look in Iraq, or even back in Vietnam, or Somalia, and tell me that ordinary people with arms and determination are not a threat...

My solution to this problem is to make it a federal law that you MUST carry a gun around at all times. That way when someone like that comes around and starts firing into the classroom, whip out your own guns and fire back!

doesn't that arm all the people who shouldn't be though?

Yeah. But the problem we've been having is the people that shouldn't be armed are and the people that should, aren't.

Yeah. But the problem we've been having is the people that shouldn't be armed are and the people that should, aren't.

ah, but people will get guns illegally no matter the gun control.

In the US, you cannot be treated for any mental illness against your will unless you have a DEMONSTRATED act showing you are a danger to others.

Even an attempted suicide can only be held 72 hours.

If you kill someone, or bash someone in the head with a brick, and they find you're crazy, they can commit you.

Otherwise, if you haven't demonstrated it, and they don't actually believe you're a danger (and paranoids are good at fooling doctors), you'll walk out.


ah, but people will get guns illegally no matter the gun control.

What struck me was the easyness he got to a gun. In most of the gun threads people say that you have to have background checks etc, and all this guy had to do was tick the box marked "no, I don't have mental problems" and he can have one. Do they seriously expect people to answer yes?

You're assuming it's a situation of 1 American Citizen vs 1 US Army Tactical Unit. Sorry, that's not realistic. The situation in which an oppressive government needs to be repelled by an armed populace is more like widespread rebellion and insurgency, and if you think US (or any) soldiers are somehow immune to people with guns and the will to fight, you are sorely overestimating the power of uniforms and shiny vehicles.

Even if you have an armed rebellion with an insurgent element:

American rebels will not be backed up by an industrial powerbase as was the case in Vietnam (North Vietnam, China, Russia) or Afghanistan (US, UK). In Iraq, the insurgents are capitalising on the massive amount of arms released into the population with the collapse of the Iraqi Army in 2003.

If it has got to the point where the US Gov't is deploying the US armed forces against Americans, I think it's safe to say that thoughts of international opinion or the Geneva Convention have gone out of the window, in which case the Somalian comparison doesn't bear out because the response to a few deaths would not be to flee, but to redouble the offensive.

Go look in Iraq, or even back in Vietnam, or Somalia, and tell me that ordinary people with arms and determination are not a threat...

Vietnam was a war between the US, RVN, ROK and Australia on the one side, and North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, and Russia on the other. Here, the VC - the guerillas - ceased to be of any importance following the Tet offensive. Even when they were fighting the French in the 1940s and '50s it is important to note that the Viet-Minh had access to military level weapons, contained a lot of men with experience thanks to WWII, and were supported by China and the Soviets to some extent.

These are not just ordinary people with arms and determination. The only place where it is a case of ordinary people with arms and determination versus a first world army is ... Palestine. Gee, those Palestinians are sure preventing the IDF from doing whatever the hell they like! :rolleyes:

EDIT:

Smunkeeville - duly noted. That said, 'fellah' is Arabic and I think gender neutral... not sure tho'.

Exactly. I was kinda being sarcastic because I know how that's going to end up down here... the gangstas will get guns and they'll be like "I don't give a f***" and they'll end shooting someone and starting a giant gun fight at which point everyone will start firing in a frenzy and hundreds of people die, but on paper it would go something like: everyone is to scared to fire because they know their body will be sprayed by bullets by everyone trying to be a hero if they do.

I blame Bush.

Smunkeeville - duly noted. That said, 'fellah' is Arabic and I think gender neutral... not sure tho'.

oh, well around here (in Oklahoma) we have ladies and fellas so I was confused LOL

if you say it's gender neutral though I have to believe you. :)

oh, well around here (in Oklahoma) we have ladies and fellas so I was confused LOL

if you say it's gender neutral though I have to believe you. :)

No worries, my fault, anglicised Arabic words aren't exactly common. ;) From what I can tell it's just 'peasant farmer' which applies to men and women equally... I use it as a term of affection, 'cause English is like that. Thievin'. :D

its all very well saying he did it because he was a crazy paranoid, but you have to think why was he crazy. This is down to much wider problems affecting society like the segregation of schools - the cool kids, the geeks, the pretty girls, the fat girls, the people who dont even have enough friends to be classed as a geek. Its all so 'us and them' people feel abandoned and left behind and hence go crazy. People aren't born crazy its life and their environment that has the potential to do that. And once a person does become crazy what's he gonna do in a country so ready and willing to let him buy a gun???

The only place where it is a case of ordinary people with arms and determination versus a first world army is ... Palestine. What about the American Revolution?

What about the American Revolution?

The French were helping rather a lot.

The French were helping rather a lot.me bad.. I have a tendency to forget that.

Even if you have an armed rebellion with an insurgent element:

American rebels will not be backed up by an industrial powerbase as was the case in Vietnam (North Vietnam, China, Russia) or Afghanistan (US, UK). In Iraq, the insurgents are capitalising on the massive amount of arms released into the population with the collapse of the Iraqi Army in 2003.

If it has got to the point where the US Gov't is deploying the US armed forces against Americans, I think it's safe to say that thoughts of international opinion or the Geneva Convention have gone out of the window, in which case the Somalian comparison doesn't bear out because the response to a few deaths would not be to flee, but to redouble the offensive.



Vietnam was a war between the US, RVN, ROK and Australia on the one side, and North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, and Russia on the other. Here, the VC - the guerillas - ceased to be of any importance following the Tet offensive. Even when they were fighting the French in the 1940s and '50s it is important to note that the Viet-Minh had access to military level weapons, contained a lot of men with experience thanks to WWII, and were supported by China and the Soviets to some extent.

These are not just ordinary people with arms and determination. The only place where it is a case of ordinary people with arms and determination versus a first world army is ... Palestine. Gee, those Palestinians are sure preventing the IDF from doing whatever the hell they like! :rolleyes:

EDIT:

Smunkeeville - duly noted. That said, 'fellah' is Arabic and I think gender neutral... not sure tho'.

You know, if it ever got to the point where the American people decide the government needs to be violently overthrown I think they could count on some support from the active duty military. After all, the vast majority of soldiers are patriotic Americans who take their oath to the constitution very seriously. A good percentage of them will likely side with the people.

You know, if it ever got to the point where the American people decide the government needs to be violently overthrown I think they could count on some support from the active duty military. After all, the vast majority of soldiers are patriotic Americans who take their oath to the constitution very seriously. A good percentage of them will likely side with the people.

Possibly, in which case it's no longer a case of the armed civilians getting horrifically crushed by the military, but a case of civil war, in which case the side which seizes and holds the industry first will win.

Regarding the American Revolution, Washington himself declared that the minutemen militias were useless in a stand-up fight, and the Continental Army needed to be raised to compete with the British and Hessians. The French naval intervention along with our clashes in Europe and India are what won it for the rebels. ;)

Even if you have an armed rebellion with an insurgent element:

American rebels will not be backed up by an industrial powerbase as was the case in Vietnam (North Vietnam, China, Russia) or Afghanistan (US, UK). In Iraq, the insurgents are capitalising on the massive amount of arms released into the population with the collapse of the Iraqi Army in 2003.

If it has got to the point where the US Gov't is deploying the US armed forces against Americans, I think it's safe to say that thoughts of international opinion or the Geneva Convention have gone out of the window, in which case the Somalian comparison doesn't bear out because the response to a few deaths would not be to flee, but to redouble the offensive.



Vietnam was a war between the US, RVN, ROK and Australia on the one side, and North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, and Russia on the other. Here, the VC - the guerillas - ceased to be of any importance following the Tet offensive. Even when they were fighting the French in the 1940s and '50s it is important to note that the Viet-Minh had access to military level weapons, contained a lot of men with experience thanks to WWII, and were supported by China and the Soviets to some extent.

These are not just ordinary people with arms and determination. The only place where it is a case of ordinary people with arms and determination versus a first world army is ... Palestine. Gee, those Palestinians are sure preventing the IDF from doing whatever the hell they like! :rolleyes:

EDIT:

Smunkeeville - duly noted. That said, 'fellah' is Arabic and I think gender neutral... not sure tho'.

Cambodia, Laos was on no one side they just got used

Cambodia, Laos was on no one side they just got used

Well, given that the US attacked both Cambodia and Laos, I'd say that firmly puts them on the opposing side. ;)

Well, given that the US attacked both Cambodia and Laos, I'd say that firmly puts them on the opposing side. ;)

so did Vietnam

seems to you? do you have any source for this? I am really curious.
I'm afraid that I don't have any good sources. Going by this (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html) page which I've posted before (I have no idea if it mentions all the school shotings done in Germany or not) then the numbers for the last 10 years break down to something like this, unless my math fails me:

35 incidents in the US, 3 in Germany.
US pop: 300,000,000. German pop: 83,000,000

= 0,117 pr million in the US, 0,036 per million in Germany.

I wouldn't bet my life on these numbers, but they are a strong indication that the rate of school shotings is indeed higher in the US. That doesn't surprise me at all if it's true. From what I hear through the media (take that for what it's worth), this is largely an american phenomenon.


of course someone killing someone else is a problem, it's been going on since the beginning of time though, it's not really something that there is an easy solution to, and I am getting tired of the "it's because the US sucks" attitude I have been hearing.
I hope I haven't come across that way, because that has not been my intention at all. I don't believe that this happens (or any other form of violence for that matter) because the US sucks, but I do have a problem with this specific negative part of the US gun culture... And I hope something can be done to stop these kinds of (more or less) random killings.

The blame for this one falls squarely on the shoulders of video games, Pat Robertson, global warming and Hormel.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Why am I the only one blaming the parents? Have parents no responsibilites any more?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Why am I the only one blaming the parents? dude.. blaming the parents for anything-and-everything is "so 1980's". ;)

SNIP
Hey, Deep Kimchi / Eve Online is back :)

From what I have heard on the news, he has been deeply disturbed for awhile. Its suspected that being raped(periodically) as a child or something similar might have played a roll in his mind set.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Why am I the only one blaming the parents? Have parents no responsibilites any more?

There is very little a parent can do in most cases. Especially when the kid is mentally ill. I guess they could have gotten more help from mental health professionals for him, but who knows if they had insurance or money to cover it.

.. Its suspected that ...most of the time.. "its suspected" is the spin word journalists use for "baseless rumor"

BTW you never replied to my Discovery-Channel Invitation ;)

most of the time.. "its suspected" is the spin word journalists use for "baseless rumor"
That may be so, but they can only do their best to interpret the meaning behind wild rants that obviously have something behind them.

BTW you never replied to my Discovery-Channel Invitation ;)
Invitation? Never got one...I think.

Edit: Oh that invitation. Sure, lets do it baby.

Invitation? Never got one...I think.no problemo.


That may be so, but they can only do their best to interpret the meaning behind wild rants that obviously have something behind them.## retracted ##

Edit: Oh that invitation. Sure, lets do it baby.LOL.. too late.

da love boat has left town.. :cool:

"rumors have obviously something behind them".. so in your mind he was obviously raped ??
I meant "he got raped" was an interpretation from his rantings, there is no way of knowing if he definitely got raped or not. Its an interpretation, because obviously there had to be some meaning behind what he was saying (whether it was rape or not, we will never know).

LOL.. too late.

da love boat has left town..
NOOOOOOOO! I'll wait forever...

I meant "he got raped" was an interpretation from his rantings, there is no way of knowing if he definitely got raped or not.
hmm.. OK
I jumped the gun.. I retract post #174.

Because he could?

Because he could?most can.

millions of adults can afford to buy guns (legally or illegally).

I own a weapon.. yet -chances are- I will never use it against another human being.. as much chances of me learning to spell properly in any of the languages I speak.

most can.

millions of adults can afford to buy guns (legally or illegally).

not what i meant.
He did it because he was fu***ed up idiot who would have done something like it anyhow. With a knife or his bare hands.
Guns just attributed to noumbers.

So, why do you think he did it?

Because he was a weak, pathetic loser and a coward. He said in his video that he "had to do it" because, ooh, "rich kids are spoiled" and because he was picked on and because-- bullshit! No one "made him do it," no one else made that choice for him to walk onto a campus full of unsuspecting kids and start murdering people. That was his choice, borne out of an abdication of responsibility for his actions. He thought his life sucked, so he blamed *everyone else* instead of checking himself, and so he decided that they "made him" do it. That's BULLSHIT.

Y'know what-- most everyone I know (myself included) thought that adolescence sucked hardcore. None of us was ever popular enough, cool enough, 'liked' enough; we were all picked on by somebody, jealous of somebody. I turned to drawing cartoons of myself tearing my high school classmates to itty bitty shreds, clubbing them to death with their own femurs, but no one I know decided that they were SO hard done by that they had to shoot up a school.

This guy was weak; he was a loser who couldn't muster up the balls to deal with the same shit that LOTS of kids-- kids less advantaged than he was (he was in university after all, it's not like he was selling his body to drug dealers to eat day-to-day)-- deal with everywhere, every day, for what seems like forever. The best possible outcome would have been if he'd pathetically slipped on a banana peel as he drew his gun for the first time, shot off his own nuts-- injuring no one else-- and bled out squealing like a stuck pig. As it is, suicide was too good for him, and all the posthumous publicity is more than he deserves. Fuck him to hell.

Even if you have an armed rebellion with an insurgent element:

American rebels will not be backed up by an industrial powerbase as was the case in Vietnam (North Vietnam, China, Russia) or Afghanistan (US, UK).

Why not? The US has quite an industrial powerbase, and the vast majority of it is in the hands of civilians. It all depends on the situation and it's premature to just assume that the US military would even be able to function in the face of hostile members of its own population, or that it would be just a handful of rebels.

He said in his video that ....I have not seen the Full unedited video.. Just tid-bits edited video.

NBC is releasing mostly pictures.. when they could simply release the Video.. why all this stupid secrecy.. they are treating this like the Video tapes of Osama Bin Laden..