breaking news: Gunman kills 30 at US university
Posted by ralv585
I don't like americans, so my post may sound a little strange (but I'm in no way supporting what the killer has done). How the f*ck could he kill 32 people with no one attacking him? Were they just frozen or what? From what I've read he shoot 3 bullets into each victim, which means he reloaded the gun at least 2 times. Why didn't someone throw something into him or something like that or why didn't the students jump through the window? And let us not forget the police, that has done a brilliant job.
I'm just sick of these yanks, they want to dictate the rest of the world and they can't even clean the mess in their own country.
btw., why are lives of 32 americans more important than lives of 120 people in iraq that were also killed this week? all the media reports only about usa, almost nothing is said about iraq
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2007 03:54PM by anze89.
I'm just sick of these yanks, they want to dictate the rest of the world and they can't even clean the mess in their own country.
btw., why are lives of 32 americans more important than lives of 120 people in iraq that were also killed this week? all the media reports only about usa, almost nothing is said about iraq
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2007 03:54PM by anze89.
anze89 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> btw., why are lives of 32 americans more important
> than lives of 120 people in iraq that were also
> killed this week? all the media reports only about
> usa, almost nothing is said about iraq
It was over 200 killed in Iraq yesterday - but that's becoming less of a shock everyday. You turn the news on now, you expect 'scores dead in Iraq bombs' as a headline - all due to the illegal invasion.
It's like the British sailors taken hostage by Iran - it was a suprise, so it got higher on the news than 4 British soldiers who died in Basra...
-------------------------------------------------------
> btw., why are lives of 32 americans more important
> than lives of 120 people in iraq that were also
> killed this week? all the media reports only about
> usa, almost nothing is said about iraq
It was over 200 killed in Iraq yesterday - but that's becoming less of a shock everyday. You turn the news on now, you expect 'scores dead in Iraq bombs' as a headline - all due to the illegal invasion.
It's like the British sailors taken hostage by Iran - it was a suprise, so it got higher on the news than 4 British soldiers who died in Basra...
Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very true there Muks.
>
> It's horrible that such things actually happen
>
> And about the gun laws in the USA. I read that
> when the first people came to America, they wrote
> in the constitution that every American should be
> able to carry a gun, to protect himself from bears
> and such. But those first people also wrote in the
> constitution that the constitution can't be
> changed, so America will practically never get out
> of this.
|The right to bear arms was originally to do with settling in dangerous areas, whihc predates the constitution. \i think its in there again also because the americans had trouble getting guns to overthrow the british, and they felt that by giving the people guns would keep the political leaders wary enough of a rebellion to act in the interests of the people.
The USA needs to review its gun control laws, they all believe so heavily in the constituion that they don't want to change it. IIRC only one amendment has ever been recinded and that was prohibition. In all reality there's no reason why America has to stick to a document that is over 200 years old, imagine how crap the world would be if science stuck to everything it knew 200 years ago. Society and America have to evolve
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very true there Muks.
>
> It's horrible that such things actually happen
>
> And about the gun laws in the USA. I read that
> when the first people came to America, they wrote
> in the constitution that every American should be
> able to carry a gun, to protect himself from bears
> and such. But those first people also wrote in the
> constitution that the constitution can't be
> changed, so America will practically never get out
> of this.
|The right to bear arms was originally to do with settling in dangerous areas, whihc predates the constitution. \i think its in there again also because the americans had trouble getting guns to overthrow the british, and they felt that by giving the people guns would keep the political leaders wary enough of a rebellion to act in the interests of the people.
The USA needs to review its gun control laws, they all believe so heavily in the constituion that they don't want to change it. IIRC only one amendment has ever been recinded and that was prohibition. In all reality there's no reason why America has to stick to a document that is over 200 years old, imagine how crap the world would be if science stuck to everything it knew 200 years ago. Society and America have to evolve
I think in the us is following the next quote "There are 550 million guns in this world, one at one person out of 12, the only question is, how do we arm the other 11". This is their policy. Is too bad actually, because i saw a documentary, that in the us, are over 10.000 deaths/year by using a gun, and in canada, their neighbour, wich is a very big country with alot of people, there are only about 16 deaths/year caused by gun shots, and mostly were accidents at hunting. So, why all the violence??? Why all the us people have to lock up their doors? On that doc. also was a person, that recently moved to canada from the us, and she used to lock the doors, and so on, and when she went at her neighbour, at about 10pm or 11pm, the neighbours door was unlocked. She was shocked about it, and the person repleyed that is nothing to be afraid of. So, why are the us afraid of? Not for their own laws? To own a gun is a danger, and makes you think you have the power. Also on that documentary, they say that at the news, they only show killing, and everythine, the bad guy is a black guy. So, affraid of black people? Why, didn't the americans brought them into the us for slavery? now affraid of them? why? Is their own fault!!
Scuderia Ferrari Forever
I love how they always blame this on games, I would put a fair amount of money down the killer didn't play games at all..
in the british papers, i can't remember which, they have him posing with a gun and a picture of the guy in the film "Old Boy" next to him
both are doing the same stance, i guess they'll try to blame anything and everything.
if anyone has seen the video, you can see that he was pretty messed up, there must have been a deep routed desire to go and do something like that, and i dont think games and films could provoke him into doing that.
it comes from within and past experiences, i highly doubt anyone in this world can watch or play someting and think "yeah, i want to do that!"
both are doing the same stance, i guess they'll try to blame anything and everything.
if anyone has seen the video, you can see that he was pretty messed up, there must have been a deep routed desire to go and do something like that, and i dont think games and films could provoke him into doing that.
it comes from within and past experiences, i highly doubt anyone in this world can watch or play someting and think "yeah, i want to do that!"
Muks_C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah hearing pro-gun American's comments on the
> radio, some say if there were no restrictions,
> then it would have been better for this situation,
> as all the victims would have been able to defend
> themselves.
>
> but my counter-argument for that crazy opinion, is
> that this kind of thing would happen far more
> frequently if everyone openly possessed a gun. any
> little problem at university would result in
> someone getting wounded or killed, but instead of
> a one-off mass rampage with lots of victims, we'd
> see hundreds or thousands of single-person
> shootings. currently this kind of thing only
> happens every few years, so a restriction is
> obviously still more effective than if there were
> no restrictions (of course it depends on which
> state is being discussed).
The thing I don't understand about this whole weapons are for protection thing. Surely you have to be attacked first before you can actually defend... So if someone shots you, it's a bit late for you to pull a gun out and `defend` is it not? :s
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah hearing pro-gun American's comments on the
> radio, some say if there were no restrictions,
> then it would have been better for this situation,
> as all the victims would have been able to defend
> themselves.
>
> but my counter-argument for that crazy opinion, is
> that this kind of thing would happen far more
> frequently if everyone openly possessed a gun. any
> little problem at university would result in
> someone getting wounded or killed, but instead of
> a one-off mass rampage with lots of victims, we'd
> see hundreds or thousands of single-person
> shootings. currently this kind of thing only
> happens every few years, so a restriction is
> obviously still more effective than if there were
> no restrictions (of course it depends on which
> state is being discussed).
The thing I don't understand about this whole weapons are for protection thing. Surely you have to be attacked first before you can actually defend... So if someone shots you, it's a bit late for you to pull a gun out and `defend` is it not? :s
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
well if someone comes into your house wielding a gun, i think it's safe to say you have the right to shoot him before he shoots you, as the intent is there. i think you'd be let off under a claim of self-defence in that situation.
basically, the exact same thing as happened to Tony Martin, except it's your right to shoot the intruder in the USA, whereas here in the UK, you're the villain if you stop the burglar carrying out his occupation, his human rights are infringed, you see.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
basically, the exact same thing as happened to Tony Martin, except it's your right to shoot the intruder in the USA, whereas here in the UK, you're the villain if you stop the burglar carrying out his occupation, his human rights are infringed, you see.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Muks_C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well if someone comes into your house wielding a
> gun, i think it's safe to say you have the right
> to shoot him before he shoots you, as the intent
> is there. i think you'd be let off under a claim
> of self-defence in that situation.
>
> basically, the exact same thing as happened to
> Tony Martin, except it's your right to shoot the
> intruder in the USA, whereas here in the UK,
> you're the villain if you stop the burglar
> carrying out his occupation, his human rights are
> infringed, you see.
I understand that but what sort of criminal wielding a gun just stands there and watches you get your gun out, load it etc... To even have a chance of defending yourself you'd have to have the gun in your hand ready to fire.
It's crazy in the UK how you come out as the villain for chasing off thieves. My parents own a shop and some guy stole the float which was a good bit, my Dad chassed him up the street and caught him. Dragged him back to the shop and locked the door, the guy burst into tears and insisted he never had the money (funny how he knew we were after money
) so we phoned the police. While waiting for the police the thief tried to empty his pocket of the money into a leaflet dispenser. Eventually (was wandering whether they were going to turn up...) after 30mins the police turned up and the guy admitted it all.
The police man then goes on at my Dad at how he could be done for assault... With this sort of justice system it's no wander criminals do it. The police man said himself that this guy would be released by the afternoon because he would deny everything he just admitted at the station.
Shows how flawed the system is when you talk to security staff and they say that person is a known shop lifter, arrested many times before...
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well if someone comes into your house wielding a
> gun, i think it's safe to say you have the right
> to shoot him before he shoots you, as the intent
> is there. i think you'd be let off under a claim
> of self-defence in that situation.
>
> basically, the exact same thing as happened to
> Tony Martin, except it's your right to shoot the
> intruder in the USA, whereas here in the UK,
> you're the villain if you stop the burglar
> carrying out his occupation, his human rights are
> infringed, you see.
I understand that but what sort of criminal wielding a gun just stands there and watches you get your gun out, load it etc... To even have a chance of defending yourself you'd have to have the gun in your hand ready to fire.
It's crazy in the UK how you come out as the villain for chasing off thieves. My parents own a shop and some guy stole the float which was a good bit, my Dad chassed him up the street and caught him. Dragged him back to the shop and locked the door, the guy burst into tears and insisted he never had the money (funny how he knew we were after money
) so we phoned the police. While waiting for the police the thief tried to empty his pocket of the money into a leaflet dispenser. Eventually (was wandering whether they were going to turn up...) after 30mins the police turned up and the guy admitted it all.The police man then goes on at my Dad at how he could be done for assault... With this sort of justice system it's no wander criminals do it. The police man said himself that this guy would be released by the afternoon because he would deny everything he just admitted at the station.
Shows how flawed the system is when you talk to security staff and they say that person is a known shop lifter, arrested many times before...
vMax.Keiran
Velocity Maximum Simulation Racing
www.vMaxSR.com
www.liveforspeed.net LFS Status:
@ kieran - that story makes my bloody boil mate.
Surely Dave, that last post would offend not just me, but people who are in your words 'retarded'.
Yep, a person trained well enough can reload his gun a lot quicker than some people can imagine.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.