Very Sad News - More Gun Violence

[Gillianren]

The only consolation is that we won't have to endure a lengthy trial, as the madman apparently shot himself.

That was Jack Ruby's reasoning, too. The thing is, not having a trial doesn't mean that things are better. In fact, it eliminates a lot of the possible sense of closure; there's a decent-ish chance that, had Oswald lived, we wouldn't have so many conspiracy theories about Kennedy.

As to the gun, aren't clips that hold that many rounds illegal? I thought they were. Am I wrong?

And remember--this is horrible. This is tragic. This is awfully depressing. However, youth violence is decreasing. And the majority of violence to young people is by adults. Kids are not more violent than they used to be; it is just the media.

[Captain Kidd]

Press conference at 1630 EDT: 31 dead in Norris Hall, 2 dead in the dorm.
Gunman ID unknown as he was not carrying ID.
Still uncertain that the two events were connected.

[Doodler]

The last time I was a witness to a shooting, I got lucky. A) Wasn't the target, B) escape path was clear. My heart skipped a beat at the bang, but at 12 years old, that's to be expected. Give me no escape, and give me time to realize I'm going down anyway, and I'll shake off the shock.

[Fazor]

And remember--this is horrible. This is tragic. This is awfully depressing. However, youth violence is decreasing. And the majority of violence to young people is by adults. Kids are not more violent than they used to be; it is just the media.

Exactly. News reports are for the most part void of any kind of statistics. And when they include statistics, they're either irrelevant, inadequate, or just plain wrong.

Someone pointed out early in this thread that violence, by the numbers, hasn't really increased that much per capita in the US since "the good 'ol days of Mayburry".

Of course, these incidents are still unnerving, and very disheartening. It's hard to put faith in the human race when there's people like this guy out there. What I would give to be able to just pummel this guy for 5 minutes! Ugh.

[Captain Kidd]

As to the gun, aren't clips that hold that many rounds illegal? I thought they were. Am I wrong?

Donno, but then just becase they illegal doesn't mean they can't be obtained.

Well prepared with two guns of the same type and a fanny pack or cargo pants loaded with clips, I can see him maintaining a fairly high rate of fire with standard clips, especially if he had training, official or by himself.

[Doodler]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/virginia-te...mes-252702.php

Incoming swill alert...

[SeanF]

What a terrible, terrible event. I wonder if they'll find a diary or journal or something that may shed some light on his thought processes?

http://kotaku.com/gaming/virginia-te...mes-252702.php

Incoming swill alert...

Plus something for Gillianren in the penultimate paragraph.

[HenrikOlsen]

If you're going to die anyway, die fighting.

If for no other reason, get the adrenalin running in a fight response and it'll hurt less as you go.

[Captain Kidd]

Hmm, what would I do? Well, sitting here in an armchair, it's easy to come up with all sorts of plans. But in the uncertainty and panic of the actual event, I donno ... I'll be the first to admit I'm not the split-second decisive type. Were I in the first room the guy entered, I'd probably sit there like an idiot staring in disbelief. (I've got to be sadly honest.) Given some time, just a few minutes, I'd probably be able to assess the situation and come up with a decent plan of action.

At my university all the classroom doors are locked and use keycards to unlock and most of the professors close the doors during class, so the shooter would be a bit out of luck there. Being on the 3rd floor, it'd be a bit of a drop out the windows, so I'd probably try to avoid being in the way of any shots coming through wood door and set up some sort of ambush on the door if he got a keycard.

The computer lab would be a bit more worrisome. It's usually crowded and there's only one main way in and out although there is at least one other door that isn't locked, just alarmed if opened. Rather than getting stuck in the mob trying to get out, I'd probably be ripped keyboards and mice from the computers and chucking it at the guy. The rows of desks and the server room also provide pretty good visual coverage too. Hmm, that is one disadvantage of LCD monitors, dodging or getting wholluped by a big 22" CRT would definitely buy time to dogpile the guy.

Both of those are close confines and thus advantageous to defense plus you're kind of cornered (fight). In an open area, like the commons or the student center, I'd probably try to bug out or find cover (flight).

[Fazor]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/virginia-te...mes-252702.php

Incoming swill alert...

LoL! You know what, I think Jack was in my WoW guild. A fellow gulid member yesterday started ranting about how he was going to "Own Blizzard" when he got through with them. When asked why, he opened with "Lets just say I'm a lawyer". (As if *I* would take that to mean anything.)

"Okay," I said, "lets say you are a lawyer. why are you going to sue?"

Him/Her:"Someone called me a *** and a ***, and the GM [moderator] refused to do anything about it"
Me: "So?"
Him/her: "That's slander!"
Me: "No it's not, it's opinion. Slander is spreading false trueths that are damaging to you personally or professionally. Besides, Blizzard has censorship controls which by default are on, and you turned them off. Additionally, in the legal disclaimer which you agreed to when you purchased your account, it explicitly states that while the game is rated [whatever] on-line experience may vary, and Blizzard is not responsable for the language of users in-game. I suggest you spend a few more years in law school."

at this point he got upset and left the guild. Seems about the same level of legal skill and maturity. It must have been him.

[pizzaguy]

As to the gun, aren't clips that hold that many rounds illegal? I thought they were. Am I wrong?

How many rounds? What do you mean, "that many rounds"?

You don't even know what capacity the magazines he used had! Fact is, he had several "clips", all loaded and ready to go.

It amazes me that people think that the number of rounds in a clip means a DAMN THING. You can buy and carry as many as your psychotic needs require!
Changing clips can be done in under 3 seconds with very little practice. ANd since he was the only armed person - he had time, didn't he?

[ToSeek]

How many rounds? What do you mean, "that many rounds"?

Presuambly the number of rounds mentioned in this post as an example of what's possible.

[Amber Robot]

To address a point above, here is a 9mm pistol with a 50 round magazine.

I'm not against personal gun ownership, but I can't imagine a single reason why anyone outside of the military would need to own one of these.

[SeanF]

I'm not against personal gun ownership, but I can't imagine a single reason why anyone outside of the military would need to own one of these.

The pistol or the magazine? Either way, there are lots of things people don't need to own. Doesn't mean anything.

[Amber Robot]

The pistol or the magazine? Either way, there are lots of things people don't need to own. Doesn't mean anything.

My point being that it shouldn't be legal to own a submachine gun for personal/non-military use.

[Occam]

It's not gun violence. It's people violence.

Largest massacre in U.S. history now.

The worst part is, the gunman is dead too, so no one will ever get closure.

All this will do is bring up thousands of questions with no real answers.

No offense, but as long as this attitude is perpetuated it will keep on happening. The idea that "guns don't don't kill people, people kill people" is just crap. Now if you care to say "guns don't don't kill people, people with guns kill people" I might say you have a point. The guns are the problem. People cannot be fixed and there will always be those with no respect for life. You CAN take away their guns. The idea that Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms just doesn't wash anymore. A while back Americans had the right to burn the flag in protest, too. Rules can be changed. The argument that you need guns to protect yourself from criminals doesn't wash either, since the criminals are also armed and, unlike you, don't give a damn about following rules. All it needs is a government that has the guts to stand up and say "enough is enough" - but while groups like the NRA are allowed to ride roughshod over ordinary, decent citizens and dictate the rules to everyone else, this will keep on happening with tragic regularity.

[Len Moran]

Well I have just heard about this on our BBC news, and it is tragic, nothing else can be added to that. But given prominence in the BBC (and ITV)coverage was the complete lack of talk (yet again) regarding gun control by (amongst many others) President Bush. In this thread there seems to be just one or two posts that have mentioned gun control. Pretty much sums it up I think.

[Jim]

... Remember the UT sniper back in the early '70s? ...

August 1, 1966.

I started classes there six weeks later.

Whitman's spree lasted longer and claimed fewer victims. We seem to be getting more efficient at the wrong things.

[jamini]

No offense, but as long as this attitude is perpetuated it will keep on happening. The idea that "guns don't don't kill people, people kill people" is just crap. Now if you care to say "guns don't don't kill people, people with guns kill people" I might say you have a point. The guns are the problem. People cannot be fixed and there will always be those with no respect for life. You CAN take away their guns. The idea that Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms just doesn't wash anymore. A while back Americans had the right to burn the flag in protest, too. Rules can be changed. The argument that you need guns to protect yourself from criminals doesn't wash either, since the criminals are also armed and, unlike you, don't give a damn about following rules. All it needs is a government that has the guts to stand up and say "enough is enough" - but while groups like the NRA are allowed to ride roughshod over ordinary, decent citizens and dictate the rules to everyone else, this will keep on happening with tragic regularity.

I doubt that gun control is an appropriate topic for debate on a scientific forum so I will simply state that I disagree entirely with the statements above. There is no statistical analysis to support these kinds of rash generalizations and they certainly do not reflect the views of most Americans; if they did, the second amendment to our constitution would reflect that.

I will now withdraw from this topic and avoid the temptation to comment further at the risk of violating any rules.

[mike alexander]

I was wondering how long it would be before things swung over to gun control.

Occam wrote:
A while back Americans had the right to burn the flag in protest, too

I believe we still do.

[cbacba]

My point being that it shouldn't be legal to own a submachine gun for personal/non-military use.

The simplistic answer is - it hasn't been for decades. It is irrelevent to this topic as there was no submachine gun involved. Also, it's not legal for someone to own or buy a bulletproof vest if they aren't law enforcement - something that is relevent to this case.

The more complex answer is - that it's required a federal license to own a submachine gun for about 70 years now and there are quite a few out in private hands - legally. As in the ultravast majority of cases of all other weapons, apparently none of the submachine guns legally owned have ever been used in the commision of crimes. It's also been illegal in the same way for 70 yrs for one to own a silencer or a sawed off shotgun. Note that the 2 liter coke bottle can be attached to a gunbarrel and make an excellent silencer for at least one shot. The metal attachment that can permit a screwon 2 liter bottle carries the same felony as possession of a full silencer - that is unless one has paid the appropriate fees for the federal license.

As for sawed off shotguns, they are oftimes made by taking a hacksaw to a shotgun, sometimes very nice and rather expensive shotguns - usually stolen. However, I once saw a chrome plated one - complete with silver engraved pistolgrip cap being carried around by a uniformed officer whose ID badge was the same as the name engraved on the pistol grip of the shotgun.

One of the problems with 'not being able to see why there might be a need for someone to have ...' is that it is more an admission of self short sightedness and ignorance than that of an informed opinion. Such sentiments turned into law usually have no effects on the situations envisioned and can have the effects of unintended consequences. Such notions also tend to violate the intent and the letter of a realistically legally based interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

My favorite 'ban' weapon example is the 105 mm recoilless rifle - an approximately 4" diameter cannon of late 20th century design. Definitely not what one would use for hunting anything and not very suitable for target shooting either considering that target shooting generally requires having a backstop of dirt - which would not survive too many rounds of such a device. However, anyone who says they cannot see any reason that an individual (not military) should ever possibly have such a weapon is extolling the virtues of their ignorance. Anyone who lives in virtually unpopulated snowcovered mountain areas that are subject to avalanches has a legitimate reason to have and use one. That's without having to resort to some more esoteric argument such as persuit of happiness is blowing up trees or rock cliffs or shooting 5 gallon cans with a machine gun - note that soup cans are pretty well out as being able to hit something that small is a skill that must be developed.

It's now evident that the killer was out to kill a bunch of people and was planned. Carrying 2 firearms and a bulletproof vest and carrying extra ammunition requires planning and preparation. He wasn't out to do in someone he was ticked off with in some spur of the moment emotional decision.

It's definitely a tradgedy and will probably have ramifications around the country in many ways for quite some time. The actions taken or not taken by the school will doubtlessly have a future financial impact on them with lawsuits as well so there will be lesser victims gallore.

[farmerjumperdon]

I agree with those that say you fight back, but not in haste. Could make things worse. But as soon as it appears they are intent on shooting, start looking for an opportunity. If things look desperate (such as lining people up against the wall) then it's time to act. Against a single gunman, chances are some wil survive.

I have been there, but with a knife and not a gun. I was 16 and he was a an adult, although at least slightly drunk. As soon as I realized he was going to stab me no matter what I said, I decided what the heck, might as well try SOMETHING. My something was going to be to try to break his arm against a railing he was leaning on. Figured a quick blow would catch him before he could thrust.

Here's the really lucky part. Someone had noticed what was happening and had called security. While I was stealing time and plotting my move 2 guards got to him. I always wondered how bad they beat him; they wouldn't tell us the outcome.

[ToSeek]

I doubt that gun control is an appropriate topic for debate on a scientific forum so I will simply state that I disagree entirely with the statements above. There is no statistical analysis to support these kinds of rash generalizations and they certainly do not reflect the views of most Americans; if they did, the second amendment to our constitution would reflect that.

I will now withdraw from this topic and avoid the temptation to comment further at the risk of violating any rules.

Jamini is right - this is not an appropriate topic for this forum. I understand how easy it is to bring up the subject of guns and their standing in society in a thread like this, but that's not the sort of thing we discuss here at BAUT.

ToSeek
BAUT Forum Moderator

[Frantic Freddie]

As one of the mill;ions of gun owners who have never even thought about going on a rampage, I'd like to say this sucks and my thoughts go out to all those affected. Hopefully they will be able to peice together some sort of reason for it.

To address a point above, here is a 9mm pistol with a 50 round magazine. They also make a .22 with a 100 round capacity. I'm not saying this is what was used. I have no idea. I'm just putting this out as an example of how a person could carry that many rounds and get that many shots off.

Also, count me in the crowd that would be charging the guy, probably throwing stuff as well. I'm not as fit as I used to be, but I think I've gotten a bit meaner to compensate for it.

Calico went out of business in '95 & the guns are extremely rare & very expensive.

As far as the legality of high-capacity magazines (I think it was Gillianren that asked} they're perfectly legal since the expiration of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban".

It seems he had 2 9mm handguns,which typically have up to 15 round magazines.So at some point he had to reload,typically a 3-5 second operation that requires both hands,so he had to put one of the guns down.
That's when he could've been taken down,but I'm not going to second-guess a bunch of terrified students.

[Occam]

I doubt that gun control is an appropriate topic for debate on a scientific forum...

In a forum called "Off-Topic Babbling", in response to a post about another mass murder?

Re my flag burning comment, I am clearly mistaken. I thought that the proposed amendment had been ratified. It was a badly made point that even popular rules can be changed

[mike alexander]

S'okay. Occam. Your essential point is correct. And I'm not all that up on the finer points of Kiwi law, myself.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Occam-- precisely. Gun control is a political issue, and those are very strongly frowned upon on this board. Discussion of the massacre today is within the rules, but be wary of letting it stray into a political topic.

[Serenitude]

In a forum called "Off-Topic Babbling", in response to a post about another mass murder?

Edit: BA beat me to it

[Doodler]

Official count of the deceased is at 32+1 (pardon I keep lone psycho out of the main count). Not hearing much on injuries at this point, so I don't know if they're finding more bodies or that people taken to the hospital alive are dying.

[Gillianren]

Re my flag burning comment, I am clearly mistaken. I thought that the proposed amendment had been ratified. It was a badly made point that even popular rules can be changed

Very few Constitutional amendments ever get ratified, and I doubt that one had the support.