Speechless - 22 killed at Virginia Tech

[Carnos Jax]

[quote chas_m]WHEN is this country going to realise that there is a SIMPLE ANSWER to reduce the number of these sorts of tragedies?

This has very little to do with the political hot potato of "gun control." For the record, I'm not anti-gun but don't own any.

Why can't we simply TIGHTLY REGULATE the SMALL group of guns who's EXCLUSIVE purpose is to kill humans? Not "take away mah gunz," not "outlaw all gunz," just the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage that are inadequate for anything BUT killing large numbers of humans efficiently.

Is that really so out of line? Is that really so wild-eyed, so nuts?

You can still kill humans in a huge variety of ways (including other sorts of guns) if that's what you need to do. But these marauders tend to HUNT humans, and they almost ALWAYS use tools that are designed with ruthless efficiency for that EXACT PURPOSE.

Do you folks (the majority of whom are American) have ANY IDEA how incredibly RARE a tragedy like this outside the US, even in heavily-armed Canada and Russia?

I wonder how many more innocents have to die before this country "gets it."
Correct me if my logic fails here, but, wouldn't it be better in that case to outlaw all guns? Don't statistics show that removing all guns (generally I'm talking about handguns here) from society, that we'd go a long way to preventing gun deaths, as demonstrated by most countries where such is the case?

So barring that, why should we eliminate 'assault weapons' and other such weapons of mass murder? Isn't the purpose of such weapons to keep the 'government in check'? I mean, the insurgents in Iraq wouldn't be able to mount such an effective resistance it all they were had were handguns.

Contrary to what others may have thought about me on this forum, this is one area that I actually side with (and perhaps even go further than) the pro-gun groups.

Ultimately, would it be fair to say this is the price of living in a free society (which by definition includes the freedom from a 'tyrannical government')?

I'm not necessarily convinced 100% in this position. I'm just curious as to what flaw there may be in this logic.

[Jp!]

There's a little thing called the second amendment.

[3d]

[quote M A V I C][quote 3d]I thank you too. I was pretty close with the time frame.
Um, the article didn't give enough info to draw an accurate conclusion. If anything, we can tell it wasn't close to five seconds. So, no, you weren't close on the timeframe.

From the article, we can't tell how long it had been from the time Mr. Miller was shot, until Mr. Filo noticed him. Again, no information is given to provide a timeframe for that. Any sort of timeframe you're assigning to it, does not have enough supporting evidence to even be considered a theory.

I'll repeat, there is no evidence to support your assumption that Mr. Filo took the picture five seconds after Mr. Miller was shot. None.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out (from the expressions and body language) that the picture was taken less than 30 seconds(?) from the shot.

That's an assumption. There's no evidence to support it. Trust me, I've found a body shot in the head before. I probably had a similar expression. It had been about 24 hours since the person had been shot.

People's facial expressions have nothing to do with gauging the time of the wound. Nothing. Everyone arriving on the scene is apt to have a similar expression when they first see the body, regardless of how recently it happened.

Their body language, however, is more telling. Had the shootings occurred 5-30 seconds before, I doubt so many people would be standing around or slowly walking.

MAVIC's "alternatives" seemed pretty irrational to me.

Maybe you should work on your rationale. You're making a ton of assumptions without facts or evidence.
Wait, seriously, why are we debating this? I forgot.

[Carnos Jax]

[quote Jp!]There's a little thing called the second amendment.
Right, so it should bolster this argument, correct?

[M A V I C]

On the Kent shootings...

Mr. Filo was standing by the statue, E was where Mr. Miller died. He was 265-270 feet from the NG, so roughly 200 feet from Mr. Filo.





The shootings lasted 13 seconds.

Here's a picture from before Mr. Filo's



There's no shortness of people coming to aid. It's difficult fault the photographer for not knowing what happened, he was already shot at. He didn't run to get help, well, probably because there were a ton of people around. He didn't yell for people to take cover because he thought they were shooting blanks. When he found out they weren't blanks, there was at most a few seconds of shots left while he panicked and before the shots ceased.

[M A V I C]

[quote 3d]Wait, seriously, why are we debating this? I forgot.
Because you faulted the photographer for:
He didn't run over to see what happened.
He didn't run to get help.
He didn't yell for everyone to take cover.
He stood there in front of them, composed the photograph and clicked away.

And you said his actions were "pretty cold."

If you're going to make a personal attack on a photographer nearly 40 years after the fact, you should supply some facts and not conjecture.

He watched a guy shoot at him and miss. He didn't realize until after that he was in danger, then realized how close it was. It freaked him out enough he dropped his camera. Why don't you give him a call and tell him you think his actions were "pretty cold?"

[Carnos Jax]

Easy VP.

[3d]

[quote M A V I C]Mr. Filo was standing by the statue, E was where Mr. Miller died. He was 265-270 feet from the NG, so roughly 200 feet from Mr. Filo. The photographer was 200 feet away from the victim when he took the photo?? That's 2/3 of a football field! Sounds off. But hey if that's a fact then it puts things in a different perspective. The photo looked like it was taken from 10 feet away. Like the photographer was right in her face taking her picture while she was screaming and grieving in shock. Job or no job. I have a problem with someone doing that.

[quote M A V I C]The shootings lasted 13 seconds. I guessed 5 seconds. Close enough.

[quote M A V I C]There's no shortness of people coming to aid. Are you looking at the same two pictures i'm looking at? Where are the people coming to his aid? I see that one girl run up to him screaming. And everyone else is kinda just standing there. Look at the guy in the black shirt with the rolled up sleeves seen in both pics. It looks like he just walked on by him. He must've been high on mushrooms or something.

To recap:
If the photographer was indeed 200 feet away from the victim (as MAVIC says) then i have no problem with that. Nice photo. Give him another prize.

If the photographer was actually 10 feet away from the vicitim and in the woman's face with a camera, (as it appears in the photos) then yes i believe he's a cold hearted SOB who should've put the gdam camera away and run to the victim's aid when (it appears from the photos) that no one except the girl is doing anything.

[chas_m]

[quote Carnos Jax]Correct me if my logic fails here, but, wouldn't it be better in that case to outlaw all guns?
Certainly not. There is a need for guns in this country in a huge variety of situations. The Constitution has an amendment specifically devoted to an armed public, and while I don't read that amendment the way the NRA chooses to, there's no escaping the idea that the forefathers of this country intended citizens to have the FREEDOM to have guns and access to arms if they felt they were needed. Hard to outlaw all guns when the Constitution specifically says you can't, but I'm sure that if it ever gets in the way of something the Bush administration wants to do, they'll find a way.

Don't statistics show that removing all guns (generally I'm talking about handguns here) from society, that we'd go a long way to preventing gun deaths, as demonstrated by most countries where such is the case?

Not at all. Canada, as I mentioned in my original post, has tons of guns, including handguns. Almost everyone outside the big cities has at least one rifle. Only HANDGUNS and MACHINE GUNS are tightly regulated. Result: nearly zero percent gun death in a country that actually averages MORE weapons per person (percentage of population) than the US.

So barring that, why should we eliminate 'assault weapons' and other such weapons of mass murder? Isn't the purpose of such weapons to keep the 'government in check'?

Does anyone here -- anyone at all -- believe that some people (even thousands of such people) with assault weapons can effectively overthrow the US government? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

I mean, the insurgents in Iraq wouldn't be able to mount such an effective resistance it all they were had were handguns.

This is the height of your increasingly-specious string of arguments. The insurgents MOSTLY use IEDs to do their work, not guns for a start; second, there IS no government there, and they're not really trying to overthrow it (since it doesn't really exist). The insurgency is successful for LOTS of other reasons, nothing to do with the guns they have.

Also, I have yet to note an insurgency that pays strict attention to gun laws.

Finally, let's have a look at the democratic revolutions that have happened in the last couple of decades. How many were decided at the barrel of a gun? Why I think the answer is: none.

Contrary to what others may have thought about me on this forum, this is one area that I actually side with (and perhaps even go further than) the pro-gun groups.

That's because you're very ill-educated on the subject. But at least you seem like a bright guy who's willing to learn.

Ultimately, would it be fair to say this is the price of living in a free society (which by definition includes the freedom from a 'tyrannical government')?

A *small* risk of needless gun-related death is the price we pay for living in a free society, yes. Key word: SMALL. Again, you really need to actually read up on the gun stats of other western nations here, not just those the NRA talking points use. The USA is totally off the map in terms of tragedy-to-freedom ratio compared to other countries, who SOMEHOW manage to maintain stable, democratic governments AND reasonable gun laws WITHOUT regular eruptions of horrific gun violence such as this despicable incident. I even hear that in some places outside the US, the populations are happy and healthy and generally have very nice lives! Shocking!!

I'm not necessarily convinced 100% in this position. I'm just curious as to what flaw there may be in this logic.

I trust your curiousity has been put to rest. Thanks for asking.

[$tevie]

This is the strangest debate in a long time. When it's over, perhaps we can spend some time discussing why Abraham Zapruder didn't run over and help Jack Kennedy.