Shootings at Virginia Tech : Othor Games

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:04 pm

So I assume you say a knife is a weapon, a saw is a weapon, and sticks of dynamite are also weapons?

No. In my opinion a weapon is an object for which one of the primary purposes was to kill. For some knifes this is the case. A saw not really.

Wars have always involved killing people, it's also always involved defending people. If one side allowed the use of firearms to kill and the other didn't, that would be nonsense and absurd, a gun will always beat a knife, people have to adapt and protect themselves using what they are being fought with, firearms just happen to be really good at doing more than maiming.

Sure. So we are agreed that guns are weapons for which one the primary purposes is to kill things/people?

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:19 pm

People made hammers to build things, such as shelter, guns were constructed to kill...

Guns were made to protect and bring food in, artillery was used to bombard and kill.

If you take guns away from those who actually use them properelly by banning them outright, it only gives those who take advantage of them and use them for criminal intentions or murder more of an edge because the chances are Joe Murdering Smoe bought the weapons off the black market while John Protector Doe has nothing to defend himself with when Joe Smoe attacks him because buying firearms is illegal.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:15 pm

I feel bad for both parties, the dead and the shooter. In this case all you can do is forgive, killing him solves nothing. But perhaps if he is messed up then you can save him through rehabilitation. That's the only way anything good could come out of it. Anything else is just people with petty grievances who want "vengeance". Sounds like those people are a few step and a bad day away form being in the same situation.

Edit
Guns were made to kill. DERP! HUNT = KILL! Protect by killing people. They were made for the express purpose and nothing but killing.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:40 pm

Guns were made to protect and bring food in, artillery was used to bombard and kill.

Protect how? BY KILLING.... To bring food in how? BY KILLING...

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:31 pm

Guns were made to protect and bring food in, artillery was used to bombard and kill.

I direct you to a history of the napoleonic wars. Please read, look at the weapons and then re-read your statement.

Also, please look at the current tactics being used in war zones today and usage of weapons such as the AK47.

You statement is fairly illogical.

» Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:54 am

Protect how? BY KILLING.... To bring food in how? BY KILLING...

Not people, animals. It's a tool the same as a knife, a weapon is what I would consider something you attack people with, something designed to attack people, and exclusively kill people. Protect by shooting, being shot doesn't mean you get killed, shooting someone doesn't mean they get killed either.

I direct you to a history of the napoleonic wars. Please read, look at the weapons and then re-read your statement.

Napoleon didn't invent firearms, did he? No.

Bah, whatever, think what you want. I have to go watch a friend act in theatre soon.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:18 pm

Not people, animals. It's a tool the same as a knife, a weapon is what I would consider something you attack people with, something designed to attack people, and exclusively kill people. Protect by shooting, being shot doesn't mean you get killed, shooting someone doesn't mean they get killed either.

So just because it is animals, it isn't killing?

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:59 am

Napoleon didn't invent firearms, did he? No.

I never mentioned Napoleon. I mentioned the Napoleonic wars which were a a war where massed lines of infantry lined up and shot each other. With guns. Guns designed for killing people.

It was the first example that sprang to mind of a war with mass gun usage and very little artillery springing from your statement that in wars, people are not killed with guns. This was a counter example which I hoped would disprove your point.

If you want development of guns, consider something like the StG44. A "first of its kind" design clearly for killing people.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:38 am

"The suspect, according to an earlier posting on the school's website, is described as a white male and was wearing gray sweatpants and a gray hat with a neon green brim."

Guess he didn't care about blending in.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:19 pm

Really sad to see individuals do something like this. A person with the right mindset would never do something like this.

Edit: Let's just scrap most of what I wrote, doesn't really apply to this situation.

On the separate discussion about guns:

Spoiler

Not all criminals have enough connections or knowledge to get guns in places where they are not sold and many act in the heat of the moment. Many angry people don't go and spend days getting a hunting permit and a rifle just in case they'd go on a rampage one day and use it to shoot down those they dislike, where I live there are many wanna be gangsters who would be the sort to resort to guns to solve their issues yet none that I know actually have a gun because it's a long and tedious process to get one and then you can't even get a handgun but only a hunting rifle. A clunky weapon that you can't conceal so easily and simply pull out and start shooting people with in the middle of a school.

Again where I live the police doesn't even have guns because it's so rare that any criminal actually has a gun here that a special force we have is enough to deal with such situations. No one can go on a rampage and suddenly find a gun laying around, especially not in the city. On my mothers side of the family not a single person owns a gun and they all live in the city, and on my fathers side where the majority lives in the country only a couple of them own rifles and both got them years ago when security for such was not as strict and they were used to hunt foxes that would disturb poultry on local farms.

So let's say for the sake of an argument that I went on a crazy rage filled quest for revenge I'd not only have no way to access a gun where I currently am but the closest known location of one for me would be hundreds of kilometers away. And even such disturbed people who would do something like this surely must have some times of tranquility seeing how they can go through years without such an incident, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was something done in the heat of the moment after a particularly bad incident, and that the person could have calmed down before getting hold of any kind of a gun.

Yes guns can be used in self defense against gun users, but when it's easy to get guns it only increases the chance that one would need a gun to defend himself against someone with a gun. So the solution is far from giving everyone a gun and saying "there, now you can protect yourself".

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:59 pm

I'm not going to get into this debate as I love my shiny, 0% warning status, but my heart goes out to the families of the deceased and I pray that it ends soon.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:46 pm

Thats bull, a gun's purpose is self defense. Defending yourself doesn't mean shoot for the heart when you're attacked, it's to maim and maintain. Killing with guns is only if you are a criminal, fighting in a war, but a gun isn't made to slaughter people.

In most places (including most places in the USA, I believe), guns are classed as deadly weapons. Because of this, use of them for self defence is considered to be justified only if killing the attacker is honestly believed to be the only way get out safely. If you shoot (or knife, for that matter) at someone then say "I was aiming to wound, not kill", you get in more trouble 'cause that means you didn't need to kill them, therefore deadly force was excessive.

I say this because I wouldn't want anyone here to get the wrong idea and end up in prison for trying to avoid injury/death. Of course, anyone who does own or intends to own a weapon with the purpose of self defence should consult a professional lawyer/legal knowy person, as I'm not one and laws vary widely depending on one's location

.

They are excessively efficient at killing though. Joe Schmoe with a Neon Green Hat isn't likely to be able to kill two people up close with a knife, much less a police officer, with 1/10th the ease he has with a gun.

Actually, if you use the qualifier "up close", that statement is arguable at best. If you are within arms length of a person with a knife, you are in deep [censored] if it's drawn, and at high risk if it's not (pretty much anyone can pull out a knife and slash you nastily within a second or two, with little warning). If someone has any weapon at all, your priority should be getting the hell away from them.

Fighting is bad, as that's completely the wrong mindset for survival/self defence. Think, "How can I get out of this situation?" not, "How can I take this guy down?"

This public service announcement brought to you buy mangos and bananas, tasty tropical goodness in a skin.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and this particular shooting is sounding like it's crime related, rather than having anything much to do with the VTech.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:49 pm

Guns are tools though, besides people will kill people no matter what they'll find a way, guns just make it easier.

This.

No guns? Melee.

No melee? Rocks.

No rocks? Fists.

No fists? Beat each other to death with nubs.

No nubs? Try and focus all our brain power while we are in jars onto the other jar brains, causing them to explode.

No brains in jars? Well, then we have a problem.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:21 pm

Guns were made to protect and bring food in, artillery was used to bombard and kill.

Not people, animals.

I disagree. The earliest firearms were definitely not meant for something as precision as hunting.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:21 am

I disagree. The earliest firearms were definitely not meant for something as precision as hunting.

I dunno, they could've hit elephants at least half the time, if you snuck up on 'em. Which you'd have to do anyway, to pick out one with a thin enough skin for your bullet to penetrate enough to hit vita organs

.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:30 pm

My sympathies to everyone involved.

To the rest of the thread - You guys are idiots. Two people are killed and you're discussing whether guns are right or not...

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:44 pm

Thoughts out to those who suffered, hope they catch the gunmen alive for some justice-bringing.

Cearser's Legion style justice bringing!

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:38 pm

It's a shame this happened, and sad that two people have died, but I have to agree with Gamgee. Those of you calling for vengeance, especially harsh vengeance, such as torture or killing the murderer, need to take a step back and calm down. Yes, it's bad he killed two people, but killing him in return solves nothing, and essentially lowers us to his level. It's not too far a claim to say that you're lacking in as much humanity as he (or even more) if you're calling for his death sentence, especially considering the case seems to be that it was not a case of premeditated murder.

Similarly, if it does turn out to be a case of a psychotic break of sorts, he DOES need to be institutionalized. No, this does not mean he gets off scott-free for the crimes he has committed, like so many people ignorantly believe. The insanity plea int he court of law is very, VERY rarely implemented, and when it is, it's beyond any reasonable doubt that the person was not of sound mind at the time they committed the illegal acts. Subsequently, they will usually spend the rest of their waking lives in some form of a mental institution, which is not "scott-free".

Edit: Really though, people. I thought as a society we'd been moving away from this "All those whom have committed crimes are 100% responsible 100% of the time because crimes are always conscious choices that are premeditated"; so many studies have shown otherwise, that very few crimes are actually as such, committed by these "inherently evil people". It's like a witch hunt for christ's sake.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:11 pm

Honestly I'd rather, once they are fully sure the person in question did commit murder, just be killed.
Rather than force him to sit in a cell for his life, getting better healthcare than most of us while we pay for him with our taxes.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:39 am

Honestly I'd rather, once they are fully sure the person in question did commit murder, just be killed.
Rather than force him to sit in a cell for his life, getting better healthcare than most of us while we pay for him with our taxes.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" as the saying, if overused, goes.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:26 am

Honestly I'd rather, once they are fully sure the person in question did commit murder, just be killed.
Rather than force him to sit in a cell for his life, getting better healthcare than most of us while we pay for him with our taxes.

The shooter was found dead.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:34 pm

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" as the saying, if overused, goes.

I couldnt agree more, but if a person is found guilty beyond reason of a doubt, from a pragmatic view it's better to just kill them than let them play Hotel Taxpayer.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:36 pm

Honestly I'd rather, once they are fully sure the person in question did commit murder, just be killed.
Rather than force him to sit in a cell for his life, getting better healthcare than most of us while we pay for him with our taxes.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" as the saying, if overused, goes.

I couldnt agree more, but if a person is found guilty beyond reason of a doubt, from a pragmatic view it's better to just kill them than let them play Hotel Taxpayer.

Not too long ago we had a http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1252801-lawsuit-over-food/ that more or less covered that topic. Anyone who's interested in prison/execution/dealing with convicted criminals should look up Norway and the unconventional prisons they're rolling out (which manage to give prisoners -and guards- better conditions, work out as cheaper, result in a lower recidivism rate...).