Deadly shooting at US university

one_raven

Why not every high school and every mall in the country as well?
That's an absurd notion, and entirely unnecessary.
You want to put armed swat teams at each of the thousands of universities in the country because of a few dozen dead?
That's the kind of paranoid thinking that makes people willing to sign away civil liberties and re-elect George Bush because they are too pathetically scared to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

You missed the point, even if every campus had a S.W.A.T. team it would do no good, as they cannot react until after something has happened, and then all they can do is be body recovery personnel, pick up the bodies and figure out the path of the destruction and who died were.

By law you are responsible for your own personnel protection, and the fact is that you are the first responder on the scene, weather you are the victim or a by stander, so since these thing happen when the police are not present, and cannot respond until some one informs them that a crime is in progress, and has been committed, it is up to you to take care of yourself, so now what are you going to do? me I am going to fight, and I a long time ago have decided to go armed, and I carry a firearm, one citizen with a gun would have had a chance of stopping this, in most of these situations the looser who decides to take his piss off out on innocent people when confronted with force put the gun to their head pull the trigger and go to hell, but I am not going to be the one dieing under a desk, with my hands around my head, praying for my life, that only leads to 30+ dead.
 
Baron Max,
When you are willing to honestly and openly discuss what you actually believe, I'm here.
Until then, have fun playing your game.
 
I think that anyone whom really breaks one of these events to it's most minute parts can conclude this:

The Law can only serve to punish, it cannot protect. The suicidal violator, does not even let them serve any function.
 
Bells said:
What I keep wondering is why the gunman killed two people in a dorm and then two hours later killed the rest on the other side of the campus. Why did the university think he had merely left the campus grounds? Why did they not evacuate the campus when the first shooting occured or at least have them in lockdown from then? In short, what in the hell was the university thinking in allowing students to roam the grounds after the first shooting (in the dorm) without any knowledge of who had killed the two in the dorm or where he had actually gone afterwards. In hindsight we now know where he went..
Click to expand...

Because, most people try to get away after they commit murder. They don't generally go on mass killing sprees. This is an oddity, not the rule.

You mention hindsight. Only hindsight would give any indication that such an event as this would occur.

Should the school have acted to lock the area down? Probably wouldn't have hurt. But, I wonder what the odds are that this is the only shooting that has ever taken place at this school? And I wonder how many of those shootings (if any happened) turned into mass killings? What are the percentages in general of shootings at college campuses which end up in mass killing sprees?
I suspect the percentages are pretty damned slim.


Here's my idea on what happened.

First. It's not terrorism. Terrorism requires an agenda. I don't believe the shooter had one. Other than to kill, that is.

What I believe happened is that the shooting in the dorm in the morning was an act of passion. An argument. Over something stupid, most likely. Maybe his roommate drank the last beer one too many times.
Bang. Dead roommate.

Then, after that line had been crossed, instead of trying to get away as most would do, our shooter gave in to despair and hopelessness. He figured that he might as well go out in a blaze of glory.
And he did.
Bang bang bang.


On a humourous sidenote, I was listening to an NPR interview of a professor that spoke with such a thick southern drawl that the interviewer had to slowly and carefully restate everything that he said. And he did it in such a way as to attempt not to insult the guy for talking like he had a mouth full of mud.

The Southern Drawl is practically another dialect. It's almost unintelligible. Maybe that's why the shooter went nuts.
 
one_raven said:
Why not every high school and every mall in the country as well?
That's an absurd notion, and entirely unnecessary.
You want to put armed swat teams at each of the thousands of universities in the country because of a few dozen dead?
That's the kind of paranoid thinking that makes people willing to sign away civil liberties and re-elect George Bush because they are too pathetically scared to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

It was the opinion of a trained terrorist expert on CNN.:p

I was being sarcastic, btw.
 
He was a South Korean student.

In my experience its pretty rare for Asian people to do stuff like this especially when studying overseas.

He'd obviously flipped and it becomes inconceivable that the police didn't consider the danger this represented after the first shooting.

Heads must roll.
 
I don't mean to stereotype, but most asians I know that are actually from asia and just here for school have very tight family bonds, and get lip from their families an awful lot. I've overheard several phone conversations with "yes mom, i know mom, I studied for that quiz already" while the mom sounds vaguely like she's dictating his next day's schedule in the background, "you need to do this, and then you need to do...". personally, I'm in college, and me and my family touch base ever weekend, but if I was being called by my mom or dad several times a day for every intricate detail of my academic life (and lack of social life), I think i would loose it! most people like this that I know handle this by kinda blowing them off... for instance "uh-huh... yeah... uh-huh... yeah..." while sitting on the bed watching family guy.

I suppose some chicken-shits think taking out whole classrooms of your peers is a more apt solution.
 
I heard (from a friend of a friend of a friend who was hiding under a desk while her classmates were shot) that the guy was toting a big gun and lots and lots of ammo.

Bells, uh, 'argument' that letting students carry handguns would have done more harm than good isn't likely.

If the shooter entered a classroom with 20 students in it, all of whom were happening to be carrying handguns (unlikely) and in their confusion, everyone accidently ended up killing each other, that's only 20 deaths + the shooter. Which is 2/5 the casualties that actually happened.

I don't see how this incident could possibly be an argument for (stronger) gun control. America can hardly control its gang problems, its drug problems, and its boarder. How the fuck is it going to control guns, other than keeping them out of the hands of people that agree to follow the law? If only one person had a gun, this could have gone a lot differently.
 
samcdkey said:
Thank God he wasn't a Muslim or of ME descent.
Click to expand...

Too bad he wasn't.


Did you know the word 'amok' comes from Malay? The Sikhs or Hindus or whoever live down in the archipelago that carry those big fancy, ceremonial daggers, would, when faced with no other options in life, go on a stabbing spree until overpowered by neighbors. To go amok.

Wallace wrote that the Englishman had his pistol, the Japanese seppuku, and the Malay amok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top