Two Killed On Virginia Tech Campus

Submitted by: Burton_Ian 5 years ago

One was a police officer performing a traffic stop
There are 50 comments:
Male 1,471
Wow, just realized that i won this argument long ago, by rule of Godwin`s law :P..
0
Reply
Male 36,374
[quote]Nope, that depends on what it is, fool.[/quote]
@LazyMe, are you channeling your inner "Mister T"? lolz!

Asking to make something illegal, just becasue YOU don`t like it, is fascist in nature. Lets ban all stamps over 3 years of age, m-kay? Then arrest the collectors!
Of course stamping causes Harm! Think of the money that could be donated to charity, eh?
[/sarc]
0
Reply
Male 1,471
That, however, is a very good point :P..
0
Reply
Male 1,471
No it wasn`t. in 1776 the Continental army was comprised of 2/3 enlisted men, and 1/3 local militias supporting them.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
What baffels me is the UK a place that seems strongly against the right to bear arms so much it won`t arm it`s police suddenly gives it police sub fricken machine guns during the royal wedding! So to protect royalty guns are great but when it comes to protecting yourself or having armed police to guns are bad. Sounds to me like someone dosen`t trust the commoners.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@ain1

The Continental Army was composed mainly from those militias.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@nayrbarr: The viet-cong were trained and organized. The american war of independance was won by regular soldiers. The mujahedin were trained, organized and supplied by the americans.

In any case guerilla warfare is a war of attrition and is only effective at deterring invaders, which America, with it`s enormous military, is not at any risk of being subject to.

In the hypothetical event of a military coup inside America, guerilla warfare would be pointless, since the ones making the coup have nowhere to retreat to, and thus have nothing to lose.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Last I checked, during the civil war, both the north and the south had armies.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 10,440
"Oh really?? Do you know how the U.S.A. came to be??"

Last I checked, during the civil war, both the north and the south had armies.

"Neither does `stamp collecting`, we should round up all them "stampers" and confiscate their, um, stamps! For the good of society!"

Stamp collecting preserves historic value.

"Asking the government to confiscate my personal property is fascism."

Nope, that depends on what it is, fool. Is it fascism if the government were to confiscate a rocket launcher from you? How about a nuke?
0
Reply
Male 365
[quote]Undiciplined unorganized armed citizens stand no chance against a regular army. It doesn`t matter how many guns they have. It has been proven time and again all throughout history.[/quote]

Vietnam, 1257–1258, 1284–1285, 1287–1288 and 1955-1975; American War of Independance; Soviet war in Afghanistan 1979-88. The list goes on. Guerrilla warfare has had a long history filled with many, many successes. If you;re going to make claims, do some research.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@ 5cats: Actually it is true. Take Denmark for example: 5.5 million people; Deaths involving firearms: 7. The US: 300 million people; 32,538 deaths involving firearms.

Also, you only quoted half the sentence. It was actually: "But there is no refuting the fact that guns serve no useful purpose in society, and are actually a detriment to it.". i.e they are not only not useful, but directly harmful.

@McGovern: Yes, do you?. The american militias put up a good fight to be sure. But they didn`t make any real headway until the Continental Army was formed under George washington. America was later joined by the french army.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Undiciplined unorganized armed citizens stand no chance against a regular army. It doesn`t matter how many guns they have. It has been proven time and again all throughout history.[/quote]

Oh really?? Do you know how the U.S.A. came to be??
0
Reply
Male 36,374
[quote] if people didn`t have access to guns in the first place, the accident rate would drop significantly[/quote]
Actually @Kain1 that`s not the case in reality. Once `only criminals own guns` you have loaded firearms laying around mixed with drugs or children.

[quote]no refuting the fact that guns serve no useful purpose in society,[/quote]
Neither does `stamp collecting`, we should round up all them "stampers" and confiscate their, um, stamps! For the good of society!

If I choose to spend my money on something useless, it`s none of your business. Asking the government to confiscate my personal property is fascism.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
Why is the talking quieter than the wind? How the drat are we supposed to hear it?
0
Reply
Male 1,471
I know of that event, and it was surely a valiant effort. But it didn`t have any kind of impact on the german army, and they were sadly but ultimately destroyed.

Undiciplined unorganized armed citizens stand no chance against a regular army. It doesn`t matter how many guns they have. It has been proven time and again all throughout history.
0
Reply
Female 7,833
Guns are horrible- they allow people to kill without getting up close and thus make it far easier to kill someone. The US has an enormous number of deaths caused by the fact they permit people to have guns, if they did not have guns that number would be much lower. Having said THAT I also see that you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, if they banned and recalled guns only the law abiding would comply. So- how about they stop making and selling any MORE guns and ammo? Perhaps that would work- seems there are enough of the damn things there now anyway...
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Kain1, go to Wikipedia and look up "Warsaw Ghetto." See what people can do with a few dozen guns.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
So if he didn`t implement gun control, the jews wouldn`t have gone to death camps?...

At that point he was already a dictator that had overwhelming public support, and what little resistance remained didn`t and couldn`t put up any sort of real fight, armed or not.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Kain1, you seem to have overlooked the fact that Hitler implemented strict gun control laws and confiscated guns from the citizenry BEFORE he rounded up the Jews and shipped them off to the death camps.

***

"There will always be crazy people. There doesn`t need to be guns."

No, 8j, that`s exactly why we DO need guns -- to kill the crazy people before they kill us.

0
Reply
Male 15,832
This story has to be false. The VT campus is a gun-free zone, so it would have been impossible for anyone to shoot a cop there.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
I understand your lacking faith. As i listen to the news from over here, it`s seems like it`s just getting worse and worse.

What i find most appauling is that you live in a place where you feel it`s neccesary to have a gun for you own protection, and the police can`t/won`t help. I can`t say i agree with it, but i empathize with your situation.
0
Reply
Male 483
Not to mention my faith in the "good ole` U.S. of A." is lacking. Our freedom is scratching and screaming as it`s being dragged down a dark crack in the earth called corruption.
0
Reply
Male 483
Kain1: I won`t argue that. Honestly, I have a pistol that I keep behind my bed. It gathers dust for the most part. I have been in a house alone (as a kid)twice while it was being robbed. The police didn`t show up til after the burglars were gone, with the only consolation being that they would report it. When asked if they would investigate or patrol the neighborhood more, they just said "These things happen to everyone."

That to me is unacceptable. Knowing I have a "scarecrow" helps me sleep at night, even if its intended purpose is unsavory.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@Irish: That hasn`t happened in any of the other industrialized countries the have gun control (well, not yet anyway), and some of them have had it since the 17-hundreds.. But somehow i wouldn`t put it past america..

But then again, if it gets down to it, a band of disorganized civilians, armed or not, probably wouldn`t stand a chance against the mighty US military..
0
Reply
Male 483
The reason people want a right to keep guns is because they never want to be in a position where the U.S. becomes a military state and the people are forced to throw rocks and pointy sticks against the oppressors while the police-state bears down on them with AR-15`s and teargas.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
@Psychgeek: How is it a right to own guns?.. Yes i realize it says so in the bill of rights, and at the time of writing it kind of made sense (the british being such dicks and all).. But it doesn`t any more.. And why exactly do you think i`m being illogical?
0
Reply
Male 1,471
there are 1.2 billion people in america??.. i thought it was about 300 million.. besides it`s the "rate", which means it`s per capita ;)..

@nijd I rest my case.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Kain1:

Your arguments just don`t make sense. You can`t take away the rights of the people based on something so illogical.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Yes of course.. why bother...

Haven`t you heard of capitalism?.. If a product is scarce and har to obtain, the price goes up. Thus making it much harder for the poorer demographic (which ironically is the most murderous) to get a hold of them, thereby drastically reducing the rate of murders.

0
Reply
Male 787
Also Kain, the "next biggest country" that allows guns (which gave no name to) is France. Their population is dwarfed by ours, in enough ways to skew your statistic in to the territory of useless information.

US Pop:1,210,193,422
France pop:65,027,000
0
Reply
Male 267
hahaha he`s from Denmark. Well, moving on.
0
Reply
Male 267
Wow Kain, you are not a man of logic. Taking guns away is the solution? Well, banning alcohol sure worked well..

Doesn`t matter. You became completely irrelevant with the anti America comments. We all know you people only say the things you do out of jealousy. We`re number one in the world for a reason. We don`t need friends from whatever dumpster you`re from :D
0
Reply
Male 787
Euros be mad up in here.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
How about the socalled Brady act? The waiting period that was imposed under Clinton. After it was set in place the rate of murder fell by 10%. After it was (what`s the word?, outdated?) under Bush and not renewed, murder rates started rising again.

And the fact that "Among industrialized nations, the U.S. firearm-related death rate is more than
twice that of the next highest country" Link

If you look hard enough, you could probably find a few cases where Heroin saved someones life. That doesn`t really mean anything. It`s still generally a bad idea.

Hunters would be an example of an activity involving guns which could be allowed, but with strict regulation, like it is in Denmark where i live for example.

How is the potential overthrow of the government an
0
Reply
Male 5,190
"It`s like making pot illegal--part of the fun in doing it is the danger of getting caught. "

....No.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
and finally, Kain1, if you take guns away from the public, no matter where you live, they will STILL be obtained black market.

You go ahead and try to take away a person`s right to own a gun. See what happens :)
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Kain1:

First of all, to tell Americans "guns are completely illegal and you can`t have them because the government says so" would result in a complete government overthrow. We take the second amendment very seriously here.

Secondly, guns allow hunters to help keep animal populations in check, which helps prevent car accidents and such.

Third, there are plenty of examples of citizens using their own guns, or cops off duty using theirs, to help stop crimes taking place.

Fourth, you have absolutely no proof to back up what you`re saying, only an emotional rant. While I cannot actually link you studies, the knowledge I have was given to me by a professor, who showed me recent studies. If I remembered the authors, I would link them.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Wait what?.. Less accidents would happen if people were more careful and better educated in the use of guns?.. You`ve gotta be kidding.. I`m pretty sure that if people didn`t have access to guns in the first place, the accident rate would drop significantly more than any amount of education or carefulness could make it.

The first part may be true on some level (haven`t seen that study, but it seems somewhat logical (would you link to it perhaps? :).)), but it only points to a deeper problem with the mentality of the people, and in any case would most likely be temporary.

But there is no refuting the fact that guns serve no useful purpose in society, and are actually a detriment to it. For that reason alone they should be, if not outlawed completely, severly restricted and controlled.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@Kain1:

actually, studies are showing that, according to popular opinion, should guns be outlawed people will try harder than ever to get them, based on the principle of "the right to carry arms". It`s like making pot illegal--part of the fun in doing it is the danger of getting caught.

And another thing, the guns wouldn`t kill people if those shooting them either a) knew how to use them, b) were more careful, or c) didn`t use them to harm others. You can`t blame an inanimate object that only works when a person uses it.

We know what we`re talking about, thank you :)
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Wth are you people talking about ?!.. Of course guns are a problem! Every single statistic ever made shows that guns do more harm than good (and with good i mean protect people from violent crimes etc.) You are some 30 times more likely to shoot yourself or someone close to you by accident than to ever use it to protect yourself. Of course guns will still be available if they`re outlawed, but not AS available, preventing some violent crimes (especially crimes of passion), but most importantly preventing a large portion of the accidental deaths and injuries that occur every year. There is simply no evidence that guns are helpful to society in any way.

But of course, how can one expect a rational look at the scientific evidence from a country where evolution is still a hotly debated topic?
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ InTheNameOf:

what in the hell does that have to do with anything??? This innocent cop was doing routine traffic stuff when he got shot and killed by some psycho. so it`s okay that he`s dead because "more often than not it`s the cops who shoot people"??

I would LOVE to see you become a cop and go through what they do on a daily basis. Maybe then you wouldn`t make such asinine comments.
0
Reply
Male 335
u think if guns are illegal they will not be available?

Anyway, as often as not it`s the cops who are shooting people.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
"There will always be crazy people. There doesn`t need to be guns."


LOL u are stupid.. if there aren`t guns they will use knives! should we ban knives to? or maybe we should ban baseball bats? and axes? hell lets ban pencils and pens while were at it!!!!!
0
Reply
Female 1,798
"There will always be crazy people. There doesn`t need to be guns."
******************************

That`s like saying, "there will always be bad spellers. There don`t need to be pencils." The guns aren`t the issue, it`s the people who use them.
0
Reply
Male 83
There will always be crazy people. There doesn`t need to be guns.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
@Gerry
LOL good joke.

But seriously, what`s up with Virginia Tech and people shooting people?
0
Reply
Male 1,249
@Gerry1of1 wrong on so many levels but mostly you should have said "A Virginia Tech cheerleader" instead of "AN Virginia Tech cheerleader".
0
Reply
Female 1,798
Gerry--even though I usually find your jokes funny, this is *very* inappropriate and lacks a lot of class.

Grow up and have some respect for the innocent man who died.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Q: What is the difference between an Virginia Tech cheerleader and a catfish?
A: One has whiskers and smells; the other is a fish.
0
Reply
Male 815
Link: Two Killed On Virginia Tech Campus [Rate Link] - One was a police officer performing a traffic stop
0
Reply