What the hell is wrong with this country?

[GT40FIED]

In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech, which I am already about sick to the teeth of hearing about on news networks that can't offer any real insight on the situation, I've noticed a few glaring problems with the American public (and the news outlets who "inform" them).

1. Somehow it is now absolutely necessary for someone to be at fault. A lot of people are giving shit to the school's administration for somehow failing to notify kids of what had happened. How unfair is that? Two people got killed in a dorm and the police had a "person of interest" in custody. Such situations don't necessitate shuting down a whole university. Then the school sent out an email later on telling students of the killings. The problem is that state universities are big...usually with at least 7K-10K students. I'd put money down that on an extremely good day only about 10% of them would have gotten that email in time to help and a good number of them would have still gone about their days as usual.

2. It's unfair for gun control retards to point at this like it's some sort of proof that they were right about...well...do they ever have a point? I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I think everyone should be allowed to protect themselves. I still think that if you really believe you need an AR-15 to go deer hunting you're full of shit and probably suck at hunting something aweful, but the 2nd Amendment is pretty much an all or nothing proposition. Short of giving psych tests to anyone who buys a gun (so impractical I don't even know where to start), there's not much you can do to keep guns away from the few crazies who use them to do harm and ensure they only get into the hands of responsible owners. Getting rid of guns altogether means that the only people who have guns are criminals and I think we can all agree that's not an attractive idea.

3. The media needs to stop. Period. Not just with the coverage of this story, but altogether. I keep hearing them talking about how people need to hurry up and "start the healing". Bad idea. "But oh Steve, how can that be a bad idea?". Simple. By saying that the healing needs to start, they're essentially telling you to forget about bringing it up and asking questions. It's true, this country is packed to the gills with retards who don't ask any questions, but that shouldn't include media outlets. They're primary job is to relate the simple answers to simple questions: who, what, when, where, how, and why. They've got all of them down but that last one and they seem pretty content to let it slide. Sure, they'll parade 10 different "experts" out with 10 different opinions, but it's all based on assumption and conjecture.

4. Stop pretending like this is the worst thing that has ever happened. It happens all over the world everyday. And even despite what the news is saying, this isn't even the worst school killing spree ever...it's just the worst school shooting. If you were to look at killings in terms of VT body count, there are two "Virginia Techs" in Iraq everyday (and don't for a second pretend that all or even most of those people are bad guys). It seems like we're pretty selective about who we're willing to feel bad about killing off. Innocent Americans dying...tragedy. Innocent anyone else dying...pass the sports section. I'm not saying it's wrong to feel sensitive about what happened, but if you're going to then at least have the decency to pull your head out of your ass and feel bad for everyone else, too.

[blind34_1]

Indeed, Steve.

I too am sick of the general population not bothering to ask questions about what the media feeds us and what everyone else spews to each other.

The other day, I believe it was the local news, I heard someone say this was the worst shooting ever. Excuse me? ~32 dead? Try again, or at least qualify your statement. The problem with that is people listen passively, and then later they repeat it as fact.

And, yeah, I thought the same thing about the gun control. Right after this thing happend I figured two things would happen: the gun control wackos would crawl out of the woodwork again, and people would start trying to blame this thing on terrorist groups. Both have happend. The gun control people need to stop and think for a second. If even a small cross section of students were carrying concealed (which apparently, they were allowed to in Virginia, anyone have any information on this?) then I think things would have ended differently. Give me a chance to pop my would-be killer, and you can bet your ass I'll take it.

The terrorist buzzword people just need to "stfu and color" as you once said.

I'm with you, man.

[dabouncerx24]

On the same day of the shooting, 200+ soldiers in Iraq were killed...it probably received one headline on CNN.com. You're right Steve, media is full of shit but the general public is just too gullible.

[GT40FIED]

If even a small cross section of students were carrying concealed (which apparently, they were allowed to in Virginia, anyone have any information on this?) then I think things would have ended differently.

Actually, while VA allows concealed carry, the VA legislature pushed a bill through forbidding students on campus to carry concealed weapons regardless of whether or not they have a permit. So it's kind of upside down. Guns could have saved people in this case, but on any other given day I'm not sure you want a ton of hand guns on a college campus. I'm also not sure it would've helped...survivors said that this guy was extremely effective. He had something like 60% lethality which is insane with .22 and 9mm pistols. That's professional grade right there. Why do Asians have to be so damn efficient?

[Racing Rice]

2. It's unfair for gun control retards to point at this like it's some sort of proof that they were right about...well...do they ever have a point? I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I think everyone should be allowed to protect themselves. I still think that if you really believe you need an AR-15 to go deer hunting you're full of shit and probably suck at hunting something aweful, but the 2nd Amendment is pretty much an all or nothing proposition. Short of giving psych tests to anyone who buys a gun (so impractical I don't even know where to start), there's not much you can do to keep guns away from the few crazies who use them to do harm and ensure they only get into the hands of responsible owners. Getting rid of guns altogether means that the only people who have guns are criminals and I think we can all agree that's not an attractive idea.

It's more difficult to hunt a deer with an AR15 with a .223 round then it is a .30-.06 Remington 700. Sure if you are packing a 30rd clip you've got more chances of killing it, but it's you're sporting a 5rd clip you better be a damn good shot. Of course the second Amendment doesn't protect hunters, it protects US citizens. There are plenty of competitions (matches) for AR15 out there, they are just a lot of fun to shoot.

A "Gun Free Zone" is one of the most ridiculous ideas EVER! It's an open invitation to criminals that says, "Come rob/shoot us, we are unarmed."

But yes, you are correct Steve.

[GT40FIED]

Well the difference in bullet size you're talking about is very, very little. But that's sort of besides the point. I'm just sick of people buying assault rifles and claiming they need them for hunting. Wanna go shoot it for fun at the range? Go right ahead. Want it for home defence? It's probably a bit overkill (I'd personally rather rock a pistol grip 12G shotgun), but ok. People just need to stop being afraid of being honest about why they want their guns. Maybe if people quit lying about going "hunting" with their civilian M16 then people would understand at least a little more.

As far as "gun free zones"...there do need to be a few, but yeah...some are ridiculous. For instance...a high school is probably a good place to be gun free. Really any place where minors or people who have a tendency to think irrationally has a good argument for being free of guns. Otherwise, as long as it's legal where you live, whatever.

[Violent Apathy]

There may not be much of a difference in the diameter of the bullet between .223 and .30-06 but trust me there's a huge difference in the power of the round.

[GT40FIED]

Well sure...but if you're a good hunter a bullet's a bullet. I mean obviously a .22LR round isn't going to do a ton of damage, but it could get the job done if you know what you're doing. Hell...people go hunting with bows and arrows everyday and make it work. I still think the only reason people don't go hunting with something like...say...an M1 Garand is because there'd be nothing left of whatever they shot.

[Racing Rice]

You have to find the best combination between stopping power, without mutilating the animal. lol

We can't hunt deer with anything but shotguns in Ohio. However I think you can hunt things like Coyote, wild bore, and smaller game with other type of rifles. I don't understand why people would lie about buying assault rifles for hunting, but a lot of people do hunt with them. Sure they could hunt with something else, but if you don't want to then why? An AR15 is a capable hunting rifle.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i read bits and peices of the thread, i'll just throw my 2 cents in

people collect gun, much like people collect cars. they dont need 90% of what they do, but its a part of our american culture. just like who's got the fastest car(which is illegal to drive anywhere near top speed anywhere in this counrty) the same goes with the baddest guns. we've got tracks for cars, shooting ranges for guns. yes guns kill, do i think we would be better off with no guns in our society? yes. but i know it will never happen and wont even try to make a case for getting rid of them. regulate them all to hell maybe, but its our american way to go over and beyond the top of what is needed, legally able to use, and legally able to own.

do you need an AK for defence? no. but if someone is breaking into my home and i have a perfectly well working magnum or an ak sitting under my bed which am i going to grab? the game of home defence isnt like fishing, where you wana see whats the lightest tackle you can use to catch the biggest fish, its to protect yourself. now on the flip side, if you can get one so can they. so whats the safe line to draw? where do we step on the clause in the second amendment dealing with right to bear arms? where do you start to make the distinction between collecting rare and expensive guns to having an arms race with the gang around the block? its a tough topic to try and find the answer, which is why almost 250 years later a little part of the 2nd amendment is still being debated today.

as far as hunting... i dont know enough about all the gun laws as to what you can and cant use, but from what ive herd from friends who hunt, it seems right, fair, and humane to the animals, but then again, theres tons of counter argument for why you should be able to use a higher powered gun, or no guns at all. the fact at the end of the day however is we are smarter and higher up on the food chain than the animals we hunt. and as long as its either for population control of their speices to benifit the majority of those animals in the longrun from starvation and overcrowding or to feed you and your family i dont really see the issue.

[Racing Rice]

You're right Chris, it's not an easy question to answer. I think that there really is no answer. For every argument there is a counter argument. Both sides have points, points that aren't necessarily wrong. The problem is that not everything is clear cut. Does less guns mean less crime? I doubt it, less criminals make less crime. If there weren't guns would the number of homicides go down? The only definite answer is that the number of homicides by firearms would go down. Knives, explosives, etc may go up. Our Police are out powered? Sure some departments that won't buy fully automatic carbines/rifles or even semi-automatic carbines/rifles are out powered. The ones that do spend the money aren't.

Is there really a lesser of two evils?

[ChrisCantSkate]

as soon as you think there is a lesser of 2 evils, it makes itself the greater of the 2 evils. this might be one of the hardest "laws" or even products we have to regulate.

in my personal opinion, i think crime would go up if we had no guns, but the death rate from crimes would go down. which is more evil? well death right? well, maybe, maybe not. what if people are beaten or stabbed to all hell instead of a single BANG? its much more inhumane to beat someone to death than shoot them (we've never had a beating squad for capitol punishment, but we have had firing squads)

i could make argument after argument and counter with equally as convincing statistics. i feel the answer is we are a resourceful species, and we will always use what is avalible in our environment to achive what we are trying to accomplish. taking away one means wont eliminate the real issue. we are too smart for our own good sometimes