ANOTHER American College Shooting...

AircraftTechie · 14-02-2008 11:28PM #1

Oh great.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1305546,00.html

Breaking News

Gunman Opens Fire In US Classroom
Updated:22:25, Thursday February 14, 2008

At least 18 people have reportedly been shot after a gunman opened fire at Northern Illinois University.
It was unclear how serious the injuries were and whether any of the people had died at the college in DeKalb, about 65 miles west of downtown Chicago.

A local newspaper said the gunman was armed with a shotgun and a pistol.

It added that police radio traffic indicated that the man was "down".

Another local media report said police had the gunman in custody.

One student told a radio station that roughly 140 students were in a geology classroom when the man opened fire.

Other witnesses said bloodied victims were hit by buckshot.

A woman outside the classroom said students fled in terror.

More to follow...

Petey2006 · 14-02-2008 11:42PM

So teaching is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous professions in the US so.

Toots · 14-02-2008 11:43PM

Horrible. Glad I don't live in the states.

Terry · 14-02-2008 11:45PM

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

Toots · 15-02-2008 12:05AM

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

Probably a sticky solely for scumbags, they seem to get people's goat everywhere, Luas, bus, outside the shop .....etc etc:rolleyes:

FunkZ · 15-02-2008 12:10AM

That's fcuking terrible.

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

After Hours should just be a sticky at the top of Boards!

Ruu_Old · 15-02-2008 12:24AM

I know someone who turned down a place at the university a few days ago. Crazy stuff. They were talking about a bill to allow students to carry concealed weapons around campus, already has passed in a few university campus as far as I know.

Healio · 15-02-2008 12:28AM

St. Valentines Day Massacre???

Dave! · 15-02-2008 12:39AM

Healio wrote: »

St. Valentines Day Massacre???

Do you work for the Sun?

Rb · 15-02-2008 12:41AM

Well at least they have him in custody and it didn't get out of it the easy way.

Now lets hope he lives long enough to be sentenced and hopefully imprisoned for the rest of his life, with constant suicide watch obviously as the little bastard shouldn't get such a chance.

EDIT: Just read he's dead, f*cker.
RE-EDIT: Gay, a load of conflicting stuff about it atm. One saying he's dead, the a few paragraphs down saying he'd been caught etc etc.

buckfast4me · 15-02-2008 12:46AM

rb_ie wrote: »

Well at least they have him in custody and it didn't get out of it the easy way.

Now lets hope he lives long enough to be sentenced and hopefully imprisoned for the rest of his life, with constant suicide watch obviously as the little bastard shouldn't get such a chance.

errr hes dead mate

Manic Moran · 15-02-2008 12:49AM

Ruu wrote: »

They were talking about a bill to allow students to carry concealed weapons around campus, already has passed in a few university campus as far as I know.

Illinois is one of the two States in the Union which still has a flat prohibition on concealed carry anywhere in the State. There actually is a workaround, but it's a bit inconvenient. The laws in other States vary greatly. Some, such as Utah, have a general "If the State allows you to carry, you can carry anywhere". Virginia had a "The schools can choose to make their own prohibitions if they want, otherwise it's legal". Others have a "Not valid in places of education" caveat on their permits. Checking local rules in advance is adviseable.

Latest reports are that the only killed person was the gunman. Not sure what happened him yet.

[Edit: I see this is incorrect. Now four plus himself]

NTM

Hanley · 15-02-2008 01:40AM

Hold up... So in certain states, it is perfectly legal to carry firearms onto the school's premises??

Xavi6 · 15-02-2008 01:48AM

Hanley wrote: »

Hold up... So in certain states, it is perfectly legal to carry firearms onto the school's premises??

Good choice of words

Manic Moran · 15-02-2008 02:25AM

Hanley wrote: »

Hold up... So in certain states, it is perfectly legal to carry firearms onto the school's premises??

Sure. Just happens that these shootings never seem to happen in places where the students/teachers are armed. 12 states have no 'place of education' prohibitions at all, 38 do. (Though as is pointed out, some States are reviewing this policy)

See, for example, this CNN article on University of Utah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpSUBE3lMPM
It's about the size of UCD, and some 500 students are armed. No trouble yet.

Virginia Tech was a particularly weird case. Virginia law allowed colleges to decide whether or not its students may be armed. VT chose to prohibit it, but the prohibition has no effect on non-students. (And in the case of Cho, he ignored the prohibition anyway).

The common ground is to note that no school policy allows those who are otherwise prohibited from local law from carrying. If the State does not permit you to be armed off school grounds, you may not carry on. If the State does allow you to be armed off school grounds, you're probably no more dangerous on.

NTM

Senna · 15-02-2008 03:16AM

How do the NRA respond to these killing??
Surely they have to admit that more control is needed??

Black Swan · 15-02-2008 03:24AM

Petey2006 wrote: »

So teaching is quickly becoming one of the most dangerous professions in the US so.

This is tragic indeed, but Google "school shootings" and you will find out that several countries have this problem, although some blackout the news reporting (e.g., PRC).

Manic Moran · 15-02-2008 04:09AM

Just saw a posting on another board: "It's a good thing Illinois doesn't permit people to carry weapons. Someone might have gotten hurt"

Senna wrote: »

How do the NRA respond to these killing??
Surely they have to admit that more control is needed??

Gun control is using both hands.

The NRA's position (I am not a member, I should add) is that there are already over 20,000 firearms laws on the books, and suggests that perhaps enforcing a few of them instead of trying to draw up new ones might be a better course of action. They have no issue with reasonable legislation, such as that which prevents convicted felons or mentally deficient persons from owning firearms, or the current process for the issuance of permits for machineguns or destructive devices such as bazookas. They point to rising firearms crime rates in the UK and Australia as examples where draconian legislation has done nothing but to take firearms out of the hands of those who generally obey the law anyway. Other groups, to include myself, believe that sitting helplessly whilst waiting for the police to show up is not a course of action most likely to result in one's own survival.

If you have a few hours to kill, the most balanced set of arguments you can find right now is in the US Supreme Court.

Washington D.C. has a total handgun ban, and an effective ban on the use of firearms for defense. This is now under review in the US Supreme Court after the District Court threw out the ban.

This was the ruling in question.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

The deadline for filings was last week. The case is setting records, it has the largest amount of Congressmen signing briefs ever, it is the first time in Supreme Court history that a sitting Vice President has filed a brief in opposition to a sitting President, and is the first 'new ground' case on the Bill of Rights in decades.

You can read all the arguments, for and against, which have been filed in the court here. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

To read them, you want to read the Petitioner's Brief first (That's DC), then the Amici for the Petitioner, then the Respondent's Brief, then the Amici for the Respondent. (Otherwise a lot of the Respondent's arguments won't make much sense). Just focus on the Supreme Court Merits stage at the top.

The briefs are filed by almost every group you can think of. There are briefs by 36 States between the two sides. Over 300 Congresscritters have put their oars in. There are doctors groups, racial equality groups, criminologist, sociologists, statisticians, a gay and lesbian group, the NRA, the Brady Campaign, Linguistics professors, historians and city mayors, police and military. They argue the history of firearms ownership back to the English Magna Carta and the statistical effects of bans. They argue the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment, and the racist roots of American gun control. They argue emotionally and scientifically. They cry 'It's for the Children' and 'Armed Gays don't get Bashed'.

Basically, this is your one-stop-shop for most every argument for and against you can think of.

NTM

Ross_Mahon · 15-02-2008 04:15AM

Counter Strike will get blamed for this once again

Kiith · 15-02-2008 09:38AM

I give it a day before someone blames it one computer games, and antisocial music/movies/books. Will once again be used as a poster for Jack Thompson and co, while the real issues (how ****ing easy it is for any nutjob to get weapons) is overlooked.

15-02-2008 12:19PM

Just want to say, excellent post Manic Moran. I look forward to going through the links you provided later.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just saw a posting on another board: "It's a good thing Illinois doesn't permit people to carry weapons. Someone might have gotten hurt"

Gun control is using both hands.

The NRA's position (I am not a member, I should add) is that there are already over 20,000 firearms laws on the books, and suggests that perhaps enforcing a few of them instead of trying to draw up new ones might be a better course of action. They have no issue with reasonable legislation, such as that which prevents convicted felons or mentally deficient persons from owning firearms, or the current process for the issuance of permits for machineguns or destructive devices such as bazookas. They point to rising firearms crime rates in the UK and Australia as examples where draconian legislation has done nothing but to take firearms out of the hands of those who generally obey the law anyway. Other groups, to include myself, believe that sitting helplessly whilst waiting for the police to show up is not a course of action most likely to result in one's own survival.

If you have a few hours to kill, the most balanced set of arguments you can find right now is in the US Supreme Court.

Washington D.C. has a total handgun ban, and an effective ban on the use of firearms for defense. This is now under review in the US Supreme Court after the District Court threw out the ban.

This was the ruling in question.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

The deadline for filings was last week. The case is setting records, it has the largest amount of Congressmen signing briefs ever, it is the first time in Supreme Court history that a sitting Vice President has filed a brief in opposition to a sitting President, and is the first 'new ground' case on the Bill of Rights in decades.

You can read all the arguments, for and against, which have been filed in the court here. http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

To read them, you want to read the Petitioner's Brief first (That's DC), then the Amici for the Petitioner, then the Respondent's Brief, then the Amici for the Respondent. (Otherwise a lot of the Respondent's arguments won't make much sense). Just focus on the Supreme Court Merits stage at the top.

The briefs are filed by almost every group you can think of. There are briefs by 36 States between the two sides. Over 300 Congresscritters have put their oars in. There are doctors groups, racial equality groups, criminologist, sociologists, statisticians, a gay and lesbian group, the NRA, the Brady Campaign, Linguistics professors, historians and city mayors, police and military. They argue the history of firearms ownership back to the English Magna Carta and the statistical effects of bans. They argue the meaning of the 2nd Ammendment, and the racist roots of American gun control. They argue emotionally and scientifically. They cry 'It's for the Children' and 'Armed Gays don't get Bashed'.

Basically, this is your one-stop-shop for most every argument for and against you can think of.

NTM

kevmy · 15-02-2008 12:34PM

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

I mean having a law which states you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon outside an educational institution but not inside isn't going to work. I personally don't agree with everyone being allowed to carry weapons either because IMO the more easily guns are available the more readily they get into the wrong hands.

I mean who needs a massive machine gun or a bazooka? Surely no one, you can't hunt with it or do anything sane with one. The only reason they're made are to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

You say other countries have school shootings and they do. But I would argue that the US has the most and that more school shootings take place in countries with more liberal gun laws.

Also a lot of the people who do go on these gun rampages are, up until that point, completely normal people on the outside and undetectable by any background checks. Also most are young kids, usually decently educated and from fairly well off backgrounds. If they can't get guns legally then they would find it a lot more difficult to obtain weapons. These people usually aren't gangbangers who deal drugs and shoot people on a regular basis over business dealings.

Stercus Accidit · 15-02-2008 12:57PM

kevmy wrote: »

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

Bam how the hell is that going to work?

There isnt any gps in guns, only licensed ones have a licence, illegal ones which would be used in a crime, aren't likely to have an address on record.

The proliferation of illegal guns and the gangstaz in this country would indicate that bang and the dirt is gone, sorry, bam isnt going to work.

Guns exist and criminals will get them, a dedicated loser will get one too.

I'm all for gun control through proper licencing, but the outright banning rarely works.

Cunny-Funt · 15-02-2008 01:34PM

People can say what they like but I find it incredibly retarded that there's actually people walking around in the US with fecking guns on them constantly like its the ****ing wild west.

And Americas supposed to be a modern society :rolleyes:

If I was in a University in the US and found out half the students were packing I'd be outa there in a flash. Its just utter utter insanity.

Dragan · 15-02-2008 01:50PM

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

It is pretty sad when they all have roughly the same number of threads started about them.

*loves living in Ireland*

whiskeyman · 15-02-2008 02:02PM

Terry wrote: »

I'm thinking of making a sticky thread for this, scumbags on the LUAS and Romas at ATMs.

Sometime in the future....

/AIB installs first ATM onboard luas trams.

//Dark clothed gunman shoots Roma stealing scumbags money from ATM on Luas....

/// popular irish web forum crashes

RuailleBuaille · 15-02-2008 02:18PM

FFS how many people have to die before the fcuking Americans start to twig that there is a problem with having guns so readily available? Guarantee you if it was someone who walked into Congress (I know it's not likely) and shot 16 or 17 people there'd be laws enacted in minutes. And I mean laws that work, not the 20,000 laws they have to cover their asses. Or just do as Chris rock suggested and charge 5,000 dollars a bullet...

faceman · 15-02-2008 02:46PM

ItchyInside wrote: »

FFS how many people have to die before the fcuking Americans start to twig that there is a problem with having guns so readily available? Guarantee you if it was someone who walked into Congress (I know it's not likely) and shot 16 or 17 people there'd be laws enacted in minutes. And I mean laws that work, not the 20,000 laws they have to cover their asses. Or just do as Chris rock suggested and charge 5,000 dollars a bullet...

its no different in the US than it is here.

How many people have to die or suffer as the result of a poor health system in ireland before the irish twig there is a problem with the HSE?

kevmy · 15-02-2008 02:57PM

Motosam wrote: »

Bam how the hell is that going to work?

There isnt any gps in guns, only licensed ones have a licence, illegal ones which would be used in a crime, aren't likely to have an address on record.

The proliferation of illegal guns and the gangstaz in this country would indicate that bang and the dirt is gone, sorry, bam isnt going to work.

Guns exist and criminals will get them, a dedicated loser will get one too.

I'm all for gun control through proper licencing, but the outright banning rarely works.

I see the point you're making but what I was trying to saw (badly and unclearly) is that under an outright ban anyone who is found with a gun is arrested. I'm not saying everyone with a gun will be caught unfortunately.

As for outright bans not working well maybe not but IMO they work better than the poorly licensed, poorly enforced gun laws that are almost always enacted in the US. Of course could be the point made that in an ideal world all countries would ban guns making it a lot more difficult for anyone to get there hands on one. Most gangster guns here are imported from places where they are legal.

As for dedicated losers always getting there hands on one I'm not sure but we should definitely make it as difficult as possible for them to get there hands on them.

faceman wrote: »

its no different in the US than it is here.

How many people have to die or suffer as the result of a poor health system in ireland before the irish twig there is a problem with the HSE?

Both are wrong but at least the Irish population in general know the HSE is fcuked the American population is still relatively supportive of the gun laws as they stand.

Dr_Teeth · 15-02-2008 05:19PM

kevmy wrote: »

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

Bazookas and Machineguns are already banned, they're not an issue. Handguns require a licence. The fact that licences are available to people who pass the background checks doesn't make a difference to the police.. if they stopped you and you had a handgun without a licence, you'd be arrested.

kevmy wrote: »

I mean having a law which states you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon outside an educational institution but not inside isn't going to work.

What do you mean? A criminal will carry wherever he wants and not bother with the licence. A law-abiding person would only carry where it's allowed or risk arrest, imprisonment and loss of licence & firearm. Makes sense to me..

kevmy wrote: »

I personally don't agree with everyone being allowed to carry weapons either because IMO the more easily guns are available the more readily they get into the wrong hands.

Whether or not they are carried is irrelevant. If weapons exist, criminals will get their hands on them somehow.

kevmy wrote: »

I mean who needs a massive machine gun or a bazooka? Surely no one, you can't hunt with it or do anything sane with one. The only reason they're made are to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

Those things aren't legal in the states.

kevmy wrote: »

You say other countries have school shootings and they do. But I would argue that the US has the most and that more school shootings take place in countries with more liberal gun laws.

That's a bit simplistic. I think you have to take into account the cultural problems they have over there.. places like Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Canada etc. have loads of guns but low levels of gun crime because they have (imo) healthier/better societies.

kevmy wrote: »

Also a lot of the people who do go on these gun rampages are, up until that point, completely normal people on the outside and undetectable by any background checks. Also most are young kids, usually decently educated and from fairly well off backgrounds. If they can't get guns legally then they would find it a lot more difficult to obtain weapons. These people usually aren't gangbangers who deal drugs and shoot people on a regular basis over business dealings.

Well the idea here is that you're saying that law-abiding people should be banned from having them because of the 0.000001 (or whatever) percentage of them that use them to shoot people in schools, and because since they are law-abiding they will comply. Whereas the criminals will just ignore the ban and keep shooting each other, and normal people too. I have a lot of problems with this kind of thinking..

1) Collective punishment - taking away the rights/property of 60+ million Americans just because some kids go nuts.. that's unjust.

2) Making law-abiding people more vulnerable to those who ignore the law and keep their guns.

3) The amount of guns in circulation in the US is something like 200 million! No government would be able to collect even a small percentage of them.

4) The demand for guns would not go away, after a ban they would be available to buy from criminals with no background checks or records. No government can stop criminals selling drugs - and they have to be shipped thousands of miles over oceans - what makes you think they could stop criminals selling guns?

The only way to reduce the harm criminals (and nutters) do using guns, in a society that is already full of them, is to allow the law-abiding people carry guns to defend themselves. In parallel with this would be efforts to build a most just/healthy society.

No gun ban is possible given the history of the US and the demand there is for them. Any administration foolish enough to try a "War on Guns" would fair even worse than the "War on Drugs".

Manic Moran · 15-02-2008 05:59PM

kevmy wrote: »

Say what you like Manic Moran but there is a logic to having for example an outright ban on handguns, bazookas, machine guns etc. It makes it a lot easier for the police to police. You have a handgun and bam you're arrested, you have a machine gun and bam you're arrested.

Cue big press conference. "We, Congress, declare all firearms to be illegal...(OK, now what?)"

It's utterly unenforceable. Not only is not every weapon going to be turned in, the experience of other countries or even certain States in the US is ample evidence of this, but there is no way of checking. Even if you had the manpower, which you don't, to go house-to-house to check every single residence in the US, and to search every single person, it's utterly illegal. USians are kindof fond of their 4th Ammendment rights against police harassment and unlawful search and seizure.

I see the point you're making but what I was trying to saw (badly and unclearly) is that under an outright ban anyone who is found with a gun is arrested. I'm not saying everyone with a gun will be caught unfortunately.

In which case, you're suggesting a half-assed policy. What's the point?

I mean having a law which states you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon outside an educational institution but not inside isn't going to work.

I agree. The fact that the majority (if not every) of mass shootings in the US that I can think of in the last decade or so has occurred in places which are 'gun free zones' is ample proof of this. It defies all logic. Some States are looking to change this, MS has a bill in its legislature right now for example.

I mean who needs a massive machine gun or a bazooka? Surely no one, you can't hunt with it or do anything sane with one. The only reason they're made are to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

If you believe in the concept of protecting against the tyranny of government, they could be quite useful. Several of the court briefs make mention of this, and give examples where disarmament has pre-saged oppression.

People can say what they like but I find it incredibly retarded that there's actually people walking around in the US with fecking guns on them constantly like its the ****ing wild west.

Ok, there's the emotional argument. Now find me any statistic which says that the issuance of carry laws has had any measureable negative effect. (Feel free to browse the various pro-ban briefs I linked to earlier). Indeed, the criminal conviction rates of persons who are licensed to carry is far less than that of police officers. They have, however, had a positive effect on an individual basis for people who have exercised their ability to defend themselves.

Bazookas and Machineguns are already banned, they're not an issue. Handguns require a licence. The fact that licences are available to people who pass the background checks doesn't make a difference to the police.. if they stopped you and you had a handgun without a licence, you'd be arrested.

Technically not true. Machineguns and bazookas are covered under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and there is a vetting and permitting process one goes through after which one can be owned. I am unaware of a single incident of a crime involved a legally-held machinegun or destructive device (eg bazooka, hand grenade) in the last, oh, thirty years or so. (I can't think of any before then either but I'm willing to concede that there may be one or two). Handguns rarely require a license to own. The laws regarding carrying vary greatly by State and municipality. For example, in Virginia you must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but openly carrying one on your hip is legal without one.

What do you mean? A criminal will carry wherever he wants and not bother with the licence. A law-abiding person would only carry where it's allowed or risk arrest, imprisonment and loss of licence & firearm. Makes sense to me..

On the off-chance that you're not being sarcastic, I fail to see the benefit here. This is exactly the situation which resulted in the Luby restaurant shooting: One of the patrons, a Ms Hupp, to comply with the 'no guns' law, left her firearm in the car. A Mr Hennard did not comply with this law. As a result Ms Hupp was unable to prevent Mr Hennard from shooting her parents (and 21 other people). Ms Hupp subsequently drove a carry law through the Texas legislature.

Those things aren't legal in the states.

See above. The rules, again, vary State by State. California is generally a no-machinegun-State. Across the border in Nevada, they are legal, subject to the 1934 NFA requirements.

NTM

ANOTHER American College Shooting...

Comments