Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

 

You've obviously never met a gun that was haunted.

This kind of stuff must really hurt VT's public relations. I can't imagine people are flocking to a place that's been shot up twice in a decade.

They should go the way UMR did and just straight up change their name. UMR had one bomb threat and changed to MST in less than a year.

Shootings at VT, again? How strange.

Guns are awesome.

This kind of stuff must really hurt VT's public relations. I can't imagine people are flocking to a place that's been shot up twice in a decade.

 

From what happened, it was probably something that they had in the vehicle that they were trying to hide. Nevertheless, what happens with major incidences such as this, people try and copy them. Since they cause so much destruction and mayhem, it often plants the idea to do it again. Then whenever it happens again, they are reminded again about the original incident.

Tragedy involving a firearm occurs,

"We must BAN GUNS!"

 

Are you even trying to make a rational argument anymore?

 

It wouldn't be a rational argument if we used that particular incident as a reason that guns must be banned. But nobody thus far has done that. It just brings up the topic again.

 

It's the same as arguing against nuclear power after Fukushima. The accident itself shouldn't be the argument - but it brings up the topic again.

I disagree. Specifically because people are arguing in this thread, and not in a different one. Or because the argument to ban guns only occurs immediately after a tragedy like this occurs.

 

Also as far as nuclear power - once again bringing the debate up immediately following the worst of events is riding people's emotions. Look at how AWFUL and CATASTROPHIC this event was, we need to BAN nuclear power so something like this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. Average people are less likely to think logically about an event and let it take over their emotions, like a mob mentality.

Or because the argument to ban guns only occurs immediately after a tragedy like this occurs.

I think that's slightly disingenuous of you.

 

You can't possibly have any understanding of this issue without acknowledging that those who want guns banned aren't doing so necessarily as a knee-jerk reaction. There are many people who would have them banned anyway for other reasons; this only highlights those reasons, but it isn't the reason itself.

Or because the argument to ban guns only occurs immediately after a tragedy like this occurs.

I think that's slightly disingenuous of you.

 

You can't possibly have any understanding of this issue without acknowledging that those who want guns banned aren't doing so necessarily as a knee-jerk reaction. There are many people who would have them banned anyway for other reasons; this only highlights those reasons, but it isn't the reason itself.

Doesn't matter what their motive is, and it probably isn't knee-jerk. Bringing forth your argument publicly, and immediately following a tragedy to gain support or get a new law rushed through is exactly the opposite of what should happen.

Tbh America really needs to overhaul its gun laws! You like never get this kinda shit in the UK, the odd knifing perhaps but much rarer and rarely deadly; yet at least twice a year in the US there's some maniac shooting ppl dead at a school.

 

 

Have you thought about the massive population difference between US and Uk?

 

 

All of virginias are ashamed of VT. They need to straighten that shit out.

 

 

 

Tragedy involving a firearm occurs,

"We must BAN GUNS!"

 

Are you even trying to make a rational argument anymore?

 

It wouldn't be a rational argument if we used that particular incident as a reason that guns must be banned. But nobody thus far has done that. It just brings up the topic again.

 

It's the same as arguing against nuclear power after Fukushima. The accident itself shouldn't be the argument - but it brings up the topic again.

I disagree. Specifically because people are arguing in this thread, and not in a different one. Or because the argument to ban guns only occurs immediately after a tragedy like this occurs.

 

Also as far as nuclear power - once again bringing the debate up immediately following the worst of events is riding people's emotions. Look at how AWFUL and CATASTROPHIC this event was, we need to BAN nuclear power so something like this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. Average people are less likely to think logically about an event and let it take over their emotions, like a mob mentality.

 

Scientific term is Groupthink. And its the worst [bleep]ing thing in the world. So obnoxious. even worse on Nov 2 though.

Tbh America really needs to overhaul its gun laws! You like never get this kinda shit in the UK, the odd knifing perhaps but much rarer and rarely deadly; yet at least twice a year in the US there's some maniac shooting ppl dead at a school.

 

 

Have you thought about the massive population difference between US and Uk?

Even when you account for that our gun crime is a far lower percentage and afaik, whatever gun crime there is usually gang related. We don't have school shootouts - it just doesn't happen because kids who will snap and go crazy, murdering everyone in sight, can't get their hands on a gun. Population doesn't make a difference when you're looking at proportions.

Tbh America really needs to overhaul its gun laws! You like never get this kinda shit in the UK, the odd knifing perhaps but much rarer and rarely deadly; yet at least twice a year in the US there's some maniac shooting ppl dead at a school.

 

 

Have you thought about the massive population difference between US and Uk?

Even when you account for that our gun crime is a far lower percentage and afaik, whatever gun crime there is usually gang related. We don't have school shootouts - it just doesn't happen because kids who will snap and go crazy, murdering everyone in sight, can't get their hands on a gun. Population doesn't make a difference when you're looking at proportions.

^ This.

Talking about rarer I mean as in crime rates which aren't dependant on population propotions.

It's a given in numerical terms a larger population has more occurrences, but proportionally this don't matter.

If a population of 1,000,000 has a 1% annual murder rate (so 10,000 murdered a year) it is still a rarer crime than a 2% murder rate in a 10,000 population (so 200 murdered).