VA - Virginia Tech Shooting, 32 murdered, 23 injured, 16 April 2007

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
ljwf22,
Thanks for the camera idea! I didn't think of that. The bus driver was actually in the meeting and said she thought my son was one of those kids who "carries himself in that way" where kids tend to pick on them. ????

I will take that to mean we have raised him to be kind and have a good heart. He wouldn't pick on other kids with the meanies on the bus, so that put a bullseye on his back. :(

Wow, that's practically what my son's teacher said about my son. Well, I'm glad he's not a bully, but unfortunately, like you said, the bullseye sits right on his back.

I will admit to worrying sometimes that he keeps this all in more than we think...and someday he will feel helpless and angry and want to take matters into his own hands. We talk about it so much with him and give him tactics and give him support but it's still scary when you hear about other incidents in middle school etc.
 
ljwf22,
Thanks for the camera idea! I didn't think of that. The bus driver was actually in the meeting and said she thought my son was one of those kids who "carries himself in that way" where kids tend to pick on them. ????

I will take that to mean we have raised him to be kind and have a good heart. He wouldn't pick on other kids with the meanies on the bus, so that put a bullseye on his back. :(

Tell your son to quit carrying himself that way!

You have got to be joking.

So, he appears to NOT be a punk, which makes him an easy target??

I am so damn sick and tired of administrators not punishing the thugs and finding ways to blame their victims.

My daughter was verbally bullied for YEARS by this one particular child (Who happened to be the secretary's daughter). I complained til I turned blue and was told my daughter was probably just too sensitive.

If you are a bully, you get one warning, then OUT!

Expulsion is a great way to deter offenders.
 
Tell your son to quit carrying himself that way!

You have got to be joking.

So, he appears to NOT be a punk, which makes him an easy target??

I am so damn sick and tired of administrators not punishing the thugs and finding ways to blame their victims.

My daughter was verbally bullied for YEARS by this one particular child (Who happened to be the secretary's daughter). I complained til I turned blue and was told my daughter was probably just too sensitive.

If you are a bully, you get one warning, then OUT!

Expulsion is a great way to deter offenders.
Exactly. There is too much pussyfooting around in regard to bullying. At our school bullies are treated like the victim. It is unacceptable and nn effective.
 
Tell your son to quit carrying himself that way!

You have got to be joking.

So, he appears to NOT be a punk, which makes him an easy target??

I am so damn sick and tired of administrators not punishing the thugs and finding ways to blame their victims.

My daughter was verbally bullied for YEARS by this one particular child (Who happened to be the secretary's daughter). I complained til I turned blue and was told my daughter was probably just too sensitive.

If you are a bully, you get one warning, then OUT!

Expulsion is a great way to deter offenders.

See the problem is, 'out' to where? they are still in society, aren't they? what is to be done with them?

i'm, in fact, not disagreeing with you. i just don't know where to put the trash.
 
This may end this thread, but i'll say this: i'm against gun ownership because of my European background. but. i do honestly believe this may have been a psycop in that i think this boy may have been brainwashed by some'one'.

into the start of changing gun ownership laws for the USA as was done in Britain and Australia.

i believe, really, deep down, this is part of something big. i believe this may be the very start of withdrawal of gun ownership (they made a stab at it during Katrina) in order to control the country.

the amendment is about self-protecting citizens against government control.

i think, genuinely, no matter how much i believe gun ownership and crazy-use is, in the states, this could be a world order control thing. you may ignore me. for now. but when there is talk in the future of banning, remember what i said.
 
See the problem is, 'out' to where? they are still in society, aren't they? what is to be done with them?

i'm, in fact, not disagreeing with you. i just don't know where to put the trash.

In my area, there are schools that deal with problem children. I think they should be used more.
 
This may end this thread, but i'll say this: i'm against gun ownership because of my European background. but. i do honestly believe this may have been a psycop in that i think this boy may have been brainwashed by some'one'.

into the start of changing gun ownership laws for the USA as was done in Britain and Australia.

i believe, really, deep down, this is part of something big. i believe this may be the very start of withdrawal of gun ownership (they made a stab at it during Katrina) in order to control the country.

the amendment is about self-protecting citizens against government control.

i think, genuinely, no matter how much i believe gun ownership and crazy-use is, in the states, this could be a world order control thing. you may ignore me. for now. but when there is talk in the future of banning, remember what i said.

Every time there is a tragedy like this, it seems like there is a new gun control law that is created. It won't shock American as much as you might think.

Thing is, this kid could have picked up a few items at the hardware store, made a bomb with instructions he found on the internet and took out just as many lives.

I am all for stricter gun laws, but I don't think that will prevent mass killings in the future. It will just change the way the nuts operate.
 
According to the cover story in Newsweek, Emily Hirschler's boyfriend was a gun-owner and had even taken her to the firing range at one point. The same firing range that Cho frequented. In fact, her boyfriend had just dropped her off at her dorm shortly before Cho killed her.

It seems entirely likely to me that Cho picked Emily as his first victim because he knew for certain that her boyfriend was a gun owner and enthusiast (presuming he saw them at the firing range at some point, which seems very plausible). He probably figured (correctly, as it turned out) that the police would immediately consider the boyfriend the prime suspect, given his interest in firearms.

Of course, while the police were busy questioning her boyfriend and scrambling to find the murder weapon in his possession, Cho would be planning his next step, with the police completely distracted and under the impression that they had the killer in custody already - hence, the more "relaxed" reaction by VT authorities to let classes go on as scheduled.

Just a theory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18248298/site/newsweek/
You're not alone ~ I actually had the same thoughts late last night while re-watching the CNN special and Greta. I think Cho might have been stalking her, was rejected and chose that particular time to kill her based on setting the boyfriend up for the murder while he was busy mailing his package and proceeding to Norris Hall to kill the others. From the report, the boyfriend was detained all day. Maybe that was Cho's way of getting back at him for nothing other than being Emily's boyfriend?
 
Exactly. There is too much pussyfooting around in regard to bullying. At our school bullies are treated like the victim. It is unacceptable and nn effective.

Your correct there is to much pussyfooting around in regards to bullying.

My son was in Jr High & called a girl Free Willy many yrs ago he is now 28...he got suspended for 3 days for it. Nothing was as bad as what happened once he came home. Never had another problem with him.
 
so.. did i hear right that the psycho bought the guns over the internet?? what does having the 'right to bear arms' have to do with the 'right to sell arms over the internet'.....??
 
So, what do you think of this European country?

Ah, Switzerland. interesting country that one. European by geography, IMO. a very different place with very different rules.

the reason for the guns there is:

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

things aren't out of control because:

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.


so get rid of drugs and urban deprivation in other industrialised countries and then there will be a fall in gun crime, n'est-ce pas?

see more about what makes Switzerland unique:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1035212.stm
 
I've heard this arguement before. But the fact is, if criminals obeyed the law, then there would be no crime. So how is making stiffer laws against guns gonna help?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the background check. Matter of fact, when I purchased my first gun, I went into the gun store, picked out my gun, filled out this paperwork and gave it to the salesman. He made a 2 minute phone call and told me that I checked out. I then walked out of the store with new gun and ammo to boot. Then, since I wanted to be able to carry it concealed, I went to the court and practically filled out the same paperwork for the the same charge. I then had to wait 2 months for my gun permit to be mailed to me. I thought 2 months was a little long, but given anyone's state court system, I could see it taking a while to process.

But let's say I was not mentally sane in order to buy it legally. All I have to do is go to a gun show! You walk in with cash and you walk out with a gun! And usually is a used gun that has had many owners so if it's used in a crime and found, the police can only track back to the original owner at the store he bought it from. "Why, I sold that gun 10 years ago officer!"

Last but not least, there's the low down way to purchase a gun. From someone that sells them in the back alley. Usually, these are guns that aren't dependable normally and/or usually stolen from cars, RV's, etc. If you know where to find guys that sells guns out of the trunk of thier car, chances are you do some criminal activity.

So, in closing...
1)in my view we should have a more functional evaluation system. Almost ever police agency uses different software and then every court system is about the same. That means it's not always a simple point and click to check if someone checks out ok to purchase a gun. With computers even at deputy dawg's sherrif station, you'd think we'd be more up to date.
2) Get rid of the gun shows. The only way someone should be able to sell a gun is to a reputable gun dealer...who should take down the serial of the gun and report to some agency that thier business no holds the gun for sale. Once they sale it, transfer of ownership occurs just like it does now.
3) Every new gun owner gets a permit...period! Hell, it makes it easier to purchase new guns and you don't have to pay the fee to get checked out again. Then, every state has to be able to access every other's permit records. Surprisingly, that doesn't happen today which means having a permit in your state may not work in another state.

Looking in the news today, seems like the VT shooter was labeled by the court system as being a danger to himself and to others in 2005. That goes right back to #1 being checked more thoroughly.
 
I've heard this arguement before. But the fact is, if criminals obeyed the law, then there would be no crime. So how is making stiffer laws against guns gonna help?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the background check. Matter of fact, when I purchased my first gun, I went into the gun store, picked out my gun, filled out this paperwork and gave it to the salesman. He made a 2 minute phone call and told me that I checked out. I then walked out of the store with new gun and ammo to boot. Then, since I wanted to be able to carry it concealed, I went to the court and practically filled out the same paperwork for the the same charge. I then had to wait 2 months for my gun permit to be mailed to me. I thought 2 months was a little long, but given anyone's state court system, I could see it taking a while to process.

But let's say I was not mentally sane in order to buy it legally. All I have to do is go to a gun show! You walk in with cash and you walk out with a gun! And usually is a used gun that has had many owners so if it's used in a crime and found, the police can only track back to the original owner at the store he bought it from. "Why, I sold that gun 10 years ago officer!"

Last but not least, there's the low down way to purchase a gun. From someone that sells them in the back alley. Usually, these are guns that aren't dependable normally and/or usually stolen from cars, RV's, etc. If you know where to find guys that sells guns out of the trunk of thier car, chances are you do some criminal activity.

So, in closing...
1)in my view we should have a more functional evaluation system. Almost ever police agency uses different software and then every court system is about the same. That means it's not always a simple point and click to check if someone checks out ok to purchase a gun. With computers even at deputy dawg's sherrif station, you'd think we'd be more up to date.
2) Get rid of the gun shows. The only way someone should be able to sell a gun is to a reputable gun dealer...who should take down the serial of the gun and report to some agency that thier business no holds the gun for sale. Once they sale it, transfer of ownership occurs just like it does now.
3) Every new gun owner gets a permit...period! Hell, it makes it easier to purchase new guns and you don't have to pay the fee to get checked out again. Then, every state has to be able to access every other's permit records. Surprisingly, that doesn't happen today which means having a permit in your state may not work in another state.

Looking in the news today, seems like the VT shooter was labeled by the court system as being a danger to himself and to others in 2005. That goes right back to #1 being checked more thoroughly.

Gman, you totally nailed it.

I am terrified of guns. Hate them. We don't own one. My husband is a devout supporter of the right to bear arms and while I agree, my fear prohibits me from allowing one in my home.

Nonetheless, I do not think tougher gun laws will reduce this sort of crime. Criminals get guns, period. The only thing tougher gun laws do is keep law abiding citizens who wish to protect themselves from the creeps of the world from arming themselves.

As long as I live and breathe, I will not have a gun in my home, but I will defend the rights of my neighbors to own one.
 
As long as I live and breathe, I will not have a gun in my home, but I will defend the rights of my neighbors to own one.


Will you call your neighbors if someone breaks into your home with intent to hurt you or your family?

I can understand being afraid of guns, but why not have the hubby take you to the range. If you learn proper safety and practice, you won't be afraid of it because you'll know how to handle it.
 
Exactly. There is too much pussyfooting around in regard to bullying. At our school bullies are treated like the victim. It is unacceptable and nn effective.

My kids went to a private school for their entire life and it was the same for awhile with one Headmaster. Turns out he was a bully himself and was eventually terminated for sexually harrassing a teacher.:eek:

Anyways, my daughter was bullied by a girl. Her parents donated BIG money to the school and of course this particular Head turned a blind eye. Fortunately, the bully resorted to smearing my daughter on the internet and then I was able to involve the police. They took it upon themselves to go and visit the parents and the bullying stopped.

I lost a few nites of sleep worried about the repercussions, however, since there is a God, this sexual harrassment thing came up and he had a lot more to worry about!:D
 
so.. did i hear right that the psycho bought the guns over the internet?? what does having the 'right to bear arms' have to do with the 'right to sell arms over the internet'.....??


No. He bought the guns from a gun shop, legally.
 
I saw the owner of the gun shop on TV the other day and he also said Cho paid by visa - $571.00. Sounds like that would be for 2 guns.

There's been discussion about his parents giving him the Visa. I wonder if he made all these charges - guns, van rental etc., before the monthly statement was sent out. Surely if they had seen these charges on a statement, they would have done something about it, wouldn't they??
 
That's about right for just the 9mm. My .357 is no longer made but sells used for about $1,000, and my .45 Auto is about the same.

Boy, was I ever off! Very interesting. Thanks for setting me straight. Now I'm wondering where he bought the other gun.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
161
Total visitors
259

Forum statistics

Threads
608,560
Messages
18,241,287
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top