Duo said:
I think it was pachipro who said that this couldn't be avoided and many of you have said this as well... pachipro was even listing the different possible scenarios that the killer here could have used to attack the school. He mentioned making bombs or using gasoline and so forth. I tend to disagree. It is not the same. Carrying out such other activities requires more planning, more effort, more conciousness, while buying a gun like you are buying milk can be done in a whim and then slowly simmer the thoughts and ideas of carrying out such a spree.
According to the latest reports, Cho has been planning this for some time. He even had to wait 30 days before he could buy the second gun. So he put alot of effort, planning, and conciousness into it before carrying it out.
Duo said:
Those of you who are for the right to bear arms and what not can deny it all you want, but let's face it using a gun is the easiest way to kill someone; I doubt this guy could have done this much havoc if he had a knife or had to use alternative methods...
Wrong. This was NOT the worst school massacre in US histors as the press would have you believe. Gun massacre yes. The worst school massacre in US history was in 1927, in
Bath Township, Michigan on May 18, 1927 which killed 45 people with most of them being children. Please read it! It was not done by a guns, it was done by a bomb any by a man who lost it when the Township imposed such a high property tax that he lost his farm (taxes again!).
Therefore, as I have said time and time again, if a nut wants to cause a massacre he will, regardless of the availability of guns. They will find a way. If Cho couldn't get guns, he would've found another way as he was hell bent of killing as many people as he could. He probably would have killed many more if he had strategically placed bombs on campus, so please stop blaming the gun culture in the US for this massacre.
And I'm not going to accept the usual "you don't understand, this is an american thing, the right to bear arms and all".......yeah right.
Obeika said:
If anyone wants to put the blame somewhere I suggest they "blame" the authors of the US Constitution, they are the one's who included the "right to bear arms" in it.
Well that shows a severe ignorance of the history of the USA and the reason for the second ammendment to the US constitution giving the people the right to keep and bear arms.
The reason the founding fathers gave us that right is because back then, and still today, people in England were forbidden to keep and bear arms as they might use them against the corrupt monarchy of ole' King George. As the common folk had no arms, they couldn't fight back against a corrupt government and the government could do as they damn well please and the hell with the people. The same thing was in force in Japan where the common folk could not have swords.
The US colonists did not want that to happen to them and fought a war against their mother country, England, as they knew of the corruption and the tyranny they could impose on an unarmed population (The forced tax on tea was the straw that broke the camel's back). They fought and won. A rag tag army against the most powerful Army in the world at the time! And the United States was born with more freedoms given to the populace than any other country in history then and now!
Afterwards, they gave the right to the common people to keep and bear arms should a government become corrupt, and a corrupt government would therefore, be a little more careful in imposing their will against the wishes of the people as the common folk could now fight back. Why do you think England and other countries, including Japan, still forbid the populace to have arms? For this very reason. An unarmed populace is defenseless against a corrupt government, or an invading Army for that matter.
But I am afraid the outrage of an ignorant populace to this deed will call for another look at this most important ammendment. However, if they try and repeal the second ammendment, I think there will be another war in this country that the government probably will not win in the long run. All one has to do is look to Iraq today to see that a rag tag militia can cause havoc and many deaths against another most powerful military in the world. In my opinion it will never succeed in the US if they try to take all the guns away. Too late for that. Besides, with over 250 million guns, and the ability to make IED's it will be damn near impossible.
Since this is the Japan forum just a little example. Japan had such a deep sword culture that society was even built upon it, some could argue, and when reforms came they forced a ban on it and it worked.
Thus they have the Gun and Sword Control Act or something of that nature. However, even in such a strict gun control country like Japan, the mayor of Nagasaki was killed the other day by gun. No matter what you say, you can never prevent killings by gun if the perpetrator is intent of using one for his deed, even in Japan.