Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate

[Sulkdodds]

I think the attitudes you so readily ascribe to the prevalence of socialist thought have little to do with socialism.

Addition: far from socialism becoming more prevalent in this country, surely it is free market and business values that are often the norm - especially inside the government, where a 'target culture' dominates (an assertion based in part upon conversations with a senior civil servant who visited my college recently)? This is in many ways the lasting legacy of the extensive reforms civil services and government overwent under Thatcher, Major and even Blair.

I just think your connection of 'socialist' values with rising crime in a country where actual socialist values have greatly declined since the 70s - partly because of the perception that they led to disaster - is extremely tenuous. It seems almost as big a stretch but not quite as big as Kathaksung linking Cho's massacre to a drive for federal gun control. I say that with a straight face. Not only do the values you blame have only a dubious connection to socialist ideals, but I really don't think socialism has gained much of late at all.

This may be because each person inevitably percieves his own political alignment to be under the heel of the 'enemy', but A. I'm not socialist enough to consider the free market the 'enemy' B. I'm trying to be fairly realistic and C. that could just as easily be said for yourself!

In any case, this subject, one which I'm sure you can tell I'd like to discuss in a lot more depth when I'm not revising, threatens to derail the thread into another of our increasingly frequent economic debates.

The subject is whether gun control, or lack of it, affects gun crime - seems to me we might want to start a 'Causes of Crime' thread if we want to discuss alternative solutions.

Interesting note: It appears the violent crime rate has greatly risen since the late 90s but the overall crime rate has fallen significantly.

Either way these statistics are unreliable because new counting methods instituted in 1998 made the violent crime graph suddenly shoot up - but because more was happening, but because more was found.

Considering New Labour's tightening of police and government powers, combined with increasing surveillance, it seems difficult to trust such statistics as offering a true picture.






EDIT: Goddamnit why do I make these posts. I know I'm only going to be able to make a few replies and then I'm going to have to stop. Similarly I'm sure you'll still be saying exactly the same things in July (no offence ) so I wouldn't miss much by abstaining from comment. GAH.

 

[repiV]

EDIT: Goddamnit why do I make these posts. I know I'm only going to be able to make a few replies and then I'm going to have to stop. Similarly I'm sure you'll still be saying exactly the same things in July (no offence ) so I wouldn't miss much by abstaining from comment. GAH.

Hey, it's cool. If nothing else, I learn stuff by having to do a bit of research now and then...I didn't realise until today that Washington DC is almost as dangerous as South Africa. Quite a sobering thought, and one that should surely make Stern change his perspective on gun control.
I like your post (although I generally disagree), and I will give it the reply it deserves - but I'm pretty tired at the moment. Need some caffeine or maybe some sleep. We'll see.
Good luck with your exams, btw.

 

[kirovman]

On violence and the perceived rise of it, I asked my Dad when he visited me recently if things were truly better in the "good old days" or if it was just a perception based on higher expectations, cynicism and widespread media coverage.

He reckons that people were more aggressive and anti-social back then, and every Friday night everyone would go down to the town market for a huge punch up after the pubs closed (al? Fight Club?) where people would frequently end up hospitalised and dead.

Indeed it is difficult to notice if things are better or worse. Stats indicate overall rising crime, however this could well be due to improved crime reporting techniques.
We often feel like things were better in the past (ask any old person about the "good old days") possibly due to cynicism amongst other factors.

Things were pretty brutal before the rule of law was established, as well as institutional violence being prevalent.

Massacres back in "The good old days" would not have raised an eyebrow. Well, so long as the massacre had happened in somewhere like India or another dominion of the Empire.

 

[kathaksung]

Don't worry. Before your post was edited, I got it all noted down. So (continue) at your leisure.

Your post basically boiled down to three things, though:


1). First there was very detailed news - then it disappeared! Evidence of a plot?

No. There was not "very detailed news." There was wrong news. Police got the wrong suspect or journalists reported the wrong thing. The article you cite only says "authorities were investigating whether this or that might have been the case..." This is the standard flurry of unsure journalistic activity that follows major incidents like this; there's really nothing to suggest anything suspicious.


2). The massacre must have been perpetrated to distract the public from something else!

An assumption based on absolutely no evidence, pulled out of your arse. You don't even know what they're trying to distract the public from. But it must be something, right?


3) Babble.

What?




Perhaps your post is (to be continued), but as it stands I can't really argue against it because you haven't put anything forward.

Try and present a clear argument, please. What you wrote was just so much unsupported horseshit.

PS: Are you completely abandoning your previous claims (that the whole thing was a black op designed to rally support for gun control) because I entirely refuted them?

The censorship itself speaks: What I said are truth. They are afraid of it. Otherwise why not leave it alone if it's junk.

I am sorry I can't debate without material posted. That's ridiculous.

-----------

481. Feds ordered stand down (2) (4/28/07)

4. A strange "stand down" after the first shooting occurred at 7:15. The police and University did nothing to pursue the killer and warn students that there was killer(s) at large. According to authority's story, Cho was the only one did all killings. He was given a two hours and a half to do his work without a disturbance. That was indeed a very generous gift from authority and an unbelievable negligence on security rule, particularly at the time after 911.

(1) Another strange news which disappeared later. The original news said the reason of no-reaction was that information showed that killer was out of state. But it took time for killer to escape out of state, even if he took a plane. And how could they learn that? Did they knew whom he was and tracked him all the time? Since the no-reaction was from the beginning, this was a justification with big flaw. It was never heard of since. Local officials didn't know the business out of state. This news, as well as that detail of Chinese suspect, obviously was from Feds too.

(2) If you were Cho Seung Hui, once you fired the first shoot, you knew you were on a road of no-return, would you do something else? In common sense, a killer would go on with his shooting spree because he knew there was little time left for him. The police would arrive in minutes. Would you still care for mailing something? But Cho seemed think in other way. He thought of he hadn't mailed the tapes, (Authority story was that tapes was not made on 4/16) It took him one hour and three quarters to bring the tapes to post office, (7:15 - 9:01) enough time for him to have a breakfast and do a laundry if he wished. Cho didn't worry about police arrest. He was right. Police and University did response with no re-action.

(3) “Setting up a series of roadblocks, controlling access to very large pieces of property, is very much routine on any university campus in Canada and in the United States,” Though it is a criminal negligence of no-response to the first two murders in University dorm, we saw little pressure to investigate and affix the responsibility of this massacre. Because it will trace to the Feds. ( Now they may try to find a scapegoat for it) They gave the order of "stand down". They need a history worst to distract another framed case.

Quote, "Feds Ordered VA Police To Stand Down
Local authorities were told to take no action to pursue killer

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, April 20, 2007

Police and EMT workers at Virginia Tech tell us that campus police were given a federal order to stand down and not pursue killer Cho Seung-Hui as Monday's bloodshed unfolded.

Though wishing to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, we have received calls from police and EMT's who tell us that a stand down order was in place, and this is also confirmed by eyewitness Matt Kazee, who is a student at VA Tech.

Kazee talked to local EMT's and police who told him the same thing, that the order was to wait until federal back up arrived before any action was taken. This explains the complete non-response of the police in the two hour gap between Cho's first two murders and the wider rampage that would follow later that morning.

The policy of federal control over the University was put in place following a previous shooting in August 2006 in which a police officer and a hospital security guard were killed.

In addition, a former long-term University police officer, George French, told the Alex Jones Show that it is routine to seal off a campus on which a suspected gunman is loose.

“Setting up a series of roadblocks, controlling access to very large pieces of property, is very much routine on any university campus in Canada and in the United States,” said French.

“After a double homicide, when you’re looking for a dangerous fellow with a firearm, I find it unfathomable that a series of roadblocks weren’t set up…to prevent the felon from escaping.”

French could find no logical conclusion other than deliberate inaction on the part of officials. “We have another coordinated, allowed event…the parallels are so common in each case; you can write the script in advance.”

<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=71573&sid=46a585298128996c43550b3544fce1a3>

(To be continued)

 

[SAJ]

The censorship itself speaks: What I said are truth. They are afraid of it. Otherwise why not leave it alone if it's junk.

I am sorry I can't debate without material posted. That's ridiculous.....

It must be both surreal, and -at the same time- rather comforting to live in a world where every newsworthy event is the result of somebody's manipulation.
No need to to worry about the meaningless cruelty of a godless universe, because the very fact that events are being designed by by conspiracy imbues those self-same events with meaning and purpose.
In conspiracy land everything means something, they just wont tell you what.

kathaksung, just get the hell over yourself will you.

 

[kirovman]

Conspiracy theory is the new organised religion.

 

[Kadayi]

I can't believe someone was seriously talking about legalising handguns in the UK...we have no mainstream gun culture here at all. Introducing one would be a complete recipe for disaster. We are a highly over populated (250 ppl/per SKM) and have burgeoning underclass who thrive on tribal aggression.

 

[repiV]

I can't believe someone was seriously talking about legalising handguns in the UK...we have no mainstream gun culture here at all. Introducing one would be a complete recipe for disaster. We are a highly over populated (250 ppl/per SKM) and have burgeoning underclass who thrive on tribal aggression.

Actually, handguns were legal only 10 years ago. And banning them did not reduce gun crime.
Big surprise there.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ah, but haven't you said so yourself that the yobbish 'underclass' Polokov refers to is a direct result of the Blairite regime?

 

[repiV]

Ah, but haven't you said so yourself that the yobbish 'underclass' Polokov refers to is a direct result of the Blairite regime?

The yobbish 'underclass' would not be entitled to a firearms license anyway, so their legality is irrelevant.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Fair point so long as you're referring to criminal convictions and not to age - as the much-publicised Granny From Hell will attest, age is no barrier.

O'course I would contend that guns, being legal, would be rendered far easier to buy illegally, so whether or not people would qualify for licenses seems only of limited import.

 

[repiV]

Fair point so long as you're referring to criminal convictions and not to age - as the much-publicised Granny From Hell will attest, age is no barrier.

You talking about that woman from Australia that shot the burglars? Wasn't that an urban legend?

O'course I would contend that guns, being legal, would be rendered far easier to buy illegally, so whether or not people would qualify for licenses seems only of limited import.

Making something illegal in order to make it harder to get hold of illegally is not an acceptable premise for legislation - it thus follows the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" and denies freedom to the law-abiding majority.
Although if you wanted to order a gun from America, I doubt it would prove difficult. Chances are the package will go through customs without incident.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ah, no, I meant 'Asbo Granny'.

I also severely doubt you could import a handgun so easily, but I guess there's only one way to find out.

I dare you!

 

[repiV]

Ah, no, I meant 'Asbo Granny'.

Ah.

I also severely doubt you could import a handgun so easily, but I guess there's only one way to find out.

I dare you!

Well I imported a replica MP5, M16 and USP .45 from Hong Kong, all in the same package, and it wasn't even checked as I didn't get stung for import tax.
Why would the same package carrying a real gun bear any more scrutiny? Of course, it's pot luck, but you can always have it delivered to a dummy address in case they do actually open the package.

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

Hand guns, hell even machine rifles are useless against a government that deserves to be overthrown. Simply because the government has a professional military, you have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq how useless it is to go up against a professional military.

...I don't know...If you ask a Marine I don't think they'd say going up against local guys with AKs and homemade bombs isn't quite the cakewalk you make it out to be.

And besides any kind of revolution would most likely be very local. Perhaps its a town or states citizens. A good example of this is The Battle of Athens in 1946, local government goes corrupt and intimidates citizens, GIs kick some butt. I doubt that there would ever be a nation wide revolution since the military would most likely diffuse and the United States is too big to rapidly distribute it, individual states would break off (I don't see the Texas state government supporting the New York state government), and its just plain too hard to get too that point.

Basically one must realize that the US is a federal republic, it is not just one government but literally thousands of independent governments which must individually be checked (right? do some states have the right to disband town governments?).

And lastly to say that it'd be useless, that we shouldn't even try is just so pessimistic. If it ever comes to the point where the national government must be taken out then I will gladly die fighting for liberty, I don't care the odds. All I ask in living is to have no chains on me or else whats the point.

Its NOT silly to think we need a way to defend against government. Governments have murdered millions of people and oppressed nearly all peoples. I fear nothing more than government.

 

[CptStern]

...I don't know...If you ask a Marine I don't think they'd say going up against local guys with AKs and homemade bombs isn't quite the cakewalk you make it out to be.

And besides any kind of revolution would most likely be very local. Perhaps its a town or states citizens. A good example of this is The Battle of Athens in 1946, local government goes corrupt and intimidates citizens, GIs kick some butt. I doubt that there would ever be a nation wide revolution since the military would most likely diffuse and the United States is too big to rapidly distribute it, individual states would break off (I don't see the Texas state government supporting the New York state government), and its just plain too hard to get too that point.

Basically one must realize that the US is a federal republic, it is not just one government but literally thousands of independent governments which must individually be checked (right? do some states have the right to disband town governments?).

And lastly to say that it'd be useless, that we shouldn't even try is just so pessimistic. If it ever comes to the point where the national government must be taken out then I will gladly die fighting for liberty, I don't care the odds. All I ask in living is to have no chains on me or else whats the point.

Its NOT silly to think we need a way to defend against government. Governments have murdered millions of people and oppressed nearly all peoples. I fear nothing more than government.

iraq during the time of saddam had a high percentage of gun ownership yet he still did what he did ..in fact in most countries where tyranny reigns gun ownership is quite high ...sierra leon, darfur, baghdad

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

iraq during the time of saddam had a high percentage of gun ownership yet he still did what he did ..in fact in most countries where tyranny reigns gun ownership is quite high ...sierra leon, darfur, baghdad

So? Just because people have arms does not mean that they will not be submissive. The political cultures there are in no way comparable to the US.

 

[Gray Fox]

So? Just because people have arms does not mean that they will not be submissive. The political cultures there are in no way comparable to the US.

US citizens would be a lot more submissive simply because they have a lot more to lose then anyone in those other country's.

 

[Kadayi]

The yobbish 'underclass' would not be entitled to a firearms license anyway, so their legality is irrelevant.

So if your not going to allow the 'underclass' to have guns why would you allow anyone else? Also how exactly are you going to adjudicate whom constitutes the 'underclass'?

 

[Nemesis6]

How about this theory: Guns are responsible for the deaths, but "gun-free zones" are responsible for the massacre. Already mentioned I think, and it's the best point of view in this case. Just plain nuts.. "gun-free zones" ugh.

Something I've been wondering: What the hell is the sense in removing full-auto from rifles? Full-auto means that you're likely to hit jack. If you have semi, you're forced to take your time and pick your targets one by one. Someone tell me I'm right about this, because it makes no sense to me.

 

[delusional]

Something I've been wondering: What the hell is the sense in removing full-auto from rifles? Full-auto means that you're likely to hit jack. If you have semi, you're forced to take your time and pick your targets one by one. Someone tell me I'm right about this, because it makes no sense to me.

If your in the middle of a crowd you can just hold the trigger shooting everyone?

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

US citizens would be a lot more submissive simply because they have a lot more to lose then anyone in those other country's.

What!

I guess this is a debate about human psychology now, but I'd say a wealthy person who intellectually understands and has possessed liberty is much much more likely to fight. They understand that without liberty there is no security for property, speech, life, etc, that their wealth/rights is that much more likely to be stolen/violated.

Sure, a subsistence farmer in Darfur is more likely to revolt in order to redistribute wealth, but they're also a lot easier to dissuade or intimidate.

 

[Gray Fox]

What!

I guess this is a debate about human psychology now, but I'd say a wealthy person who intellectually understands and has possessed liberty is much much more likely to fight. They understand that without liberty there is no security for property, speech, life, etc, that their wealth/rights is that much more likely to be stolen/violated.

Sure, a subsistence farmer in Darfur is more likely to revolt in order to redistribute wealth, but they're also a lot easier to dissuade or intimidate.

You seriously think that someone in the US who has a home, a car, kids, family, good income, plenty of food is going to trow that out faster and go and fight, then someone in darfur who has jack shit to lose and everything to gain?
Why do you think crime and violence thrive in poor country's/neighborhoods much more so then in rich ones. Because people have jack shit to lose.

Besides that liberty is a very broad idea with many different interpretations. And if anything Western Europe, US and Chine have shown that people do not care more for liberty the richer they get, nor do they get any wiser or braver.

 

[BaconIsGood4You]

Nothing is protecting property without liberty. Its not whether someone is going to lose something, its how (ie whims of a tyrant or fighting against tyranny) and when.

Crime is very different from revolution with the aim of liberty (the only just revolution). One is about stealing property, the other protecting it.

And liberty is not broad, it is a word defined as the state of being free from arbitrary and despotic control. The fact that people do not choose liberty for themselves does not make their theft of others liberty right or their own lives "free".

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument no one can win. I understand your view and don't really take offense, the psychology of human action is not worth arguing about on a half life 2 forum (although gun control is).

 

[CptStern]

So? Just because people have arms does not mean that they will not be submissive. The political cultures there are in no way comparable to the US.

so you're saying that because of the political climate an armed populace cannot overthrow a tyrannical government? are you suggesting that only a benelovent government can be overthrown by an armed militia? what would be the point? your statement holds no weight as those sort of conditions are what usually lead to a coup in the first place ..in fact the only time it's bloodless is if the military is involved ..usually insurgency/rebellion is promptly and brutuality quashed before a militia ever has time to form ...unless you can provide clear and concise evidence that the US is unique in that sense your statement is nothing more than wishful thinking ..but we really dont have to speculate as we can see how the US responds to insurgency ...in other words you'd be denounced as terrorists and enemies of the state ..public sympathy would quickly sway in favour of the government's deep PR pockets ..so if you're not killed right out you'll be sent to gitmo for "indefinate detention as a risk to national security" and no one stateside would bat an eyelash over your plight

Nothing is protecting property without liberty. Its not whether someone is going to lose something, its how (ie whims of a tyrant or fighting against tyranny) and when.

you're so naive ...I dont know of a single parent who would drop all responsibility and join a militia grop to fight tyranny ..screw the government, screw the citizens screw idiotic abstract ideology that is nothing more than a fools errand to see who gets his head/limbs blown off first ,,my responsibility and that of every parent is to ensure that MY family stays alive ..if that means you and everyone else has to die well so be it

 

[kathaksung]

483. The video tape of Cho Seung Hui (3) (5/8/07)

5. The man in video tape is not Cho Seung Hui.

(1) Cho's acquaintance and his roommates don't recognize the man in video tape.

Re: "A pastor at a Korean church in Centreville watched the tapes on television with his family. He told the Seoul newspaper JoongAng Ilbo, " All my family said that was not the Seung-Hui we knew. It was the first time we saw him speaking in full sentences." ("Shooter/ A lifetime of silence" Mercury News, 4/22/07)

Re: "April 18, MSNBC, Scarborough Country -- Michele Kosinski reports at about 10:13 PM eastern time that Cho's roommates say they do not recognize him in the film from the package sent to NBC."
http://www.rense.com/general76/cho.htm

Go to that site to compare the pictures. Though they are similar, the ratio of the head is a big difference. (the ratio of the length to width of the head) Different camera won't produce such big difference.

(2) The man in video has a different temperament from Cho Seung Hui.

We all know Cho was "extraordinary lonely", "a life time of silence". He is also very shy and avoid to be in focus. Re: "When a candidate for student council visited the suite this year to pass out candy and ask for votes, Cho refused even to make eye contact.". "Mary Shaw said yearbooks indicate that Cho's only extracurricular activity was the science club during his sophomore year. He did not supply a picture of himself for his senior yearbook.". ("Shooter/ Classmates feared he would kill", Mercury News, 4/18/07)

But in video, the man liked to show off himself. He made different posts with guns, even with a hammer. He spoke fluent sentences. He stares at the focus. In his package, there is not only an 1,800 words statement, (For a real Cho, that's enough) there are also video tape and 43 photographs. Is that too much for him?

(3) These characters don't fit for Cho, but fit for Feds. The video tape resembles other "terrorist" tapes used to broadcast in TV. Those tapes used to do a negative propaganda on "terrorists" themselves. Painted themselves extreme, violent, savage by arms in hand, shooting machine guns, or even beheading. Those tapes used to fit the demand of Pentagon and the Feds - "Don't look for other suspects. I, (terrorist, or criminal) did it." Is there anything else more convenient to solve a case by someone to confess?

Re: "U.S. Government Caught Red-Handed Releasing Staged Al-Qaeda Videos"

(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/051006redhanded.htm)

(4) An interesting message for reference.

Quote, "VIDEO PROOF THAT NBC FOOTAGE WAS NOT SHOT BY CHO ALONE

Posted By: Never_Surrender (Send E-Mail (http://www***mormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?bem=103149)
Date: Thursday, 19 April 2007, 10:01 p.m.

......
Well let me ask a question then, if he shot it by himself, WHY is the camera shaking, like someone ELSE is holding it?
The CHO character is sitting perfectly still in FRONT of the camera and not touching the camera YET it is moving!

At one point in this video I could swear I hear someone cough or clear their throat off camera and at another point I think someone hits the camera and you can hear the BUMP sound or the THUD sound that it makes and it shakes a little....

I believe that what we have here is video proof that CHO did NOT make this video, there was someone else holding the camera, again, I do NOT even believe it is Cho in this video but I have covered that in another post.

Here is the video....
Embedded video does not appear to be showing up so here is link to video....

(http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3efbc24c7d2583be6925 NS)

(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IssuesAndAlibis_The_Forum/message/18347)

(To be continued)

 

[kirovman]

Oh yes it was the Knights of Templar who staged this massacre!

They needed to do it to protect their Mongolian oil money from falling into the hands of the French.

Saddam Hussein didn't really die and he is the leader of their organisation, also none of the students really died in the shooting, the government just flew them to an Air Force Base in the Florida and sent them to Disneyworld for a nice vacation.

All because steel doesn't melt at those temperatures.

 

[delusional]

What if kathaksung is right? Maybe we are all brainwashed and when he comes up with the truth we thing it is idiotic, when in reality it is truth?

 

[Jintor]

We'll never know, our senses are deluded, our Illuminati Masters conclude covenents of our blood with their Vampire allies, fighting to keep the Garou out of the cities.

 

[15357]

What if kathaksung is right? Maybe we are all brainwashed and when he comes up with the truth we thing it is idiotic, when in reality it is truth?

That thought process is not allowed. Prepare for administration of civic behavioral moderation.

 

[kirovman]

What if kathaksung is right? Maybe we are all brainwashed and when he comes up with the truth we thing it is idiotic, when in reality it is truth?

Then I will shrink my head and put it on a stick.

 

[15357]

Then I will shrink my head and put it on a stick.

Post pics.

 

[kathaksung]

484. Gunman is a professional killer(4) (5/13/07)

6. The gunman is not Cho Seung Hui.

(1) The gunman is a professional killer. Cho is a new comer. Cho bought the gun on March 13. (There were different saying about the other gun, but it was bought around that time too. ) Only one month before the shooting case. He practiced in a shooting range on Mar. 22. That's all his relationship to the gun.

But according to Professor of Criminology:
Quote, "Seung-Hui Cho Was a Mind Controlled Assassin

Charles Mesloh, Professor of Criminology at Florida Gulf Coast University, told NBC 2 News that he was shocked Cho could have killed 32 people with two handguns absent expert training. Mesloh immediately assumed that Cho must have used a shotgun or an assault rifle.

"I'm dumbfounded by the number of people he managed to kill with these weapons," said Mesloh, "The only thing I can figure is that he got close to them and he simply executed them."

Mesloh said the killer performed like a trained professional, "He had a 60% fatality rate with handguns - that's unheard of given 9 millimeters don't kill people instantly," said Mesloh, stating that the handguns Cho used were designed for "plinking at cans," not executing human beings."

(http://infowars.com/articles/us/va_tech_shooter_was_mind_controlled_assassin.htm)

From media report, we know the weapon is not assault rifle. It is the 9 millimeter handgun and the killer shot at distance, (shooting at the door, not the execute style) So the gunman is a professional of the professionals.

(2) Cho was 5'8". Gunman is ""He was, I would say, about a little bit under six feet tall, young looking, Asian, dressed sort of strangely, almost like a Boy Scout, very short-sleeved light, tan shirt and some sort of ammo vest with black over it. He just stepped within five feet of the door and started firing.

"He seemed very thorough about it, getting almost everyone down. I was trying to act dead," the freshman mechanical engineering student says. "He left for about 30 seconds, came back in, did almost exactly the same thing. I guess he heard us still talking.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...7.wxshootingticktock17/BNStory/specialComment

(3) The gunman didn't want to be recognized.

If Cho planned this tragedy, he knew it was a way of no return. He was ready to die himself. It was unnecessary to cover up himself with masks or sunglass..... But the gunman did all the cover up. He seemed know he would be alive and didn't want to be recognized later.

Quote, " Pai Cheong Ming - 27 years old, an engineering student, came from S. Korea - was wounded in breast and arm and was in hospital. He told "Central Daily" (S. Korean Newspaper): "The gunman wore a mask covering face, his brown cap wore low to his eyes. He wore glass," (Though the news didn't say it's a sunglass, I think it should be, because Cho Seung Hui wore contact lens that morning according to his roommate. Or there was another killer.)

Pai Cheong Ming's description was quite different from others. I never saw it from "mainstream media". Perhaps because it would contradict to the Authority's story. I read it from a Chinese newspaper "The Epoch Times" April 20.

(4) If Cho real hated the "rich kids, debauchery and deceitful charlatans", then there must be some model he knew. He shoud target on these models. In fact, he chose unknown as victims.

All witnesses referred the killer as "gunman" or "he". No one call the killer "Cho". It means they don't know Cho. Only media describe the killer as Cho. Did they witness the scene?

(5) Another mark of Feds: Silence the witness.

For a random killer, Cho should pick up easy one to shoot at. He should go on to other classroom where there were plenty of easy targets. But he came back to kill the survivor. "He seemed very thorough about it", "I was trying to act dead" he came back "I guess he heard us still talking" (see reference in (2)) Cho has no reason to be thorough on people he didn't know.

It is only a mark of Mafia or the Feds. They kill witness of their crime. Mafia has no motive in this case. Feds does. (see "480. The real killer behind Virginia Tech. massacre (1) (4/23/07)")

(to be continued)

 

[kirovman]

(to be continued)

And Cho shot at John Freeman and Gordon Freeman said "Hey Cho don't shoot at John Freeman he is my brother!"

So Gordon Freeman did backflip and shot zombie goast Cho in chest with rocket propelled grenade launcher.

John Freeman laughed and said "You shouldnt mess with my brother Cho he is Black Mesa hero!" and then he laughed.

John Freeman laughed and said "Thanks for saving my life bro" and then he backflip onto motorbike to fight CIA and rescue Kathaksung from George W. Bush's evil zombie goast brother, Jeb Bush.

 

[kathaksung]

485. Media censorship on VT case (5) (5/18/07)

7. The issue media accepted and rejected.

(1) For a crime, media used to have a field report. It used to come with a map. Investigate reporter would track every step of the killer to detail the story in minute. VT shooting is the worst camp case in US history. There is no such report. What happened in the dorm when first two people were killed? how many classrooms in Norris Hall building? What did other students in same building react during shooting? There is not a word about that. Different media reported odds and bits from survivors but all silenced later about this case.

(2) The no response of the police and University after the first two killings was the main reason that caused the later mass killing. Media has the responsibility to supervise the government. The criminal negligence should be the big issue in first page. Yet, no media had an article about it. They distract this big topic by gun ban. Let the big criminal skip away.

(3) Instead of reporting the detail of the whole story which might reveal the flaws of the framed case, media concentrated to report Cho's private life, tried to prove he is the real killer. I went through all these materials, find nothing could prove Cho was a violent man. True, he was lonely, life time silent. It fits for a word: autism. But media avoid this word, attribute all these for the killing spree. To prove Cho was anger, they said he wrote violent and profane plays. They even gave a sample of his play. "I hate him." the boy says of the stepfather in a copy of the play on the Web site. "Must kill Dick. Must kill Dick. Dick must die."

It's ridiculous. With such standard to judge a person, Shakespeare would be a big suspect. So were many ancient Greek tragedy writers. Hitch Cock (spelling?) - a terror film producer, would be a suspect too, so was Spieldsburg (spelling? who produces film Indiana Jones, the Temple of Doom).

Cho's only relationship to violence was that he bought a gun (or two) on March 13 and practiced one hour in a shooting ranch of March 22. I think he was going for an operation. Before I talk about this, I'd like you to read a news:

8. Cho was under surveillance

Re: "Cho went to bed early by college standards, about 9p.m. He often rose early, but in recent weeks he had been rising even earlier, frequently before dawn, Aust said. Such was the case Monday.

Cho awoke before 5 a.m., then sat down to work on his computer and awakened his roommate in the process. Grewal, who shares a room in the same suite, saw Cho in the bathroom shortly after 5 a.m.

As usual, Cho did not say anything to Grewal. No good morning, no hello, Grewal said. Cho stood in the bathroom, brushing his teeth, wetting his contact lenses and applying a moisturizer.

He also took a prescription medicine, though neither Aust nor Grewal knew what the medication was for." (Mercury News "Shooter/ classmates feared he would kill", 4/18/07)

To get up early before dawn is not popular, especially for those who do not habituate to. Did Cho's suitemate follow up Cho's routine? The description was so detailed that it seems like Cho was under surveillance.

(to be continued)

 

[Nemesis6]

Kathaksung, I think you're being very inconsiderate and downright cruel to the people who died that day. Don't you have any qualm about using their deaths to spread your inane drivel? A word of advice: Don't post conspiracies about what 'really' happened here. Morally, it's really low to use peoples' deaths for propaganda. In other words: Let it go, now.

 

[leib10]

I see the attempts to take the guns away from law-abiding citizens will only serve to make the job of criminals easier, since they will ALWAYS have access to firearms, gun ban or not. All it would do is deny the right to bear arms to lawful citizens. Besides, there are so many guns already in circulation that it would be nearly impossible and incredibly expensive in terms of money and manpower in trying to confiscate them all.

 

[Tyguy]

ugh....such a stupid argument...its him...just because 1 picture was taken probably years before the other, and wasn't stretched like the latter, is no reason to start screaming conspiracy

 

[leib10]

Conspiracies. Usually good for a laugh.

 

[Jintor]

I see the attempts to take the guns away from law-abiding citizens will only serve to make the job of criminals easier, since they will ALWAYS have access to firearms, gun ban or not. All it would do is deny the right to bear arms to lawful citizens. Besides, there are so many guns already in circulation that it would be nearly impossible and incredibly expensive in terms of money and manpower in trying to confiscate them all.

Freaking right to bear arms.