Badmovies.org Forum

Today unveiled what has become the most horrific of events in Blacksburg, Virginia as a lone gunman--identity still unreleased by the authorities--relentlessly and mercilessly took the lives of 32 students on the Virginia Tech campus, then turned the gun on himself.  The death toll is the highest body count in US history for a spree killing.  The spree began in a campus dorm, as the killer shot two students, then later entered and chained shut the doors to a classroom building and began the real slaughter of 28 more, including at least two professors.
One reflects on these events as more and more information is released to the press, and comparisons to similar chapters, such as Columbine and the events at the University of Texas in 1966, are inevitable; one wonders what triggers these unbelievable impulses, and where the next incident will take place.  For now there is grieving and unanswered questions, and prayers. 
I look at my own children as they sleep, thinking it could have been here.  Locally, about a year and a half ago, there was a gunman at the Tacoma Mall who shot 6 and held many others hostage in a music store for hours before his apprehension. His motive was just as mysterious and baffling.
I ramble, I know.  I invite your thoughts, but for now I thank God that it wasn't here, and pray for peace and comfort to the families of the victims.

Most people who go on a shooting rampage go heavily armed but only kill a small number of people.
I've often wondered if they lose some their nerve when they get into the action...which would account for the small numbers of kills.
I mean, look at the Columbine Massacre.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had more guns and probably more ammunition than this lone gunman, but they only killed a fraction of the people (12 total) than this one guy did.

Obviously, this guy didn't lose his nerve and was determined to take out as many people as possible.
Crazy sick f**k.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do mass killings always happen around the time of my birthday?

The Waco Siege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege) ended in a blazing inferno on my 19th birthday.
The Oklahoma City Bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bombing) happened on my 21st birthday.
The Columbine Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre) happened the day after my 25th birthday.

And now the Virginia Tech Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre) just 3 days prior to my 33rd birthday.

What the hell?   :question:


My prayers go out to the families of the victims of this senseless violence.

Columbine was April 20th, 1999.  Also Hitler's birthday.  And don't feel bad, it is also our daughter's birthday.

I heard about this yesterday afternoon and watched some of the CNN coverage of it.  It's a truly awful situation.  33 dead and about 15 wounded.....

I wonder if it was stress that made the person go out and do this.  Could it have been that they were failing out of the college?  Whatever the trigger was, it had to start with some type of mental problem that had probably been ongoing.

I wonder if they wasn't someone else involved though.  Like Ash said, Columbine was a much smaller number of casualties and that was with two shooters.  It's hard for me to imagine that one person could cause some much carnage in such a small period of time.

And yet I fear the outcome of this will be another tirade against videogames and such by our law makers.

The government won't be satisfied until every single person in the country is monitored because one guy has a vendetta. I can see them talking about installing metal detectors and cameras at the college to "prevent this from ever happening again" but you know it will. All the law abiding citizens are going to get monitored while all the scumbags and dregs in our society manage to commit these crimes once they figure out a way to do it without getting stopped beforehand. I tell you it just jerks my frickin' chain. :hatred:

So this week it's Hitler's birthday, Waco, Oklahoma City and now Virginia Tech.
On the other side of the ledger it's Katie's & Andrew's kid's (which one?) birthday and the start of the American Revolution.

Bowling for Virginia Tech.

Coming to a theater near you!

Jenna's, our oldest.  She will be four.

Quite true. The USSR had that serial killer who killed 60 or so people.

Both sides of the gun control issue are already using this tragedy to demonstrate why their side was right all along.

It makes me mad that they can't even wait until the poor victims are buried before they start with the Ban Guns/Make everyone carry guns debates. 

From what I've heard, the guy was here legally, and bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer who did everything he was required to.  Gun control laws don't stop unbalanced people from going over the edge and doing something stupid. 

And I agree about some people not being satisfied until there were cameras watching us everywhere we go......Someone I know in the UK was appalled once when I explained to her that our cities don't have CCTV cameras all over, and that the townhouse community I live in didn't have them either.  she said she would be too scared to sleep at night wondering who might be walking the streets here.  I replied that common sense and good strong locks were more protection than cameras, and some of us preferred to feel that WE, as in those of us who aren't criminals, weren't the ones being watched.

Britian has really gone down hill.  From what I've read, now you shouldn't even defend yourself if you're getting beaten up as the police will arrest both parties.


And Happy Birthday Jenna  :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Tough times all round really.  Surveillance is up, fear is up, and through it all I find out I can only bring 100ml of water onto a plane for drinkin' when I go overseas.  World's coming to a bad place if we aren't careful.

And through it all, I remember back in the Columbine days how serious that was.  Yet for me, this massacre doesn't seem to phase many people.  I suppose we are on the other side of the world to the US, but whilst the news is making a meal of it here, I haven't talked in depth to anyone about this other than 'wow that's crazy/that sucks' or a brief chat about whether it will spark fresh racism/fear of Asians in the States. 

It's almost like everyone here kind of expected something like this to happen eventually, and don't really care that much, and I, for one, don't like feeling that we don't care anymore.

After hearing about the videos the killer made and the fact that he actually took the time to mail them to NBC right in the middle of the madness tells me that this was one twisted dude.

He wanted attention...plain & simple.
He wanted to be remembered for this and he definitely knew that the media would be all over it.
And he was right...they are all over it.

I think the killer's body should be thrown into an unmarked grave.
No casket either.
Just dig a deep hole and toss him in.
He doesn't deserve a headstone.

Coming? It's there. And things will get worse untill...POOF!!!!!!!!!! That's All FOLKS!  :bluesad:

Last night, I went over to a friend's house for a club meeting, and the subject of the massacre came up. We ended up finding and reading one of the guy's plays on the internet; it was called "Richard McBeefy" or something like that...not only was it completely deranged, but it was even a poor exercise in craft (and the guy was an english major). This guy seriously had problems, not that its any excuse.

Yet out of tragedies like this always come the stories of heroism and the essence of the true human spirit. Let us for a moment try to the find positive in an extremely ugly circumstance.  I heard this story second-hand, so if I am light on the facts, please excuse that.  It is the spirit and honor of the story that is my point.

I have heard that one of the teachers stood at his door, blocking it, while his students escaped.  The gunman fired repeatedly into the door, either just to get it open or to try to remove the human obstacle.  In either case, the teacher suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was, sadly, mortally wounded.  His studend survived.

It's the stories like these that I look for when something like this happened.  The news media won't tell a lot of them or focus on them because they make their money on fear (me, a cynic??).  But that's the real point.  Sure, there are d*ck^%ds in the world that try to make the place suck.  But for each one of them, there are as many (or more) willing to sacrifice their own lives for others.

That's balls, my friends.  Let us not forget them my giving all of our attention on the jerks.  Raise a glass to all the heros, everyday ones or extraordinary ones.   :cheers:

Ulthar, that professor was Liviu Librescu, who was a survivor of the Holocaust, and ironically killed on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

You mean like the movies people on this board enjoy?

Naturally, a number of things bug me as a result of this, so many, that I can't seem to get them organized in my head.

I'll start with this:
One of the things that bugs me, is that this is going to get more attention & discussion than the Harvey Family murders.

No excuses, just evil, which I guess people don't find all that interesting.

It's also troublesome that the evil jerk who choose to do this is getting more attention than the people he shot.  I don't agree with all the media outlets giving his writing and his little video clips all the time and attention they are, I think it just encourages more idiots to act out this way.

I was very impressed with a child psychologist on Good Morning America this morning who made that exact point. He started his interview by asking media outlets to stop playing this garbage on an endless loop. Diane Sawyer was not amused...

This report troubled me too:

http://www.wired.com/culture/education/news/2007/04/vt_domainname/

It is in nearly the same vein as those who saw the Katrina catastrophe as a way to earn fraudulent money.

Really tragic. Not much more i have to say about it.

A big karma point for Ulthars post tho.

Another question:
How long before the jaded execs in Hollywood turn the reins to someone to make a big budget movie of this?

Hey, since they made a movie about 9/11 it probably won't be long. (I don't mean to insult anyone who liked this movie but it was too soon to make a movie like that.)
If it wasn't for the fact that I know people like that teacher exsist I would have lost faith in mankind years ago.

No, nothing like that...this was just messed up. The club was a writer's workshop, and our morbid curiosity drove us to see what someone like that would write about. Part of it didnt even make sense, except maybe in the guy's head.

Ulthar's post reminded me of something that happened at Columbine. One of the shooters cornered a girl, and, I guess, to make himself sound tough, asked the girl if she believed in God. She said yes, despite having a gun pointed at her, and was shot to death. Now, I'm not mister religious or anything, and it might not count for heroism in the traditional sense, but it takes some brass balls to stand up for your beliefs like that. That always stuck with me. What happened to the teacher was awful, but, in the end, he did prove himself a hero.

I have a headache.
Today, a kid got kicked out of school for wearing a t-shirt calling What's-his-name a hero.

Anybody remember those "Virginia is for snipers" t-shirts?
And I'll bet there's still somebody out there making money off those t-shirts with a picture of Charles Manson on them.

 It's all very sad...and unfourtantlly,it will never go away. "Can't something be done? Shouldn't we ban guns? Or arm people? Or try to second guess and lock the nuts up? Or...or...or...?" Nothing is new about all this,just the media 's ability to oversaturate our minds with paranoia,making us either scared silly into buying weapons,or numbing us into apathy. Turn it off

I've been reading the mainstream news accounts of what people in other countries are saying about this, and they really do seem to believe that we all go about heavily armed here and you can find shootouts in any given city on a daily basis.  Then you've got the conspiracy theorists (and that makes up a lot of my email contacts) telling everyone this was some kind of psi-op to create an atmosphere where we'll all be willing to ban guns so this won't happen again........Why can't people just accept that some people are evil, and blame the shooter instead of the gun? 

I agree with RCMerchant, just turn it off.

I don't know about others, but coming from a country with fairly strict gun laws [compared to the US] it does seem like it's out of control.  I mean, we have a mass killing here at Port Arthur which prompts a very big crackdown on what types of guns can be sold etc.  There's a mass killing in the States and nothing seemingly happens to prevent these things.  It's almost like nobody is learning.

I mean, it just seems ridiculous to me, that as soon as these things happen that gun lobbyists were saying that 'if everyone had a gun, then this wouldn't have happened'.  Makes you angry to think that there's so many security crackdowns in so many areas to prevent things like terrorism, and all this talk of pre-emptive strikes, and preparedness etc. yet a person can apparently go up to a counter and buy an assault rifle with almost no hassle.  Sure 90% of gun owners may do the right thing, but I suppose it's a matter of wieghing up if that 10% gap is worth the worry.

I think.  Sure, I may be getting facts mixed up but the point still stands.  Sure some people are evil, some aren't, I'm just sick of all the policital rhetoric and bullocky around it all.  Either do something about it, or quit complaining.

Heh.  I remember Robin Williams (imitating a bobby) saying, "Stop!  Or... I'll say 'stop' again!!"

Seriously.. I don't like the back and forth, ineffectual level of debate that this brings up, too.

Not being native to the U.S.,  it does seem like guns are too easily accessible in the United States not that a psycho might not find a way to get their hands on one, or indeed some other weapon, even with stricter laws but some discouragement may be better than none. The idea of arming more security guard strikes me as a frightening prospect. I mean wouldn't that actually increase the number of guns available for use? Gun battles in the streets?

I thought this pretty much summed up the cycle of these tragedies:

(http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/VirginiaTechShootings/images3/fitzsimmons.jpg)

What gets me is these reporters keep asking why wasn't the guy allowed to return to school after he was believed to have mental issues. Mental health professionals probably see hundreds if not thousands of people every year who have similar issues, but they don't end up going on a shooting rampage.

I think that cartoon really does sum up the whole blame game.

There is a growing problem in today's society. Just paying a visit to most local shopping centres show that. One time, people had and showed proper respect for the elderly, for the sick, for those in need. Sadly I don't see this as much any more. Respect was given to police officers, ministers, etc.. and to other people as well. Sadly I don't see this as much any more. Nowadays I see many people, and not only kids mind you, running around looking for items, satisfying their own selfish desires with little regard for anyone else. Everyone is in a great hurry to get to nowhere to do nothing at least nothing that truly makes them happy.  I talked to my parents about this and they said years ago people talked to each other more in public places, made more time for small talk and the simple joys of daily living. People seemed more polite, patient, courteous and happy.  Moral values also used to be more predominant on television as many shows from years back had a real message for viewers and many of them without being overly preachy about it either (right was always embraced and championed over wrong too)...nowadays we get mindless junk like reality TV and on the idiot box in general is something generally dumb, violent, twisted and mostly lacking in terms of any redeeming qualities whatsoever.  Now it's made to seem cool to be rude, vulgar and offensive, to not show proper respect, to spit in the face of authority. Should this be so?

An assault rifle is technically a rifle with some degree of automatic functions (burst or full).  They've pointlessly expanded the definition in many places, but that's what one is.  And they're a huge pain in the ass to get in the USA and extremely expensive (the guy who owns the shooting range by me says he paid $8000 for his Uzi, and getting it transferred required the personal signature approval of the county sheriff), and the stock of guns is slowly falling since new auto weapons can't be added to the existing civilian stock anymore, not since the mid 80s.

Aside from that, long arms just require a background check.  Things that block you from getting a gun include felony convictions, being under 18, certain types of institutional commitments, stuff like that.  Handguns require a license, you have to be at least 21, and then a background check is still done when you buy it. 

Long guns are restricted in the US by power and total length (minimum of 18" barrel if I recall correctly), though no longer by capacity or external features.  Handguns are restricted by power only, as far as I know, though in practical terms a handgun will never exceed the power limit (it's extremely high, considering BMG rounds are civilian legal everywhere except California).  It always seems silly to me that you can legally get a handgun, but a rifle as short as a very large handgun is illegal.  I never did understand that one.  I'm curious if a handgun with an accessory stock is considered a short barrelled rifle?

Some states and counties and cities have differing restrictions.  Many of the major cities severely restrict guns, for example.  This leads to much criticism by the NRA and other gun advocates, as major cities are where the vast, vast majority of gun violence occurs - people who illegally have guns, and the NRA likes to point out the civilians of these cities can't defend themselves well enough. 


With about half of US households having guns, if it was 10% it would be REALLY REALLY REALLY bad.  That would mean something like 5% of the entire US population (about 15 million people) were using their guns in ways you consider 'bad'. 

It's also not just a matter of a tiny percentage doing wrong - the question is do the others do right?  If someone saves lives by use of a gun in self defense, doesn't this offset any of the lives lost? 

BTW, I am not neccassarily against some forms of stronger gun control.  I'm just really unsure of how to do it best.  I wouldn't mind a few extra things added to stuff which flags you as unable to purchase the guns.  The Virginia Tech shooter had been briefly institutionalized under court order, and was considered at least somewhat dangerous. 

It seems to me that, at the very least, he should have had to get some kind of approval that his treatment had succeeded before he shoudl be able to buy guns - even if only to reduce the chance of him committing suicide.

My experience is that someone who wants a weapon to do something bad will get it in some manner.  I've seen plenty of people who "could never purchase a firearm" use one in another crime, because they wanted to use a firearm and obtained one.

Also, if I run into this sort of situation, my goal is going to be killing or inflicting mobility-restricting damage to them, even if they manage to kill me.  Hearing shots nearby, I can say that I would be improvising a weapon.  A torn off desk leg, chair, or metal stand will do a lot of damage when you hit someone with it.  Once I get a chance to get in on them, I can do more damage - including damaging or removing their eyesight.

Yes, I might be different than the average person, but a lot of people serve in the military for a short period and then return to civilian life.  Certainly, some of them must have the same thought process:  The buck stops here.  Kill the bad guy, somehow. 

The critical factor is the person, not the tool.

Andrew they might be referring to sawn off shotguns(yes I know a shotgun isn't a rifle but it is a long arm).
I'm sure ya know the damage those things can do up close.
And if you did shorten a rifle down to a 18 in. barrel it would be extremely impractical due to lack of accuracy and recoil (except maybe a .22 cal). But if you were desperate enough you could use it at short range. But that would defeat the whole purpose of a rifle since they are made to be used at long range.

This is WAY off topic of this thread, but have you guys heard of the Thompson Contender? It is basically a handgun with interchangable barrels.  You can get barrels in rifle calibrations - including some woppers like 45-70 Govt.  I *THINK* the barrels are in the ballpark of 14 inches.  They are both powerful and accurate (though single shot).

There is no restriction, legal or practical, on putting rifle calibers into a handgun frame.

As for the gun control discussion relevant to the VT shooting - I have to whole heartedly agree with every point Andrew made.  Having worked in Law Enforcement, I KNOW first hand that bad-guys get guns if they want 'em.  The gun laws are meaningless to them.

As for Andrew's second point, I'll only add that I find it incredibly sad that our nation, once full of spit-n-vinegar, is now overrun with folks whose motto, nay AGENDA, seems to be  "run, don't fight."  Where would we be if EVERYBODY took that attitude?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
 (Edmund Burke)

Sometimes the good guys get hurt, but it is the FIGHT that is important.  At least that's what I believe.

Damn right. 

That's the problem with gun laws. Not obeying the laws is one of the main job requirements of criminals.
But I am for some forms of gun control. You can't just have anybody walking around with any kind of gun.
The last thing we need is a hothead walking around downtown with a concealed weapon.

(http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/hardtarget179.jpeg)

Lance Henriksen using a Thompson Contender in Hard Target.  Mad Dog uses one in Hard-Boiled.

Another gun which uses a modified rifle cartridge is the Wildey .475...

(http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/62/218362_thumb.jpg)

Most people here should be familiar with it. 



I agree. 



I'm amazed stuff like that doesn't happen more often actually.  Most of the time shooting sprees happen so abruptly people are taken aback and totally stunned, that seems to be the jist of it.  In America, I'm only aware of one instance of something like this where someone really stepped in, and that was where a man showed up at a courthouse to kill his wife and son, and someone with a CCW permit ended up shooting it out with the guy (the CCW holder died, turned out the killer was wearing body armor, but him delaying the killer probably saved the son's life).

Maybe there should be some specially trained security guard force equipped to deal with threats like this?  It's an idea anyway.

Another thing I do wonder about is whether police today aren't a little too restricted in terms of what they can do to stop an armed assailant as they often seem taken to task for quickly taking someone out in such a fashion.

Look, I'm sorry if this is not the "right answer," but it seems to me that WE ALL are that 'security force.'  We are all citizens, and we are all ultimately responsible for our own safety.

Why is everyone so quick to make others responsible for themselves?

The Police have no restrictions on what they can do with someone actively engaged in killing others.  The questions of the Police using deadly force were answered in 1985 by The Supreme Court of the United States in TENNESSEE VS. GARNER.  In that case, the Police killed an unarmed, fleeing suspect.  The case ultimately brought to the court when is it okay to use deadly force and when is it not okay.

Short Version:  ANYTIME lives are in imminent danger, deadly force is justified.  And you know what?  That goes for ALL OF US.  Every citizen of the United States has the moral (and legal) right to defend themselves AND OTHERS.

Not being native to the United States, I have to plead ignorance when it comes to your laws. Our laws in Canada are not the same.  Very few people where I live own firearms aside from those who use them for hunting purposes.

About 1 in 4 households in Canada has guns, though I would hazard a guess and say handguns are far more rare, and they're probably much less common overall in larger cities (which is also true of the USA). 

From what I can tell, Canada has forced flight laws, where you're required to attempt to flee rather than defend yourself if it is possible.  I personally find such laws vaguely repulsive.  I don't have a problem with people who would rather flee than fight if possible (that's what I would do in most situations), I just don't think the government should try to force people to make that sort of decision, especially not when someone may be trying to kill them.

Info on Canadian defense law.
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter%2010.htm (http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter%2010.htm)

That's how self defense still works in *some* US states I believe.  I know Florida had a very similar provision until they amended it a few years ago.  That is one thing that I feel is always important to note with this sort of thing - states in the USA vary more than many people realize in their laws. 

US states run the gamut from forced flight to being able to shoot people who are on your property after dark or are stealing from you (Texas).

Being something of a pacifist, I have to admit to wanting no part of guns myself. Many people though do own guns and use them responsibly for hunting reasons which I have no problem with.  I do agree that police and armed forces should be allowed to use deadly force against an armed assailant threatening the lives of others.

I really wouldn't know how I'd handle myself against a guy with a gun.
But I'm certain if I could fight back I'd have a hard time running away, especially if I had a bigger/better gun.
It's natural human instinct to fight back if some one threatens you.

Just as natural as running away or pleading for your life. I have to admit that if I was confronted with violence, I would not be the type to defend myself.

True reaction does very from person to person.

My opinion on this tragedy is, the guy wasn't right, if he didn't have a gun he would of used something else, like a bomb. He wanted to kill people and he would of done it one way or another. It's very sad but true.

That's why all this speculation and debate over "how could we not see it coming" is getting so repetitive. Every time some jagoff with a gun shoots a hell of a lot of people, the media always uses it (and so does the federal government) as a platform to take more liberties away from regular plain old Americans in order to weed out these few sociopaths who will, as you say, find bombs, baseball bats, knives, or whatever other weapons they want to commit these crimes anyway.

One thing I don't think has yet been addressed, is just how many people picked up on the warning signs, & thought this guy was just a joke, or that his behavior prior to this tragedy was little more than a source of humor.

I'm purposefully avoiding reading/watching the circus media coverage of this, but my wife has been keeping up a little bit.  From her accounts, I've come to understand that he WAS briefly institutionalized and that the school DID try to do something - but were met with "not much we can do."

Really, this is very, very hard to predict, and you could NEVER be sure.  Hindsight is 20-20 as they say.  I wonder what we would do?  Start locking people up who have sociopathic THOUGHTS? 

Can we say 1984?

The bottom line is thoughts and 'feelings' are not crimes - actions are.  Trying to get someone "like this" help before they do something horrible is a good idea, but the cold reality is you can truly never really know ahead of time.

Anyone care to start a pool to see how long it takes before the lawsuits start getting filed?  I'm thinking someone will sue VT on the basis "They should have protected me/my son|daughter better."  Or how long before the book deals start happenin?  Maybe this guy had an ex-girlfriend who can cash-in on what she "knew" beforehand?

I remain ever disillusioned with American culture....

I wasn't talking about establishments or institutions, I was talking about people.
And I wasn't talking about the obsequious token gesture made by the institutions, I'm talking about what people do.

That's just it. Now to make everyone feel better, lawsuits are going to be filed to sue everyone that "should have been responsible." And CNN will be there to fill you in about it while your tax dollars go down the drain. It seems that there is no end to this line of tragedies that everyone wants to blame on everyone else, starting with the collapse of the World Trade Center and then continuing with the war in Iraq and the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. I mean, isn't it about time we just said: "Look, we are Americans and we want to be able to control our own lives again." Instead, all we get is more government interference and a sense that one day we will be the controlled and not the controllers.