Do you think if he could not have gotten a gun that this would have stopped him from killing all those people? Anyone who wants to kill will find away to do so. People who kill are sick. They are either looking to get high, so they need money, get at someone because they hurt them, or they are targeting certain groups (ethnic or religious groups come to mind). This guy was targeting people according to the letter left behind that he wrote.
2007-04-17 11:02:27 · 12 answers · asked by Rebecca K 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
HE WOULD HAVE KILLED NO DOUBT BUT THE NUMBER WOULD HAVE BEEN SMALLER...MAYBE... IF IT WASNT PREMEDITIAED THEN THE NUMBER WOULD BE SMALLER...IF IT WAS SOMTHING HE PLANNED ON DOING THE NUMBER WOULD HAVE BEEN BIGGER AS HE WOULD HAVE JUST USED A BOMB OR SOMTHING OF THE SORTS, BUT I DONT THINK HE PLANED IT, I THINK HE FLIPPED OUT KILLED HIS GIRLFREIND THEN WENT AWAY FOR A FEW HOURS FIGUREED HIS LIFE WAS OVER NOW AND MIGHT AS WELL TAKE AS MANY AS POSSIABLE, SO IF HE DIDNT HAVE A GUN IN THAT SITUTION HE WOULD HAVE ONLY GOTTEN MAYBE 2-3 PEOPLE BEFORE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED
2007-04-17 11:08:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hard to say how determined to kill he was. Apparently he determined enough to wait 30 days between purchases. People that are dead set on violence will find a way.
Truthspeaker, you are the typical anti-freedom, anti-gun coward. No amount of gun laws would have prevented this. The dude appears to have read up on the laws. He had no felonies so he past the background check. The only people that think more laws are needed are those that don't think with their heads.
Just because you are a sissy doesn't give you the right to take guns away from others that will use them in a legal manner. Just because one nutjob goes haywire doesn't mean we should punish the rest of the law abiding ones. Might as well do away with cars if one person gets a DUI, going by your logic.
2007-04-17 18:17:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If he hadn't gotten a gun, it is true that he would have found another way to do it. However, it would have been significantly more difficult for him to kill the sheer number of people he could have with a gun. If he took more time, someone mya or may not have noticed and stopped him, but there's really no way to tell. If he couldn't have gotten a gun, he might have tried explosives, which would have required more set-up, but would have killed countless more people -- and he might have been able to live. The "getting the gun" part is obviously not the most important part of it. So, to answer your question, the casualties would have been much higher if he hadn't been able to get a gun.
2007-04-17 18:07:40 · answer #3 · answered by tinlv7 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The fact of the matter is he DID get a gun, and quite easily. Maybe if it was a little harder he wouldn't of been able to kill all those people. Honestly we will never know.
Handguns should be banned outright, as should semi and fully automatic assault rifles. They are designed to slaughter people as quickly as possible.
I couldn't care less if someone calls me a "coward" on Yahoo answers. You're right, I'm just not man enough to "deal with it" when someone blows away 32 people indescriminately. Lets do nothing, lets sit around and talk about how great guns are until the next massacre. Indeed, if only we had the keen insight that is the nutjob right wing gun lovers; we would all carry around firearms, then people would never go crazy and shoot each other!
Ban handguns and automatic weapons. They are not for hunting, or self-defense, these are recklessly lethal weapons that are flooding our society. The more of them around, the more they will be mis-used.
2007-04-17 18:07:16 · answer #4 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. If, hypothetically speaking, he had been unable to get a gun, he definitely would not have been able to kill all those people. You are right that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way, but without a gun, they are not going to get 32 of them... unless they are a ninja.
2007-04-17 18:06:59 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think if the killer was not able to legally obtain a gun, it MAY have prevented it. On the other hand, I agree with you when you say that if someone is determined to kill, they will definitely find a way.
2007-04-17 18:09:51 · answer #6 · answered by Kristina B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. He would have found a way to carry out these murders. I hope everyone doesn't go blaming the freaking gun. The gun is an OBJECT. It does NOT have a brain. It does what the user makes it.
I'm in the state of Virginia and its all over the news. I feel so incredibly horrible for these victims! All of them.. even the ones who were fortunate enough not to get injured. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.
2007-04-17 18:07:47 · answer #7 · answered by aimee_the_angel 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what i want to know is why this always happens in the states,i think the problem is not the access to the gun or the motivation to do harm to others,but how the mind set of such individuals can be prevented in the first place,why has the self claimed most sophisticated country in the world got such issues with massacre murder
2007-04-17 18:13:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would've killed people anyways. This stuff about banning personal firearms is stupid. If he can't get his hands on a gun, then he'd use a bomb or something.
2007-04-17 18:07:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
i don't think so because he was mentally ill, wuz alwayz so quiet in his classes and 4sum reason hated rich people. i heard dat on CNN. he should've gotten some help
2007-04-17 18:08:48 · answer #10 · answered by *.*~MIZz . LoLiPoP~*.* 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋