2007-04-18 01:03:56 · 17 answers · asked by Plano estratégico 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
wrong place, wrong time. OK!
2007-04-18 01:17:52 · update #1
No - they were where they should have been, which is why they were such an easy target.
The murderer was in the wrong place, with a gun.
2007-04-18 01:08:21 · answer #1 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I must say I am not Bush's fan at all..However, These righteous souls who had to expire due to uncontrolable circumstances had no choice in the matter. They were where they had to be to obtain an education. Who would have thought it would be an education in death? I do agree with Bush in saying "Wrong Place Wrong Time" Mutually I respond with his presidency as well "Wrong Place Wrong Time" ! He needs to use more tact and a little more understanding of this matter before he utters such consise words. he should be exploring new avenues in gun/weapon control here at home. I do believe in the right to bear arms, but there should be stricter laws. I also believe that todays events will bring this out to congress..so in a way, yesterday's tragedy is todays future. Sad but true! So I suppose it was a necessary tragedy so that it would open our eyes to future incidents. I only wish that Columbine would have had such an impact as this event did, then maybe this would have never happened. Then again money and wealth plays a factor here...Va tech is not some cheap highschool. These students had influentuall parents! Just you watch how this all goes dow. Congress will be motivated by $$$ and that in itself will be the bigger tragedy of this whole story. It will no longer be about the victims, but about the rich and famous. Sad Ha?
2007-04-18 08:25:31 · answer #2 · answered by Daydreamin' 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not generally a person who agrees with much he says...perhaps its HOW he says it...but this time, I think Mr. Bush is very concise and very correct. In fact, I think he's extremely accurate. They were in the wrong place at the wrong hour. No better way to say it. I'm sure there are those who oppose everything that comes out of his mouth and they will twist it to say that he is laying blame on the victims...but I think we can agree that is not what he meant. They were in their classes or their dorms...which is certainly not the 'wrong' place for them. But on Monday, it was a bad place to be for them - may God rest their souls.
2007-04-18 08:11:01 · answer #3 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The term "wrong place, wrong time" means that is was not their fault. That means they were killed at random as opposed to specific people the killer had a grudge against.
The term is used to express the innocence of those killed. They were only killed because they were at hand when he decided to start shooting. Not because of something they were doing. The expression means it was a totally random act and those killed were selected purely by chance.
.
2007-04-18 08:15:50 · answer #4 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everytime someone is murdered they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, so yes I agree with the President.
2007-04-18 08:08:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's the same as people who are in car accidents, or in plane crashes - wrong place, at the wrong time.
Although there were significant signs the shooter was disturbed there was no indication that he was going to "go off" at any particular time and place.
2007-04-18 08:08:10 · answer #6 · answered by Susie D 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
And how is this the fault of the Commonwealth of Virginia? Unless...oooh! Perhaps you mean lax gun laws and wimpy background checks?
There is only ONE way to keep crazy people from shooting innocent people and that is to keep guns out of their hands. Yes, we have the right to keep and bear arms, but we also have the responsibility to ensure that any Dick with a beef can NOT go buy a gun and shoot people. For heavens sake, we have to have driver's licenses, dog licenses, licenses to cut people's hair...licensing guns isn't such a stupid idea.
I may as well go put on my asbestos underwear. Flame away, blamers.
2007-04-18 08:18:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How would he know? As usual the idiot dwarf comes up with some tripe soundbite that misses the real issue. That guns in the hands of people who have no need for guns represent an unacceptable risk to everyone apart from NRA members and the arms indusry.
2007-04-18 08:17:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Correctly stated. I think Mr. Bush is right on the money with that statement. Even though it shocks me to hear of mass killings it disturbs me more for some idiot to blame an object, ie. guns for the problem. Objects doesn't kill people, people kill people. If he had not had a gun he could have used gasoline, if he could have afforded a couple of gallons, to set fires to people by dousing them and then lighting a cigarette, "added this for you anti-smokers", and setting fire to them. Stupid world and stupid people in it.
2007-04-18 08:27:54 · answer #9 · answered by Chuck C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it was a random killing. Wouldn't you call that being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
2007-04-18 08:12:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The students and professors were in the right place...getting an education! The shooter was in the wrong place...he should have been in a mental institution.
2007-04-18 08:07:31 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋