Virginia Tech Massacre: Stereotype or discrimination?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by turbobenx, Apr 18, 2007.

  1. lee-lee

    lee-lee Well-Known Member

    1,384
    86
    0
    so instead, they should look at them as psycho-deranged-with-a-chance-of-shooting-up-a-school-type?
     
  2. ch0ps7ix

    ch0ps7ix Well-Known Member

    689
    68
    0
    yes we are currently still considered to be at war with north korean (its called the forgotten war) ..... but the killer is from south korea (us allies)
     
  3. Jun

    Jun Well-Known Member

    219
    41
    0
    tragedies like this will happen again if buying a gun is as simple as a trip to walmart~

    i've also read somewhere saying that he was racially abused
     
  4. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    ^ In fact it's easier than going to Walmart, I've seen an ad "Open an account at our bank and get a rifle (forgot the specs)" on TV when I went to Maryland last.
     
  5. fearless_fx

    fearless_fx Eugooglizer

    pfffff, no big deal, in iraq its 'buy this sandwich - get this rocketlauncher 50% off."
     
  6. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    That's why Iraq is a war zone while US is still in shock when there's a shooting.
     
  7. fearless_fx

    fearless_fx Eugooglizer

    meh, i am a firm believer in 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' ... thats why they have triggers. the problem isnt with tons of gun outlets, its with the people who are psychopathic enough to use them. If someone is really determined to kill, they will be able to obtain a gun from some source or another. whether they buy it from wal mart or some shady dude in a trenchcoat under a bridge, they result is the same. The problem has to be solved at another level; ie. through identification of the individuals who are capable of committing crimes like this, and education of children about the effects of gun violence while they are young.
     
  8. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    Well while I agree with the theory "gun doesn't kill people, people kill people". I have maintained a healthy level of skepticism towards the notion. Yes gun couldn't kill people by itself, yet wouldn't relaxed gun laws make it TOO easy for a person with the intention to kill to achieve his goal?

    Of course, there's always the black market, yet it is no reason to make it EASIER to get a gun legally than from the black market. It is not to say to eradicate gun ownership, but to tighten gun laws to require age and mental assessments. I am not familiar with the gun laws of US but I have the impression that every other person's got a gun at home, and to say that it doesn't add to the sense of insecurity (instead of security as they often say it SHOULD) I don't know what will.

    It's always difficult to argue whether more guns on the market make it easier or harder on the crime rate, but to me, I think easy access to a gun for the so-called protection only means that I REQUIRE protecting, thus not safe at all. And really, those who have the illusion that having a gun at home keeps them safe have too high an expectation of their shooting skill.

    When everyone have a gun, flashing a gun no longer have a shock value that was intended to scare off threats in the first place. It may only lead to more bloodshred because the prepetrator thinks that you will be a threat and will take you out ASAP.
     
  9. adrianc

    adrianc Well-Known Member

    hmmm. A fellow school mate that was studying international law told me that there was a case in texas that a driver that got stoped for speeding shot the undercover cop without asking (similar to what you said about threat). The driver is a lawyer... In the states (texas), there is no need for permits....strengthens your statements I think...
     
  10. wysandman

    wysandman Well-Known Member

    609
    268
    0

    what the fuck you never heard of oriental ppl,
    if you want to be called asian and be grouped with brown ppl, be my fuckin guest.
     
  11. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    ^ Oriental is a prejorative term, like calling yourself Sinos. Some of us mind using it for its historical implication. You want to be an alien?

     
  12. adrianc

    adrianc Well-Known Member

    Very interesting. "oriental" I spoke Canadian English all my life and it is the first time that I heard of this.

    I use the word interchangably with "asian" as well and never knew it would offend.

    Can someone give examples? Is it like the word "negro"
     
  13. hiake

    hiake Vardøgr of da E.Twin

    Hm.. it is, kind of. But given that Oriental once connotate a neutral meaning of "of or from far East", many don't realise it and took it as the ancient meaning. It's not as visible as a prejorative term as negro and its many derivatives, because many of us don't even realise it IS prejorative.

    But rarely you will be hearing respectable speeches with the word Oriental in it... You may, but then the speech maker should be shot. Talk about eloquence!

    I guess one day only trilobites like me will insist on NOT using that term...
     
  14. stevekong

    stevekong Member

    12
    26
    0
    no big deal.. discriminate or not.. the asian still flock into US.. so what? money initiative!
     
  15. cyanguy

    cyanguy Member

    18
    231
    3
    it is really giving us asian guys a bad name. My red-neck neighbor is already cussing at me everytime he sees me. I don't talk to idiots like him at all but he just keep on ranting about us asians as killers !!! Can you imagine that kind of talk from a red neck ???
     
  16. Whoosh

    Whoosh Well-Known Member

    48
    234
    10
    Racist

    People with racists views just need an excuse to justify their views, every country has killers. I'm sure in Korea they have murders. Iits just that in the US it's rare for an asian to commit a crime horrendous enough to grab all the headlines.


     
  17. chickenutbread

    chickenutbread Well-Known Member

    1,062
    86
    0
    i just hate it when what a person does or says is then blamed on their race, nationality or belief system. what's so hard to understand about a person being an individual person with free rights? what they do is a reflection of their individual character, not what color they are or belief system. gee. this guy scraped (finding out later that there was visible dent in) the bumper of my friend's car and as she stepped out of her car, asking nicely, "did you bump my car?", he shot off at her, saying "you f------- koreans, what's wrong with you?! something always goes wrong with you people and blah blah blah blah beep beep beep beep" and drove off. ethnicity/belief should not be used as scapegoats for individual acts. grr. makes me angry.