Cho on Tape

2007-04-18 14:30:32

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776

After he killed the first two people, he sent a package to NBC. A manifesto, if you will.

Any pretense of a spontaneous act are gone.

I hope there are demons and that there is a hell and that he is slowly roasting in the fire and brimstone.

May God have no mercy on his pathetic soul.

Yet another failure by our government:

As early as 2005, police and school administrators were wrestling with what to do with Cho, who was accused of stalking two female students and was sent to a mental health facility after police obtained a temporary detention order.

Last edited by ATG (2007-04-18 14:31:53)

2007-04-18 14:32:44

#2

Marlboroman82: Personal philosophy: Clothing optional.; +1,022|6614|Camp XRay

just saw that too, christ he ranks up there with the worst. i wonder if he had a copy of catcher in the rye on him when he died.

https://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l250/marlboroman82/Untitled-8.png

2007-04-18 14:48:10

#3

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6520|Global Command

It's...really beyond belief that a guy with a history of mental illness could cash and carry weapons.

This is a problem that needs fixing now!

Gun owner, NRA member in favor of extending waiting periods and harsher background checks /out.

2007-04-18 15:00:27

#4

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6385|The Gem Saloon

ive come to that conclusion in the past few days also atg.

this has really become a serious issue......the fact that someone who was referred to psychiatric help MULTIPLE times is able to purchase a handgun shows the true problems with this system.

another card carrying member and gun owner also in favor of extending waiting periods and harsher background checks /out.

and that is saying alot.....my business depends on weapons laws...though i fear that more restrictions on firearms might well lead to restrictions on other weapons, which could affect my income, im tired of seeing americans shoot each other and something needs to be done.

2007-04-18 15:06:51

#5

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6588|Seattle

If it wasn't a gun, it would be a fertilizer bomb or some other means of killing.

I agree that background checks should be must more strict but you can always buy a gun from a friend or in the newspaper with no BG check at all. (or just go steal one)

There's 6 million ways to kill, handguns are just one.

And of course, this still remains true: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Insanity is the cause of this. Not bad gun laws IMO.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-04-18 15:11:32

#6

Master*: Banned; +416|6486|United States

Look at some of the shit he writes heres a pic of part of one of his plays off this site
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/ … uis-plays/

https://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s108/Mystline18/asdfasdf.jpg

2007-04-18 15:22:58

#7

Hurricane: Banned; +1,153|6622|Washington, DC

King_County_Downy wrote:
If it wasn't a gun, it would be a fertilizer bomb or some other means of killing.

I agree that background checks should be must more strict but you can always buy a gun from a friend or in the newspaper with no BG check at all. (or just go steal one)

There's 6 million ways to kill, handguns are just one.

And of course, this still remains true: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Insanity is the cause of this. Not bad gun laws IMO.

Yes but a gun is a bit easier to kill with. Good luck going on a 32 killing spree with a knife. Fertilizer bomb? I think it'd be hard to have a high-output bomb without looking a little sketchy. Didn't Timothy McVeigh's bomb require one of those UHaul trucks filled with the stuff to blow up the building?

2007-04-18 15:25:28

#8

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|6753

Hurricane wrote:
Yes but a gun is a bit easier to kill with. Good luck going on a 32 killing spree with a knife. Fertilizer bomb? I think it'd be hard to have a high-output bomb without looking a little sketchy. Didn't Timothy McVeigh's bomb require one of those UHaul trucks filled with the stuff to blow up the building?

You could kill more than 32 with stuff you can get at the grocery store. Much easier then buying a gun.....and cheaper.

2007-04-18 15:27:44

#9

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6385|The Gem Saloon

usmarine2005 wrote:
Hurricane wrote:
Yes but a gun is a bit easier to kill with. Good luck going on a 32 killing spree with a knife. Fertilizer bomb? I think it'd be hard to have a high-output bomb without looking a little sketchy. Didn't Timothy McVeigh's bomb require one of those UHaul trucks filled with the stuff to blow up the building?
You could kill more than 32 with stuff you can get at the grocery store. Much easier then buying a gun.....and cheaper.

ive learned how to take a rolled up magazine and put it through someone like a knife.........lets ban magazines!!!!!!

2007-04-18 15:30:14

#10

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6541|CH/BR - in UK

King_County_Downy wrote:
If it wasn't a gun, it would be a fertilizer bomb or some other means of killing.

I agree that background checks should be must more strict but you can always buy a gun from a friend or in the newspaper with no BG check at all. (or just go steal one)

There's 6 million ways to kill, handguns are just one.

And of course, this still remains true: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

Insanity is the cause of this. Not bad gun laws IMO.

I disagree - any other means of killing him would have been harder to get to, and not the effect that he was obviously hoping to achieve.
Even if he had bought the guns before his psychological problems, I think the hospital should be able to look at his gun registry, and contact authorities about confiscating his gun for at least a certain period of time (against a refund or something).
This is sick, but at least now I can see a motive.

-konfusion

2007-04-18 15:34:39

#11

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6588|Seattle

Not to sound psyco but.... you could kill a whole lot more than 32 people for less money and a whole lot cheaper than buying a gun.

Poison anyone?
How about fire? Lock em in, smoke 'em out?

I could go on and on but I think you might catch my drift.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-04-18 15:35:48

#12

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6385|The Gem Saloon

King_County_Downy wrote:
Not to sound psyco but.... you could kill a whole lot more than 32 people for less money and a whole lot cheaper than buying a gun.

Poison anyone?
How about fire? Lock em in, smoke 'em out?

I could go on and on but I think you might catch my drift.

your drift was caught with the fist post......its just that some people wont ever understand it.

2007-04-18 15:37:54

#13

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6666|Canberra, AUS

Parker wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
Not to sound psyco but.... you could kill a whole lot more than 32 people for less money and a whole lot cheaper than buying a gun.

Poison anyone?
How about fire? Lock em in, smoke 'em out?

I could go on and on but I think you might catch my drift.
your drift was caught with the fist post......its just that some people wont ever understand it.

That's an interesting point, but he should never have been allowed a gun in the first place.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-04-18 15:38:54

#14

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6459

usmarine2005 wrote:
Hurricane wrote:
Yes but a gun is a bit easier to kill with. Good luck going on a 32 killing spree with a knife. Fertilizer bomb? I think it'd be hard to have a high-output bomb without looking a little sketchy. Didn't Timothy McVeigh's bomb require one of those UHaul trucks filled with the stuff to blow up the building?
You could kill more than 32 with stuff you can get at the grocery store. Much easier then buying a gun.....and cheaper.

Well the Columbine kids tried that, if their bombs had detonated they would have killed more people than Timothy McVeigh, however they were inexperienced at pyrotechincs and none of their explosives detonated. Cho probably had less experience with explosives than the Columbine kids so if he made a bomb it would have been even less likely to detonate than those of the Columbine Kids.

2007-04-18 15:39:35

#15

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6385|The Gem Saloon

Spark wrote:
Parker wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
Not to sound psyco but.... you could kill a whole lot more than 32 people for less money and a whole lot cheaper than buying a gun.

Poison anyone?
How about fire? Lock em in, smoke 'em out?

I could go on and on but I think you might catch my drift.
your drift was caught with the fist post......its just that some people wont ever understand it.
That's an interesting point, but he should never have been allowed a gun in the first place.

hence the issue with gun control in the USA..........i think i need to take a break from this place for a few days......its starting to sound like a broken fucking record.

2007-04-18 15:40:54

#16

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6588|Seattle

It's the law here that you are innocent until proven guilty. This also applies to gun ownership. It's impossible to really know who would use a gun for harm. One minute a guy may be just fine, average Joe, then the next, he walks in on his GF screwing his best friend and POW, it's on!

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-04-18 15:43:36

#17

SnobbyBoss: SAS Medic; +18|6731

I think i heard somewhere that he got it from a convention where there are no background checks and that kind of thing. That needs to change.

2007-04-18 15:45:13

#18

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6588|Seattle

I heard he bought it from a gun store.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-04-18 15:46:00

#19

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6385|The Gem Saloon

SnobbyBoss wrote:
I think i heard somewhere that he got it from a convention where there are no background checks and that kind of thing. That needs to change.

the gun show law has been an issue for a very long time, and its one of the things that would need to change.....however there are many other things that need to change before that.

2007-04-18 15:58:02

#20

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +794|6676|United States of America

King_County_Downy wrote:
I heard he bought it from a gun store.

As did I, apparently several (5 methinks) weeks before the shooting, kinda ruling out any other feelings of a spontaneous rampage.

2007-04-18 15:59:33

#21

topal63: . . .; +533|6709

King_County_Downy wrote:
It's the law here that you are innocent until proven guilty. This also applies to gun ownership. It's impossible to really know who would use a gun for harm. One minute a guy may be just fine, average Joe, then the next, he walks in on his GF screwing his best friend and POW, it's on!

Yeah, but isn't this [above] a near perfect description of the problem?

It follows the pattern.
1.) Often someone is murdered by someone they know.
&
2.) They availability of the gun - makes the reality of a fatality that much more possible.

2007-04-18 16:03:44

#22

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6588|Seattle

topal63 wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
It's the law here that you are innocent until proven guilty. This also applies to gun ownership. It's impossible to really know who would use a gun for harm. One minute a guy may be just fine, average Joe, then the next, he walks in on his GF screwing his best friend and POW, it's on!
Yeah, but isn't this [above] a near perfect description of the problem?

It follows the pattern.
1.) Often someone is murdered by someone they know.
&
2.) They availability of the gun - makes the reality of a fatality that much more possible.

I dunno, I think if I didn't have a gun, I'd grab and Axe or something and take it with me anyways. I see what you're saying but if someone wants to kill someone else, the means are all around them. The gun is just the easiest. I say it might slow them down without a gun, but it most certainly will not stop them.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2007-04-18 16:09:39

#23

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6623|949

What a fucking nut!

Wow. He seems so calm in one photo, then when they show the video, it is pure evil.

I'm shocked.

Should you have to submit to psychological testing to purchase a weapon? I'm having a hard time thinking yes, but at the same time this would be a case in point.

2007-04-18 16:13:10

#24

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6763|PNW

ATG wrote:
Yet another failure by our government

Dammit! Our pacification crystal network must've broken down again. I blame George Bush for failing to fund their maintenance.

2007-04-18 17:28:16

#25

Toxicseagull: Member; +10|6237|York

yeh its weird when everyone elses crystal network seems to work with little funding but your country's has failed several times quite drastically.

must be Bush.

on the other hand if we're serious. it is the fault of the government and the failure of the gun laws in Virginia, no mental health checks for a gun? thats insane? especially when someone who has severe violent problems can get hold of one legally and easily even after attending psych sessions. ATG is spot on. the government has dropped the ball. quite a few times it seems.

Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-04-18 17:31:29)

BF2S Forums Cho on Tape

King_County_Downy wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Parker wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Hurricane wrote:

Spark wrote:

Parker wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

SnobbyBoss wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

topal63 wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

ATG wrote:

Board footer