Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Live, UPDATED List of Victims at VaTech
latech.facebook.com — This is from the people who go to the college themselves. Please check this out, and please digg it up. It needs to be seen by all, these people deserve to always be remembered. Look at their facebook pictures, see life as it was like for these people. Experience surreality. Live the memories, the last memories, that these people had.
realitybias- 281 diggs
- digg it
- realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -2/+74 Professors are on that list, too....
- smithmja, on 10/12/2007, -25/+2Heroes.
- swimmingbird67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3may them rest in peace.
- sikosmurf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13What immediately makes a professor a "hero" over any of the students?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5May God have mercy on their souls and help all the friends and family of the victims and the shooter heal.
- Hayaemsay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I agree, smurf. In fact why does this list need to be seen? Sure it's sad that they died and all but does knowing the names of murder victim's make it any better? If at all it makes it worse. I don't see why must these people be remembered. If I was killed in a mass murder then people would honour me, if I died of natural causes then no one would care, where is the logic in that? People killed tragically should not give someone hero status.
Buried for use of; please digg it up. - eigh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12hero? well they didnt use their super human strength and deflect bullets, but i know one professor on that list that sacrificed himself so other students may have a chance to escape.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The names are important if anyone has a loved one who goes to Virginia Tech. Remember this JUST happened yesterday. The dust is still settling. Let people searching for their loved ones have closure.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2why is this only available behind facebook?
did the students make sure the parents were notified prior to publishing this? - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because facebook is basically the best way for college students to communicate with each other. People in highschool think facebook is for preps or something but after highschool, when you move away from your buddies, facebook is a godsend to keep in touch with all your highschool pals and your new college pals. Most everyone in college (in my experience) has a facebook and it is a great tool for mass communication to all college students.
And the friends of the victims deserve to know who died so they can end their frantic search. Police don't tell the friends anything and often friends can be more distraut by the death of a close friend then even the victims own family. It is unfair to the friends of the victims and I think it is great that they are using the mass communication tools of facebook to share known information to give closure to friends who are frantically looking for their friends. - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@sikosmurf
From what I've heard reported, at least one professor took responsibility by blocking the classroom door while his students escaped through the window.
Thats a hero in my book. - firepowered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Id just like to say that since Australia's last gun massacre, strict gun laws have been introduced. Since then, no large massacres have occured.
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2List of confirmed deceased, not updated by anyone on facebook.....
http://www.collegemedia.com/stories/417-300am-none.html
- transam87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I am a tech student,
I did not have the pleasure of knowing these people.
Never the less, this day will live in infamy - csnoke, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6It's amazing what role the internet has played in all of this, there's no doubt that it has aided the spread of information, hopefully saving lives and now uniting the unfortunate victims and helping them grieve.
- stugster, on 10/12/2007, -24/+27It brings the Dunblane massacre back to my mind. I feel for you guys.
Guns should be abolished. My thoughts go out to you all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre- cardyology, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12I dugg you up. People are digging you down because they're idiots. The Dunblane tragedy is basically the same as this, therefore, you made a valid point, therefore, I agree.
- m5wr1th, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Sounds corny, but this is truth: "If it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will have them". I don't own one, but I believe in the right to.
- sikosmurf, on 10/12/2007, -16/+15I dugg him down because guns should not be abolished.
- Sepeteus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4"Sounds corny, but this is truth: "If it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will have them"."
At least then you would only have to be afraid of the criminals and not everybody who suddenly goes berzerk. - h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It is already illegal for someone here on a student visa to own a gun. How are more laws going to stop someone from buying a gun illegally? It isn't. The only thing more gun laws will do is stop a law abiding citizen from owning a gun who could have put an end to a massacre like this before more people were killed.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@m5wr1th
Normal people can own firearms in EU or other countries with firmer gun control too. They just need to do some tests to show that they are not psychopats and can actually use a firearm.
BTW, there are about 15,000 murders in the US every year. Of course, a big massacre like this is what gets attention from media and consequently public, but don't make it any more important and significant than lifes of other people who were killed in a violent act too.
How do these people "deserve to always be remembered" any more than anybody else murdered?
If anything, this case should show that all those security measures taken by the Bush administration are used only to control the population and do not make life any more secure than before. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1H00paj, again, show me something that says this guy was here on a visa. I haven't heard anyone saying this and yet you seem to know the facts.
- aclaudiu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@m5wr1th & Co
Being from Europe I really have a hard time in understanding this "right" of having a gun. Most of the people defending this “right” are having only one almost valid argument: "If the bad guys are having weapons so should we (good guys)". Here are two problems:
1. Usually a gun will not help you against a bad guy with a gun. A bad guy will not be so nice to start a gentleman duel but he will mostly shot you in the back. Having a gun will increase the possibility of being killed as you'll be seen as a deadly threat. A common thief or robber will not kill you without being forced; it’s a big difference between murder and stealing if not for morality then for the “prison time” point of view.
2. Is true that will not stop the bad guys from getting a weapon but it will make them think twice before carrying it because it will make them go to jail without even doing “evil” things. On the other side it will stop crimes produced by the “good” guys on impulse feelings who just find in the drawer a friendly gun. How many people are killed because of a sudden desperate feeling (lost girlfriend, pissed off by colleagues, teachers) and how many because of a psychological disorder (permanent or temporary).
A ban on guns will not stop the organized or long planned murders but will stop most of the impulsive ones. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The problem is concealed weapon laws is no one knows you have a concealed weapon until you take it out. and by the time you take it out it might already be too late. However if someone else had a concealed weapon they might be able to stop an ugly situation.
- mike1208, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"Guns should be abolished."
You should be killed for advocating this. - stugster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Posted by mike1208 earlier, my quote: "Guns should be abolished."
His quote: "You should be killed for advocating this."
Give me ONE good reason why ANYBODY should have the need to carry a machine for mass slaughter around with them? Farmers maybe, but only on a farm. Police maybe, but only on duty. Anyone else; I think not.
Have a look at the statistics for gun crime, and see what's what before making stupid comments. In April 2003, over 43,000 guns were surrendered in England and Wales and 3393 in Scotland for their firearms amnesty. Tell me why these guns should still be in circulation?
- tdskate, on 10/12/2007, -40/+5So when will they parody this on South Park???
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -8/+422 years?
- CoBLeviathan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14i wish i could bury you twice
- Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4
Can someone give me their username and password? - Boomh4u3r, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2just freakin sign up?
- Boomh4u3r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Why the ***** am I gettin buried for? I suggested to sign up...
- imtigger2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because if someone is stupid enough to ask for a username and pass for digg.com, then we don't want them here. We're a community of bright, intelli..... errr... never mind. ;)
- sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -16/+12RIP to those victims of politics and stupidity... my condolences to their familes.
Get rid of the bloody guns.
You'll still have the libertarians/cowboys defending gun laws, but the fact is psycho's with assault rifles kill more people than psycho's without. Yes it wouldn't solve everything, but ban them (thereby limiting the injection of NEW guns into the market), start collecting them at every opportunity, and hopefully in 20 years there will be a few less bullets tearing holes in your people.
Of course, the military-industrial complex will never consider such a ban, or even any milder restrictions, as that might reduce profits and slow down the economy.- funkmachine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Yes, I agree with you that law abiding US citizens should have their guns taken away whilst the criminals should be allowed to keep theirs.
/not - farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -11/+8>but the fact is psycho's with assault rifles kill more people than psycho's without.
This is CRAP. According to the 2005 statistics by the FBI for crime, over TWICE AS MANY people are killed by HANDS and FEET than ALL RIFLES COMBINED. The whole "assault rifle" thing is a bunch of scare-tactic CRAP.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html - sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@gorfle
What the hell does that stat actually mean??? I still think my point stands...
If you took every situation where there was an semi-automatic used, and reduced the deaths to just one or two max (using "hands and feet"), i'm sure you would eliminate a lot of deaths. - xtlosx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@sheriffe
are you a dumb *****? How the hell are you going to control guns.. it's like controlling drugs.. it's not going to happen.. you can't make it happen and no one with any power is going to make it happen.
You can wish all you want, but it won't happen. I am a Libertarian myself, and I believe citizens should be able to carry guns, this is not a product of being able to carry guns. This is a product of a pissed of twisted person, who bought some semi-automatic pistols from some ILLEGAL source, and committed a senseless shameful act of violence against innocent people.. may they all RIP and may the gunman rot in the pits of Hell.
Gun laws don't do anything, it just makes people like this get their poison elsewhere.
Also, do you really think they hold onto them when they so called, collect them... just like they collect narcotic evidence and lock it up, or even burn it huh? get with the program.. it's all about $$ - Ignotus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Most of the deaths were from handguns as opposed to rifles.
Banning all firearms only works under the assumption that you can remove ALL firearms from society. It's obvious that removing EVERY SINGLE FIREARM from the world would decrease shootings, but it's extremely naive to believe that it's possible to do that. Criminals will always be able to get a gun if they want it. Even if it was illegal to manufacture weapons in the US, someone will still be making them somewhere else in the world. It's illegal to manufacture meth in the US, but has it done anything to stop people from doing it? It's illegal to distribute cocaine too, but plenty of it still comes in from other countries. A criminal isn't going to choose to leave his gun at home or to buy a knife because guns are illegal. Why would he obey the gun law when he's willing to break another law to kill or rob someone? - sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My point is not that banning them will fix the problem, but that it's a first step to LIMITING the supply of new guns on to the market, whilst at the same time collecting and destroying the guns already present. You've got to start somewhere!
PS. If your police force is corrupt enough to be re-selling guns to the underworld... what can i say? - farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1Sherrife:
>What the hell does that stat actually mean??? I still think my point stands...
Did you even bother to READ what I posted?
You said that "psycho's with assault rifles kill more people than psycho's without."
CLEARLY this is WRONG, and I sited statistics from 2005 that prove it. More people were killed with HANDS AND FEET than ALL RIFLES COMBINED (let alone "assault" RIFLES.
>If you took every situation where there was an semi-automatic used, and reduced the deaths to just one or two max
>(using "hands and feet"), i'm sure you would eliminate a lot of deaths.
You can talk about the "what ifs" all you want to, buddy. The fact of the matter is, TODAY, MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED WITH HANDS AND FEET THAN RIFLES. Nearly TWICE AS MANY.
If you throw in knives, and "other weapons", TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED by them than by ALL RIFLES COMBINED.
"Assault Rifles" are simply hardly ever used in murder. All rifles combined kill 1/10th less people than knives, hands and feet, and other weapons. - sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Okay i think I wasn't making myself clear enough.
What i meant to say was, A psycho with an assault rifle (ie. any semi-auto really) would kill more people than A psycho without one.
My bad, seriously.
PS. Thanks for all the capitals, you really made that clearer for me. I'm gonna get buried for this but... typical obnoxious american :) - farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1>Okay i think I wasn't making myself clear enough.
>What i meant to say was, A psycho with an assault rifle (ie. any semi-auto really) would kill more people than A psycho without one.
Well no *****, sherlock - and people who drive cars have more car accidents than people who don't! But why make a big deal out of "assault rifles" when they are HARDLY EVER USED TO COMMIT MURDER? - readerr0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5But the question is funkmachine, is it easier for criminals to get guns and use them illegally because it is legal to own a gun? I live in Australia where there are basically no guns anywhere and I feel very safe. If a person was to commit a serious gun crime here, it would be difficult to obtain a gun and as such more pre-meditation would be required which would usually result in the person not perusing such a thing – because the person has had time to let out their anger and consider the repercussions etc. But in the USA it may very well be much easier to get a gun and as such much less pre-meditation is required. I'm not talking about the fellow buying it over the counter either, it’s obvious that because guns are legal there its easier for them to be illegally sold, all you need is a dodgy shop keeper or delivery personnel.
I'm a ITS Officer at a public transport network in Aus and I at times have to copy security footage from DVR's at our various stations. And while assault is a rare occurrence (limited to late nights with only the people fighting -usually just shouting- at the station at the time) i could imagine things getting nasty very fast should someone have a firearm with them.
Just my 2 Cents from a different culture - sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Last post on this hopeless topic,but here goes.
It's because your moronic populace will never support a ban on ALL guns (even though the overwhelming majority of murders are caused by firearms as proven by your own citation), so i was trying to make a less controversial statement and hopefully get the ball rolling.
Sick of feeling sorry for the victims of the USA's stupidity, both internal (there are many intelligent citizens of the US obviously who suffer from crappy gun laws) and external (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nicaragua, etc.).
Sure, continue believing that guns have nothing to do with the ridiculously high murder rates in your glorious nation, and that they protect the people.
/end rant, end tolerance for rednecks/misguided libertarians - farkdog, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2>It's because your moronic populace will never support a ban on ALL guns (even though the overwhelming majority of murders are
>caused by firearms as proven by your own citation), so i was trying to make a less controversial statement and hopefully get the ball rolling.
In other words, make misleading statements to bolster the case for your true objective - a ban on all firearms. This is the typical ploy used by our own home-grown anti-firearm folks. Since coming out against "all" firearms is clearly a non-starter, they like to make a pitch to some marginalized special case, like the "assault weapon" boogeyman. Then when called on it, just like you, it's revealed they are simply against all firearms after all.
>Sure, continue believing that guns have nothing to do with the ridiculously high murder rates in your glorious nation, and that they protect the people.
Then why is it then that in areas where firearm laws are made more liberal and less restrictive murder rates tend to go DOWN? - sherrife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Argh i can't resist.... You're making it sound like you had to pry my beliefs out of me...I am open with my beliefs and values, as are most of those people in the US i'm guessing.
I did NOT make a "misleading statement", what i actually did was propose a 'compromise'; a weakened stance in order to achieve agreement with those with different opinions. Get it?
What an evil bastard i am. - mike1208, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0"Get rid of the bloody guns."
I would rather see ""sherrife" killed.
- funkmachine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Yes, I agree with you that law abiding US citizens should have their guns taken away whilst the criminals should be allowed to keep theirs.
- fugularity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4can somebody cut and paste the text-only list?
- nastronomical, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15****************************************************Copied from site*********************************************
Under my notes I have a running list of the people that I've personally heard about. This is my update as of 2:12 am.
The following people lost their lives in the shooting today:
Mary Karen Read
The following people ARE injured
Austin Cloyd- is MISSING, originally we thought she was in critical condition but she has not been found at any hospital so currently neither I, anyone I've spoken to, nor her family (at this point) know where she is. If you have ANY information please let me know!!
All of these people are NOT injured and I have spoken to them.
Cassie Krause
Jessica Catley
Megan Canedy
Fred Angel
Stephen Howard
Jon Talbot
Thomas King
Harrison Lapuasa
Will Bloomquist
Sydney Gay
Scott McKee
Lauren Trumpower
Emily Belote
Travis Nebel
Ross Andrew
Cris Weaver
Clarissa Brodkin and her parents
Danielle Gully
Guy Zummo
Jonathan Howard
Lucy Dukore
Lena P.
Hope McGlothlin
Lauren Trumpower
Jamie Lawson
Stasi Sabinin
Erin Burnop
Mike Snider
Eileen Balci
Matt Mitchell
Molly Carter
Tiffani Price
Melissa Kirkendall, her family and the Rockers Cheer girls
Hope Saville
Chelsea Clark
Jessica Wade
Helen Dehart
Sara Arthur
Erin Lavender-Scott
Andrew Russell
Laura Buennemeyer
Jennifer Webb
All of the following people are NOT injured and someone else has informed me:
Grant Duncan
Matt Allen
Christine Frasca
Tommy Bibbins
Barek Caldwell
Blaise Caldwell
Sara Kirstein
Sam Wheeler
Mike Kraus
Max Van Tassell
Kelly Phillips
Brian Ivasauskas
Jamie Furr
Mark Twigger
Randi Wright
Monica Ellerbrock
Kyle Marion
Hannah Dorrell
Alyssa Marlowe- fugularity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9so, wait a second, this digg post was billed as "UPDATED List of Victims at VaTech" and yet, it only includes one of the 30+ deaths and one probable injury? I'm really not trying to be morbid, but where are the rest of the deaths?
- Ignotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it seems a little pointless to post the list here if it's going to be updated continuously imo, especially since digg doesnt allow you to edit your reply past 120 seconds. not trying to bash you, just making a statement for the people that want the text posted on digg.
- mianos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Like everyone who looks at digg has a facebook account? Posting an account only page is just plain selfish.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yea, no kidding. /annoyed
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1It's free and it gets you laid. Just sign up for it.
- mindsnare, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1:(
how ya goin there mayor of strugglesville
it takes 1 minute to sign up. - ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6http://www.collegemedia.com/stories/417-300am-none.html is another listing of the deceased according to a campus paper.
- HollowGrind, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7so when you get shot by some lunatic you're more worth of being remembered then somebody else dying a more boring way ?
sorry i just dont think thats right- crestfall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3People don't know if their friends and family are ok. The community is trying to figure it out, because the cops can't say unless they know for sure. The cops may tell the families, but how do friends find out? They want to know. Now. It's completely understandable. Your comment, however, is not.
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6sorry, but students dying because they were shot by some lunatic and grandpa dying of old age do not mean the same thing.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To put this in objective terms; The event is a 'statistical anomaly' in this society, -unique- events tend to draw attention for their naturally unusual nature, it's the very -contrast- between -typical and unusual- that draws attention to begin with.
So why are you surprised?
People tend to show sympathy when they are aware of any death, the more widespread it's known of a specific death then the more wide spread the sympathy for that death is. People are not out of choice giving more worth to these deaths, it's a natural reaction to hearing about it and understanding why it's not fair for how they died.
- AtomicNewt, on 10/12/2007, -23/+11Iraq has two Virginia Tech's everyday. Just because they are not in Facebook still means they are real people. If 1/100 of the things that go in in Iraq happened in the US, we would shut down as a country. Yes it's sad that these students had to die, but I'm pretty sure guns existed before this happened. It just takes a nut to make it all go to crap, right Mr. President?
- readme, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17I think I speak for all of Digg in saying, STFU.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Atomic, that may be true but it really isn't cool to use a tradegy to push a political agenda. At least wait until people have things situated and the familes aren't still mourning.
- crestfall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why don't you go make a collage of the pictures of dead soldiers if you're looking for equal representation? I'm serious. Unless, of course, you're just looking for an opportunity to talk about Iraq.
- dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2it's not cool to use it as a poltical agenda?
People are dying everyday in Iraq because of us. I'm not saying that so we "get out now" as that may not be a good idea. But at the same time, we should feel bad for those dying in Iraq right now and we should use this story and these feelings to relate, because they think and feel just like us. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2A murder is a murder is a murder is a murder, whether the killing is done by U.S. soldiers in another country or at home by some random violent nutjob (who's not employed by the government).
I don't think Bush did any prayer for the people in Iraq that got killed because of his policies.
We must not grieve only for the lives of the ones close to us, or these things will happen again and again. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All I am asking is that you wait for the dust to settle before you parade around using the dead for your own agenda. If you want us to pay more attention to iraqi deaths fine. Thats a great cause. But leave virginia tech out of it for a while out of respect for the families. That's all it is. Manners and respect. Don't use people who died yesterday to make a political point. It's not cool.
- MadN, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Too bad guns were banned here, someone might have been able to stop this tragedy, like what happened in 2002.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html
One armed citizen can make the difference.- crestfall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"One armed citizen can make the difference."
Yeah, I think that's been made all too clear. - h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah, this guy wasn't a citizen, and had illegally owned guns.
More laws taking more guns away from more law abiding citizens would not have stopped this guy. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't remember any info saying this guy wasn't a citizen. Is that true? Or did you just pull that out of your ass because you heard he was Asian? Seriously you got a source or something because I don't remember anyone saying that.
- crestfall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2
taoofbill beat me, because I got the Digg anti-spam screen.
citation for his illegal ownership of guns is requested as well.
- crestfall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"One armed citizen can make the difference."
- cbeach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Wow, digg story whores know no bounds. "JOIN MY FACEBOOK GROUP for the very best lists of the dead"
- MadN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0dupe
- crestfall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4dupe response
- Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Burried .. this is a way to get new facebook members. .
- kattapoga, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2if its a crime to own nuclear weapons only criminals will have nuclear weapons - how logical ..lets have warheads on sale at walmart.
- dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm all for limiting access to guns, and applying a means of control, but lets be serious, that was a really stupid thing to say.
- RAEP, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Way to ***** put this on digg.
- h3smith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Buried. The families DESERVE TO KNOW FIRST.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And the friends don't? No one lets the friends know anything! I think it's great the friends of the victims are shareing what they know.
- kattapoga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3how many more massacres before people who matter realize that people can be unstable and it is not possible to plan for and defend against any nut with a gun. There will always be nutcases - and they may even be normal people who turn nutcases due to circumstance . The only thing we can control is how much access they have to guns.
I dont think its feasible to have metal detectors and body searches at every campus every day. - superbonbon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some people can feel really detached from mass casualty fatalities when all we see are the numbers, but when you break it down to individual losses it's overwhelmingly tragic
- AshFire87, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think this was the killers girlfriend: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=142380498
Ross Alameddine, a student from Saugus, Massachusetts. - http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=6266415 - BeerRules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm asking people to please digg down this story. My reasons for this are simple. This is not the way anyone of us would like our mother's to find out. Plus the integrity of the list its self is compromised, I realize that the people who created the list did so with good intentions however some media markets are now picking up on it and posting names. Yes we all would like to know if your friends and loved ones are ok but this list can not %100 tell a person, and therefore should not have been posted in the first place. In addition when all the families have been notified the police will publish a list of the fallen. Pure and simple it is not our job as diggers to spread in accurate information just out of hysteria. This information is premature at best and inaccurate at worst. So please bury the story, or have it removed although i don't know if it can be.
- rzrshrp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree totally. The reason that the police haven't released this list yet is so that they can notify all of the closest kin in the best way possible...whatever in the hell that is. They don't want their first notification being a graphic on a television screen or text on a website.
- cbeach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Keep hearing the argument that banning guns does not remove them from the hands of criminals. Not directly no - but in my country (UK) guns are banned. It's harder for anyone to get their hands on a gun. Hence less people get shot. Simple as that.
- Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cbeach
And guns have been outlawed in the UK for how long. Unfortunately here in the US there are Millions of handguns in circulation. As any previous prohibition has shown that you cant take it back, not with alcohol and no matter what someone can always get what they want.
Its a case of sad but true, if you take 10 people, put them in a 30 foot deep pit, and toss in 5 knifes, the ones with the knifes are less likely to be attacked by the unarmed and the armed. At this point I dont think a gun ban can work here. - stugster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I said that cbeach! And I was told by someone that I should be killed for suggesting guns should be abolished. That's the mentality of Americans though, they favour their Rights to their Responsibilities.
At the end of the day, if it's hard to get a gun (as the Aussie poster said) then it's going to take a lot of effort, pre-meditation, and thought... likely after this, the person wont bother. Or on the other hand, living in America, you can grab the 9mm from under your pillow and do as you please.
The UK have a low gun death rate for a reason: They are illegal.
@red_eye, we never said that guns weren't present in the UK. But you remove the gun from the pillow and you'll reduce the rate of the crimes. People can get what they want, yes, but I bet you those that have the sudden urge to slaughter innocent wont have a gun handy to do it... and nipping to the gun shop with a licence is too much hassle.
- Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cbeach
- AshFire87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maxine Turner
Vienna, Va.
Senior, Chemical Engineering
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=32520437 - AshFire87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Rest in peace.
Matt La Porte
Dumont, N.J.
Freshman, University Studies
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=37515162 - johlin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And still there will be no change of gun laws.
- stugster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@johnlin: exactly. Cars are legal, and yet, deaths are expected... Guns are legal, although, America apparently believe that keeping a weapon of mortality wont cause death? Wake up America, get rid.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is