Va Tech shootings

[Ole Unka Phil]

Shootings and deaths at Va Tech

22 dead and 21 wounded....

Va Tech has a no gun on campus policy.

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito 381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.


I guess this policy works eh? So we had 26,000 known potential victims unarmed....

Sad day. I bet this will bring on cries of more gun legislation that only the Victims will comply with.

[beam]

No doubt, a sad day.

[thecavemankevin]

got friends there, friends with family there. Tis a sad and very anxious day awaiting to hear about from my friends to see if they're ok.

[zt10]

qft phil...could have drastically decreased the death toll.....sad that this will have the opposite effect and probably make firearms even more difficult to obtain for the rest of us. especially us college students.

[Gitaroo Man]

qft phil...could have drastically decreased the death toll.....sad that this will have the opposite effect and probably make firearms even more difficult to obtain for the rest of us. especially us college students.

i seriously doubt that there would have been that many kids carry guns around the shooter and ones that were willing to actually stop him.

[Ole Unka Phil]

i seriously doubt that there would have been that many kids carry guns around the shooter and ones that were willing to actually stop him.


It only takes one... and they were denied that right.

[trevorjk]

at the moment they are now reported 32 dead and the number is for sure going to climb they say :(

[geekwarrior]

SKY NEWS: Witnesses said he was heavily armed and entered the college looking for his girlfriend... He reportedly lined up students and opened fire at them. He was said to be a young Asian...


any word on what kinda gun he used?

[ß?µ£ §mµ®ƒ]

One of my friends had to run, he already facedbook messaged all of us, pray for all those injured. I'm an EMT, I wish I could be there helping.

[Ole Unka Phil]

SKY NEWS: Witnesses said he was heavily armed and entered the college looking for his girlfriend... He reportedly lined up students and opened fire at them. He was said to be a young Asian...


any word on what kinda gun he used?


the rumor is 9mm handguns of some sort. One reports a 9mm and a .22.

I don't know if the "lined up students" rumor has much merit.

Reportedly two shot at dorm (girlfriend?)

Two hours later random walking shooting started and was reported across campus in Classroom building. This is where he was either shot or took his own life and most of the the fatalities occured.

Many students report believing (I guess to be expected) that after the first shooting so much time had passed they all thought it was over. And this is when the real killing started. Also reports he had many Magazines strapped to him and he held two guns. Most likely pistols and again... they said 9mm and one said a .22 as well

Thats all speculative at this point though.

Reports of Asian decent may be confusion as there was one man taken into custody and later released that fits this description. However it may be that he just fit a description of the real Perp too. So that has to be sorted out.

[geekwarrior]

the rumor is 9mm handguns of some sort. One reports a 9mm and a .22.



wow...how did he manage to kill that many people with handguns? and if they happened hours apart, and they never had the first gunman.... :confused:

[Ole Unka Phil]

He reportedly had many magazines. But also remember thats only like 50 rounds needed to do all this. 31 dead and 20 injured can be done with less than 50 bullets. Not that many at all. Can carry that in your pockets.

Yea... two hours apart. And no... the had no idea who it was at the time from the first ones. Problem is going to be what was done during that time to alert and keep students under lock down. Reports vary as to if and when that occured. Somebody might have screwed up... we will have to wait and see how it all pans out. Until then we will just have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they just did not know... And remember that the person pulling the trigger is to blame after all.

[geekwarrior]

He reportedly had many magazines.

Yea... two hours apart. And no... the had no idea who it was at the time from the first ones. Problem is going to be what was done during that time to alert and keep students under lock down. Reports vary as to if and when that occured. Somebody might have screwed up... we will have to wait and see how it all pans out. Until then we will just have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they just did not know... And remember that the person pulling the trigger is to blame after all.


as predicted....poll in the middle of the page

gun control (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3046125&page=1)

[txaggie08]

Prayers and support from Texas A&M tonight.....we understand tragedies all to well. I hope no-one else is hurt....

[Ole Unka Phil]

A related account....


Nikolas Macko was in a mathematics class in Norris Hall when they heard a series of loud bangs in the hallway which prompted a female student sitting near the door to move to close it.

"She peeked out into the hallway, and saw the shooter, so she immediately closed the door. Three other students moved a table that was in front of the room - it seats approximately 40 students at capacity - and barricaded it against the door.

"A few seconds later, the shooter tried to open the door, but my classmates kept it well shut, as they held the table against it from floor level.

"The shooter shot the door twice at chest level, which resulted in two holes in the door, one of which hit the podium in the front of the class room and the other continued out the window. At this point he reloaded, shot the door again - this shot did not penetrate - and moved on to the other classrooms," Mr Macko added.

[bornl33t]

as predicted....poll in the middle of the page

gun control (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3046125&page=1)

the poll is biased !!

Gun control is not to blame for the shooting? (iow, limiting gun ownership is not to blame?)

It doesn't matter what you vote you are voting in favor of a gun ban?

[wjr]

Here are my opinions on this matter. I would like to preface my post by saying that I still respect your opinions, and I do not mean any of this to sound rude.

1) I do not think students carrying guns to school, ready to kill at a moments notice, would be conducive to a learning environment.

2) Students aren't being denied their rights by not being allowed guns to their school.

3) This was a freak incident and is not a common occurrence. There must have been signs in the kids behavior. The best way to prevent this kind of thing is to stop it before it starts, not after it reaches the boiling point.

Edit: Added another point

4) More security guards or police officers on campus would make more sense then the students patrolling themselves.

[PyRo]

Here are my opinions on this matter. I would like to preface my post by saying that I still respect your opinions, and I do not mean any of this to sound rude.

1) I do not think students carrying guns to school, ready to kill at a moments notice, would be conducive to a learning environment.

2) Students aren't being denied their rights by not being allowed guns to their school.

3) This was a freak incident and is not a common occurrence. There must have been signs in the kids behavior. The best way to prevent this kind of thing is to stop it before it starts, not after it reaches the boiling point.
Tell that to the dead people.

[wjr]

Tell that to the dead people.

Ummm... uh... What exactly are you trying to get at there?

I am horrified by the event, and I'm deeply sorry for the friends and families of those who were killed. It's terrible that one wacko out there can be able to do so much to affect the lives of others.

[mag_lover05]

death toll is now at 32 i belive.

[Aggravated Assault]

Here are my opinions on this matter. I would like to preface my post by saying that I still respect your opinions, and I do not mean any of this to sound rude.

1) I do not think students carrying guns to school, ready to kill at a moments notice, would be conducive to a learning environment.

2) Students aren't being denied their rights by not being allowed guns to their school.

3) This was a freak incident and is not a common occurrence. There must have been signs in the kids behavior. The best way to prevent this kind of thing is to stop it before it starts, not after it reaches the boiling point.

Edit: Added another point

4) More security guards or police officers on campus would make more sense then the students patrolling themselves.

Having a student (or students) or an employee(s) who can legaly cary a firearm and have access to a legaly owned firearm = people ready to kill at a moments notice?

How do you know there must have been signs of the kids behavior?

How do you know more security guards would have stopped this?

Absolute speculation at this point. This is a tragedy of unparalleled porportion. Its gonna take a little bit to sort things out and figure out what really happened. My heart goes out to those families involved in this.

[Lohman446]

Ready for this:

Even with a state issued concealed carry permit I am not allowed to carry a firearm onto a college campus. *If* someone was going to plan this out what better place than somewhere where the law abiding citizens will be unarmed. Not saying it would have changed things but a no weapon policy, well it might help in minor altercations (I doubt it), is more likely to draw this type of thing if the offender considers it. At least I think, no proof.

[Aggravated Assault]

Is this state by state, going back to the above bill, or a federal law?

[Ole Unka Phil]

Its what the person intent on evil considers a "Target Rich Environment". They are all disarmed and therefore denied thier right to protect themselves. If... you wish to do it with Law Enforement then your going to have to have one LE for ever student. Good luck with that. It is each persons right to protect him/her self. Those who can undergo the scrutiny and background check and training to obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit are not "ready to settle things with a gun at a moments notice" as you wish to imply. They are the LEAST likely to do so. But to put them at a disadvantage then you are directly responsible for the result. You might as well have loaded that guys gun for him. Because YOU made it all possible for him to kill 33 rather than one or two. Its not anyones right to deny a person his ability to meet force with equal force. If you can find a way to keep maniacs off the street then I am listening. However its not going to happen. So your not going to be able to assure me that YOU can provide protection.

Not everyone eligable will chose to carry. But it would have only taken one responsible person in the right place to have minimized this.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19021-2/vtech9523.jpg

Gun laws only work on those who obey laws. And I am not afriad of the law obiding. You seem to be. You seem to assume that law obiding citizens are to be denied the right to self protection.

[Lohman446]

Is this state by state, going back to the above bill, or a federal law?

I don't know, its a condition of my handgun permit in MI. I don't know if thats to comply with federal law or just a state thing.

[Lohman446]

Here are my opinions on this matter. I would like to preface my post by saying that I still respect your opinions, and I do not mean any of this to sound rude.

1) I do not think students carrying guns to school, ready to kill at a moments notice, would be conducive to a learning environment.

2) Students aren't being denied their rights by not being allowed guns to their school.

3) This was a freak incident and is not a common occurrence. There must have been signs in the kids behavior. The best way to prevent this kind of thing is to stop it before it starts, not after it reaches the boiling point.

Edit: Added another point

4) More security guards or police officers on campus would make more sense then the students patrolling themselves.

Show me an example of someone LEGALLY and responsibly carrying a concealed weapon that is "ready to kill at a moments notice" except in the boundaries permitted by law?

How are students not being denied a right? Most campus security guards are not qualified or licensed to be armed, and are not (at least in my experience). Who is going to pay for the extra police presence?

[Ole Unka Phil]

It is all state by state. It is legal to allow carry at Va Tech. By Virginia Law it can be allowed. It was not. It was challenged but it was allowed for Va Tech to maintain its policy. My university has a similar no gun policy. It is allowed if there is permission by the Local Law Enforement agency by State law. Ours does not grant them except on a case by case basis. I am in disagrement with some of it. I believe this is a excellent example of that it does not work to deny properly licensed CWP's to carry on Campus.

[Lohman446]

To those against carrying, consider this. Facing an advesary who has shown that they are willing to kill someone I am going to resist. Many people like me are going to resist.

My life, and very likely the lives of others involved depend on my ability to effectively resist. I don't care if you have the mindset, training, or equipment to resist. Do you not prefer that I have every tool possible to make resistance effective?

[Ole Unka Phil]

Show me an example of someone LEGALLY and responsibly carrying a concealed weapon that is "ready to kill at a moments notice" except in the boundaries permitted by law?

How are students not being denied a right? Most campus security guards are not qualified or licensed to be armed, and are not (at least in my experience). Who is going to pay for the extra police presence?


Many of them are Municipalities (Cities) on their own. Va Tech is one and has a full police force. Duly sworn and fully capable of doing LE work. However I doubt they have much more manpower per student than any other city has per resident. Not enough to be there every minute. They might have 20-30 total officers for 26,000 students. And not all on one shift. I would bet there is no more than 12 officers on duty at any one time there.

[geekwarrior]

2 9mm hand guns, all those clips, chained doors....jeez :cry:

[Ole Unka Phil]

At least people are asking why this incident did not result in a lockdown which did occur in the incident that occured last August at Va Tech. In that case the incident happened off campus and the gunman was reported near or on campus and the campus went into lock down.

This time the first murders occured on campus, perp was not identified or locations of him not known, and no lockdown. Until after second shooting starts. I think this kind of debate is constructive. I do NOT wish to demean Va Tech. I just want to learn from it.

I am going to venture a guess here, and knowing bureacracy like I do, that people complained about that first lock down being a nusance and interuption and so the Campus Police was now reluctant to call for another one. Probably at the behest of the Administration.

I can tell you that it happens this sort of way. And it will be reminded to my Superiors that we here at CU need to learn as much as we can about this one and adapt to it. And not be afraid to over react.

[Aggravated Assault]

I heard a on air interview on 890AM with a VT student. If I heard right they were telling all to stay in their rooms/dorms/lock doors/ etc, after the first shooting. There were emails sent to students and trucks w/ PA horns going around warning campus. Now, again, this is just what I heard.

It's so hard to speculate on anything about this. Gotta go do some home improvement, so I'll check the news out at 10. Maybe there will be some more useful information than what they have been regurgitating for the last several hours.

[SR_matt]

the didnt lock down because from all the things they had gotten from wittnesses they thought the perp left the campus and maybe even blacksburg as a whole.

while i do agree with letting people carry ingeneral i do not think collage campuses nesecarly are a reasonable place to have to (at least a campus like VT, for those that dont know blacksburg is there becasue VT is there and there fore most people in that town either work for the school or go there, no a whole lot of other people). something in a larger city (such as VCU is, being in richmond) i could see allowing the students to carry but either way for god's sake its a school, your not supposed to have to even think twice about it, there shouldnt be this **** going down.

in all honesty i do not think stricter or more lax gun laws would have changed what happened much.

also what they have stated now is that the 2 incidents might not have been related at all there fore it wouldnt have mattered so meh, hindsight 20/20 aye?

im not trying to make this in to a small little event because it isnt, personal im still waiting to hear from a friend (not very worried since he normaly doesnt respond to calls and his dorm and classes are in differant places but still never know).


all this debate about gun control vs. no gun control. either way neither one will work very well. people need to learn that they shouldnt use weapons to resolve problems.

-matt

[Ole Unka Phil]

They did not issue a lock down or warning until AFTER the second shootings were reported.

They did issue a lock down the last time they had a shooting incident even remotely near campus and with little information. They knew they had a shooter nearby and did not know where he was.

Today, they had no real information other than this first shooter had left the building. Thats all they really knew. They were speculating and assuming he left campus. They had no real concrete evidence that was so. So... again... as in the first incident... they had no idea who he was nor where he was.

Fact is the two incidents they did not know where the shooter was. And they did two different things.

The President of the University and the Police chief have both confirmed they did not order a lock down nor warning until the second incident was ongoing.

However they treated this one which DID occur on campus, differently than the last one. Someone changed the procedure and losened it up. And it cost lives. Someone let their gaurd down or someone decided to deal with things like this differently this time. I suspect because the last one was a false alarm they changed their procedure. For the worse....

No ones proposing loser gun laws. What is proposed is that the ones that we have be honored. In this case they restricted them on thier own and proved it does not work.

[SR_matt]

i wouldnt go as far to say that, i see why you do say that but i really do think that because what the wittnesses said that they felt there was no immediate danger outside of that building.

remember though that they still have not said that the 2 incidents were related and they are waiting for balistics to tell them what happened
-matt

[wjr]

I'm just thinking that a more logical step then having kids carrying guns to school would be to have more police or security guards.

I guess you guys look at guns alot differently then I do, but I just don't think that guns should be in my classroom. I think most people affiliated with any sort of college or school will agree with me here.

[Lohman446]

I'm just thinking that a more logical step then having kids carrying guns to school would be to have more police or security guards.

I guess you guys look at guns alot differently then I do, but I just don't think that guns should be in my classroom. I think most people affiliated with any sort of college or school will agree with me here.

I think your wrong. Most of us when we went to college just accepted that it was not allowed (where not). I look at a well armed (and trained) populace as being far more effective at being able to end something like this quickly than a responding police force.

How does this work. There are people who don't carry a gun and don't care. There are people who beleive a populace should nto be armed. There are others that are ok with a legally armed populace. The thing is, the legally armed citizen is a benefit to all three groups.

Look up crime statistics at how few violent crimes are committed by people legally carrying a concealed weapon.

[wjr]

I think your wrong. Most of us when we went to college just accepted that it was not allowed (where not). I look at a well armed (and trained) populace as being far more effective at being able to end something like this quickly than a responding police force.


Well, I guess that's were we would disagree.

[Gitaroo Man]

I agree with wjr....I wouldn't want a gun in my classroom either. Carry concealed all you want I don't care, but I wouldn't be comfortable one with me in a classroom and don't think it would help the environment much (I'm in college for reference...).

I still think that even if someone had a gun on them that wasn't an officer they would not have stepped up.

[warbeak2099]

I'm just thinking that a more logical step then having kids carrying guns to school would be to have more police or security guards.

I guess you guys look at guns alot differently then I do, but I just don't think that guns should be in my classroom. I think most people affiliated with any sort of college or school will agree with me here.

Well then you're wrong. I strongly disagree. As a student on a college campus I feel very strongly that I should have the right to carry. As long as I go through the screening and necessary background check, what is wrong with that?

I have a clean criminal record, I am a member of the school's NROTC unit and therefore US military personel, and I have no history of psychological disability. Oh yea, I'm going to shoot people up. The law makers that take away our right to defend ourselves are who is to blame. They are putting those of us who are law abiding citizens at risk.

[Ole Unka Phil]

i wouldnt go as far to say that, i see why you do say that but i really do think that because what the wittnesses said that they felt there was no immediate danger outside of that building.

remember though that they still have not said that the 2 incidents were related and they are waiting for balistics to tell them what happened
-matt



Where did you get the idea that "wittnesses" said there was no danger?

They were wrong weren't they?

They had no idea where the guy went nor where he was. Yet they chose to assume he was gone. He was not. They cannot assume anything.

They have not linked them yet... because they now need to do forensics first.

Even if they were and are unrelated, the procedure they used LAST time was to lock down and warn. They chose not to this time. Why? Even if it was some sort of wild coincidence, the procedure they used last time would have been helpful. It matters not at all if they are related to each other or not does it? The results would have been the same.

When you have a shooter and he and his weapon are not at the scene, and you don't know where he is, you should not assume he is long gone. You should assume he is still around until you know better. They do not and did not know that. They assumed things wrongly. With no real concrete reason to do so. All they knew for certain was he left that first building. They had no idea where he went.

Now, all that aside, lets not lose sight of the fact that the shooter is responsible. No one else could have known. Its not the Universities fault, its not the Police fault, its not the students faults and its not the Guns fault. But... its helpfull to go back and see what can be done the next time to minimize the damage. All things should be on the table.

[Gitaroo Man]

Well then you're wrong. I strongly disagree. As a student on a college campus I feel very strongly that I should have the right to carry. As long as I go through the screening and necessary background check, what is wrong with that?

I have a clean criminal record, I am a member of the school's NROTC unit and therefore US military personel, and I have no history of psychological disability. Oh yea, I'm going to shoot people up. The law makers that take away our right to defend ourselves are who is to blame. They are putting those of us who are law abiding citizens at risk.

It has nothing to do with you being harmful. It's just something that isn't helping the environment that we're in. A gun in a classroom seems to me like it wouldn't help me focus. Guns make A LOT of people nervous REGARDLESS of if they are pro or anti so that doesn't help when you are trying to learn.

[Lohman446]

I agree with wjr....I wouldn't want a gun in my classroom either. Carry concealed all you want I don't care, but I wouldn't be comfortable one with me in a classroom and don't think it would help the environment much (I'm in college for reference...).

I still think that even if someone had a gun on them that wasn't an officer they would not have stepped up.

I do not think they would have stopped the first, or the second. This man had the benefit of surprise (it should be assumed), and little or no delay in shooting (again, an assumption) But maybe the 20th. In a situation where I do not beleive anyone is going to be injured my gun is staying in its holster. Pulling it can only escalate a situation. However, should I make the judgement that the situation is already deadly then it can no longer be escalated worse.

That being said, your comfort should never be in question. Most people who carry concealed... well its called concealed for a reason.

[Lohman446]

It has nothing to do with you being harmful. It's just something that isn't helping the environment that we're in. A gun in a classroom seems to me like it wouldn't help me focus. Guns make A LOT of people nervous REGARDLESS of if they are pro or anti so that doesn't help when you are trying to learn.

You would never know. Some peoples speech makes me nervous, does not mean it is not a right. Some people getting away with crimes by hiding behind "unreasonable" search and seizure makes me nervous. It does not mean it is not a right. Again, the cons about you not feeling comfortable are moot - chances are you are not going to know if the person next to you is armed.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I would have protected my life if I was in a situation where I had too.

And as a result migh have inadvertently saved those that were to follow.

Assuming I had something to do it with.

But they didn't.... thats the point.

How about we assume NO one would have taken out his/her gun and died anyway? Then whats the problem? Same result... same death toll.

But what if one, at some point does, and the death toll stops at say 10 or 15.... 15 people including Him Her live.

There is no down side to having the means to meet force with like force. There is a down side of not having the means to meet force with like force. The rest are just choices and timing.

[Gitaroo Man]

By the 20th officers should have been there, but yeah I do agree with you on that.

I don't know. I'm just thinking about fellow students in my classes carrying guns during a lecture and something bothers me about it. :rolleyes:

[warbeak2099]

It has nothing to do with you being harmful. It's just something that isn't helping the environment that we're in. A gun in a classroom seems to me like it wouldn't help me focus. Guns make A LOT of people nervous REGARDLESS of if they are pro or anti so that doesn't help when you are trying to learn.

How are you going to feel uncomfortable if it's concealed? And IMO it would help the situation. I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that responsible, law abiding citizens are carrying and thus keeping everyone safe. As long as a person is trained and qualified to carry, I feel safer having them in my classroom.

[Ole Unka Phil]

By the 20th officers should have been there, but yeah I do agree with you on that.

I don't know. I'm just thinking about fellow students in my classes carrying guns during a lecture and something bothers me about it. :rolleyes:

They won't be there. They could not get in by the way. He chained the doors closed. They were on their own.

Not all your fellow students would carry. Not all of them are 21. Not all of them can pass the background check. Not all of them would take the training. Not all of them would CHOSE to carry.

How do you feel sitting in your classroom with students that maybe cannot do all that but are secretly carrying anyway? Who are doing it illegaly? Do you feel comfortable not knowing if any one of them might be carrying without a permit and not care about the laws? Do you think they don't do this? Do you think people with Carry permits somehow are a greater threat to you than those that could care less about the rules and laws? Remember... this guy didn't care.... the rules was no guns... did he obey that rule?

These students sat in their classroom feeling safe because they were told by their college that there would be no guns. Nothing to worry about. Safe as can be they said. We outlawed guns.

[Gitaroo Man]

Well I don't really feel unsafe here. So it's not like KNOWING they are present is making me feel any safer. I also have confidence that they will use them. If some bill was passed that allowed them to be on my campus and in classrooms then I could sure assume there was one in the classroom and thus be uncomfortable. I know it's not entirely rational but I can assume there is someone in the room with a gun and they make a lot of people nervous (me included even though I could care less if people own them) and wouldn't help me focus/learn.

[Glickman]

How are you going to feel uncomfortable if it's concealed? And IMO it would help the situation. I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that responsible, law abiding citizens are carrying and thus keeping everyone safe. As long as a person is trained and qualified to carry, I feel safer having them in my classroom.

not that im arguing with you, i think something good to bring up would be how dorms bring in a different variables. for one, the chance a non-registered person may access the weapon is highly increased if you live with a roommate or more. Even with a lock box, the chances it could be wrongly accessed when the owners not there, or even asleep.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Those students felt safe. I can garantee you that. They expected not to need a gun. Most people don't...

but... its like anything... when you need one... you gotta have it on you then. Hopefully you will NEVER use it. But it does no good to not have it when you need it.

[warbeak2099]

I know it's not entirely rational

There's your problem :rolleyes:

[Lohman446]

Well I don't really feel unsafe here. So it's not like KNOWING they are present is making me feel any safer. I also have confidence that they will use them. If some bill was passed that allowed them to be on my campus and in classrooms then I could sure assume there was one in the classroom and thus be uncomfortable. I know it's not entirely rational but I can assume there is someone in the room with a gun and they make a lot of people nervous (me included even though I could care less if people own them) and wouldn't help me focus/learn.

I have years of martial arts training.

I have years of weapons training, and weapon retention training.

I have spent 20+ hours in a classroom discussing the legality of firearm usage, situational awareness, and reaction.

I have spent far more time on the range practicing scenarios.

Do you feel uncomfortable around an officer with an exposed gun? Even if you know I have one, is it really that bad?

Then you have to weigh your uncomfortableness against my right to carry. I think my rights win in this case. You also have to consider the safety factor that armed citizens bring.

I would much rather have a gun, have you never know it, and never need it. Then to be standing there listening to gunfire in a hallway and wondering why I was not allowed to have it and hoping desperatly for a miracle.

[Gitaroo Man]

I know they felt safe. I'm just personally saying a fellow student carrying a handgun around won't PERSONALLY make ME feel more safe. The likely hood that the person with the concealed being around a gunmen is low and them taking the shot is even lower (I think, opinion...again). So I'm just saying I don't feel any safer with students having guns.

[Ole Unka Phil]

not that im arguing with you, i think something good to bring up would be how dorms bring in a different variables. for one, the chance a non-registered person may access the weapon is highly increased if you live with a roommate or more. Even with a lock box, the chances it could be wrongly accessed when the owners not there, or even asleep.

Absolutely! Guns safety and security is totaly an important aspect. its not unsurmountable. Lock boxes can be secure. Not sure why you don't think they can be. There are good ones.

I am not saying everyone should carry. But I am saying that those legaly allowed to do so should not be restricted from doing so. They have liabilities and have responsibilities. They are huge ones too. And they know it. Every one that I know that conceal carries is the least likely to be careless and probably more likely to avoid trouble than any one else I know.

[Gitaroo Man]

For the 50th time I'm saying GUNS MAKE PEOPLE NERVOUS. I realize you have a right to carry so go ahead and carry all you want. It's just if I found out about a gun being in the classroom (if) how am I supposed to know you're not concealing it for another school shooting or not? That's what would make me nervous.

[wjr]

For the 50th time I'm saying GUNS MAKE PEOPLE NERVOUS. I realize you have a right to carry so go ahead and carry all you want. It's just if I found out about a gun being in the classroom (if) how am I supposed to know you're not concealing it for another school shooting or not? That's what would make me nervous.


YES!!! Thank you for saying it. I agree.

[Ole Unka Phil]

If its concealed how will you know?

If you for some reason spot someone not concealing ask him/her. they will tell you. But your not going to be able to control what others do. They are carrying around you now. And perhaps some of them are illegal. Your best defense is to also be able to defend yourself.

One things for sure, you worrying about it or being irrational about it has not prevented it from happening. You can only protect yourself. You cannot control other people. Always will be that way.

So if I do as you wish I will just outlaw it. No carry in classrooms. Feel safer? Well.... thats the way it was today.. in Virginia...exactly as you like it... feel safer now?

[Eagle]

For the 50th time I'm saying GUNS MAKE PEOPLE NERVOUS. I realize you have a right to carry so go ahead and carry all you want. It's just if I found out about a gun being in the classroom (if) how am I supposed to know you're not concealing it for another school shooting or not? That's what would make me nervous.


Guns make who nervous? I live in the Richmond Va area, I go to night school, I have a concealled carry permit, and while I don;t know what my schools official policy is, I don't think I have ever gone to class unarmed. I sure as hell don't advertise, and I have no intentions of ever using it, but I've been predicting similar situations to this for years. That is why I carry, because I can, and because I intend to go down fighting if it comes to that. Be Prepared!

[SCpoloRicker]

First, terrible tragedy. Poor response from whatever passes for LE (although I'm not up to date on the particulars there).

That said, who the heck tells their school that they are armed? I felt no need to do so. Although I've never pursued CCW, I did have a pistol while at school.

I do feel like the way this thread is going has a certain flavor to it, that's sorta inevitable. Let's try and keep it civil.

/thinks gun control has gotten ridiculous on both sides

[paintballfiend]

First off, I wouldn't trust the cops to defend my life. Second, I wouldn't trust my classmates with a gun.
All we should do is live in fear until the Apocolyps comes. :headbang:

[Gitaroo Man]

If its concealed how will you know?

If you for some reason spot someone not concealing ask him/her. they will tell you. But your not going to be able to control what others do. They are carrying around you now. And perhaps some of them are illegal. Your best defense is to also be able to defend yourself.

One things for sure, you worrying about it or being irrational about it has not prevented it from happening. You can only protect yourself. You cannot control other people. Always will be that way.

So if I do as you wish I will just outlaw it. No carry in classrooms. Feel safer? Well.... thats the way it was today.. in Virginia...exactly as you like it... feel safer now?

I said if I spotted it for some reason or another. How am I supposed to know if it's legal or not? I'm not about to go up to someone with a gun (that I don't know if they should have one or not) and ask them "Hey, why can I see that?".

[wjr]

If its concealed how will you know?

If you for some reason spot someone not concealing ask him/her. they will tell you. But your not going to be able to control what others do. They are carrying around you now. And perhaps some of them are illegal. Your best defense is to also be able to defend yourself.

One things for sure, you worrying about it or being irrational about it has not prevented it from happening. You can only protect yourself. You cannot control other people. Always will be that way.

So if I do as you wish I will just outlaw it. No carry in classrooms. Feel safer? Well.... thats the way it was today.. in Virginia...exactly as you like it... feel safer now?

Have you ever thought there are other ways to prevent this kind of thing then having everyone carry a gun?

Make it harder and do more background checks on people buying guns maybe? Put more money and effort into stopping the illegal sales of guns?

I don't want to have to live in a world where to feel safe I have to carry a gun.

Also, I don't trust the average citizen to make life and death decisions in a crime situation. This particular one is pretty black and white. That's not the case for all crimes though.

[Ole Unka Phil]

This you need to watch. Up until today this was the worst mass shooting in US history.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6006926775914305210&q=%22gun+control%22&hl=en

You owe it to her to listen to her entire testimony before Congress. And its very appropriate for today.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Have you ever thought there are other ways to prevent this kind of thing then having everyone carry a gun?

Make it harder and do more background checks on people buying guns maybe? Put more money and effort into stopping the illegal sales of guns?

I don't want to have to live in a world where to feel safe I have to carry a gun.

Also, I don't trust the average citizen to make life and death decisions in a crime situation. This particular one is pretty black and white. That's not the case for all crimes though.

If it was so simple then why is it not working. They already require a NICS check on all purchases. Most guns used in crimes are not obtained legaly. Criminals don't obey laws.

You already do... your just not admitting it.

I don't trust YOU to protect me. Or make decisions about if I can protect myself and how I do it.

Why do you keep confusing Public Safety functions with self defense? Your mixing the two together.

Let me make it clear. I don't intend to carry a gun to protect you. It's for me. If its obvious I see you getting robbed at gun point I am going the other way. I will call the police when I am clear of the situation. but your on your own. I am not and will not be your protector. Thats your responsibilty. Not mine. If its you getting killed thats your problem. I hate to be blunt but its "self protection"... not my problem if its you.

Now in this case, if I were to have to kill someone to protect myself and it, inadvertently saves your ***, great. But its not my primary goal. If I hear shots in the hall. I am taking cover. Your on your own out there. He comes in the room with gun drawn and I will take him out to protect myself. Not you. Not anyone else. You would then be just lucky it went down that way.

[BobTheCow]

This thread is despicable. How you all managed to turn a national tragedy in to a political debate is beyond comprehension.

Trying to reach friends across the state all day was hard.
Consoling friends who had lost loved ones was near impossible.
Finding out a friend and a classmate was killed tore me the **** apart.

This thread shouldn't be about gun control, or lack thereof. Make your own goddamn thread. Today was bigger than that, and I'm ashamed of what it's turned in to here.

[neppo1345]

Well, just found out that one of my friends lost one of her friends from highschool.

I didn't know her, but this hit home for me. It was a senseless act that could have happened at ANY College campus; could have been UC, OSU, or any other number of schools where I have close friends. I walk across campus and sit in class without ever thinking something like this could happen. I mean, I was even considering VA tech as a college choice. It could have been me.

I'm just worried about some nut job copycat now.

BobTheCow: I agree.

You have my heartfealt condolences, God Bless.

-Tim

[lather]

This thread is despicable. How you all managed to turn a national tragedy in to a political debate is beyond comprehension.

Trying to reach friends across the state all day was hard.
Consoling friends who had lost loved ones was near impossible.
Finding out a friend and a classmate was killed tore me the **** apart.

This thread shouldn't be about gun control, or lack thereof. Make your own goddamn thread. Today was bigger than that, and I'm ashamed of what it's turned in to here.

QFT

I agree, using a terrible tragedy in order to promote an agenda disgusts me.

At least show some respect and try to show some sympathy and sensitivity towards victims and their families.

Jumping right in and using this sad day as an example to prove that your particular political worldview is the "correct" one is sickening.


Bob the Cow -- my condolences

[bornl33t]

ok, that does it!
I'm here to tell you that respect is given to whom it's due. And you are NOT worthy of respect. My heartfelt sympathies to those who have suffered loss but calling a healthy debate disrespectful is absurd.

That being said...worldview? wtf? Agenda? pretty sure gun control is all over abc, cnn,msnbc AND fox. Who's promoting an agenda? You guys are nutjobs.

[Lohman446]

Does having a debate negate sympathy? That seems a knee jerk reaction at best.

[lather]

ok, that does it!
I'm here to tell you that respect is given to whom it's due. And you are NOT worthy of respect. My heartfelt sympathies to those who have suffered loss but calling a healthy debate disrespectful is absurd.

That being said...worldview? wtf? Agenda? pretty sure gun control is all over abc, cnn,msnbc AND fox. Who's promoting an agenda? You guys are nutjobs.

What do you mean by "you guys"? Im talking about BOTH SIDES-- gun control and right to CCW's folks using this tragedy to further their agendas.

[AirAssault]

Its what the person intent on evil considers a "Target Rich Environment". They are all disarmed and therefore denied thier right to protect themselves. If... you wish to do it with Law Enforement then your going to have to have one LE for ever student. Good luck with that. It is each persons right to protect him/her self. Those who can undergo the scrutiny and background check and training to obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit are not "ready to settle things with a gun at a moments notice" as you wish to imply. They are the LEAST likely to do so. But to put them at a disadvantage then you are directly responsible for the result. You might as well have loaded that guys gun for him. Because YOU made it all possible for him to kill 33 rather than one or two. Its not anyones right to deny a person his ability to meet force with equal force. If you can find a way to keep maniacs off the street then I am listening. However its not going to happen. So your not going to be able to assure me that YOU can provide protection.

Not everyone eligable will chose to carry. But it would have only taken one responsible person in the right place to have minimized this.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19021-2/vtech9523.jpg

Gun laws only work on those who obey laws. And I am not afriad of the law obiding. You seem to be. You seem to assume that law obiding citizens are to be denied the right to self protection.

A-fing-men. I am pretty left wing on most issue, but do have my CCW in Colorado. I DO carry pretty much every where I go, Including schools. (which per state of Colorado I am not allowed to do.) I'll be damned if some jerk off is going to kill me, my family or any one else for that matter if I can do something about it.
Springfield Arms 1911 Loaded Champion light weight .45 = $780.00
Hand made Milt Sparks IWB holster = $120.00
Knowing that I can stop some dirtbag from killing me, my family or others = Priceless

Every one that says guns are the problem here, wake the freak up. If you are legally able to carry in your state, ffs take the course and arm yourself.


I agree with wjr....I wouldn't want a gun in my classroom either. Carry concealed all you want I don't care, but I wouldn't be comfortable one with me in a classroom and don't think it would help the environment much (I'm in college for reference...).

I still think that even if someone had a gun on them that wasn't an officer they would not have stepped up.

If the person is properly carrying, you will not know he/she is so you wont need to worry about it. Poeple that go through what you have to do to carry don't do it just to have it. They do it so they can protect themselves and others.

Have you ever thought there are other ways to prevent this kind of thing then having everyone carry a gun?

Make it harder and do more background checks on people buying guns maybe? Put more money and effort into stopping the illegal sales of guns?

I don't want to have to live in a world where to feel safe I have to carry a gun.

Also, I don't trust the average citizen to make life and death decisions in a crime situation. This particular one is pretty black and white. That's not the case for all crimes though.

Ummmm, they are called criminals for a reason. They wont get checked to carry a gun. You can buy guns from people/places that don't do backround checks. Again, that's why they are called CRIMINALS. The average citizen doesn't have to make life or death decisions in crime situations. Those that take the time and effort to be able to carry, are not average citizens. They went above and beyond to take on a greater responsibility to be able to carry that fire arm. To be able to protect themselves and others in situations such as this one. Lets say 10% of the students in that building had weapons, you really think 30 poeple would be dead now?

[Ole Unka Phil]

The thread is partialy appropriately debating how to perhaps prevent such an incident in the future. All options are on the table i believe. That would be a natural reaction to all this. People are scared and want to figure out how to keep it from happening again. I wouldn't condem people for that. The time to plan for another is never too soon. There is at least one more nut case out there wanting to top this one. Someone wanting infamy. Someone wanting to copy cat this. Out of millions of people there is going to be one or two more... plus terrorists as well wanting the same thing.

My first reactions yesterday were, disbelief, hope, sadness then I was outraged. Then I wanted to start immediately preparing so it never happens again... at least to minimize that possibility anyway. I feel a sense of urgency in that regaurd... because there is little time to plan. I want us to dissect this incident and use it to save others. Least it not be they died for nothing.

[Aggravated Assault]

What do you mean by "you guys"? Im talking about BOTH SIDES-- gun control and right to CCW's folks using this tragedy to further their agendas.


Both sides think they have the answer. I don't think that someone whos' on the other side of the fence in this issue is going "whoopie!" what a great chance to push my views. Nor, someone who feels like I do.

I think people just feel terrible and don't want to ever see something like this again.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I think part of the answer is for people to finaly realize that its impossible for someone else to protect you all the time. That you are responsible for your own safety most of the time.

Then go from there.

Now... there are options such as being aware and recognizing things are amiss, extracating yourself from situations which make you vulnerable and avoiding places and situations which put you in danger. Thats something.

In order to do that you have to think ahead about what those might be and where those might be. You have to have first realized that you need to think about it and then do so. To remain blissfully ignorant is the danger.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Here is an editorial I read this morning. Just to give you someone elses take on it....


EDITORIAL: Fear, rumors not the biggest problem

A tragedy at Virginia Tech University

Details were still being pieced together Monday afternoon, but it appears a crazed gunman opened fire at different sites over a period of several hours Monday morning on the sprawling campus of Virginia Tech University, killing at least 32 before turning his weapon on himself.

(The electronic media immediately dubbed the incident the "worst shooting massacre in U.S. history." Those who remember how 300 Sioux -- many of them women and children -- came to die in the snow at Wounded Knee in 1890, for the "crime" of one old man found in possession of a rifle, might disagree.)

Many who wish sections of the Bill of Rights could be ignored or repealed have ridiculed Nevada state Sen. Bob Beers for introducing legislation this year which would again "allow" specially trained Nevada classroom teachers to carry handguns, a step intended to dissuade or (in a last resort) halt any such attack on school grounds here in the Silver State.

Testifying against Sen. Beers' bill in Carson City March 29, Ken Young of the Clark County School District Police said armed teachers are not needed. Why?


Back when two gunmen invaded Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999, Mr. Young explained, a mind-set still prevailed in which police would hang around for hours -- allowing victims to bleed to death, in that case -- waiting for a specially armed and trained police SWAT team to arrive before entering a campus where a shooting had been reported.

But that's all changed now, Mr. Young explained. Since 12 students and a teacher died at Columbine, police all across the country -- all across the country -- have changed the way they respond to reports of people with guns inside schools.

Now, instead of waiting for a SWAT team to arrive, police are trained to enter school grounds much more quickly to eliminate the threat. That's why armed teachers are not needed to put an end to any such incident, Mr. Young explained.

At Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va., Monday, it appears the shooter killed two people in a dormitory around 7 a.m., and that the first 9-1-1 call came in around 7:15.

Were all students promptly informed there'd been a shooting, so they could flee or lock their doors? (They could not legally arm themselves. Sen. Beers reports Virginia legislators last year defeated a bill that would have "allowed" those with permits to carry self-defense arms on campus; a Virginia Tech spokesman thanked the lawmakers "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.")

Did Virginia Tech police quickly secure the campus and "eliminate the threat"? Apparently not. Students who were in the engineering classroom after 9:30 a.m. when the gunman arrived and started shooting there say they had been unaware, up till then, that people had been killed at the dormitory across campus more than two hours before.

University President Charles Steger explained later in the day that it's hard to reach everyone on such a large campus, but also that he'd been concerned about, "People putting out all kinds of rumors that were creating fear and uncertainty on campus."

Well, good heavens. Wouldn't want anyone to have experienced any "fear" after the 7 a.m. shootings.

Yes, people can be trampled in a crowd. But believe it or not, there are times when "remaining calm and staying where you are" is not the best solution. (Think Sept. 11.)

Because authorities "assumed" the shooter had left the area, it now appears the culprit was free to walk across campus and open fire again, more than two hours later.

And this is why there's no need to allow specially trained teachers to carry arms to defend themselves and their students, you see. Because campus police "all across the country" now have new training and procedures which guarantee they can and will swarm the school grounds much more quickly to "eliminate the threat."

Even as administrators worry about spin and damage control, fretting about "people putting out all kinds of rumors" that might "create fear and uncertainty on campus."

[warbeak2099]

Another thing is that there are people responsible for botching this up and getting 32 people killed. There needs to be an investigation on whether or not these people should be prosecuted for at least negligence. When it's your job to keep people safe and you do something as stupid and imbecilic as this, you need to be punished.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Again... even if they made some wrong decisions its the shooter that bears responsiblity for his actions. No one else. We should however learn from it.

Here is some more info coming in:

By RICHARD ESPOSITO and DAVID SCHOETZ
April 17, 2007 —_We now know the identity of the killer at Virginia Tech.

He is Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old resident alien of the United States, as first reported by ABC News.
Cho is a South Korean national, a Virginia Tech senior and an English major and the man who killed 33 people, inlcuding himself, on the Virginia Tech campus Monday.
Sources tell ABC News that Cho killed two people in a dorm room, returned to his own dorm room where he re-armed and left a "disturbing note" before entering a classroom building on the other side of campus to continue his rampage.
Cho's identity has been confirmed with a positive fingerprint match on the guns used in the rampage and with immigration materials.
"Lab results confirm that one of the two weapons seized in Norris Hall was used in both shootings," Virigina Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said at a press conference this morning.
At this time, police are not looking for a second shooter, however, they do not rule out the possibility that an accomplice may have been involved. Sources say Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol, sources said. Witnesses had also told authorities that the shooter was carrying a backpack. Police also Cho had a .22 caliber pistol. Sections of chain similar to those used to lock the main doors at Norris Hall, the site of the second shooting that left 31 dead, were also found inside a Virginia Tech dormitory, sources confirmed to ABC News.
In all, the massacre at Virginia Tech left 33 people dead — including Cho himself — in the worst shooting in modern American history.
President Charles Steger told "Good Morning America's" Diane Sawyer that police were still investigating the possibility of a second shooter, and said authorities had already interviewed one "person of interest."
"There may be others," said Steger, who will join the Virginia Tech chief of police at a press conference Tuesday morning. "We just don't know."
Steger also said that authorities hoped to have ballistics evidence to release that would confirm a connection between the two shootings.
Watch live coverage of the press conference on ABC News Now.
In a press conference Monday night, the university president, who continues to defend the way the school responded the dormitory shooting that began the day of campus bloodshed, gave a detailed timeline of the morning's tragic events.
He said a 911 call reporting a shooting at a dormitory was made at approximately 7:15 a.m. While police were trying to assess what they first believed was a domestic dispute, they received a second 911 call, nearly two and a half hours later, that reported shootings on the opposite side of campus. According to the Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum, officials had not definitively linked the two shootings as of Monday night.
Full coverage continues on "Good Morning America" and "World News With Charles Gibson" an ABC network special Tuesday at 10 p.m. EDT
Flinchum said they have ruled out the possibility of a murder-suicide in the first shooting at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Ryan "Stack" Clark, a member of the school's marching band, the Marching Virginians, and a student resident assistant, was killed there by a shot in the neck. The second victim in the dorm shooting was a female.
Last night, investigators also had a preliminary identification of the shooter involved in the Norris Hall rampage.
When asked to describe the scene at Norris Hall, where the second shooting took place, Flinchum called it "one of the worst things I've seen in my life."
While Flinchum would not name any of the victims, he did say that university staff members were among the dead.
There have been, however, at least 15 shooting victims identified in press accounts, including four professors and 11 students.
Some students question why administrators did not cancel classes after the first shooting, and why it took more than two hours to inform the university community via e-mail about the first incident.

According to Steger, the administration locked down West Ambler Johnston Hall dormitory after the first shooting. But classes weren't canceled because the shooting was believed to be tied to a domestic dispute and campus police believed the shooter had left the campus.

[Jester of Spectre]

Shootings and deaths at Va Tech

22 dead and 21 wounded....

Va Tech has a no gun on campus policy.

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
By Greg Esposito 381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.


I guess this policy works eh? So we had 26,000 known potential victims unarmed....

Sad day. I bet this will bring on cries of more gun legislation that only the Victims will comply with.

i carry my .40 every where i go because you never know when crap like that is going to happen everyone over the age of 21 who is sane and responsible i urge you to get your permit it could save your life or someone elses one day

[Lohman446]

i carry my .40 every where i go because you never know when crap like that is going to happen everyone over the age of 21 who is sane and responsible i urge you to get your permit it could save your life or someone elses one day

Only if you have the ability to do so, receive proper training, and are comfortable doing so. I don't want anyone uncomfortable or untrained carrying a gun.

[warbeak2099]

The first thing I do when I turn 21 is apply and begin recieving proper training.

[Desega]

For the 50th time I'm saying GUNS MAKE PEOPLE NERVOUS. I realize you have a right to carry so go ahead and carry all you want. It's just if I found out about a gun being in the classroom (if) how am I supposed to know you're not concealing it for another school shooting or not? That's what would make me nervous.
QFT Even if someone carrying a gun in the class were to have pulled it, you need to way the situation out more. People were panicking. If a person in a panic saw another person with a gun, not in a police uniform, their first thought is not going to be "we're saved!" it's going to be "another shooter!" And if said vigilanty takes a shot, and hits someone trying to run from the first shooter, how does that help? You can be as expereinced as you'd like but in a fire fight you will NEVER be able to control your enviroment and keep a level head. Adrenaline won't allow it. People carrying guns in that kind of a situation will become trigger itchy, and jumpy because their gun is making them nervous. There are too many factors to justifiably say that a gun in a classroom should not be a threat or risk.

[warbeak2099]

I disagree, with the proper training, a person can be taught to keep a level head in that kind of situation. Police and military personel go through it and are able to do so afterwards. The first thing I'd think if the person sitting next to me pulled a gun on the shooter would be, "Thank God for this guy."

And how would we know that someone with a concealed weapon isn't a school shooter? Because they have the permit. You must not understand what it takes to get one. You can't exactly be a nutjob. Training is also required.

[Desega]

I've taken the training to get one and I do understand what is required, but in a school shooting are you going to take the time to show everyone your permit and yell "It's okay! I'm qualified!"? As proven in this case, the shooter obviously knew how to get a gun and he was carring a concealed weapon without a permit.

[Lohman446]

QFT Even if someone carrying a gun in the class were to have pulled it, you need to way the situation out more. People were panicking. If a person in a panic saw another person with a gun, not in a police uniform, their first thought is not going to be "we're saved!" it's going to be "another shooter!" And if said vigilanty takes a shot, and hits someone trying to run from the first shooter, how does that help? You can be as expereinced as you'd like but in a fire fight you will NEVER be able to control your enviroment and keep a level head. Adrenaline won't allow it. People carrying guns in that kind of a situation will become trigger itchy, and jumpy because their gun is making them nervous. There are too many factors to justifiably say that a gun in a classroom should not be a threat or risk.

So plain clothes police officers are never capable of handling a situation?

[geekwarrior]

I disagree, with the proper training, a person can be taught to keep a level head in that kind of situation. Police and military personel go through it and are able to do so afterwards.


not sure about that. I've seen alot of videos were the police go nuts under fire, and thats with ALOT of training. Same thing with soldiers they're first time under fire.

[Desega]

So plain clothes police officers are never capable of handling a situation?
You just missed the point. To a paniced civilian, a uniform is a sign of safety. Plain clothes do not comfort a panicing person.

[warbeak2099]

I've taken the training to get one and I do understand what is required, but in a school shooting are you going to take the time to show everyone your permit and yell "It's okay! I'm qualified!"? As proven in this case, the shooter obviously knew how to get a gun and he was carring a concealed weapon without a permit.

When did I say the carrier needs to announce him/herself to everyone? Here's a situation:

Carrier is sitting in class taking notes. Perp walks in and pulls gun out. Carrier draws weapon and fires on Perp. Perp falls and is neutralized. Carrier holsters weapon and calls 911.

These things happen so quickly, people are usually stunned. They don't get up and start running around. More likely than not, the carrier would have a perfectly clear shot.

[Desega]

Fight or flight response is real. And even if the shooter is neutralized, the people in the class are only going to see it as someone with a gun shot someone else with a gun, and they won't know who the "goodguy" is. Weapons of any sort make people nervous.

[geekwarrior]

When did I say the carrier needs to announce him/herself to everyone? Here's a situation:

Carrier is sitting in class taking notes. Perp walks in and pulls gun out. Carrier draws weapon and fires on Perp. Perp falls and is neutralized. Carrier holsters weapon and calls 911.

These things happen so quickly, people are usually stunned. They don't get up and start running around. More likely than not, the carrier would have a perfectly clear shot.

carrier one doesnt hostler his weapon because he's not sure the threat is neutralized or if there is another perp.

carrier 2 from the class room next door hears the shots and comes to investigate with gun drawn, sees carrier one and shots are exchanged.

probable?

[Aggravated Assault]

carrier one doesnt hostler his weapon because he's not sure the threat is neutralized or if there is another perp.

carrier 2 from the class room next door hears the shots and comes to investigate with gun drawn, sees carrier one and shots are exchanged.

probable?

Not probable. A properly trained individual would be more concerned w/ barricading him/her self in a easily defensible position or escaping altogether than going around headhunting.




You just missed the point. To a paniced civilian, a uniform is a sign of safety. Plain clothes do not comfort a panicing person

I would bet A buddy or teacher packing would have brought a lot of comfort at that point.

[warbeak2099]

Good point. I would then think it would be a good idea for Carrier 1 to close and lock the classroom door. If Carrier 2 came to the door and shouted to see what was going on, Carrier 1 could safely communicate the situation before opening the door.

[Desega]

carrier one doesnt hostler his weapon because he's not sure the threat is neutralized or if there is another perp.

carrier 2 from the class room next door hears the shots and comes to investigate with gun drawn, sees carrier one and shots are exchanged.

probable?

Very. There is no such thing as a predictable shooting. Adding to the chaos won't help.

[Lohman446]

You just missed the point. To a paniced civilian, a uniform is a sign of safety. Plain clothes do not comfort a panicing person.

You missed the question. If the uniform is a prerequisite of being able to help is a plain clothes officer no value?

[Desega]

You missed the question. If the uniform is a prerequisite of being able to help is a plain clothes officer no value?
It's not a prerequisute, its a symbol of safety. In a crisis, an officer in full uniform symbolizes safety, not to say that he is any more helpful than the off duty officer that happened to be there, but he has the apperance of an authority figure, so people will recognize that. At a college, an off duty officer could easily be confused for a civilian or worse a shooter.

[Desega]

There is no way that we will ever agree on this subject. I've voiced myself and defended my opinions, but I'm not going to take the time to untangle every sentence I've typed to those who don't want to understand. Enjoy your bickering.

Desega

[geekwarrior]

Not probable. A properly trained individual would be more concerned w/ barricading him/her self in a easily defensible position or escaping altogether than going around headhunting.





I wish I could believe that. In a perfect world, yes. But too many people would want to play the hero and go investigate. You're telling me that if you heard shot after shot after shot, and people screaming, you would wait in the room?

And like I said before, training can only do so much. Even with all the training cops receive, there are alot out there who lose there cool, especially the first time in that situation. And you cant train for every situation.

Don't get me wrong, I am for carrying a gun, I wish I could get the permit out here in CA. But having students packing on a college campus just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the govt to screen well enough to catch the crazies either.

[Lohman446]

It's not a prerequisute, its a symbol of safety. In a crisis, an officer in full uniform symbolizes safety, not to say that he is any more helpful than the off duty officer that happened to be there, but he has the apperance of an authority figure, so people will recognize that. At a college, an off duty officer could easily be confused for a civilian or worse a shooter.

My point is this. All the problems associated with a civilian "uniform" are associated with plain clothes officers are tehy not? Yet they make a positive difference across the country and should be capable of handling this situation.

[93civiccpe]

Just a few things:

For SR_matt, I did attend VCU, which is located in the city of Richmond which is usually in the top 10 for states with the highest amount of murders, sadly enough. VCU's policy was that no firearms were allowed on campus when I went there, and I'm not sure if that has changed.

As for this whole conversation about carrying on campus, and seeing guns in class making you nervous, I'd like to share my own opinions.

I do have a concealed carry permit, and do choose to carry when going to certain locations. There are a LOT of misconceptions about people who carry weapons.

If you legally carry a concealed weapon, you must have a background check and class, and most people don't know what that class involves, so let me let you in on some of what mine did:

-First, you learn that carrying a firearm on you is the BIGGEST liability you can ever have. If you pull a firearm to save someone's life and that bullet strikes another person, you are going to jail and possibly get the death penalty. If you fire on a person and the courts decide you were not justified, you are going to jail and possibly get the death penalty. The instructer stressed OVER AND OVER that it was a liability, and that is why most people choose not to carry. They don't want that responsibility.

-Second, it was stressed that if you are going to carry a firearm, you had better have a lot of practice with it for the above reason. Personally, I've put thousands of rounds through my concealed carry firearm, and would not carry it if I couldn't hit exactly what I was aiming at.

-Third, a person carrying a firearm legally is not going to be waving it around or showing it to induce fear. That is called "brandishing a firearm" and is against the law by itself. You should not see a firearm that is being legally carried. The people carrying them are not a bunch of cowboys shooting aimlessly. They have been trained and know that by carrying a firearm you have opened yourself up to more ways to get in a lot of trouble just by making simple mistakes. It is a serious responsibility.

-Fourth, you never take the firearm out unless it's absolutely required, and if you pull it out you had better be ready to discharge it. This goes back to the law against "brandishing a firearm" to create fear. That firearm is not going to come out unless it is absolutely necessary.


Those are 4 of the takeaways from the class that I think apply here. Out of my class of 18 people, 3 of us chose to go on and apply for a concealed carry permit and obtain it. The rest decided they didn't want that liability. On top of that, one of the guys got pulled over by a police officer because of having a taillight out, and the police approached his vehicle with weapon drawn and the first question was whether he had his concealed carry weapon on him. Let me assure you, it's not like a concealed carry permit is a license to kill, it's actually a license to get hassled, and have to go through a lot of crap, and it takes the right person to choose that responsibility.

Given that situation above, if I was legally armed and I saw people getting shot and killed, I would felt it was my job to try to defend myself and fellow students, and tried to end that situation before it began. Fortunately for me, and I thank God for this, I have never had to pull my firearm to protect myself, and I pray that I never do. I have it for protection, and pray that I will never have to pull it out, because if I pull it out it means there is a good chance either I'm going to die or I'm going to have to kill someone to stay alive. That is a choice I will readily make, but hope I never have to.

As for not liking a gun in the classroom, let me tell you a little story. My sister-in-law and my brother were living with us when they were fixing up their place, and she hated firearms. She would let my brother go shooting with me, but didn't want him owning one. One night we heard a crash downstairs that sounded like someone was coming through a window. They of course came to my room quickly and wanted my brother and I to go down with firearms and check it out. Shortly after that, my brother bought his first pistol. What she saw was how responsible both he and I were with firearms, and she found safety in knowing we had them for protection. (I actually let them keep my 12 guage shotgun in their room until he bought his first pistol at their request).

I understand if there was an idiot who was showing off a pistol in class, of course BOTH you and I would not feel comfortable. But given the above situation where a gunman is going through your school shooting and killing people, and you hear the shots getting closer to your classroom, if a person reveals he has a concealed carry firearm on him and is going to try to save the lives of you and everyone else in that classroom, are you going to feel scared that he has it or grateful?? That's the question that needs to be answered.

[Ole Unka Phil]

there were some warning signs if this part is true

US media reported that a "disturbing" note had been found in Cho Seung-hui's dormitory, and that he had been referred for counselling after producing "troubled" work in his creative writing class.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I wish I could believe that. In a perfect world, yes. But too many people would want to play the hero and go investigate. You're telling me that if you heard shot after shot after shot, and people screaming, you would wait in the room?

Not only that but I would decide to flee or find a safe haven. I am protecting myself. Thats all my responsibility is. Of course if my family was present them too. But its all about protection. And if you have the ability to barracade yourself or flee, those present the better choice to taking a chance on using deadly force. Its your option and you have to quickly chose the best one. Remember, you have only the right to self defense and that exends to placing yourself into anothers shoes. However your primary responsibility is self defense. You are not the police and so you do not have the same latitude nor do you want that responsibility. So yea... your on your own! The students in some of those classrooms barracaded themselves. Very much the right thing to do. That was about their only option anyway. However it was a good one.




And like I said before, training can only do so much. Even with all the training cops receive, there are alot out there who lose there cool, especially the first time in that situation. And you cant train for every situation.

Don't get me wrong, I am for carrying a gun, I wish I could get the permit out here in CA. But having students packing on a college campus just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the govt to screen well enough to catch the crazies either.

And not having any of them packing prevented a disaster? Doesn't seem like that worked did it? No one is really safe anywhere. No one is going to be able to prevent something like this by any means I know of. The only thing left is for you to be able to defend yourself and no one has the right to take that away from you unless they wish to assign you a private security guard. No amount of training will prepare you for every situation. But... none will not either. Just because someone is a "student" does not change his/her right to protect him/her self.

[geekwarrior]

And not having any of them packing prevented a disaster? Doesn't seem like that worked did it? No one is really safe anywhere. No one is going to be able to prevent something like this by any means I know of. The only thing left is for you to be able to defend yourself and no one has the right to take that away from you unless they wish to assign you a private security guard. No amount of training will prepare you for every situation. But... none will not either. Just because someone is a "student" does not change his/her right to protect him/her self.

is the screening for getting a permit to carry the same one that allowed this guy to buy the gun? sorry, don't trust the bureaucracies to screen out the idiots. more idiots carrying when they go off the deep end or have a bad day = more killing.

[SR_matt]

in va the screeening to get a consealed carry permit it stricter IIRC.

if yall didnt know though the guns had the serial numbers destroied on them so i think that is a decent piece of evidence to show that they might not have been obtained legaly
-matt

[geekwarrior]

in va the screeening to get a consealed carry permit it stricter IIRC.

if yall didnt know though the guns had the serial numbers destroied on them so i think that is a decent piece of evidence to show that they might not have been obtained legaly
-matt


stricter maybe, but doubt they have time to really look, and even crazys can look good on paper.

they found the receipt in his bag no? and have him on surveillance buying the gun? unless the shop sold them to him illegally. if so, that guy is in big trouble.

[MoeMag]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

Quote from link...
Virginia State Police said. Cho committed suicide; two handguns — a 9 mm and a .22-caliber — were found in the classroom building.

One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, federal officials said. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock and a box of practice ammo to Cho 36 days ago for $571.

"He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious," Markell said. Markell said it is not unusual for college kids to make purchases at his shop as long as they are old enough.

"To find out the gun came from my shop is just terrible," Markell said.

[SR_matt]

ya i just saw on the news about the guns being bought, and there was nothing to stick out about the shooter when he bought it.

but still either side of the argument of stricter or more lax gun laws have very large holes in them.
-matt

[MoeMag]

ya i just saw on the news about the guns being bought, and there was nothing to stick out about the shooter when he bought it.

but still either side of the argument of stricter or more lax gun laws have very large holes in them.
-matt

Agreed.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

[geekwarrior]

Agreed.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.


guns kill people like spoons made rosie odonnell fat. :p

[MoeMag]

guns kill people like spoons made rosie odonnell fat. :p
Nice :cool:

[Ole Unka Phil]

Here is his play he wrote....

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html

And it now appears many of his classmates are not supprised....

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

[slade]

i have a friend who's friend was killed there :(

[AirAssault]

is the screening for getting a permit to carry the same one that allowed this guy to buy the gun? sorry, don't trust the bureaucracies to screen out the idiots. more idiots carrying when they go off the deep end or have a bad day = more killing.

No. In the state of Colorado a back ground check is performed by the county Sheriff's Dept. and then the CBI. To obtain a fire arm you are simply checked for felonies and criminal history.

[Lohman446]

stricter maybe, but doubt they have time to really look, and even crazys can look good on paper.

they found the receipt in his bag no? and have him on surveillance buying the gun? unless the shop sold them to him illegally. if so, that guy is in big trouble.

Are we discussing to buy or carry? The screening to carry is state by state and pretty thorough in most.

[Ole Unka Phil]

A concealed weapons permit is normaly more extensive. Finger prints are submitted and your State Law Enforcement will do a background check with normaly FBI plus an NCIS run.

A purchase involve just a check to see if you are in the NCIS data base and a questionare. In this case he lied and said he had no pshycological problems. The seller says he appeared perfectly normal as well.

Nut cases like this one will slip through almost anything. They represent a very small subset of society. And they will get what they need to do what they want by whatever means it takes.

Someone intent on evil will not be screened out by any legislative process or method. You can legislate it all to eternity but they will just lie, cheat or steal to get what they want.

They are in the so small subset of humans that they get missed. It appears now that all those close around him did know something was not right... for years.

[Lohman446]

A concealed weapons permit is normaly more extensive. Finger prints are submitted and your State Law Enforcement will do a background check with normaly FBI plus an NCIS run.

A purchase involve just a check to see if you are in the NCIS data base and a questionare. In this case he lied and said he had no pshycological problems. The seller says he appeared perfectly normal as well.

Nut cases like this one will slip through almost anything. They represent a very small subset of society. And they will get what they need to do what they want by whatever means it takes.

Someone intent on evil will not be screened out by any legislative process or method. You can legislate it all to eternity but they will just lie, cheat or steal to get what they want.

They are in the so small subset of humans that they get missed. It appears now that all those close around him did know something was not right... for years.


Aren't there a lot of people around you, that after something like this happened you would be able to say everyone knew they "were not right"? To say something was wrong after the fact is kind of stating the obvious isn't it?

[MaD_SaM]

Just saw that Ole Unka Phil also posted this:

Virginia Killer's Violent Writings (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html)


This is his other play:
Mr.Brownstone (http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/mr-brownstone-title-page/20070417141309990001)

[ntn4502]

Masses of college kids carrying guns, ummm yea, that could very well be the most ridiculous proposal I have heard in quite some time

[bornl33t]

Masses of college kids carrying guns, ummm yea, that could very well be the most ridiculous proposal I have heard in quite some time

right after the proposal to ban guns because 32 people got killed with one. That's like banning cars because someone used one to run over their spouse. But thankfully the proposal isn't to arm anyone, but instead to give them the right to arm themselves if they so chose. Masses is not equal to the 10 responsible students that will want a plan B in case they are trapped in a classroom with a shooter.

I some what agree with you though....collage kids have a tenancy to be irrational, uninformed, irresponsible, dunk, exaggerating, political extremist that have no sense of respect, right and wrong or ability to think independently of what mind food they are fed.

[SCpoloRicker]

I some what agree with you though....collage kids have a tenancy to be irrational, uninformed, irresponsible, dunk, exaggerating, political extremist that have no sense of respect, right and wrong or ability to think independently of what mind food they are fed.

This is why I won't allow them on my lawn. :)

/I love the gloss over of his legal purchase of the weapons

[Ole Unka Phil]

This is why I won't allow them on my lawn. :)

/I love the gloss over of his legal purchase of the weapons

What is your point? No one glossed over it at all. I addressed obtaining like in the first couple of posts of the thread. Matters not really how someone gets something... its what they do with it.

Fact is... now that you ask. I never thought background checks were or are all that great. All they really do is identify people who HAVE broken the law and only those that won't lie or use false identifications or something to do so.

Fact is that it is the Gun Control advocates that proposed it, lobbied it and got it passed. They felt it would do something. It is not called the Brady Bill for nothing.

Fact is everyone told them it probably would not do what they thought it would because, even now, people who are unstable cannot be identified sometimes until its too late. Like this guy. Everyone says it now... but hey... its easy now aint it.

Fact is the kid stayed under the radar and his only one time he snapped it was a doozey.

No... background checks don't work all the time. But go tell the Brady Campaign that. They thought it would.

And still many states have waiting periods in place. They would not have worked here either. He planned this a long time. First gun was purchased over a month ago. Probably he has had guns before, who knows? These might just be the recent ones. But... they tried those too. Again... with people like this, who plan for years, nothing works.

Fortunately, this sort of thing is in the low less than 1% kind of thing. Horrific as it is...

Perhaps when modern medicine developes a test for Crazy we can administer it. Until then do you want to be the only ones WITHOUT a gun? Fine with me. Your choice. But your not taking my choice from me.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Masses of college kids carrying guns, ummm yea, that could very well be the most ridiculous proposal I have heard in quite some time


Yea... you spent about as much time thinking that rediculous contribution up as you have one the subject matter at hand.

College kids eh? Do you know what the average age of a college kid is? In many campus settings its like 30 years old. Faculty and staff in the 50's. So since your trivializing their rights lets remember that acceptance to college does not mean giving up your rights.

Do you think anyone here is advocating that they be mandated to carry? Heavens no. Its about the right of responsible law abiding adults to protect themselves. And have a choice to protect themselves by the same means that the criminal intends to use. Its about choice. its about rights. Many will not feel the need nor will want too. It's their choice.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_2million.jpg

[bornl33t]

I think it's funny how fox is saying that he used hi caps and that's why this was so deadly. Because a high cap can hold 33 rounds. My high caps hold 12, a 9mm will hold what? 16? 33 rounds has to be a .22?

btw this story is ironicy, notice the second paragraph. "The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned " Criminals still have them though ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266591,00.html

[Nick E]

and the next one, about the cho dude..bought his guns legally..oh sheet..

[Ole Unka Phil]

and the next one, about the cho dude..bought his guns legally..oh sheet..


Well its possible he did. Under the current BATFE form he may have lied on the section about prior mental heath diagnosis and treatment. Still don't know about that. But what would stop someone from lying? There is no data base for that and medical records are private.

But... his criminal record is clean. He had a couple of minor speeding tickets is all. So would have no reason to deny. Again... thats the Brady law stuff.

And of course there is a rule against guns on campus he broke. Not to mention that Murder has long been illegal... And of course all the other students that got shot did not break the no gun on campus rule... which is why none of them had a gun to fight back with... So I guess we need more rules? :rolleyes:

[Dark Side]

And of course there is a rule against guns on campus he broke. Not to mention that Murder has long been illegal... And of course all the other students that got shot did not break the no gun on campus rule... which is why none of them had a gun to fight back with... So I guess we need more rules? :rolleyes:

You can also look at the fact that in Washington D.C. it is illegal to have a handgun (by the local populace that is) yet it is in the top 5 for handgun related deaths in America.

[Lohman446]

Anyone who does nto beleive that there are holes in the current system of buying handguns is fooling themselves. That being said there are big holes in the legal buying of fertilizer too.

Very few people advocate everyone carrying. However, there is no reason that someone who is willing to go through the background check, demonstrate proficiency, and receive proper and ongoing training should be denied the right to carry.

[Ole Unka Phil]

again... most criminals don't buy them... not legaly anyway. FBI says that is the case. More than 80% of them are obtained illegaly.

The problem is not in the purchasing system... its the the Criminal system. No legal gun owner is not completely for enforcement and stiff penalty for use of a gun in a crime. You cannot legislate this. It won't work. This incident is perfect proof it does not work.

There are lots of people I would rather they did not carry. And... there are some that are not capable of carrying because it would be a liability to themselves.

[ricwhic414]

First they will never get rid of firearms. And even if they do ban them the same thing will happen when they tried to get rid of alcohol.

Second there is no defense or anything anyone could have done to prevent this situation. Honestly what would you do if someone is coming at you with a firearm (don't act all big and say o hell I would go kick that kids ***) because everyone knows that 99% of us would sit in the corner and beg for our lives. Now maybe a group could have went after him and stopped him.

I hate how the media keep asking about why didn't the police do this why didn't the police do that... The police did what they thought was best given the amount of information that they received.

All and all I think this was a horrible horrible thing. This kid was a time bomb waiting to explode. The only thing that could have change this was maybe better parenting, or maybe people that he came into contact with in his life were more nice to him. I don't know correct me if I'm wrong but that is the way I see it.

[SR_matt]

i love how everyone that is so pro allowing everyone to carry doesnt think about the whole situation as it happens.

ok shooter enters, u draw ur weapon, some one else walks up on the situation, pulls their gun but who do they shoot? you? the original shoter? both? they will have no idea who is bad and who is good. then once LEOs enter and they see some one with a weapon drawn they shoot , o wait it was some one trying to help o well.

you have just as many if not more problems with multiple people carrying, in a situation like that, than you would have if they were disarmed.

second the speed he entered with the chance of getting your weapon out intime would have been minimal.

no matter what this was going to go down and it wa going to be this bad, more control, less control it would have gone down and it would have been bad or worse.

im getting really tired of all these people that think being able to carry a weapon would fix all these damn problems cause it wont.

and i actualy support people being able to carry (now the whole 2nd ammendment thing i will dissagree with most of you on but i still think conseal carry by peopel that can get through the permit screenings and all that stuff is fine)

the more important thing is stopping people from getting to this point where they resort to these actions.

-matt

[IronCore]

...maybe people that he came into contact with in his life were more nice to him. I don't know correct me if I'm wrong but that is the way I see it.
amen to that.

how about giving everybody a tranquilizer gun, seems safer to me.

[Ole Unka Phil]

They did try and engage him and befriend him. He would have none of it. He had a reputation of not even responding to people trying to talk with him.

I love it how you assume you know how it would have gone down. Would there have been any less deaths had someone been able to get a shot at him and not been able to get him? Think about that... He killed himself only once he knew the police had just gotten in it is not believed. They heard the last shot.

He now is reported to have been stalking two other female students. And set a small fire. And he reportedly had a bomb threat letter found in his room similar to the two mailed earlier in the week. There were a lot of signals. But... he never quite crossed the line to get a record or get in jail or anything until he finaly snapped. But he was heading that way all the time...

The only way to have stopped him would have been a bullet it seems. Because he gave no one enough cause to lock him up before hand.

[Glickman]

i love how everyone that is so pro allowing everyone to carry doesnt think about the whole situation as it happens.

ok shooter enters, u draw ur weapon, some one else walks up on the situation, pulls their gun but who do they shoot? you? the original shoter? both? they will have no idea who is bad and who is good. then once LEOs enter and they see some one with a weapon drawn they shoot , o wait it was some one trying to help o well.

you have just as many if not more problems with multiple people carrying, in a situation like that, than you would have if they were disarmed.

by having a permit, and you deciding to draw your weapon you UNDERSTAND what risk you are putting yourself in.

you can argue about the logistics of how it MIGHT go down, but that obviously futile.

we see that there would be confusion, but obviously you know when you draw your weapon what risk you are in. and when the police show up, you are obviously not going to keep your weapon drawn.



second the speed he entered with the chance of getting your weapon out intime would have been minimal.

no matter what this was going to go down and it wa going to be this bad, more control, less control it would have gone down and it would have been bad or worse.

this would be wrong because he took the time to walk in, chain the doors, and line up the students, some in execution style.

we cant say what could have, or might've happend, but personally, i feel that if someone trained to step in, maybe that 30 could've been 25. wouldn't that have been worth it?



im getting really tired of all these people that think being able to carry a weapon would fix all these damn problems cause it wont.

and i actualy support people being able to carry (now the whole 2nd ammendment thing i will dissagree with most of you on but i still think conseal carry by peopel that can get through the permit screenings and all that stuff is fine)

the more important thing is stopping people from getting to this point where they resort to these actions.


from what the student have been saying, there was no stopping this kid. they TRIED befriending him and talking to him, but he would have none of it.


some people are special enough to want to risk their own safety for others in need, be them police, firefighters, or the 50 year old baker with a CCP. Either way, they deserve a salute for what they are willing to do

[SR_matt]

there wa no linin gup people execution style, from people that were in the classes they said he walked in shot the prof. then just started shooting everyone randomly, the kid wasnt thinking about how to kill people he was just shooting .

-matt

[Ole Unka Phil]

there wa no linin gup people execution style, from people that were in the classes they said he walked in shot the prof. then just started shooting everyone randomly, the kid wasnt thinking about how to kill people he was just shooting .

-matt

But he went in and out of four different rooms and a hallway. With time between for people to barracade and even escape out windows. Your reference is to what happened in one room. He went into at least four.

Here is an old account of the Bath School bombing for some reference. Oddly similar things. Wife killed, planning, irrational reasoning... You might find it interesting. These people exist we do know that. And its not just a "these days" sort of thing. Its a repetitive pattern.

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bauerle/nyt520.txt

[geekwarrior]

sure, a gun might have helped in this instance. but this is pretty rare.


the worry is when there's people walking all over campus carrying guns. one loses they're cool, draws and kills someone.

[Glickman]

sure, a gun might have helped in this instance. but this is pretty rare.


the worry is when there's people walking all over campus carrying guns. one loses they're cool, draws and kills someone.

fyi, the last attempted Virginia school shooting was stopped by two students who went to their cars and grabbed guns and disarmed the attacker.


there is no CCP's in virginia

[Eagle]

there is no CCP's in virginia

am I reading this right? You're saying that there is no conceal carry permit law in Va? I've lived in the Richmond Va area most of my life, and I have a conceal carry permit through my home county. Have for a couple of years. My gf just applied for hers. Your info is wrong

[Glickman]

am I reading this right? You're saying that there is no conceal carry permit law in Va? I've lived in the Richmond Va area most of my life, and I have a conceal carry permit through my home county. Have for a couple of years. My gf just applied for hers. Your info is wrong

my bad ;)

one i rechecked, it seemed my info was a little old, as of 2006 though, it seems that CCP's are needed for only handguns.

[Ole Unka Phil]

sure, a gun might have helped in this instance. but this is pretty rare.


the worry is when there's people walking all over campus carrying guns. one loses they're cool, draws and kills someone.

You must have missed one of my posts. Over 2 million recorded instances of Legal gun owners protecting themselves with their guns against criminals. They happen every day. No one hardly ever reports them. Not so rare at all. In fact, quite common. And more common since passage of Personal Protection Act.

Has not happened... Since the passage of the Personal Protection Act there are literaly millions of people with carry permits already. Your assumption is the same logic used to try and prevent that passage of that act. It was commonly predicted by the apponents of the bills. And since then 10 years have passed and there have been litteraly only a handful of incidents where a CWP holder has improperly used his weapon. I can count them on one hand. In fact most of the detractors are completely at a loss as to why their predictions of "blood in the streets" and "Wild west shoot outs" has not occured. I can tell you why... because only the responsible and level headed bother to get properly licensed and go through the background checks. It is more extensive and so its likely to weed out more bad apples. It is mostly very responsible people. Typicaly made up of people that are more likely to avoid a situation than get into one. So... there is a good deal of historical data that proves that wrong. it just has not happened. As in this case, there is always that one though. One that slips though any crack. But overall its been a tremendous success. Which is why more and more states are issuing them. Almost all of them as a matter of fact. Very few do not. Vermont actual always has allowed carry WITHOUT any permit process. Always has. Virgina has an OPEN carry law, without permits. Always has. Utau allows permited carry in schools including Universities.. Always has. Isreal arms all its teachers. With good reason. We may soon have reason to as well.... and it goes on and on. The world ain't getting any safer. One thing is for certain... the criminals would love it if you could not carry a gun. Field day for them.

[Pneumagger]

IDK if i'm the first to say this (TL;DR) ... but I'd bet their admissions go up next year.

/serious

[geekwarrior]

You must have missed one of my posts. Over 2 million recorded instances of Legal gun owners protecting themselves with their guns against criminals. They happen every day. No one hardly ever reports them. Not so rare at all. In fact, quite common. And more common since passage of Personal Protection Act.

Has not happened... Since the passage of the Personal Protection Act there are literaly millions of people with carry permits already. Your assumption is the same logic used to try and prevent that passage of that act. It was commonly predicted by the apponents of the bills. And since then 10 years have passed and there have been litteraly only a handful of incidents where a CWP holder has improperly used his weapon. I can count them on one hand. In fact most of the detractors are completely at a loss as to why their predictions of "blood in the streets" and "Wild west shoot outs" has not occured. I can tell you why... because only the responsible and level headed bother to get properly licensed and go through the background checks. It is more extensive and so its likely to weed out more bad apples. It is mostly very responsible people. Typicaly made up of people that are more likely to avoid a situation than get into one. So... there is a good deal of historical data that proves that wrong. it just has not happened. As in this case, there is always that one though. One that slips though any crack. But overall its been a tremendous success. Which is why more and more states are issuing them. Almost all of them as a matter of fact. Very few do not. Vermont actual always has allowed carry WITHOUT any permit process. Always has. Virgina has an OPEN carry law, without permits. Always has. Utau allows permited carry in schools including Universities.. Always has. Isreal arms all its teachers. With good reason. We may soon have reason to as well.... and it goes on and on. The world ain't getting any safer. One thing is for certain... the criminals would love it if you could not carry a gun. Field day for them.

just to clarify, i am for carrying guns, but to me there should be some limitations, a college campus is one of them.

[edweird]

Cphil, thanks for keeping this discussion on an even keel...

for the few who have lost friends yesterday, I feel for your loss


now... for the people here flying off the handle.

We, the pro-self defense via firearms crowd, claim that IF within the student body involved a VERY small percentage would be of the appropriate age for handgun ownership, have the appropriate concealed carry permit, which made the decision to carry on campus that day, could potentially be in a position to render aid. This in no way indicates the validity your Hollywood-esque concepts that every student is a two bit thug who carries a nine in his boxers next to the crack he slings perpetuates. The truth is, if the legislation allowing reasonable gun possession on campus (concealed carry only, open discharge and brandishing are still criminal) a incredibly few would actually choose to take the steps to do so, but they could of made all the difference.

In case you don’t know, law-abiding citizens, like I are quietly carrying in public settings every day largely not for our own protection but for the protection of innocent civilians. As we understand that the ideal victim for violent crime is not the average stereotypical concealed carrier/gun nut (re: pictures of Cphil, Army, Recon by Fire, and myself) but the ignorant citizen with an unfounded concept of saftey. We carry for everyone who cannot fathom violence, whom have no capacity or understanding of self defense, who choose to live as free and carefree as they wish; because people like us are defending their rights to make asses of themselves.

[wjr]

There are 3 types of Lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

You failed to produce a source for you statistic Phil.

And coming from a right wing crackpot organization making ridiculous claims that "handgun control incorporated would rather them" (2 million people) "die instead", it doesn't have much credibility.

And in response to a comment you made a few pages back... NO! I DO NOT NEED A GUN TO BE SAFE!!! Who are you to tell me that I do? Do you know where I live, or how I live?

[edweird]

And in response to a comment you made a few pages back... NO! I DO NOT NEED A GUN TO BE SAFE!!! Who are you to tell me that I do? Do you know where I live, or how I live?

And thats ok... we carry for you.

[wjr]

And thats ok... we carry for you.

Now I know why you guys carry guns...

It makes you feel special, doesn't it? Makes you feel like you're protecting everyone.

[Pneumagger]

If I weren't so addicted to paintball - I'd have a handgun to carry. There's just not enough money to feed a weapons addiction, yet.

[paintballfiend]

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_2million.jpg
Mmmm, Propaganda. :rolleyes:

[edweird]

Now I know why you guys carry guns...

It makes you feel special, doesn't it? Makes you feel like you're protecting everyone.

Im not going to play your silly games...

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
Eleanor Roosevelt

[CoolHand]

. . . And in response to a comment you made a few pages back... NO! I DO NOT NEED A GUN TO BE SAFE!!! Who are you to tell me that I do? Do you know where I live, or how I live?

And in response to you, I would say:

Who are you to tell me that I don't need a gun for self defence? Do you know where I live, or how I live?

Tit for Tat my friend.

It is quite simple.

You have fear (of many things, crime, criminals, the unknown, guns, people who know how to use guns, etc), and in your thinking, the only way to control that fear is to control everyone and everything from one central location so that nothing can slip past and make you afraid. You operate on the premise that if you are ever in trouble, the police will protect you, and anything you do yourself can only subvert that effort. You dislike the idea of CCP's because that removes some of your precious centralized control, and that leaves room for your fear. The only way you can control your fear is to force others (ironically, through threat of state sponsored force) to adhere to whatever rules you deem necessary.

Conversely, the right to carry folks realize they cannot control anyone or anything at all, except for themselves and their actions, so they rely upon no one but themselves. We realize that when the fit hits the shan, the only person you can depend on is you. The police will be there hours later to draw the chalk outline and maybe find the person who killed you after the fact (maybe). You could outlaw guns, bats, knives, rocks, stones, and really stiff paper, and criminals would still kill people by whatever means they care to employ. They are CRIMINALS, by the very definition of the term, they don't care about, laws, or rules, or regulations, or filling out the proper forms and waiting for processing and approval. They take and do what they please unless you are prepared to stop them right then and there.

From a standpoint of personal rights, you cannot force your will upon others simply because you feel uncomfortable.

If there is a choice between you being comfortable, and some other person having the ability to defend themselves should they need to, the choice should be for the person wishing to be personally responsible for their own well being, 100% of the time.

It is their right to defend themselves, if you are made uncomfortable by their being armed, you have the right to leave and not be around them. You do NOT have the right to deny them THEIR rights to suit your own wants.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Statistics? Well... they come from the USDOJ. Here is a section of a report from 87-92. Now mind you this is before Personal Protectin Acts were passed and no concealed weapons. I want you to note how small the percentage of Victims used a gun in self defense. Yet how large the number was. And also of note is how often criminals used guns against non armed victims and still shot them. Does not take very long to reach 2 million. Even THEN before personal defense (concealed weapons permit laws took effect). I love it how some of you are so easily baited into claiming propaganda when you don't even bother to go out and look for information before you make yourselves look like a fool. Because this just proves one thing to me... your not looking for information to decide. You already have decided and your minds are closed. You have already decided that YOU know what your talking about and that YOU can dictate to everyone else whether or not they can defend themselves. Makes me real confident in your ability to garantee my safety.

U.S. Department of Justice

ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 5 P.M. EST
BJS SUNDAY, MAY 15,
1994 202-307-0784



During the 1987-1992 period, offenders fired their weapons in
17 percent of all non-fatal handgun crimes, missing the victim
four out of five times. In 3 percent of the non-fatal crimes
committed with handguns, about 21,000 annually, the victim was
wounded. In addition, an average 11,100 were killed each
year.

During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns.

In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms
were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with
weapons other than firearms. During the six-year period,
about one in three armed victims faced an armed offender.


If You want me to shower you with statistic I can. Heck I can even provide you with some to protect your already preconceived conclusions. Because there is a study out there somewhere designed to prove you right. Thats how people get fooled. If you really had an open mind you would have found that their statistic can easily be complied. You won't see statistics like that put in the newspaper.

I want to bring up one other point here. And it deals with not over reacting to isolated incidents (however horrific they are) and how its not a good idea to blame inanimate objects for the actions of one Pshycotic person. For one that relieves him of responsibilty. And it then affects the many who might be safer as it stands. You should always hold people accountable for their actions. Not some inanimate object.

Secondly we live in an increasingly hostile world. We, here in America, also may live in a society that is just prone to violence. Particularly in some areas. We repeatedly score badly on some violent crime statistics. We may NEED guns in the hands of citizens now more than ever. Why is this. Why is it that some of the areas with the toughest gun laws repeatedly score the highest. Why is it some countries where EVERY household has a gun do not score as badly? Can't be the inanimate object causing it can it?

Thirdly...We may some day face an invasion of hostile extemists. This is very real. We have, in the past, discouraged such by the thought that behind every tree might be an american with a gun (Japan WWII). This has worked to our advantage in the past. How many lives did it save back then? We can hardly say.

I am just saying there is no sense in over reacting and perhaps putting more in harms way. I don't believe you can reduce such incidences by banning honest people from gun ownership. Its an oversimplistic knee jerk reaction that will solve nothing. I believe you can do more harm than good particularly at this time. Its evident that we need to figure out WHY some people are prone to this sort of rampage, And we also need to determine why criminals chose to be violent in the first place. In a perfect world we would not need guns at all. I wish for that world.... but until it comes... I will defend myself with whatever tools I can lay my hands on. And they had better be equal or better than my enemy.


Put the fault where it really belongs. It's on peoples actions.

[Lohman446]

I love how those "uncomfortable to have a gun around them" are telling me how it would go down. You're ideas on what would happen are based on fear and misconception.

My training, which is based heavily on MI law, says that I will not shoot if the threat is not imminent. If I walk into a room where there is shooting my training dictates (as I think you will find police training would) that I am allowed to draw down on the alleged attacker. If at this point he does not present an immediate threat it is my legal obligation (and moral) to not pull the trigger. If the mere presence of confronting stops the threat I cannot shoot. It also dictates that I am then to "control" the situation until police arrive. That means gun down in a ready position - frankly this is to hope the responding officers do not shoot me coming in, because they will give me the chance to surrender - I have to assume, unless I am in direct contact with them, they will assume I am an attacker. Any other CCP holder coming into the situation should respond accordingly, I take the risk in carrying (and theoretically deploying) a firearm that others will respond correctly.

"But police have better training". Right. Compare my training to any police training and ongoing practice in weapon situations and you are going to find mine compares favorably to most. As far as handgun selection - I am far better armed than most officers.

Besides, as Phil has stated it is not my duty, nor is it situationally wise, for me to go "hunting" for the shooter with my gun drawn.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Alright.. lets look at some other things that perhaps are important in preventing such incidents. I am not convinced anything will... but... lets look at some warning signs here that we now know (in 20 20 hindsight) were troubling.

Apparently he was reported by a professor for disturbing behavour and writings. But... they could do nothing because he broke no laws.

However, he was accused of stalking two different coeds in 2005. For which he was committed to an institution for some time. Was reportedly feared he was suicidal. It is unclear if he volutarily went or was forced. And its unclear if he was ever diagnosed. It appears a method of avoiding "adjudications" (which will become VERY important in a minute.

There is also an accusation of Arson. I cannot seem to find what happened with that but it appears he was never prosecuted.

Now... what is important is BATFE's Form 4473 transfer of firearm sale "Brady Bill" compliance.
On that form question F which asks, "have you ever been adjudicated Mentaly defective (which includes having been adjudicated inacapable of managing your own affairs) or have you ever been commited to a mental institution?

So... was he Committed or not? And is that public record or private because its medical. Was it an adjudication? Sound more like he was given an out to avoid adjudication to me. Which left him eligible to purchase firearms. Not that he did not already have some. It now is reported that he did. Not sure what or where they were. But this may be another case of lax enforcement of other laws that then preempt any attempts to screen buyers. If you don't adjudicate them it never exists!

And interestingly enough, the stalking incidents could have (and one would argue should have) subjected him to a restraining order. Which is asked in question H. Are you subjected to a restaining order.... (basicaly what the question is) That may have also been applicable had the two young ladies he stalked followed through and pressed charged against him for stalking it would have shown up.

So... if things in the legal system would quit finding ways to allow people to get out of their own self made problems so as to remain under the radars that we put up, then how is ANY regulation going to work. I put to you this, that the system could have worked had the other systems did their jobs. People are not being made to be responsible for their actions. They are being given ways out and in the end they never have to take responsibilty for them. This is a typical example of how a good intention will bite ya in the behind.

this kid should have been adjudicated Mentaly Defective somewhere around 2005. He should have a record of at least two restraining orders against him. He might even have a record for arson. He could have been facing more charges for bomb threats and another stalking. All these adjudicatison would be in the NICS... he would not have been allowed to purchase a firearm. Under the laws as they stand. However... everyone made sure he never faced the consequences of his actions.

[SCpoloRicker]

Some of you pro-gun guys seem really afraid, and for no discernable reason.

/pro-gun
//gun owner

[Ole Unka Phil]

Some of you pro-gun guys seem really afraid, and for no discernable reason.

/pro-gun
//gun owner

I thought is sounded like you were the one afraid....

What is a "pro gun" person. Never heard of it. Is that a catch Phrase that you "Anti Gun" people like to use to when you run out of arguements to defend your irrational fear of inanimate objects? How about "we are not afraid of guns-ers". Or how about "blame the person for his actionists"? More appropriate in this case.

[Lohman446]

Some of you pro-gun guys seem really afraid, and for no discernable reason.

/pro-gun
//gun owner

I would say its just preemptive - considering that the anti-gun lobby tends to use these tragedies to promote an agenda. And this one has more legs than most - a "legally" purchased firearm.

[geekwarrior]

I would say its just preemptive - considering that the anti-gun lobby tends to use these tragedies to promote an agenda. And this one has more legs than most - a "legally" purchased firearm.

technically, he shouldn't have legally been able to purchase it.

court found him mentally ill (http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278)

[Lohman446]

technically, he shouldn't have legally been able to purchase it.

court found him mentally ill (http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278)

I agree. The questionare (sp) they give you is such a deterrent to committing a crime :rolleyes: .

[geekwarrior]

I agree. The questionare (sp) they give you is such a deterrent to committing a crime :rolleyes: .


shouldnt it have showed up on a background check?

[slade]

I agree. The questionare (sp) they give you is such a deterrent to committing a crime :rolleyes: .
its a document that absolves the store of legal responsibility.

[Lohman446]

shouldnt it have showed up on a background check?

Yes but...

There is a tremendous amount of effort by the judicial system to keep young offenders records "clean" to not hurt their chances later in life. Especially those that look like they are going to "make something of themselves". I'm of a firm beleif you do the crime it should be on that record. This "attempting to be nice" by our civil servants makes the entire system in place to try to prevent this type of thing more vulnerable.

[geekwarrior]

story keeps getting crazier.

contacted NBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776)

[Ole Unka Phil]

A decent read....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6566763.stm

[geekwarrior]

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/070418/STG_Mega_KillerSpeaks_251p.jpg

[chefstevie]

if they were allowed to carry guns on campus there could have been even more shooting. They may have stopped him before he killed more but im sure there would be many more shootings before him. Nothing good can come from guns.

[Lohman446]

if they were allowed to carry guns on campus there could have been even more shooting. They may have stopped him before he killed more but im sure there would be many more shootings before him. Nothing good can come from guns.

Really? You know this based on what? Lets ban them, make sure the cops don't have them too. Oddly enough there are very few violent crimes committed by citizens carrying with a CCW. I'm not as sure as you are that there would have been incidents before. Do you buy for a moment that some university policy has really kept that campus gun free?

[chefstevie]

Really? You know this based on what? Lets ban them, make sure the cops don't have them too. Oddly enough there are very few violent crimes committed by citizens carrying with a CCW. I'm not as sure as you are that there would have been incidents before. Do you buy for a moment that some university policy has really kept that campus gun free?


im talkign about students, the campus police should definitly carry guns for good measure. however students carrying guns is retarded

[Ole Unka Phil]

You speak of students as if they are not humans... it's dispicable.

Now we do know... the kid did buy the guns illegaly. Therefore it was illegal for him to puchase a gun. He was adjudicated mentaly incompetent by court order. However the courts are not entering these declarations into the NICS database. Why? I don't know. Thats got to change. Because a crazy person is going to lie, as Cao did, on his 4473 form and the NICS does not have the information to deny based on court ordered Mental Incompetence. There is your answer. Fix the system.

[slade]

You speak of students as if they are not humans... it's dispicable.
that kid is younger than me. i'm not even in college yet.

[Ole Unka Phil]

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/070418/STG_Mega_KillerSpeaks_251p.jpg


You know when I saw that the first thing came to my mind was this kid was playing a Video game in his mind. Anyone else get that from that? Seriously looney.

[Lohman446]

im talkign about students, the campus police should definitly carry guns for good measure. however students carrying guns is retarded

We are not talking HS students here. We are talking adults over the age of 18. If we are going to start restricting rights until you are age XX then lets discuss that.

[CKY_Alliance]

Video is out...I see some links above but I believe those are just for the pictures?..


Either way, just watched the video..and wondering if he wrote what he was going to say first or if he was reading from a script or something of that nature...anyone know..I havn't kept up with it all that much..


I know if I wrote something like that, then when back and read it to a camera...the second go around I would have probably calmed down...hmm


who knows..



For the chef..."nothing good can come from guns"...get over it.. and most deer I have had has been good and it gets to my plate from a gun..

[Ole Unka Phil]

We are not talking HS students here. We are talking adults over the age of 18. If we are going to start restricting rights until you are age XX then lets discuss that.

The legal age for a Handgun is 21. You cannot obtain a CWP until 21 as far as I know. Is here anyway.


However... we give kids 18 years old guns and send em over to fight wars. And every one of them has a gun... and they don't go off shooting each other every time they have an argument.

[Lohman446]

The legal age for a Hangun is 21. You cannot obtain a CWP until 21.


However... we give kids 18 guns and send em over to fight wars. And every one of them has a gun... and they don't go off shooting each other every time they have an argument.


I knew that. Sometimes you forget the very basic fundamentals. There are ways to legally own a handgun at 18 but your point still stands.

The point here, if there person is of legal age, being a college student should not matter.

Bet more college students have problems with alchohol than guns, and the college environment contributes, maybe we should ban all college students from drinking regardless of age, because after all college students are obviously different than the rest of us. :D :rolleyes:

[chefstevie]

no matter what you say you cant deny the fact that guns are bad. sure they've changed the world with key assasinations but it was never necessary. Just think of all the tragedies that could have been avoided. And as 311 put it so clearly, "Guns are for *POOF*"

[slade]

no matter what you say you cant deny the fact that guns are bad.
yeesh, i'm not even a gun fanatic or anything, and i feel the need to jump in and say that a gun is just a tool, a person has intent that can be labeled as "good" or "bad"

[SR_matt]

no matter what you say you cant deny the fact that guns are bad. sure they've changed the world with key assasinations but it was never necessary. Just think of all the tragedies that could have been avoided. And as 311 put it so clearly, "Guns are for pus****"

i will say the people behind the guns are bad.

do i agree that studenst shoudlnt carry guns on campus, yep i agree

so i think we should ban guns, nope

do i think we need to start straighting out our country so people dont do crap like this and people dont have as many issues and as much bs that goes on in general. hell ya.


-matt

[chefstevie]

yeesh, i'm not even a gun fanatic or anything, and i feel the need to jump in and say that a gun is just a tool, a person has intent that can be labeled as "good" or "bad"


i couldnt agree more but dont you think that other uses of force in certain situations could be used?

[warbeak2099]

no matter what you say you cant deny the fact that guns are bad. sure they've changed the world with key assasinations but it was never necessary. Just think of all the tragedies that could have been avoided. And as 311 put it so clearly, "Guns are for *POOF*"

But they exist and that is reality. No amount of capricious daydreaming or rhetoric will make them dissapear. If a badguy has a gun, the best thing to protect yourself with is another gun. Until you go ahead and fix human nature with your witty one liners, that's reality. I prefer to live in it.

[chefstevie]

i will say the people behind the guns are bad.

do i agree that studenst shoudlnt carry guns on campus, yep i agree

so i think we should ban guns, nope

do i think we need to start straighting out our country so people dont do crap like this and people dont have as many issues and as much bs that goes on in general. hell ya.


-matt

i would love to hear your plan for "straightening out our country" because i am down for a laugh.

if guns never existed, the world would be a better place, dont deny that.

[warbeak2099]

i would love to hear your plan for "straightening out our country" because i am down for a laugh.

if guns never existed, the world would be a better place, dont deny that.

No one's denying it. But they do exist. Have you a time machine? If not, then please xplain why a properly trained, 21+yo with a CCP would be a threat during a situation in which a psychopath has drawn a gun on students? How could that individual not be an asset to the safety of those students?

[chefstevie]

But they exist and that is reality. No amount of capricious daydreaming or rhetoric will make them dissapear. If a badguy has a gun, the best thing to protect yourself with is another gun. Until you go ahead and fix human nature with your witty one liners, that's reality. I prefer to live in it.


thats very true, im jsut trying to get gun enthusiasts head out of the gutter.

i realize i cannot change the existence of guns, however i can preach about how bad they are. :)

maybe we should ban all guns to civilians, that way if anyone tries to buy a gun then they will be arrested, that would fix alot of problems cuz we know 50 cent couldnt survive 8 knife wounds.

/sarcasm?
//maybes?

[warbeak2099]

thats very true, im jsut trying to get gun enthusiasts head out of the gutter.

i realize i cannot change the existence of guns, however i can preach about how bad they are. :)

Your preaching does nothing to make this country safer nor does it fix the reality that there are bad people who have guns and will get guns no matter what. It also does not change the fact that the best way to protect yourself and others from those people is a gun.

[SR_matt]

o my plan, its very simple

no more of this "o its ok youre still a winner" or the "o just pas them along" or the extream o you called him a stupid black man are you racist then a black guy calls some one a "cracka" but its totaly fine cause now a minority is talking about hte majority.

in short for that part make people stop with the "im owed ..."

second start disiplining kids, here o no you cant lay a finger on your own kid because then its abuse. in a lot of europe a kid mis behaves they get a little swat and "dont do that" done with it not this "timmy, timmy, no no timmy, timmy you cant do that, thats not nice"


im probably just ranting and that probably wouldnt have done much in this situation but it would definatly take care of a lot of other daily crap we all deal with.

-matt

[chefstevie]

Your preaching does nothing to make this country safer nor does it fix the reality that there are bad people who have guns and will get guns no matter what. It also does not change the fact that the best way to protect yourself and others from those people is a gun.


an eye for an eye makes the world go blind

[SR_matt]

No one's denying it. But they do exist. Have you a time machine? If not, then please xplain why a properly trained, 21+yo with a CCP would be a threat during a situation in which a psychopath has drawn a gun on students? How could that individual not be an asset to the safety of those students?
its (at least to me) not as much that the person with the legal gun being a threat but what happens when you have multiple people with legal guns and then a chain happens of good people shooting other good peple because they think they are trying to cause harm.

-matt

[wjr]

And in response to you, I would say:

Who are you to tell me that I don't need a gun for self defence? Do you know where I live, or how I live?

Tit for Tat my friend.

It is quite simple.

You have fear (of many things, crime, criminals, the unknown, guns, people who know how to use guns, etc), and in your thinking, the only way to control that fear is to control everyone and everything from one central location so that nothing can slip past and make you afraid. You operate on the premise that if you are ever in trouble, the police will protect you, and anything you do yourself can only subvert that effort. You dislike the idea of CCP's because that removes some of your precious centralized control, and that leaves room for your fear. The only way you can control your fear is to force others (ironically, through threat of state sponsored force) to adhere to whatever rules you deem necessary.

Conversely, the right to carry folks realize they cannot control anyone or anything at all, except for themselves and their actions, so they rely upon no one but themselves. We realize that when the fit hits the shan, the only person you can depend on is you. The police will be there hours later to draw the chalk outline and maybe find the person who killed you after the fact (maybe). You could outlaw guns, bats, knives, rocks, stones, and really stiff paper, and criminals would still kill people by whatever means they care to employ. They are CRIMINALS, by the very definition of the term, they don't care about, laws, or rules, or regulations, or filling out the proper forms and waiting for processing and approval. They take and do what they please unless you are prepared to stop them right then and there.

From a standpoint of personal rights, you cannot force your will upon others simply because you feel uncomfortable.

If there is a choice between you being comfortable, and some other person having the ability to defend themselves should they need to, the choice should be for the person wishing to be personally responsible for their own well being, 100% of the time.

It is their right to defend themselves, if you are made uncomfortable by their being armed, you have the right to leave and not be around them. You do NOT have the right to deny them THEIR rights to suit your own wants.

You assume too much Coolhand. I don't care whether you carry a gun or not. But it pisses me off when someone tells me that to be safe I need to carry one.

I would assume that when you say "you do NOT have the right to deny them THEIR rights to suit your own wants" that you're talking about guns on a campus.

I don't think it's denying their rights. The student doesn't have to go there. If it's so important to them, they don't have to go there.

[warbeak2099]

second start disiplining kids, here o no you cant lay a finger on your own kid because then its abuse. in a lot of europe a kid mis behaves they get a little swat and "dont do that" done with it not this "timmy, timmy, no no timmy, timmy you cant do that, thats not nice"

Hold on there professor lol. Givin' the kid a little swap is a big difference between knocking him around. If you are HITTING your child, you've got problems.

Also, your idea of accountability interests me. You mean people should be held responsible for their actions? No wai! Intriguing, I have never heard this idea before!

[warbeak2099]

an eye for an eye makes the world go blind

So I'm just supposed to die because some other guy chose to go on a shooting rampage. Sorry, nah. Again, all you have is baseless, empty rhetoric behind you. Pretty flimsy foundation for an argument.

Sr_matt:

Communication is key. If you are in a situation where a gunman comes into the room and you draw on him, you need to make sure the rest of the room knows you are not on his side. Proper communication can stabilize a very bad situation.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Geeeze.... now I want guns even more reading some of these great theories... :eek: :D :cry:

[chefstevie]

So I'm just supposed to die because some other guy chose to go on a shooting rampage. Sorry, nah.

Sr_matt:

Communication is key. If you are in a situation where a gunman comes into the room and you draw on him, you need to make sure the rest of the room knows you are not on his side.


i guess if youre into that whole killing thing...and i seriously doubt that if you were at gunpoint you would be able to whip you pistol out and bust a cap, i mean we cant all be bruce willis' in die hard with a vengeance.

maybe if the police didnt suck *POOF* and the vt administration tried to keep it quiet some people could be saved.

[chefstevie]

Geeeze.... now I want guns even more reading some of these great theories... :eek: :D :cry:


yeah id like to kill some people too. good luck on that...

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[warbeak2099]

i guess if youre into that whole killing thing...and i seriously doubt that if you were at gunpoint you would be able to whip you pistol out and bust a cap, i mean we cant all be bruce willis' in die hard with a vengeance.

maybe if the police didnt suck *POOF* and the vt administration tried to keep it quiet some people could be saved.

A trained person shouldn't let it get that far. The second someone comes into the room with a handgun, you need to draw your weapon and instruct them to drop theirs. If they make a menacing gesture and you think they are going to fire, you have every right to take them down. You trying to make anyone who wants to protect themselves and others into killer psychos is just plain ignorant. Just like everything else you've said in this thread.

[slade]

i guess if youre into that whole killing thing...and i seriously doubt that if you were at gunpoint you would be able to whip you pistol out and bust a cap, i mean we cant all be bruce willis' in die hard with a vengeance.
uhh, what? 30 people in a room, one walks in with a gun. if someone in the room has a gun and the killer doesn't know it, i would think that the killer is at the disadvantage.

[CoolHand]

You assume too much Coolhand. I don't care whether you carry a gun or not. But it pisses me off when someone tells me that to be safe I need to carry one.

I would assume that when you say "you do NOT have the right to deny them THEIR rights to suit your own wants" that you're talking about guns on a campus.

I don't think it's denying their rights. The student doesn't have to go there. If it's so important to them, they don't have to go there.

And once again:

If guns make you nervous, you don't have to go there. If it's so important to you to not be around guns, you don't have to go there.

Tit for Tat my friend.

I can do this forever.

;)

[CoolHand]

i guess if youre into that whole killing thing...and i seriously doubt that if you were at gunpoint you would be able to whip you pistol out and bust a cap, i mean we cant all be bruce willis' in die hard with a vengeance..

Yeah, 'cause it's way better to just cower in the corner and then die than maybe try to fight back.

You fail to grasp the fact that in a situation like this, once you meet the aggressor's force on equal footing, they are in the exact same boat you are. IE, they now have to fear for their life as well. You are in no way worse off than you would have been laying on the floor defenceless praying that he'll overlook you. In fact, for just the reason you mention, you are now significantly better off. Having the tables turned so abruptly will put an attacker off balance (IE the element of surprise is yours), which gives you the upper hand in the situation for a short time.

If you are properly trained (which you have to be in order to carry), you can make use of this few second window to execute a couple of well placed shots and be done with it.

You look at it from a point of view of someone who's never handled a gun in their lives (since you are quite obviously afraid of them), and just had one dropped into you hands while you were simultaneously thrust into this life or death situation. Of course in those circumstances you'd freak out, miss, and/or wimp out and die anyway. Training gives you situational awareness and mental discipline to resist the fear, and practice (LOTS of practice) gives you muscle memory to the point that it takes no conscious thought to hit what you are aiming at. It just becomes reflex at that point. Something bad goes down, you execute the checklist that confirms you should shoot, and then your hands take over from there. Happens so fast you won't have time to be afraid.

That's how soldiers can do the things they do, it's automatic. No man will run into the face of gunfire if he sets and thinks about it for very long, it has to be automatic and happen so fast that it's done and over before you can second guess.

[SCpoloRicker]

And once again:

If guns make you nervous, you don't have to go there. If it's so important to you to not be around guns, you don't have to go there.

Tit for Tat my friend.

I can do this forever.

;)

If not having guns make you nervous, you don't have to go there... :rolleyes:

Right, because you're not at all stating that the right to carry [i]should[/b] be universal in the U.S. vis a vis the 2nd.

Not disagreeing, but that's some poor logic.

I'd like to add that I'm not sure what percentage of owners/CCW are sufficiently trained to respond to a crisis in the manner commonly described. I suspect that a good amount of CCW people will participate in at least semi-regular training. I bet another solid amount train very regularly. That said, comparing to LE or military is somewhat preposterous to me.

[Ole Unka Phil]

If not having guns make you nervous, you don't have to go there... :rolleyes:

Right, because you're not at all stating that the right to carry [i]should[/b] be universal in the U.S. vis a vis the 2nd.

Not disagreeing, but that's some poor logic.

I'd like to add that I'm not sure what percentage of owners/CCW are sufficiently trained to respond to a crisis in the manner commonly described. I suspect that a good amount of CCW people will participate in at least semi-regular training. I bet another solid amount train very regularly. That said, comparing to LE or military is somewhat preposterous to me.


Ok lets repeat this. We are NOT planning for involving ourselves in a crisis. We are strictly prepared for self defense. Part of our thought process is avoidance and flight if possible. We are only perpared to attempt to defend our life in the face of the threat of deadly force being used against us.

Most CWP'ers I know train at least once a month at target and some more often. I can tell you that many LE do not qualify but maybe once a year. Some twice. Better departments do so more often and many officers train on thier own.

However... reminder... most people with concealed weapons permits plan to never have to ever use thier gun to protect themselves. They hope and pray they never have to. They are prepared to but they know that because you can never be sure when it might be that time, you have to be prepared. A gun at hand is better than 5 at home. But we shoot as a sport mostly. Target shooting and such. And some tactics mixed in so we can protect ourselves if we ever are forced to. We would perfer not too. If you are not of that mind set... I would rather you not carry. I don't need cowboys out there making things unsafe for the rest of us either. If your not mature enough to accept the responsibility I would rather you not.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Bomb threat at the U of Minnesota in Minneapolis...copy cat or kid that wanted an easy way out of an exam they neglected to study about?

Either way there were no bombs found, and no bombs went off.

[geekwarrior]

Bomb threat at the U of Minnesota in Minneapolis...copy cat or kid that wanted an easy way out of an exam they neglected to study about?

Either way there were no bombs found, and no bombs went off.


these things always seem to shake a few more nuts outta the tree.

[CoolHand]

If not having guns make you nervous, you don't have to go there... :rolleyes: .

Exactly.

That's why I said I can do this forever.

Justifying your wants by saying that others can simply choose not to come where you've declared that something they do can't be done IS poor logic.

I'm glad it didn't take too much longer for someone to finally see what I was saying (perhaps I said it a bit too subtly).

At any rate, this is one of those topics that folks are never going to agree upon.

But that's OK. One of the (many) great things about this country is that we can agree to disagree and still get along just fine.

:cheers:

[wjr]

Exactly.

That's why I said I can do this forever.

Justifying your wants by saying that others can simply choose not to come where you've declared that something they do can't be done IS poor logic.

I'm glad it didn't take too much longer for someone to finally see what I was saying (perhaps I said it a bit too subtly).

At any rate, this is one of those topics that folks are never going to agree upon.

But that's OK. One of the (many) great things about this country is that we can agree to disagree and still get along just fine.

:cheers:

I guess your arguments are all beyond us coolhand :rolleyes:

It's not just a few people who would say that guns are meant for campuses. I doubt there's a school administrator out there who would think they are. You're the minority here.

Not that it matters from a legal standpoint though...

I would also like to know something. This is a genuine question. I've researched it but I can't seem to figure it out.

Do state universities qualify as private establishments? VT is a "land grant pyrotechnical university" according to wikipedia. I searched "land grant" and there was some bill passed a while ago giving land and/or money to start "public" universities. Yeah, public is in the name... but I wouldn't want to base an assumption entirely on that.

I invite anyone to help me find a definitive answer on this.

I want to know, because if VT were a private establishment, they could have whatever policy about guns they want then.

[CoolHand]

. . . . You're the minority here.. . . . .

Your point being?

That's just one more nice thing about this country, I can voice an unpopular opinion and there ain't a thing you can do about it.

:headbang:

:cheers:

[Lohman446]

i would love to hear your plan for "straightening out our country" because i am down for a laugh.

if guns never existed, the world would be a better place, dont deny that.


Yeh, cause the entirety of human violence is centered around guns :rolleyes:

And I deny that fully. At one time the feudal system worked because the people on the lowest end of it had nearly no prayer of an effective uprising against those who had trained there entire life for combat.

So no, your simple, one line logic is severely flawed and indicates a total lack of historical knowledge.

[warbeak2099]

So no, your simple, one line logic is severely flawed and indicates a total lack of historical knowledge.

Quite true, there was more than a bit of violence in this world long before guns. The Roman Empire?

[Mango]

It's pretty simple:

There will always be lunatics that will carry out acts of violence such as this. Let's focus on the fact that he was a nutjob. Guns are not the issue here, it's pretty simple that he had a well thought out plan and executed it. Pretty difficult to stop a person like him unless someone else on the campus was armed. Oh wait...gun control laws only hurt the LAW ABIDING citizens...lunatics and criminals will always have guns availible to them since they do not follow legal channels.

Hmm so it looks like taking the guns away from the general public only makes us easy prey. The stories you never hear about are how law abiding citizens who have the right to carry have saved lives. Since the mainstream media loves to glorify nutjobs like this guy, then point the finger at firearms....we simply never hear about it.

Actually I can recall one news story about a store owner in Philly that shot and killed one armed robber, and wounded another. He was from China, had a .38 behind the counter. One of the armed thugs was holding a gun to his wifes head, while the other was marching straight at him. He pulled his pistol from behind the register and shot the man by his wife. Then shot the other thug in the arm and chest.

Police did not press charges.

[Aggravated Assault]

I'd like to add that I'm not sure what percentage of owners/CCW are sufficiently trained to respond to a crisis in the manner commonly described. I suspect that a good amount of CCW people will participate in at least semi-regular training. I bet another solid amount train very regularly.

Good point.


That said, comparing to LE or military is somewhat preposterous to me.


Think on this tho, I live in a smaller community (15,000) and one of my oldest friends is a CP here, two of my classmates who I know too. I have a fair idea what traing they have. I also have an In-law who is a state trooper as well as two friends from the area who are.

I'm not putting my buddies here at the city down, but to me, there is generally, almost a night and day difference. So, I'm not really disagreeing with your statement, But, from my view, I think you nearly contradicted yourself. Even within law enforcement the same idea above will apply. Ammont of training.

I dont find it preposterous a civilian couldn't be as well (or better) trained than say, a local city cop or campus security. In this case, I bet until the cavalry arrived, thats who was dealing with this mess, for the most part.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Actually I can recall one news story about a store owner in Philly that shot and killed one armed robber, and wounded another. He was from China, had a .38 behind the counter. One of the armed thugs was holding a gun to his wifes head, while the other was marching straight at him. He pulled his pistol from behind the register and shot the man by his wife. Then shot the other thug in the arm and chest. Then there was the recent Mall shooting where an off duty just happened to have his gun. He was not required to carry off duty. But he chose too.

Police did not press charges.

There are actually two incidents where armed citizens stopped school shootings with their own guns. One was a teacher that retrieved his shotgun (I believe it was) from his car. I believe that was a public school IIRC. And the other were two Law students who also had to go to their cars to get thier guns and stopped that shooter after he had killed two. These two gentelmen were former LE's I think, , or at least had some former LE experience. Both of those incidences were in the last couple years. Not all that much press on those. I will see if I can find the articles about those sometime today.

The fact is that as much as the Police would love to prevent crimes or stop them in the act, they just cannot be everywhere. More often they investigate crimes that have already happened. There are far many more crimes prevented by the victim with his/her own gun than prevented by LE. Just because thats the way it goes down. Just the way it is and always will be. Police would love to be able to be there and prevent it. They just cannot be everywhere all the time. Its your responsibilty to protect yourself. They are Public safety not personal safety.

[wjr]

Me[/B] on the 1st page]Here are my opinions on this matter. I would like to preface my post by saying that I still respect your opinions, and I do not mean any of this to sound rude.

1) I do not think students carrying guns to school, ready to kill at a moments notice, would be conducive to a learning environment.

2) Students aren't being denied their rights by not being allowed guns to their school.

3) This was a freak incident and is not a common occurrence. There must have been signs in the kids behavior. The best way to prevent this kind of thing is to stop it before it starts, not after it reaches the boiling point.

Edit: Added another point

4) More security guards or police officers on campus would make more sense then the students patrolling themselves.


I was right.

The kid was seriously disturbed. He'd been arrested twice before for stalking two people, he wrote violent plays and papers, and his english teacher recognized that he had serious anger issues.

This could have been stopped without firing a shot.

Not that they should known he was going to kill 32 people, but they should have suggested he go to therapy or something. Seeing as how he was arrested for stalking, I'm pretty sure they could have examined his mental state and forced him go to some sort of, uh... Luny Bin.

[Lohman446]

I'd like to add that I'm not sure what percentage of owners/CCW are sufficiently trained to respond to a crisis in the manner commonly described. I suspect that a good amount of CCW people will participate in at least semi-regular training. I bet another solid amount train very regularly. That said, comparing to LE or military is somewhat preposterous to me.

I think you would be drastically alarmed how little ongoing training non-specialty law enforcement officers receive in situations involving guns.

[geekwarrior]

I was right.

The kid was seriously disturbed. He'd been arrested twice before for stalking two people, he wrote violent plays and papers, and his english teacher recognized that he had serious anger issues.

This could have been stopped without firing a shot.

Not that they should known he was going to kill 32 people, but they should have suggested he go to therapy or something. Seeing as how he was arrested for stalking, I'm pretty sure they could have examined his mental state and forced him go to some sort of, uh... Luny Bin.


they did, the courts sent him to a mental hospital.

thats the real problem here. when a student is so deranged that 90% of his classmates stop showing up to class, when a prof has a code word to their assistants in case this student gets violent, when he starts a fire in a dormitory, when teachers hear about the shootings and immediately connect it to him, don't you at some point say "hey, this guy needs some serious looking into, and cant come back to school till he's normal." If anyone of us pulled any of that crap in the workplace, we would be fired.

[warbeak2099]

they did, the courts sent him to a mental hospital.

thats the real problem here. when a student is so deranged that 90% of his classmates stop showing up to class, when a prof has a code word to their assistants in case this student gets violent, when he starts a fire in a dormitory, when teachers hear about the shootings and immediately connect it to him, don't you at some point say "hey, this guy needs some serious looking into, and cant come back to school till he's normal." If anyone of us pulled any of that crap in the workplace, we would be fired.

The school systems are far too liberalized for people to take action. And I don't mean Liberalism with a capital L.

[Mango]

There are actually two incidents where armed citizens stopped school shootings with their own guns. One was a teacher that retrieved his shotgun (I believe it was) from his car. I believe that was a public school IIRC. And the other were two Law students who also had to go to their cars to get thier guns and stopped that shooter after he had killed two. These two gentelmen were former LE's I think, , or at least had some former LE experience. Both of those incidences were in the last couple years. Not all that much press on those. I will see if I can find the articles about those sometime today.

The fact is that as much as the Police would love to prevent crimes or stop them in the act, they just cannot be everywhere. More often they investigate crimes that have already happened. There are far many more crimes prevented by the victim with his/her own gun than prevented by LE. Just because thats the way it goes down. Just the way it is and always will be. Police would love to be able to be there and prevent it. They just cannot be everywhere all the time. Its your responsibilty to protect yourself. They are Public safety not personal safety.


Right on!

[Aggravated Assault]

This is a snippet of Barak Obama on the senate floor the other day:

OBAMA: "Obviously, what happened today was the act of a madman at some level, and there are going to be a whole series of explanations or attempts to explain what happened. There's also another kind of violence, though, that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily physical violence, but violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week the big news, obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughters."

Did he just allude to a link between the Imus fiasco and the shootings? Not saying he meant it that way, just odd he would bring it up in this context.


Edit - I belive this link has the audio of that speech

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html

[Ole Unka Phil]

Ok well I found this tidbit. Seems to me that if this is the way it is that there is already a way to enter these Adjudications and its NOT just crimial convictions. So what is the threshold to enter them then? appartently not this level? Wasn't entered in there it seems....


Copy Paste:

SAIC has created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to help fulfill the requirements of the "Brady Bill".
...
SAIC created and operates a central database that taps into federal databases to identify people ineligible to buy guns. This includes data from:

* The FBI's National Criminal Information Center (which includes six separate federal databases).
* The FBI's Interstate Identification Index (which SAIC also developed).
* Six other federal agencies such as the military and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (SAIC is integrating a variety of INS systems, under separate contracts, to help the agency more quickly check its own criminal records and share that information with other agencies).

In addition to pulling criminal records from other systems, the SAIC-supported central database also stores mostly noncriminal information, such as mental illness.

Two servers running 17 hours a day manage the database. "If one breaks down the other will back it up," according to SAIC Program Manager Craig Sinclair. "The system is highly reliable."

Also working 17 hours a day are two SAIC subcontracted call centers. If a federally licensed gun dealer wants to check on somebody, he calls an 800 number. A customer service representative then inputs the applicant's information. Based on the NICS response, the dealer proceeds with the sale, or delays it pending further review. In the event of a delay, the request goes to an FBI analysis center for further investigation. The FBI then determines if the transfer violates federal or state law and calls back the dealer with the result.

Searching by name, sex, race, date of birth and other optional information, the instant check system can usually give a response in seconds. Besides convicted felons or people under indictment for serious crimes, those not eligible to purchase guns include illegal aliens, the mentally ill, and anybody convicted of drug crimes or domestic violence. Others who cannot buy guns include fugitives from justice, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

[Phillips]

People think that it's the law that needs to change,however thats rubbish. It's the enforcement of that law that needs to change.
Anyone in your country should feel safe without having to a firearm, to be honest it;s hard to comprehend for me. Why was an obviously troubled boy on anti-depressants allowed a firearm?

The law doesn't need to alter much , it;s just that the authorities should get their act together and enforce the law.

IMHO the school acted in the best interests of it's pupils, and it is a true tradgedy that they died, nevertheless it is the authorities who have failed them.
Stating the police can't be everywhere is far to leanient and this incident should really teach them something.

Guns in a school is a accident awaiting to happen imho for so many reasons, it's not where the blame should lie.

[paintballfiend]

I think a bigger problem is people not caring enough about the shootings to do a darn thing about it. Just wait a couple of weeks and the media will push another rating-grabbing story and most will forget about VT.

[Ole Unka Phil]

People think that it's the law that needs to change,however thats rubbish. It's the enforcement of that law that needs to change.
Anyone in your country should feel safe without having to a firearm, to be honest it;s hard to comprehend for me. Why was an obviously troubled boy on anti-depressants allowed a firearm?

The law doesn't need to alter much , it;s just that the authorities should get their act together and enforce the law.

IMHO the school acted in the best interests of it's pupils, and it is a true tradgedy that they died, nevertheless it is the authorities who have failed them.
Stating the police can't be everywhere is far to leanient and this incident should really teach them something.

Guns in a school is a accident awaiting to happen imho for so many reasons, it's not where the blame should lie.


The law indeed was in place. He just slipped though the crack. That and the Pshycologists that evaluated erred in finding him safe when he had been ordered there as unsafe. What then occured was he was NOT found mentaly incompetent and receive futher threatment. We have no evidence he was on anti depressants. He certainly SHOULD have been found mentaly incompetent. The evidence was there to do so and they were in a position to do so. Had that occured he would have been in the NICS data base and denied puchase.

In this case it was not the legal step that seems to have failed. It was in the diagnosis. This prevented him from being entered into the data base so as to be denied purchase.

However... I contend to you that a person with this intent will then find another way. It is perhaps, as bad as this is going to sound, possible that he could have used a bomb. He would have found a way to fullfill his irrational intent. Unless he was caught or something in the process. The last time someone used a bomb the results were even more horrific. More of them and more children.

It appears outlawing guns in schools does not work. He was prohibited from such....

Its a complicated situation.

[SR_matt]

So I'm just supposed to die because some other guy chose to go on a shooting rampage. Sorry, nah. Again, all you have is baseless, empty rhetoric behind you. Pretty flimsy foundation for an argument.

Sr_matt:

Communication is key. If you are in a situation where a gunman comes into the room and you draw on him, you need to make sure the rest of the room knows you are not on his side. Proper communication can stabilize a very bad situation.

so ya in the half a second you have to react before the guy starts to shoot you are going to stand up, draw your weapon, and then tell him to drop his gun... i dont know about you but i defiantly could nto acomplish that in under a second.

everyone is acting like this situation was one where a gun man came in waiving a gun and saying stuff it wasnt, the guy walked right in and just started shoting, barely enough time to even notice that he had a gun nonetheless react to it.

-matt

[Ole Unka Phil]

You don't tell anyone to "drop your gun" nor say a dam thing when your life is in danger. You shoot. If the situation warrants deadly force you shoot first. The first rule in any gun fight is shoot first. Often the winner is that who gets his shot off first. All this "Shoot it out of his hands"...or "Shoot to wound" and "command him to drop his gun" is all in the movies. Deadly force means deadly force. And you don't have to warn anyone cause he knows what he is doing subjects him to it. You shoot to kill. And fast as you can. And as many as it takes to end the threat. This aint the movies.


Many of these kids had plenty of warning he was coming and shooting. Plenty of time to have drawn prepared and delivered. Almost all of them did. A few did not... but after a few minutes, the rest did.

However you wish to dismiss that is not going to change that. If numberous kids had time to jump out windows and barracade doors... at least as many had time to shoot him. Easily. And if they did not... then the death toal is the same. No down side too it. Only a potential up side. Sorrry... good try.

On another note:

House vote permits guns in more places
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_5492294,00.html
By TOM HUMPHREY, tomhumphrey3@aol.com
April 19, 2007

NASHVILLE - In a surprise move, a House panel voted Wednesday to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments - including parks and playgrounds.
"I think the recent Virginia disaster - or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it - has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

As amended, the legislation still wouldn't allow guns on school property, however.

Niceley's bill aimed to let people holding handgun carry permits take their weapons onto state park property, which is now forbidden.

But when Niceley brought the bill before the Criminal Practice Subcommittee, a branch of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Rob Briley, D-Nashville, promptly proposed an amendment to expand its scope.

"We've been piecemealing this thing year after year," Briley said. "Why don't we just let you take your gun anywhere you want to?"

Tennessee's handgun carry law includes a listing of places where permit holders are forbidden to take their weapons. Briley has proposed an amendment that repeals a provision prohibiting guns "in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof."

With very little debate, the amendment was quickly approved on a voice vote with only Rep. Janis Sontany, D-Nashville, chairman of the subcommittee, audibly shouting, "No!"

She then asked Niceley if he had any comments before the bill, as amended, faced a final vote in the panel.

"I'm in shock, and I can't talk," replied Niceley, though quickly adding he thought Briley's proposal was "a good amendment."

The panel then approved the overall bill, sending it to the full House Judiciary Committee for a vote next week. Briley is chairman of the committee.

Niceley said afterward that Tennessee should join other states that basically allow licensed people to take their handguns "anywhere they want."

The Briley amendment does not go that far, having no impact on separate provisions of the law that, for example, forbid guns on school grounds, in courtrooms or in establishments that serve alcoholic beverages.

But Briley, Sontany and others said afterward that it would allow permit holders to take their guns on most other state, county or city government property - including the Legislative Plaza, where signs are now posted to prohibit weapons except those carried by law enforcement officers.

Briley said in an interview that he and a handful of other legislators in subcommittees have borne the brunt of harsh criticism from some gun owners for opposing past efforts to "nibble away" at restrictions on where handguns can be taken.

"This has been on the backs of just a few people," he said. "Now it's time for other people to stand up and say, 'We want these protections in the law' - or not."

Asked about Niceley's comment that the Virginia Tech slayings earlier this week had awakened people to the need for easing of restrictions on licensed holders of handgun carry permits, he replied in the negative.

"Anybody who would make an attempt to score cheap political points over that tragedy and what we did in (the committee room) is disgusting and sick," he said.

Sontany said she thought Briley acted unwisely "in the heat of the moment" and that the bill ultimately would be defeated.

Niceley said that critics of the handgun carry law protested when it passed that "wild West" situations would be created, but permit holders have proven themselves responsible over the years. He said he knows of only one case where a permit holder used a weapon in a violent crime.

In Tennessee, 172,828 people held legal permits as of January, according to Mike Browning, spokesman for the state Department of Safety, which issues the licenses.

Rep. Curry Todd, R-Collierville, said he had decided earlier to give up this year on his push for legislation to allow permit holders to take their handguns into restaurants serving alcoholic beverages, feeling it had little chance of passage.

Todd said, however, that he has been approached by another legislator about a push to allow handguns on college campuses though "I don't know if this is the proper time to do that" in light of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Tom Humphrey may be reached at 615-242-7782.

Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.

[Lohman446]

so ya in the half a second you have to react before the guy starts to shoot you are going to stand up, draw your weapon, and then tell him to drop his gun... i dont know about you but i defiantly could nto acomplish that in under a second.

everyone is acting like this situation was one where a gun man came in waiving a gun and saying stuff it wasnt, the guy walked right in and just started shoting, barely enough time to even notice that he had a gun nonetheless react to it.

-matt

I think it was stated early on, by me - you would not have stopped it entirely. But would 1 dead be far better than 32? How about 10? 20? 31? The point is if one life had been saved it would have been worth it.

It is highly unlikely you are going to win a gun fight when the other side has a gun drawn (or a knife within 7 meters if you look at statistics) and you do not. However, had someone drawn a gun after the shooting started you might have saved some.

I disagree with Phil on part of it. Unless the threat of attack is imminent there is a duty to give an attacker the opportunity to surrender. That being said, threat degree is somewhat subjective.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I think it was stated early on, by me - you would not have stopped it entirely. But would 1 dead be far better than 32? How about 10? 20? 31? The point is if one life had been saved it would have been worth it.

It is highly unlikely you are going to win a gun fight when the other side has a gun drawn (or a knife within 7 meters if you look at statistics) and you do not. However, had someone drawn a gun after the shooting started you might have saved some.

I disagree with Phil on part of it. Unless the threat of attack is imminent there is a duty to give an attacker the opportunity to surrender. That being said, threat degree is somewhat subjective.


Your not so much disgreeing with me. Your fine tuning something thats not there in a Deadly Force application.

You do not pull your gun until there is a threat and you believe you have to use deadly force to stop it. Thats number one

. I repeat.... you then DO NOT have to spend time order surrender or expecting to see if its going to occur. You have already made the choice that you are going to need to use deadly force. You will get killed thinking like you are in some situations. Never hesitate. this is going to all happen in seconds. You made your decision now don't second guess it. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Now that being said... if as you pull your gun, the attacker sees it and turns to flee... your threat is diminished and you do not shoot. Remember you shoot till the threat is eliminted. If he choses to eliminate it before that great. You can breath a sigh of relief! Hope it happens! But your not required to warn someone who is about to kill you. And thats the only time you can use deadly force. Or lets say the guy is 30 yards away with a Machette... maybe you have a bit more time to show of force. I doubt that situation is going to be the case. And you would be pretty shocked how fast someone can move, be shot once and still keep comng.

There is no requirement to warn in self defense. The perp is already a threat to your life when you decide you have to deploy it.

[edweird]

that being said, most states with robust self defense laws justify the use of deadly force in the protection of others in threat. Recently also several states have passed laws enableing you to stand your ground, as well as sliding the requirement for burden of proof to the state to disprove that the self defense was anything but.

/also its widely true in most states that if someone is in the act of commiting a violent crime and you take action against them, they are no longer provided the protection of the law as they were in the act of commiting a felony. (counters the assinine "while I was robbing him he kicked my butt, so im sueing him" stance)

[Lohman446]

First I am going to agree that if you do not have the legal / moral right to use deadly force than your gun should never leave its holster - and as others have noted defense of others allows the same level of force as defense of self should you chose to get involved.

That being said if when you draw your weapon the attacker is not in a position to immediatly cause harm (gun is down, reholstered, whatever) there is some obligation (more moral than legal) to attempt to resolve without using deadly force.

To those who claim "shoot to warn, shoot a gun out" aside from being tactically stupid they are legally worthless. If I shot at you AND MISS I have legally used deadly force and better be able to legally cover said use, even if said miss was an intentionally warning shot.

The moment the threat presented is no longer immediate or on a dangerous enough level I do not have the legal right to use deadly force. We are trained specifically to shoot to stop the attack, the fact that this is also generally deadly is, theoretically, a side note. If I shoot an attacker, they drop or drop the weapon, or whatever changes and they are no longer able to present what a reasonable person would consider a threat of severe bodily harm I am not allowed to fire again.

If I draw, and am in a situation to warn without firing a shot - AND DOING SO DOES NOT RISK MYSELF OR OTHERS then by all means I am going to. That means if I am off to a side and can safely do so. That being said, someone going on a shooting rampage, with targets all around - there is no opportunity to do so.

If I draw my weapon my concerns are A) to protect my family B) to do so within the confines of the law. C) to protect myself physically D) to not have any collateral damage (weapon and bullet selection helps here) E) to protect others involved

All of these are drastically improtant to me, obviously some are more important than others.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I can agree with some of it.... obviously not all of it


No such thing as a warning shot. Nonsense. You'll be taken apart in court if you draw your gun when not in defense of your life and you will be foolish to expect warnings and errant shots to assist you. Your liability increases as you shoot away from you target. Collateral damage and no need to pull the trigger is what you descibe.

What you argue are perhaps situations you describe as pulling your gun for are not appropriate to pull your gun. But for instance a man with a gun, who has instigated an assault on you with a deadly weapon, but then does not have it at the ready is a dead man. His ability to re-engage in that instance is immediate. He is never, as you describe, not a threat. He has initated a deadly force situation already. If he reholsters his gun then why are you drawing yours? If he reholsters and raises his hands then the threat has deminished. But you are still in Red. Your finger will be on the trigger. If you wish to negotiate you could then.

Serously... your decision is pretty much final when you draw. About the only thing you can hope for is he turns and runs. In many cases your descibing policing actions not self defense actions. Your not trying to detain him. Your trying to rid yourself of him. Either he goes down or he retreats. Those are the only two choices. And it must happen like now. No talking. He either is going to kill you or you him.

And your narrowing your situations to hesitations now. You see its not that easy to not follow through. Your situations are not typical and your time is extremely short you have mear seconds. And its all over. You or him. Remember you fear for your life and you decide to protect it. Your going to be dead if you mill it over in your mind very long. You can take chances if you want. But your already in a deadly force situation and so you have cause to use it.

Now mind you that 99.99 percent of us will never have to do it. And pray we never will. But its good to go over it in your mind. It makes you more aware. One of two things is probably going to happen when he sees you have a gun.... one of them is good and the other is faster and involves you getting the first shot off. And it likely is not surrender.

[Lohman446]

I can agree with some of it.... obviously not all of it


No such thing as a warning shot. Nonsense. You'll be taken apart in court if you draw your gun when not in defense of your life and you will be foolish to expect warnings and errant shots to assist you. Your liability increases as you shoot away from you target. Collateral damage and no need to pull the trigger is what you descibe.

What you argue are perhaps situations you describe as pulling your gun for are not appropriate to pull your gun. But for instance a man with a gun, who has instigated an assault on you with a deadly weapon, but then does not have it at the ready is a dead man. His ability to re-engage in that instance is immediate. He is never, as you describe, not a threat. He has initated a deadly force situation already. If he reholsters his gun then why are you drawing yours? If he reholsters and raises his hands then the threat has deminished. But you are still in Red. Your finger will be on the trigger. If you wish to negotiate you could then.

Serously... your decision is pretty much final when you draw. About the only thing you can hope for is he turns and runs. In many cases your descibing policing actions not self defense actions. Your not trying to detain him. Your trying to rid yourself of him. Either he goes down or he retreats. Those are the only two choices. And it must happen like now. No talking. He either is going to kill you or you him.

And your narrowing your situations to hesitations now. You see its not that easy to not follow through. Your situations are not typical and your time is extremely short you have mear seconds. And its all over. You or him. Remember you fear for your life and you decide to protect it. Your going to be dead if you mill it over in your mind very long. You can take chances if you want. But your already in a deadly force situation and so you have cause to use it.

Now mind you that 99.99 percent of us will never have to do it. And pray we never will. But its good to go over it in your mind. It makes you more aware. One of two things is probably going to happen when he sees you have a gun.... one of them is good and the other is faster and involves you getting the first shot off. And it likely is not surrender.


If I draw, and am in a situation to warn without firing a shot - AND DOING SO DOES NOT RISK MYSELF OR OTHERS then by all means I am going to. That means if I am off to a side and can safely do so. That being said, someone going on a shooting rampage, with targets all around - there is no opportunity to do so.

You misunderstood me. I agree warning shots are horrible ideas. In MI if I fire a warning shot I have, in the legal sense, used deadly force, and better be able to justify it.

Unfortunatly MI does not have incredibly great rules on level of force. There are terms such as justifiable brandishment - situations where brandishment is allowed but even pointing the weapon is not.

In order to comply with MI law, if a reasonable person would consider it tactically possible, I have to brandish the gun, if that fails to alleviate the threat I may then aim and warn "I am going to shoot", if that fails to stop it I am allowed to pull the trigger. Now, if there is not time to do so, and a reasonable person would agree that there was not, then I am not required to. Still, it does make things harder.

On the plus side, if someone has shot someone and holstered a weapon I do have the legal right to draw on said person. I do have the legal right to use justifiable brandishment / justifiable assault (the acutal aiming) to control such a situation. The danger is the idea that some people have that simply drawing a weapon will end a threat. If I draw my weapon it is going to be with full resolve to use it if needed.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Thats a good point. State laws that is. You have to adjust a bit to where and when but deadly force is fairly universal because its all legal precident set. Beyond that its where and when you can use it. We just passed the "Castle Doctrine" laws and "Stand your ground" laws here in SC. Which extends your right to defense out to "Any place you have a right to be and are without fault". Many states have done this. I don't think Michigan has IIRC. Makes a difference I suppose... but again... if your without fault and within the legal bounds of use of deadly force in self defense by a legal definition, you should be fine in court. Which is were you want to be, if need be, rather than in the morge.

Here is an interesting read too....

Police call for tougher gun crime laws

One of the UK's most senior police officers has called for new laws that would compel the public to give information to the police about gun crime - whether they want to or not.

In an interview with the Guardian, Bernard Hogan-Howe, the chief constable of Merseyside police and a contender to be next commissioner of the Met, said it was clear that more and more young people were getting involved in gun crime and that they were being protected by a wall of silence.

He said the only way to address this was to adopt laws similar to those in Australia "where people have a duty to report information about gun crime to the police". He also believes the laws should extend to victims of gun crime who survive being shot but refuse to make a complaint because of fears of reprisals.

"The challenge is: people who survive do not want to complain and the best witness is quite often the victim who can help provide a description and motive. By refusing to help it can put the investigation on to the back foot."

Mr Hogan-Howe, who was at the gun crime summit at Downing Street in February, said his force had been pioneering moves to disrupt the activities of those involved in gun crime.

Families are being evicted from their homes if they live with young people who possess firearms. They are moved out to other areas, while suspects are regularly stopped and searched by officers.

Mr Hogan-Howe is also a critic of any loosening of the laws relating to cannabis use and possession. He said there was evidence that the potency of cannabis is increasing and there needed to be more research about its long-term effects on people with mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia. "If people are under 18 when they take skunk cannabis they are four times more likely to suffer mental illness and if they are under 15 they are 10 times more likely," he said.

However, it is his intervention on gun crime that is bound to be draw the ire of human rights campaigners. It reflects growing concern among the country's most senior officers about the difficulties of tackling the use of firearms among young people.

A fortnight ago Scotland Yard launched the hard-hitting "blood on your hands" campaign, aimed at turning children away from gun crime and encouraging them to speak to the police. It was unveiled on the day of the funeral of 15-year-old murder victim Billy Cox who was gunned down in south London, one of a number of shootings involving teenagers in recent weeks.

"If you know someone who has got a gun and don't report it, you could have blood on your hands," the ad says.

Last week Tony Blair sparked controversy when he said the spate of gun murders was being caused not by poverty, but as a result of a distinctive black culture.

The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.

Mr Blair's remarks appeared to put him at odds with Lady Scotland, a Home Office minister, who has argued that gun crime is a problem for the country as a whole and produced statistics to back up her view. In 2004-05, there were 78 fatal shootings in England and Wales: 40 victims were white, 25 black, seven Asian. The figures do not record the ethnicity of the killers but, by and large, murderers tend mostly to target members of their own ethnic group. In 2005-06, there were 50 fatal shootings: 18 victims were white, 19 black and four Asian.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2061735,00.html


There is some thought that societial diffences contribute to gun violence. And so explains to a better extent why Gun restrictions seem to fail to have any influence on those statistics. Better explains why some of the cities with the toughest gun laws consistently show some of the highest rates of gun crimes. And explains why some countries where EVERY household has a gun have tremendously low rates. Some do some don't! For instance South Africa is the highest by far in gun deaths. Everyone has a gun. But then again, there is politcal upheaval and turmoil. And this above story is an example of that theory in action. England, which has very tough gun laws, now is seeing a resurgence of this particular phenom that sort of indicates that proves out. These kids are getting them illegaly. I was also reading about a particular country, I cannot at the moment recall where it was, that was dealing with a large illicit "gun manufacturing" problem. Might have been China. Whats happening is that people are making them. Making Bullets too. When you try and ban something there becomes an illicit market for it. And it then becomes very lucrative to do it. And then, of course, criminals are attracted to it and mostly these are supplying criminals. Who once they get one are pretty much the only ones with one. We found that out with prohibition and it continues to be proven out in the war on illegal drugs. Banning them opens up the door to this possibility, that only criminals will have guns, eventualy if a portion of that society becomes lawless and unhampered by morals. Then the law abiding are screwed and defenseless.

[Ole Unka Phil]

So... Ted Nugent.... tell us how you really feel about it... :D

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

[Ole Unka Phil]

Another good read....

"A Culture of Passivity"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

[CaptaiN_JacK]

There was a segment on the news last night about how schools are teaching students to deal with situations like this. There was a clip from an elementary school of a masked man with a gun climbing in through a window, and a group of kids screaming and throwing books and stuff at him until he climbed back out of the window! It was a drill...I laughed so hard when I saw it. What a bad way to teach kids to deal with these situations...aggravating a guy with a gun isn't a good idea, no matter how old you are or what the circumstances are. They had other clips to that had specialists telling students at a high school to just run away, IMO the best option in a school-shooting type of situation.

[Lohman446]

There was a segment on the news last night about how schools are teaching students to deal with situations like this. There was a clip from an elementary school of a masked man with a gun climbing in through a window, and a group of kids screaming and throwing books and stuff at him until he climbed back out of the window! It was a drill...I laughed so hard when I saw it. What a bad way to teach kids to deal with these situations...aggravating a guy with a gun isn't a good idea, no matter how old you are or what the circumstances are. They had other clips to that had specialists telling students at a high school to just run away, IMO the best option in a school-shooting type of situation.

Maybe - if you can run, by all means run. However in many of these situations it is not possible to flee - classrooms are not easily gotten out of, and a gun has range. Sometimes the best course of unarmed action is resistance, the theory "if we all rush him he can't get all of us" type thing.

[CoolHand]

Another good read....

"A Culture of Passivity"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

BINGO Phil!

That story cuts right the heart of the matter.

We raise our children to cower in fear at the sight of "officials" or anyone in a situation of power, and now we're beginning to reap what we have sown.

I saw it getting worse with every new class of guys we got at the fraternity house. When the oldest guy in the bunch (me) has to come down stairs and across a room to wade into a fight to break it up and eject the miscreants, by himself, even though fully 20 other guys were standing in a 10' radius of the incident, there is a serious problem.

Men are no longer men. For some reason, the majority of the males in the up and coming generations see no reason to stand up for themselves or their loved ones. They see no reason to "make waves" or stand out in a bad situation. Better to be one of the sheep in the heard than stand out and be forced into doing the right thing (or anything at all).

I truly weep for the future. :cry:

Hell, I weep for the present.

[geekwarrior]

BINGO Phil!

That story cuts right the heart of the matter.

We raise our children to cower in fear at the sight of "officials" or anyone in a situation of power, and now we're beginning to reap what we have sown.

I saw it getting worse with every new class of guys we got at the fraternity house. When the oldest guy in the bunch (me) has to come down stairs and across a room to wade into a fight to break it up and eject the miscreants, by himself, even though fully 20 other guys were standing in a 10' radius of the incident, there is a serious problem.

Men are no longer men. For some reason, the majority of the males in the up and coming generations see no reason to stand up for themselves or their loved ones. They see no reason to "make waves" or stand out in a bad situation. Better to be one of the sheep in the heard than stand out and be forced into doing the right thing (or anything at all).

I truly weep for the future. :cry:

Hell, I weep for the present.

so you're saying the students should have rushed the attacker?

[paintballfiend]

BINGO Phil!

That story cuts right the heart of the matter.

We raise our children to cower in fear at the sight of "officials" or anyone in a situation of power, and now we're beginning to reap what we have sown.

I saw it getting worse with every new class of guys we got at the fraternity house. When the oldest guy in the bunch (me) has to come down stairs and across a room to wade into a fight to break it up and eject the miscreants, by himself, even though fully 20 other guys were standing in a 10' radius of the incident, there is a serious problem.

Men are no longer men. For some reason, the majority of the males in the up and coming generations see no reason to stand up for themselves or their loved ones. They see no reason to "make waves" or stand out in a bad situation. Better to be one of the sheep in the heard than stand out and be forced into doing the right thing (or anything at all).

I truly weep for the future. :cry:

Hell, I weep for the present.
This reminds me of the movie Fight Club. They were saying guys today are wusses. "We are a generation raised by women". I don't want to grow up to be a 30 year old boy. :(

[CoolHand]

so you're saying the students should have rushed the attacker?

Yes, I am.

Which is better:

Guy comes into room and kills 95% of the people there.

OR

Guy comes into room, kills two or three, the rest rush him and beat him to death (or nearly so).

Choose.

For me, it's the latter.

I'd rather go down trying to do something useful than hunkered under a desk praying he won't find me.

The trick would be not to do it one at a time, like they do in the Kung Fu movies. Doing it like that gets you all killed (just like in the Kung Fu movies :ninja: ). Instead, if everyone within four or five steps rushes the guy all at once. In a situation like that, he would have time to aim and fire one maybe two shots, but then someone will close enough to hit him and/or tackle him. If done in this manner, you are assured that at least one person will get to him and disrupt his ability to resist. Once he's down or disoriented it is then much easier for the others to help subdue him.

Why would anyone want to sit still and wait for someone to come and kill them? Even if I got cut down on the way, I couldn't just sit there and wait for it, I'd have to do something.

[BigEvil]

Welcome to the results of the Feminization of our culture.

[Jonneh]

Welcome to the results of the Feminization of our culture.Yeah well, I'm just a coward.

[paintballfiend]

Welcome to the results of the Feminization of our culture.
That explains why my testicles turned into olvaries. :rofl:

[Lohman446]

Yes, I am.

Which is better:

Guy comes into room and kills 95% of the people there.

OR

Guy comes into room, kills two or three, the rest rush him and beat him to death (or nearly so).

Choose.

For me, it's the latter.

I'd rather go down trying to do something useful than hunkered under a desk praying he won't find me.

The trick would be not to do it one at a time, like they do in the Kung Fu movies. Doing it like that gets you all killed (just like in the Kung Fu movies :ninja: ). Instead, if everyone within four or five steps rushes the guy all at once. In a situation like that, he would have time to aim and fire one maybe two shots, but then someone will close enough to hit him and/or tackle him. If done in this manner, you are assured that at least one person will get to him and disrupt his ability to resist. Once he's down or disoriented it is then much easier for the others to help subdue him.

Why would anyone want to sit still and wait for someone to come and kill them? Even if I got cut down on the way, I couldn't just sit there and wait for it, I'd have to do something.

100% agreed. Once a hostage taker has demonstrated the willingness to take lives, or to start a massacre hostages are no longer better off "doing what they are told".

Disclaimer: Many bank robberies are committed by teams, be well aware that one of your so called hostages my well be an accomplice.

[lather]

Im sure we would all like to think we would be the first to take proper action under such conditions, but it's far easier to predict how anyone would ideally react under an extreme life threatening incident while safe and secure at home, but until you are actually faced with a dire, life or death, almost unimaginably stressfull event, there is really no way of truely predicting how you would react.

Self preservation is a hard coded human/animal instinct--just trying to stay alive for even a few more minutes is an almost insurmountable urge.

I think thats what makes acts of heroism all the more well,-- heroic.

[geekwarrior]

Yes, I am.

Which is better:

Guy comes into room and kills 95% of the people there.

OR

Guy comes into room, kills two or three, the rest rush him and beat him to death (or nearly so).

Choose.

For me, it's the latter.

I'd rather go down trying to do something useful than hunkered under a desk praying he won't find me.

The trick would be not to do it one at a time, like they do in the Kung Fu movies. Doing it like that gets you all killed (just like in the Kung Fu movies :ninja: ). Instead, if everyone within four or five steps rushes the guy all at once. In a situation like that, he would have time to aim and fire one maybe two shots, but then someone will close enough to hit him and/or tackle him. If done in this manner, you are assured that at least one person will get to him and disrupt his ability to resist. Once he's down or disoriented it is then much easier for the others to help subdue him.

Why would anyone want to sit still and wait for someone to come and kill them? Even if I got cut down on the way, I couldn't just sit there and wait for it, I'd have to do something.

wow. almost sounds like you're calling the students that died cowards for not rushing the attacker. everyone hear likes to talk tough, but I wonder how many would really react.

here's some details from what happened, a good read.

students stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/22norris.html?ei=5065&en=261d7a8b7f72d09f&ex=1177819200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

[CoolHand]

wow. almost sounds like you're calling the students that died cowards for not rushing the attacker. everyone hear likes to talk tough, but I wonder how many would really react.

here's some details from what happened, a good read.

students stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/22norris.html?ei=5065&en=261d7a8b7f72d09f&ex=1177819200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

Well, I'm not going to insult a bunch of dead folks on a random internet forum, but my question stands. Which sounds better to you?

For me, I'd much rather go down fighting. If I'm gonna die anyway, what's there to lose? On the off chance that I DON'T die, I make it through the situation. If I do die, I'm no worse off than if I'd sat there and taken it. I don't see a down side.

But my mind doesn't necessarily work like everyone else's does though either.

[kosmo]

I prayed that an invisible blanket of protection be placed around me.

Gee, it must have worked. When I first heard about this, I assumed he mustve been fairly skilled to have killed 30 by himself based on previous similar incidents. But I guess I was wrong.

[Ole Unka Phil]

I think we may find there is evidence some of them did try and rush him. However if its not a coordinated rush it has only a slight chance of working.

It is also being reported by a couple of news agencies that as many as three students involved in the shooting had Concealed Weapons permits. Of course they did not have their carry weapons on them as they had to respect the Policy of the Unversity. More so there because it had been so publicly enforced the year before so they could not claim ignorance of the policy. Now... mind you.... I cannot seem to find confirmation of this yet. It just got mentioned yesterday. It was also mentioned in one of those stories that one of those CWP holders shoots competitively. What it did not clearly say was wether they are among the dead, wounded or survivors. So... we shall have to wait and see if that is just a rumor or not.

Here are some good reads...

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2006/20060629.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/...ectid=10389920
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/assault.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,1972703,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...6/ncrime06.xml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42167
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...2007,+11:31+AM
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops...report2005.htm
http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-480.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=15077
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ore/facts.html

[beam]

Gee, it must have worked. When I first heard about this, I assumed he mustve been fairly skilled to have killed 30 by himself based on previous similar incidents. But I guess I was wrong.

Boy Kaptain Kenny...you have no klass.

No way did you just insult a survivor of this tragedy. Tell me I'm missing something here.

[billybob_81067]

Boy Kaptain Kenny...you have no klass.

No way did you just insult a survivor of this tragedy. Tell me I'm missing something here.

From how I read his post it, it was the gunman that "prayed for the invisible blanket of protection"

BUT I didn't read any of the news articles and such, so maybe not....

[geekwarrior]

From how I read his post it, it was the gunman that "prayed for the invisible blanket of protection"

BUT I didn't read any of the news articles and such, so maybe not....

"He whispered to a classmate, “If he thinks you’re dead, then he won’t kill you.”

And he prayed: “I prayed that an invisible blanket of protection be placed around me.”

it was a student, or in kosmo's words, an idiot.

[slade]

From how I read his post it, it was the gunman that "prayed for the invisible blanket of protection"

BUT I didn't read any of the news articles and such, so maybe not....
a survivor said that quote, and it would appear that kosmo is saying that he's an idiot for doing nothing in the situation but praying.

[Ole Unka Phil]

a survivor said that quote, and it would appear that kosmo is saying that he's an idiot for doing nothing in the situation but praying.


Did he survive? Did praying help him in keeping calm enough to play dead effectively? If so... sounds like it worked for him to me. Never underestimate the power of prayer...

[billybob_81067]

Well there ya go... I was wrong once again! :p

[kosmo]

I guess I just might be unsympathetic, but in my world cowards get people killed. Ive also seen plenty of death so as to not in the slightest bit feel like I have to treat anyone else whos seen it like a poor baby. If praying allowed him to be calm enough to play dead, then good for him. I hope he and everyone else who played dead is extremely grateful to have done nothing and survived while those around them were executed by one man with one gun. To those in the incident like the holocaust surviving teacher who took action to save others lives, they have my deepest sympathies.

Edit- Just thought about it a little more. The way I see it, there are people in this incident who acted heroically and cared for others. Then there are people involved in this incident who thought it a better idea to just play dead. All they wanted was to survive, they didnt care about what happened to anyone else. Human instinct or not, I do not respect that. If they dont care about others at all, then Im not going to give a crap about them.