Va Tech shootings

[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.