Va Tech shootings

[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

[Lohman446]

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

court found him mentally ill

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

[geekwarrior]

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

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 .

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

[Ole Unka Phil]

A decent read....

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

[geekwarrior]

[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?