Va Tech shootings

[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, [email protected]
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.