Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Not necessarily. Unless the police were closing in on him fast, all those students may have done is saved their own lives, and people who otherwise wouldn't have been killed -- possibly more students -- were killed.
how on earth can you possibly claim this gun bill would have made the campus any safer? College campuses already have enough alcohol and theft -- they don't need guns.
Perhaps, maybe, possibly, the city imposed strict gun control in response to crime, and increases in the eighties were due in large part to crack? And maybe, just maybe, it's difficult to enforce because, I dunno, one could travel outside the city and purchase a firearm. Maybe.
I posted a reminder earlier in this thread about the civility clause. Please refrain from negatively personalising responses. I have removed some of this post accordingly.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
Y'know, I like to tell myself that I'm up for another "gun control" thread, but as I read through this, I was too disgusted to say anything really.
I feel sorry for the 31 students that were brutally murdered.
BPS, I could have sworn that a gun control advocate would have come in first making this a political issue. I was hoping that it wouldn't be made into one... but I guess it was only inevitable. Ah well.
Lawnovens... I really have nothing to say to you. No one called the students idiots. Everyone gave their opinion of what they would or would not do based on their imagining of the incident; it's not unreasonable to assume that the students did not have adequate training or prepatory thought before the incident of how to adequately handle a precarious and dangerous situation involving a firearm.
Nor is anyone claiming that everyone should be "handed guns at every street corner". That is a ludicrous claim. You have made nothing but strawmen and emotional knee-jerk reactions. You have contributed nothing to this discussion.
...how on earth can you possibly claim this gun bill would have made the campus any safer?
Both of which are illegal, and usually used and carried by those willing to break the law. Just like those that bring in guns anyways. Gasp!
Yet if you made carrying guns legal, then you have legal students carrying guns. Y'know, the types that don't break laws or go on killing sprees very often. Get it now?
modified to remove actioned post
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
I never got the idea that "attacking a man with a gun will never work". It's always the claim that's pulled out and purported by Heavy Gun Control Advocates. Hell, Krav Maga teaches that you can potentially disarm or defeat an attacker that uses a handgun, assuming a close distance. If you're at a far away distance, you're generally a much harder target to hit. Seems pretty simple to me.
Perhaps, maybe, possibly, the city imposed strict gun control in response to crime, and increases in the eighties were due in large part to crack? And maybe, just maybe, it's difficult to enforce because, I dunno, one could travel outside the city and purchase a firearm. Maybe.
And maybe that's also illegal. Maybe, just maybe, law enforcement actually attempts to prevent that as well, just as well as they handle any gun prevention law. Maybe, just maybe, this argument is full of crap. Maybe.
Bah. This thread is going to be nothing but a waste of time. Just see.
It's tough to armchair quarterback with so little information in. Whether the campus police dropped the ball or not, the media WILL attempt to focus on the role of the police. It may come to light they did indeed make mistakes but I think American society has developed an unrealistic expectation from Law Enforcement institutions over the last twenty years or so since the "community policing" trend has become common. The primary role of law enforcement is still, despite the community policing P.R., well, law enforcement, not prevention. And prevention/deterrence only works in a broad sense, not against unique killing sprees such as this. I am guessing here but I bet that "normal" crime is not rampant on this campus, thus the officers are probably doing as good a job as any law enforcement policy can be expected to. Remember, police officers and the institutions they work for are not omniscient. We respond to calls, we do not anticipate them. It is a shame that no one from the second crime scene got to a phone. What a tragedy.
To weigh in on the gun issue: I'm all for an armed citizenry. As a copper here in Chicago (Gun control city) it would make my job more, shall I say "complex" but I am all for it as I think it would make the society safer as a whole. Lord (hmmmm...let's use ....Odin?) knows, the criminals certainly already have them.
Best of all possible worlds: Nobody on the campus other than security people has a gun.
Worst of all possible worlds: Only person on campus with a gun is a homicidal maniac.
You seem to think that that best of all possble worlds scenario is the normal state of affairs.
modified to remove actioned post
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
Wipe the spittle off your chin and re-read what I wrote. I said I didn't understand the mindset that would freeze a group of people while someone starts murdering them one right after another. If you and ten other people rush the guy, he may kill a couple of you. But he won't kill all of you. Did this all happen so quickly that nobody could think rationally?
Perhaps, maybe, possibly, the city imposed strict gun control in response to crime, and increases in the eighties were due in large part to crack? And maybe, just maybe, it's difficult to enforce because, I dunno, one could travel outside the city and purchase a firearm. Maybe.
And maybe, just maybe, you miss the larger point I've been making all along - simply passing laws that ban guns doesn't make anyone safe from someone who doesn't care about laws against murder, let alone laws against owning a gun.
Figured I'd dive in. Spent weeks reading and doing the St. Vitus' dance (registration). I think this is a perfect time to bring up these issues. Those of us that are not close to the victims can perform some useful function after such a tragic event. No matter which side of the fence one lands on, the debate is a healthy thing.
BPS, I could have sworn that a gun control advocate would have come in first making this a political issue. I was hoping that it wouldn't be made into one... but I guess it was only inevitable. Ah well.
It won't be long before the usual gun control arguments on both sides have been trotted out; I plan to be gone long before it reaches that point (happy, Cain?).
Figured I'd dive in. Spent weeks reading and doing the St. Vitus' dance (registration). I think this is a perfect time to bring up these issues. Those of us that are not close to the victims can perform some useful function after such a tragic event. No matter which side of the fence one lands on, the debate is a healthy thing.
Even though I understand your point, the problem is not that the people were defenseless, but the killer was harmful.
If he didn't have as easy access to the weapons to begin with, there wouldn't be any need for the rest of us to arm ourselves.
I personally think if everybody has a weapon, not only the chances of accidents are far more probable to occur, but alot more people with phsychological problems might have acces to them.
In both Montréal's Dawson College and École Polytechnique tragedies, the killers had access to weapons usual people don't have given their military background. But say we allow the ordinary citizen to carry regular guns, wouldn't that statistically increase the chances of some nutjob, who isn't trained in arms, to use them?
Normal state of affairs for inner city high schools, maybe!
I've been anticipating a rise in these kinds of incidents in Grade/High Schools but not Universities. CPD (Chicago Police Dept.) and many other depts. held School Violent Incident Training a few years ago for members of Gang/Tactical (plainclothes) officers and it was a horrible joke. Bureaucratic dog and pony show that allows them to say they have a "response team."
modified to remove edited responses over actioned post
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.
My insult is a conclusion based on his posting history in general, and his posts here in particular. An ad hominem would be rejecting an argument solely on the basis that he is a moron.
Because a student would be able to defend himself against the shooter? Just a thought.
Wow, thanks for adding that thought; it had not occurred to me, and it had not been posted previously. What you're failing to do is look at the cumulative effects of such a policy.
Both of which are illegal, and usually used and carried by those willing to break the law. Just like those that bring in guns anyways. Gasp!
Another facile argument, and not unexpected. Alcohol -- getting drunk -- is a fact of campus life. There's no sense putting guns in close proximity to people whose judgment is already impaired. Also, people snap. A guy's girlfriend breaks up with him, and he knows where he can quickly get his hands on a gun to do something violently irrational.
Yet if you made carrying guns legal, then you have legal students carrying guns. Y'know, the types that don't break laws or go on killing sprees very often. Get it now?
modified to remove edited responses over actioned post, and responses to that.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: chillzero
And maybe that's also illegal. Maybe, just maybe, law enforcement actually attempts to prevent that as well, just as well as they handle any gun prevention law. Maybe, just maybe, this argument is full of crap. Maybe.
Yeah, maybe the D.C. police department does have the resources and political capital to check motorists entering and leaving the city. Man, you're a smart one!
--------------------
After today's events, I think the burden of proof is on those who say prohibiting guns on campus makes the campus safer.
This is a frame I do not accept. It's not just a matter of having guns on campus, but possibly also access to guns. You also overlook the most stunning failure: the campus police's abysmal response time (according to accounts so far). He killed one person and then went across campus to kill nearly thirty others in class. You really think students should be allowed to carry guns to and from classrooms? One also needs to look at campuses across the country, and their policies on firearms.
If you think being defenseless makes you safer, well, I don't know what to say to you.
Another false frame. An even worse scenario could be students bringing guns on to campus, giving immediate access to crazies (or being one of the crazies themselves), but there are not enough armed students around to be much more effective than the police (plus they lack training, their guns can get stolen, and all the other normal accidents).
Wipe the spittle off your chin and re-read what I wrote. I said I didn't understand the mindset that would freeze a group of people while someone starts murdering them one right after another. If you and ten other people rush the guy, he may kill a couple of you. But he won't kill all of you. Did this all happen so quickly that nobody could think rationally?
It might not make sense from a rationally self-interested stand point. The logic of collective action is that everyone wants a group of people to rush the assailant, but nobody wants to be a rusher. They're also optimistic: they don't know what exactly he's going to do, and hold out hope they might be spared. But we don't know their precise circumstances -- not that stops wannabe Charlie Bronsons.
And maybe, just maybe, you miss the larger point I've been making all along - simply passing laws that ban guns doesn't make anyone safe from someone who doesn't care about laws against murder, let alone laws against owning a gun.
Normal state of affairs for inner city high schools, maybe!
I've been anticipating a rise in these kinds of incidents in Grade/High Schools but not Universities. CPD (Chicago Police Dept.) and many other depts. held Schoo Violent Incident Training a few years ago for members of Gang/Tactical (plainclothes) officers and it was a horrible joke. Bureaucratic dog and pony show that allows them to say they have a "response team."
Before this thread itself turns into a crossfire of biases, allow me to become one of it's first moving targets. A few bullets:
Violence is rooted in social values and culture. American culture has degenerated so far into decadence, it is surprising these events do not occur every week at workplaces and schools - and I say this as a proud gun owner.
There is nothing that can be done to prevent future incidents like this. Like Iraq, it's an out of control fire that can't be fought, especially with more fire, and has to burn out. You also can't take the oxygen away.
Uh-huh. I think such emoticons suit your views. Also, with the VT keystone cops on the case, do you think it's really a grand idea to have other students drawing their guns, creating more ambiguity, diverting resources, and clouding communications.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
What you're failing to do is look at the cumulative effects of such a policy. 
