• 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.

20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

BPSCG said:
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how many people walk around the streets with concealed weapons on their persons, how many would have been carrying at Virginia Tech had they been allowed, how many of them would have been in a position to do anything even if they had been carrying. It may be a very small number; I just don't know.

What I do know is that forbidding students to have firearms on campus did nothing to save twenty dead students today.
Click to expand...

And yet sometimes concealed carry only winds up getting the "hero" wannbe killed.
 
and again
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Myriad said:
I don't see how an event devoid of logic and reason would support either side of a debate on gun control, if the debate were to be based on logic and reason.

I do see how such an emotion-driven and emotion-affecting event might support either side of a debate on gun control if the debate were to be based on emotion. But what good does a debate based on emotion do?
Click to expand...

Okay, here's logic and reason:

If students or faculty had been allowed to have guns, would this have happened anyway? Perhaps, perhaps not. We will never know for sure. But one thing we can say: it certainly wouldn't have been any worse, and there is at least the chance that lives could have been saved.

Did gun control prevent this tragedy? Absolutely not.

It's really as simple as that. We've got a chance of some lives saved, versus all the lives lost. I don't see how any person of logic and reason can choose the latter over the former.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
I know if any of my loved ones ever die in a horrible tragedy, I will draw so much comfort from the fact that a group of anonymous internet strangers kept themselves from discussing the political aspects of the situation in the same thread as the condolences I'll never see.
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who has had a loved one die in a horrible tragedy, and got pretty mangled up myself, along with my daughter, I would welcome and appreciate any and all discussion about the political aspects (in my case, drunk driving) in any thread about it. In fact, I would feel insulted if people refrained from discussing it out of some misguided sense of respect. And I would certainly be offended by people who were telling other people they couldn't discuss it out of a really misguided sense of respect.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Are you sure you don't think you're psychic? ;) Just read the Wiki entry. If you want more details there's more than enough in it to let you figure out yourself.
Click to expand...

What's your point here? That if you take on a madman going on a shooting spree there's a possibility you'll get shot yourself? Well, gee, Einstein, thanks for cluing us in on that! :rolleyes:
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Are you sure you don't think you're psychic? ;) Just read the Wiki entry. If you want more details there's more than enough in it to let you figure out yourself.
Click to expand...

Yep. Seems he wasn't properly trained.

Why would you interfere in the first place if there are police officers close by? Could get you shot.
 
parky76 said:
This is a tragic...yet extremaly random event. We live in a violent world where sometimes, terrible things happen. No reason to alter our society in any way. Life goes on.
Click to expand...

Well, not for those 32 people killed, but that's a quibble.

Random, yes, but the simple fact is that this random things happens with greater frequency in our society than others. Perhaps we may wish to alter our society after all.

If only we could figure out how.
 
shanek said:
What's your point here? That if you take on a madman going on a shooting spree there's a possibility you'll get shot yourself? Well, gee, Einstein, thanks for cluing us in on that! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you're going to tell me what my point is then why did you bother to ask you moron? The point is everyone who advocates conceal carry talks ex post facto as if they would have had a gun they could have shot the gunman and killed them, but here was a guy with a gun and a concealed carry license and it didn't quite work out that way.

Let me put it to you another way, how many shootings in concealed carry states have come to a hasty end because of an armed civilian being in the proximity of the shooter? The NRA runs their version of Penthouse Letters each month in Rifleman Monthy, surely there's an exampe or two in there.

Azure said:
Yep. Seems he wasn't properly trained.

Why would you interfere in the first place if there are police officers close by? Could get you shot.
Click to expand...

You do realize that during this mornings shootings VT there were cops all over the place because of the murders before the massacre right? Now how does your question have any relevancy in light of Beeps quote which prompted me to cite the Tyler Courthouse shooting?

And what led you to conclude he wasn't properly trained?
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2221.html
Wilson opened an indoor gun range in Tyler, On-Target, in 1997. It was a facility focused on self-defense, say people who knew him.

Tyler cardiologist Dr. Scott Lieberman, Wilson's friend and former business associate, said Wilson was a "fundamental believer in self-defense and protection."
Click to expand...

I don't know how folks up your way are, but if you open a indoor gun range in Tyler, Texas, you'd better know what the hell you're talking about and doing.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Well, not for those 32 people killed, but that's a quibble.

Random, yes, but the simple fact is that this random things happens with greater frequency in our society than others. Perhaps we may wish to alter our society after all.

If only we could figure out how.
Click to expand...

People have already figured out the how, it's just that their agenda is not yours.
 
Tricky said:
As I understand, Australia had good success with reducing gun crime (30% drop) by passing tough national gun laws. Of course, Australia is not the US, but like the US it is relatively new to Western influences and guns were an important tool in the European settling of Australia.
Click to expand...

It's one of the few good things the Howard government has done. Mind you, it upset a lot of the country folk who happened to like their semi-automatics and handguns.

But you have made a very good point; a single massacre is a whole lot of hurt in one concentrated package. Gun deaths are far more numerous, even though they are spread out over a larger time period. And this is the problem; emotions run high on a single massacre (for good reason) and the reaction is 'if somebody had a gun, they could have shot the shooter quickly and saved lives'. Mind you, if everybody was openly encouraged by the surrounding culture to carry a weapon, those 30-odd saved lives would be replaced by a larger number of accidental shootings, suicides and spur-of-the moment murders.

You are correct that Australia is not the US; from my experience, we don't have the same cultural mentality of needing protection from a firearm. It's hardly even a concern. The reality is that the laws have made a difference. I can't say whether it would do the same in the US, but I do think the message of 'arming yourself with a weapon is more likely to do harm than prevent it' might get across.

Athon
 

removing previously edited post.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero


One would hope that a 'skeptic' would wait to have more facts available to him before engaging in political hackery. I'm sorry but to take the worst shooting in US history, where the facts were barley yet known; and turn it into an opportunity to score some pro-gun points is morally offensive to me. And I think to defend this sort of behavior is... deranged.

It literally reminds me of back in the day when some individuals here were using '9/11', practically as it was happening, as an opportunity to discuss American foreign policy and the possibility that we may have 'had it coming'.

It's not that the discussion can't take place, it's the timing. It's the available information. It's the willingness to make assumptions which conveniently support your political beliefs when we know nothing. It's the incredulous-ness that someone like me might be angry about this and call bull spit on it.

Then we have people saying "what I would have done was...", "why didn't they do this?", "I can't believe they didn't..." and we still know nothing! (Well actually we do know now, and guys what the students were doing all those things! Big surprise) I tried to point out the absurdity of this, guessing game, by providing an absurd answers. Again it reminds me of some other, common, 9/11 conversations and looked like it was coming awfully close to blaming the victim.

Now, honestly, if that doesn't do it for you, if you are still happy to second guess my intellectual fortitude, as I am guessing you have done, you aren't the sort of person I care to engage anyways. Your loss I suppose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LawnOven said:
It's not that the discussion can't take place, it's the timing.
Click to expand...

Is there an approved time period when it becomes admissable for discussion? A certain factual basis to be arrived at?

After the funerals? After Dubbya has commented? After the Coroner's report? Police report? Judicial review? Commission of Inquiry? (Allow for regional differences) After the Michael Moore film?

Cheers.
 
The Atheist said:
Is there an approved time period when it becomes admissable for discussion? A certain factual basis to be arrived at?

After the funerals? After Dubbya has commented? After the Coroner's report? Police report? Judicial review? Commission of Inquiry? (Allow for regional differences) After the Michael Moore film?

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Well that didn't take long at all. Sure, those would be honest questions if that quote wasn't taken out of the context of everything else that I've said. Cheers indeed.
 
Cain said:
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.
Click to expand...

i'm a student. if i were a gambling man, i'd bet i get drunk less often than you do. regardless, this misses the point: drinking generally occurs OFF campus, so your point is not relavent. the percentage of sober students on campus is much greater than the percentage of sober students off campus. i've been in the university for about 10 years now-- yes, i suck. don't point it out. i know i suck. i'm an idiot. ignore it.-- and i've never seen a drunken student show to class. drunked students tend to stay home.

many students already have access to firearms off campus, as many students own firearms. there have been no great dangers from these students shooting at one another, largely due to the fact that they don't tend to shoot one another, despite the fact that they often drink alcohol, and have access to guns while doing so.

hence, you fail to acknowledge that such a demographic already has access to firearms, under less than optimal conditions, yet fails to cause terror and chaos, and that such a demographic, while on campus, is rarely under less than optimal conditions. so yes, your argument is meaningless.

if you want to argue against concealed weapon permits in general, that's one thing. i know there are some excellent arguments against concealed weapon permits. however, if one is allowed to carry a concealed weapon down a busy street, into a mall, into a park, etc, why do we conclude that one is unfit to carry the weapon into a school?

look, if i can't trust someone with a gun at my school, then i can't trust them with a gun anywhere. if i can trust someone walking down the street with a gun, why would i object to him/her walking into class with a gun?

it's going to come down the idea of concealed weapon permits in general, and the scrutiny with which they are issued.

as a student, and as a citizen, i'd rather concealed weapons permits be issued, but i certainly would like serious control on these permits. as a student, and as a citizen, largely untrained in firearms handling, i would like restrictions that force me to illustrate my competency with a firearm before obtaining a permit.

UnrepentantSinner said:
If you're going to tell me what my point is then why did you bother to ask you moron? The point is everyone who advocates conceal carry talks ex post facto as if they would have had a gun they could have shot the gunman and killed them, but here was a guy with a gun and a concealed carry license and it didn't quite work out that way.
Click to expand...

i support concealed carry permits. i don't own a gun, so i would never be found carrying one. that is my choice, however, and it's a choice that i should be free to make, not one that should be legislated away.

i don't think i could manage to shoot anyone in any of these situations. i'd be too busy curled in a fetal position, crying, soiling myself. i'm a coward. i'm a wimp. i freeze up in normal confrontations. i just don't have it in me.

but other people may be well trained. other people may be able to come to my defense. in example, last term, one of my class mates had just left iraq. another three grew up using firearms, and were competent in handling firearms.

so here i am. i support concealed weapon permits, even though i know i'd not be the one with the gun.

LawnOven said:
It looks like the two shootings were related.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/campus.security/index.html

I wonder why law enforcement officers thought the shooter had left campus? And... where they thought he went.
Click to expand...

because shootings occur all the time, and almost never turn into rampages. i'm sure the university could have improved in its response, but let's not be so quick to scape goat them. i'm sure they did their best, and i'm sure that, given the evidence available at the time, they were acting what they considered to be the best course of action.

if you don't completely over react to every single threat that ever occurs, eventually something crazy will happen, and you'll not have properly prepared. do we want to accept this risk, or chain ourselves up inside a box everytime anything that might be bad is said to possibly have happened?
 
LawnOven said:

removing previously edited post.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero


One would hope that a 'skeptic' would wait to have more facts available to him before engaging in political hackery. I'm sorry but to take the worst shooting in US history, where the facts were barley yet known; and turn it into an opportunity to score some pro-gun points is morally offensive to me. And I think to defend this sort of behavior is... deranged.

It literally reminds me of back in the day when some individuals here were using '9/11', practically as it was happening, as an opportunity to discuss American foreign policy and the possibility that we may have 'had it coming'.

It's not that the discussion can't take place, it's the timing. It's the available information. It's the willingness to make assumptions which conveniently support your political beliefs when we know nothing. It's the incredulous-ness that someone like me might be angry about this and call bull spit on it.

Then we have people saying "what I would have done was...", "why didn't they do this?", "I can't believe they didn't..." and we still know nothing! (Well actually we do know now, and guys what the students were doing all those things! Big surprise) I tried to point out the absurdity of this, guessing game, by providing an absurd answers. Again it reminds me of some other, common, 9/11 conversations and looked like it was coming awfully close to blaming the victim.

Now, honestly, if that doesn't do it for you, if you are still happy to second guess my intellectual fortitude, as I am guessing you have done, you aren't the sort of person I care to engage anyways. Your loss I suppose.
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain why you edited my post?

Edit: Oh I see... haha, well you may want to head further back, I think you may have some more posts to edit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom