20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

[Thabiguy]

if we want to reduce accidental deaths at universities, we better start filling those damned pools with concrete. (i have no idea if anyone has ever died in a pool at any campus, but in general, they are responsible for a greater percentage of accidental deaths than are accidental shootings... as i recall!)

Swimming pools provide students with means of recreation, sport and entertainment. They are beneficial to millions of students all year long.

Please name ANY purpose of carrying a gun on school grounds, other than being a theoretical defense against school shooting and being a risk for accidents and passion crimes.

 

[merentha]

What sort of firearms training are we talking about? Does it include training on how to handle emergency situations such as a gunman on the loose, and how to recognise said gunman? I don't see people with guns bringing down the shooter before he kills more people. I see "friendly fire" - people with guns bringing down other innocent folks with guns whom they've wrongly identified as the shooter during the chaos. One hears gunfire and the first instinct is likely to shoot the first guy whom one sees holding a gun, and he happened to have pulled out his gun because he, too, heard shots fired. Only in movies are the shooters always correctly identified at first sight in a chaotic situation.

 

[Cain]

i'm a student. if i were a gambling man, i'd bet i get drunk less often than you do.

I'd take that bet -- and the only way I'd lose is if you've been drunk a negative number of times.

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.

Are you drunk right now? What kind of campus are you talking about? You say students drink "OFF" campus, but "drunked students tend to stay home." So you're talking about a commuter school, what?

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.

Are you familiar with frat houses? Do you imagine people get drunk at frat houses? Do you think fights break out?

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?

In the first place, U.S. law says one has to be 21 years of age in order to purchase a handgun. Oh noes, we've just deprived a number of our would-be protectors from having a gun, unless you want to lower the age restriction. I'm less uneasy about a forty-five year old man with two kids carrying a concealed weapon (for which he has a permit), than a young kid (who has never really demonstrated responsibility), away from home, away from his family, more at risk for binge drinking, suicide, stress, jealousy, fighting, miscellaneous macho b*ll**** and depression. People don't typically kill anonymous strangers at the park or mall. They kill people they know. And gosh, why do states have those totally ridiculous laws against allowing firearms into bars. You're ignoring the culture of campus life.

Finally, there's the issue of not only having a student with a gun in the right place at the right time, but he's willing and able to frustrate the attacker without compounding the atrocities. I recall hearing on the news earlier today some students saying they thought there was a second attacker. In these types of chaotic situations you don't want lots of people pulling out their guns, hysterical students getting the wrong impression, passing on bad information to the authorities, and so on.

It's a ridiculous "solution" in search of a problem.

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.

I don't really mind if people who have demonstrated competence own and carry a weapon. I think the police should have guns. The burden of proof is on individuals to demonstrate ability, which is what you're arguing for with the above regulations. You seem to be arguing people should be held accountable, and that this is a privilege that can be taken away. But there are different contexts: a person carrying a weapon in a place that serves alcohol versus a campus versus an airplane versus downtown versus the country side.

 

[Cylinder]

I have no problem with BP bringing up the gun control subject. But when the delightful Dana Perino, Bush's acting Press Secretary, weighs in likewise, it sticks in my craw.

Does the president's first statement on this have to score political points for the NRA? He couldn't wait even a few hours before he starts to flog this point? I guess he can't help himself.

Oh, and did you know that shooting people at school is against the law and someone ought to be held accountable? Ya think!?!?

Oh, and where would we get the idea that Bush thinks all laws have to be followed? His words and deeds leave a lot of wiggle room.

Ass-hatism at its highest.

You are quoting out-of-context and being a bit dishonest in your characterization. The "statement" you cite is a direct answer to a presser's question:

Q Dana, going back to Virginia Tech, what more does this White House think needs to be done as it relates to gun issues? The President says current laws need to be strengthened, anything beyond that -- you had a conference on school violence with guns -- what more needs to be done?

MS. PERINO: I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October -- October 10, 2006 -- a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America's heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration.

As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting -- I don't want to say numbers because I know that they're still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.

Here is "the president's first statement on this:"

Good afternoon. I have several announcements and then we'll go to questions.

The President was made aware of the Virginia Tech shootings. He was horrified and his immediate reaction was one of deep concern for the families of the victims, the victims, themselves, the students, the professors and all the people of Virginia who have dealt with this shocking incident. And his thoughts and prayers are with them; we are monitoring the situation. And while state and local authorities are in the lead right now -- I think that will remain the case, but federal assets are available should they be needed, if Virginia were to request them.

Nowhere in the prepared statement does the Ms. Perino make anything resembling a partisan political statement concerning the shooting.

 

[OMGturt1es]

There are many things that can prevent accidents but there's no reason to derail this thread to reply to your strawman. Suffice it to say I advocate reducing risk wherever you can.

But that wasn't what I said. I said in order to have enough people carrying guns to have one in the right place at the right time with those skills you mention, you would have to have so many additional guns in circulation among young college students that the accidental and rage shooting incidents would most certainly increase the gun fatality rate by well over 32 additional deaths. You can look up the data to see how many fatal accidents there are per gun owned to show that no brainer.

and i said it's not so simple. perhaps you are right, but it's not that simple.

i pointed out that there need only have been one student prevented from concealed carry in any of the involved class rooms to have possibly ended the event more quickly. if we assume 30 students per class, and at least two class rooms involved, we're talking about one in 60 students.

and i think that's a very conservative estimate, and it completely eliminates conjecture of students attempting to save the day that were not completely involved and in necessary risk.

i also pointed out that one can't just attribute accidental gun death rates to the conceal carry demographic. this is a demographic that i would suspect has a habit of being far more safe. do you disagree?

so, no, it's not at all a straw man. i don't understand how you can think it is. if i was unclear in my attempts to make the relavent points i've revisited above, i apologize.

But your version, the one well trained person with the gun, is a fantasy. I can fantasize too.

as i pointed out, there were at least two in my class last term. it's a statistic, not a fantasy. how likely it is, i don't know, but i do know that people that are well trained with firearms do exist.

I fantasize this guy's ex-girlfriend (if that's what set the guy off) recognized the warning signs because we educate everyone about them, and the ex-girlfriend went to police who actually took her seriously and because legislation had been passed that gave police the power to take action before the girl is murdered (rather than just giving her a restraining order and telling her to file a complaint when he violates it so they can arrest him let him out on bail more pissed than before the restraining order, not tell her, and return to kill her). In my fantasy the police arrest this guy before he fires a single shot. They search his residence and find the plan and weapons so he is held without bond, convicted, and by the time he gets out of jail, she's finished college and her can't find her.

I mean as long as you're fantasizing....

to make the above relavent, let's fantasize that the girlfriend needed a permit to approach the police, but that the permit was not valid on school grounds.

in dicussing the merits of any legislation, we need to deal with the hypothetical. it's neither fantacy to suggest that perhaps there were warning signs to which others could have taken notice, nor is it fantacy to suggest that an armed student could have ended this event sooner.

the likelyhood of any of these events may be inferred by statistics. it's not fantacy. it's numbers.

and like i said, i don't know the numbers. i can only make rough guesses.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Swimming pools provide students with means of recreation, sport and entertainment. They are beneficial to millions of students all year long.

Please name ANY purpose of carrying a gun on school grounds, other than being a theoretical defense against school shooting and being a risk for accidents and passion crimes.

i don't generally swim. i'd take the protection over the pool anyday.



but yeah, that's a fair point. but i think you're ignoring my point; both pools and guns offer benefits and risks. both risks are relatively very low. if we start freaking out over one, but not the other... why? how can we justify it?

i live in an area where the population is largely armed, yet the the rate of shootings is very, very low. if i'm willing to live near a pool, why not a gun?

 

[OMGturt1es]

I'd take that bet -- and the only way I'd lose is if you've been drunk a negative number of times.

and that's why i don't gamble. i can assure you, the odds were in my favor.

so you've never been drunk? frankly, i think it's over rated. i hate getting drunk. it annoys me after about five minutes. still, i can't imagine never experiencing it...

Are you drunk right now?

i'm done with you. i'm not responding further without an apology, and a promise to treat me with some sort of respect. i was trying to be friendly. i'm not going to respond if you want to throw insults.

 

[Thabiguy]

but yeah, that's a fair point. but i think you're ignoring my point; both pools and guns offer benefits and risks. both risks are relatively very low. if we start freaking out over one, but not the other... why? how can we justify it?

Risks can be justified by appropriate benefits. That's why we don't shut down trains and airports and cars are not illegal. Risks of all these are low, while benefits are constant and overwhelming.

With guns on school grounds, the alleged benefits are not only miniscule, but they are actually less likely than the risks. Even if every single person killed in school massacres were miraculously saved by a sharp-shooting student killing the murderer(s), it wouldn't even compensate for the lives lost in accidents. For every person there is to save, seven others would die from accidental discharge. Which would still be acceptable if there was some other awesome benefit - but there is no other purported benefit than theoretically saving those people. Ergo, the benefits are but illusory.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm wondering if we have to allow are primary schoolers to conceal carry, too.

 

[OMGturt1es]

With guns on school grounds, the alleged benefits are not only miniscule, but they are actually less likely than the risks. Even if every single person killed in school massacres were miraculously saved by a sharp-shooting student killing the murderer(s), it wouldn't even compensate for the lives lost in accidents. For every person there is to save, seven others would die from accidental discharge. Which would still be acceptable if there was some other awesome benefit - but there is no other purported benefit than theoretically saving those people. Ergo, the benefits are but illusory.

well, as i posted in response to another's post, i don't think general population risks can be exstended to those that can qualify to carry concealed weapons. i'd think that the concealed weapons demographic would suffer fewer accidents.

maybe i'm wrong. i haven't seen the numbers. i don't know if they exist. but if we're going to compare numbers, we need to look at the relavent numbers.

 

[OMGturt1es]

I'm wondering if we have to allow are primary schoolers to conceal carry, too.

are they even old enough to own firearms, let alone concealed carry permits? if not, then your question is meaningless. i actually don't know, to be honest. i don't think children should have concealed weapons permits. kids suck.

 

[Rolfe]

Just my tuppenceworth, from a country with extremely tight gun control.

This reminds me of the move to prevent paracetamol being sold in packets of more than 32 (in a chemist's shop) or 16 (in a supermarket). Point of the exercise being to cut down on or prevent suicides by paracetamol overdose. I thought it was pointless, because obviously anyone who wants to acquire enough paracetamol only has to go from shop to shop until they have enough. In fact, a full packet of 32 will do you no good at all.

A medic friend explained the rationale. You're not going to stop the determined suicide who is planning it all out. What you will do is give pause to the potential suicide overcome by depression at three in the morning, and who simply takes what happens to be in the house. Which just happens to be a fair-sized majority. These people don't seem to develop cunning with the dawning of the day and go on a buying trip either - by then the impulse is past. It actually seems to work.

Now there is such tight gun control in this country that even the Olympic shooting team have to travel abroad to train (or they did at one time, they may have relaxed things a bit). Nevertheless, I'm pretty damn sure that if you're a hard-core bad guy you will be able to acquire the weapon of your choice illegally. Recent events in the London area (murders of individuals by shooting) suggest that this happens a lot, despite the law and best efforts at enforcing.

What does not happen is the scenario of the disaffected young man suddenly deciding to gun down his classmates or ex-classmates, and being able to make this a reality with little or no effort or planning. Because most of these people are not the hard-core bad guys who already have a gun.

You won't stop the calculating, determined suicide, but you will stop the impulse-buy suicide. Which just happens to be a lot of people. You won't stop the hard-core bad guy getting his gun. But these people tend to be one-at-a-time murderers, usually of other bad guys. Yes, shooting of innocents has happened, but the suspicion is often of mistaken identity or just plain carelessness rather than a deliberate intention to massacre strangers.

It will be interesting to find out more about the killer in the present incident.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

are they even old enough to own firearms, let alone concealed carry permits? if not, then your question is meaningless. i actually don't know, to be honest. i don't think children should have concealed weapons permits. kids suck.

Don't understand why it is a meaningless question, after all the ages we set for most things in legislation are rather arbitrary - so if say a 16 year old can own a gun why not a 15 year old - it's rather like the age of consent arguments - in the end (at least currently) we pick an arbitrary age and use that.

 

[fuelair]

No, they weren't all white.

Let's just say, they don't "need" to come in to justify the shooters actions so I doubt they will be involved.

Since this is seperate from what initiated it - Sharpton or Jackson - the Revenants or whatever.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I suspect this is sadly something deep in the human psyche, we can extend grief only a very small distance from ourselves so, one person being killed we can "emotionally" understand, even 2 or 3 or a dozen, but by the time we reach 13,700 we have no "emotional" understanding and the figure is just a figure on a page.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Josef Stalin

 

[OMGturt1es]

Don't understand why it is a meaningless question, after all the ages we set for most things in legislation are rather arbitrary - so if say a 16 year old can own a gun why not a 15 year old - it's rather like the age of consent arguments - in the end (at least currently) we pick an arbitrary age and use that.

AUP asked if we must now allow kids in primary schools to carry concealed weapons to school. i assumed he was suggesting that allowing primary school aged children to carry concealed weapons to class was an inherent implication of allowing concealed carry permits to extend to school campuses and class rooms.

i don't think primary aged children are old enough to obtain concealed weapons permits. i don't know all the laws, though. but if they don't qualify for concealed weapons permits, then such a scenerio isn't possible.

if AUP was simply asking a question, then i apologize for calling it pointless.

 

[Thabiguy]

maybe i'm wrong. i haven't seen the numbers. i don't know if they exist. but if we're going to compare numbers, we need to look at the relavent numbers.

Feel free to look them up. Please note that I've only mentioned accidental discharges so far. Taking into consideration accidents and homicides, your method of screening would have to ensure that accidents and homicides are 223x less likely on university grounds than in general U.S. population.

Assuming that every single university massacre death is prevented.

Just to compensate for deaths by gun misuse.

If you think that you can equip enough students with guns to save 100% of the massacre victims, then you must *at the same time* (with all these guns among the students) make the university grounds 223x safer from gun misuse than general U.S. Can't ensure that? Then the guns among the students have no benefits and are a pure threat.

If you think you can equip enough students with guns to save 50% of the massacre victims, you must *at the same time* (with all these guns among the students) make the university grounds 446x safer from gun misuse than general U.S. Can't ensure that? Then the guns among the students have no benefits and are a pure threat.

Are you beginning to see the point?

 

[Meadmaker]

Facts are, if you have students carrying out campus, properly trained of course, with concealed weapons, something like this could be prevented.

I heard an interesting caller on talk radio yesterday. He was from Utah. They had a mall shoot-up there not terribly long ago. He noted that gun laws in Utah were about as liberal as anywhere. (i.e. In Utah, there are very few restrictions. It is very easy to get a gun and a concealed weapons permt.)

And yet, the guy kept shooting.

Has there ever been a case in which a murderer murdered someone, and was apparently about to murder someone else, but gunfire from a private citizen prevented the murder?

 

[SirPhilip]

Anyone with a 10/22 rifle and a 50 round banana clip can produce far higher casualties, had this been any basic AR-15 pattern rifle, indiscriminate hits would have resulted in far greater casualties, and secondary hits, passing through several people and walls. Gunshot sensors and armed security guards would have bought little time. It's surprising that these spree killers are never coordinated - a 'trained' shooter can clear a classroom like that in seconds. Armed security guards should be on university campuses for other reasons anyway. Bottom line is, you can't prevent it, reduce it, or make it more difficult, the same thing can be accomplished whether it be with a firearm or a car, or a bomb, or any other means. He could have just as easily taken an SUV during a period students were assembled outside and ran more over - and gotten away; a far uglier situation.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Feel free to look them up. Please note that I've only mentioned accidental discharges so far. Taking into consideration accidents and homicides, your method of screening would have to ensure that accidents and homicides are 223x less likely on university grounds than in general U.S. population.

do these statistics exist for concealed carry permit demographics? i don't have time to look up the statistics.

removing certain demographics (drug related crimes, robberies, gang shootings, etc), that are likely not to be found within the concealed weapon demographic, should have significant affects on the demographics.

and i would suspect that crimes of passion and rage are lower within the concealed weapon demographic, but i could be wrong.

but yeah, i don't have time to try to find the stats.