20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

[Pardalis]

Easy; he's the one lying on the floor with the bullet in his back. The good guy is the one who everyone is thanking and hugging.

Now come on, that's assuming the good guy won't miss.

What if he misses? Now you have two people duking it out with fire guns in a public place, which increases the chaos and the chances of people getting killed.

Um, the bad guy is the one who's already shot three or four people? And the good guy is the one who shot him? Really, how hard can it be to figure out?

Again, that's assuming the good guy is Jack Bauer and knows exactly what has happened, has a good understanding of what is happening and knows what to do. Edit: and assuming he has a perfect aim and vantage point.

That assuming alot. We're talking about a very chaotic and spontaneous situation here.

 

[shanek]

If you can prove that handguns prevent more crimes than they cause then you have a good argument for ownership.

Kleck, Gary and Marc Gertz. 1995. “Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-defense with a Gun.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 86(1):150-187.

The body of the paper is here: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll concede that that scenario is rare - brave NRA member takes down guy shooting up local shopping mall. But "convenience store owner shoots holdup man" is a staple of your 5:00 pm "Eyewitless News" broadcast. And how many crimes never happen in the first place when the would-be perpetrators discover their mark has a gun?* There was a story out of Katrina about a guy sitting on his front porch in the aftermath, running a generator, when a couple of toughs walked up to his house and told him they were taking his generator. He said he thought they were mistaken, and they left, agreeing that he and his shotgun had made a convincing argument in his favor.

* I realize that that rhetorical question is completely unanswerable.

And interestingly those are not examples of people carrying concealed in there day to day lives but in a breakdown of law and order that blackwater was sent into(why a PMC was used in the US to maintain order, but that is a seperate thread) and someone in a job that is more likely to expect a violent confrontation.

But something interesting would be to see what the posession of a fire arm does to the various odds in a convience store hold up. How often does it improve the situation, how often does it result in a worse result?

 

[Mephisto]

But this would often be a bad choice. If they where thinking hostage standoff and not spree killer, then the choice was a much more correct one.

So encouraging the first officers at the sceen to engage the gunman is often a bad idea.

Any tactic will have situations it is poorly suited to, and this was such a situation. So you need to look at the most common kinds of situation and have your tactics for that, and hope that if it is a different situation it will be quickly identified and have a change in responce.

But how could they be thinking "hostage standoff" when there were sounds of gunfire and screams issuing from the engineering building? Would it have been better to engage the suspect face-on even IF he had hostages rather than allow him to wander from room to room (as he was doing) shooting people?

If police officers with M-16s aren't prepared to engage an armed assailant, why are they even there? They were essentially only protecting themselves, which could have been done by simply not being on the scene. If they weren't prepared to engage the suspect they could just as easily have been carrying rakes.

The alternative would have been to surround the building, send in a robot (in case there were explosives), possibly send in a canine and when he didn't return (FINALLY) breech the building hours later. In the meantime, there could potentially have been a dead student for every round the attacker brought with him.

Our military enters dangerous buildings every day in Iraq - I feel that if our police want to dress like soldiers, and want to carry weapons that soldiers carry, they should learn soldier's tactics and neutralize a situation quickly and effectively. Waiting outside with assault rifles pointed at the windows is only effective against snipers like Charles Whitman, NOT against gunmen who want to kill everyone in the building.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But how could they be thinking "hostage standoff" when there were sounds of gunfire and screams issuing from the engineering building? Would it have been better to engage the suspect face-on even IF he had hostages rather than allow him to wander from room to room (as he was doing) shooting people?

How long did they wait after hearing that?

If police officers with M-16s aren't prepared to engage an armed assailant, why are they even there? They were essentially only protecting themselves, which could have been done by simply not being on the scene. If they weren't prepared to engage the suspect they could just as easily have been carrying rakes.

The alternative would have been to surround the building, send in a robot (in case there were explosives), possibly send in a canine and when he didn't return (FINALLY) breech the building hours later. In the meantime, there could potentially have been a dead student for every round the attacker brought with him.

Our military enters dangerous buildings every day in Iraq - I feel that if our police want to dress like soldiers, and want to carry weapons that soldiers carry, they should learn soldier's tactics and neutralize a situation quickly and effectively. Waiting outside with assault rifles pointed at the windows is only effective against snipers like Charles Whitman, NOT against gunmen who want to kill everyone in the building.

So we should stop having negotiators and just kick in the doors now? That would seem to be very different from previous arguements you have made about how potential standoffs should be resolved.

 

[shanek]

I understand your point. The "firing crowd" might have been an exaggeration. But wouldn't having more than one person firing a gun make the police's job even trickier? How are they going to tell them appart, which is the bad guy? How are the other people going to tell which one is which?

I can't believe people are seriously asking that question...

If a guy is shooting someone who's shooting other people, it's completely clear. If it's just two guys shooting at each other, there's not much you can do anyway. Once one of them prevails, if he then goes on to shoot others, you can pretty much conclude that he's the bad guy.

Honestly, is the lack of thought level this bad nowadays???

 

[Mephisto]

How long did they wait after hearing that?

According to the law enforcement specialist watching the student video, these officers never tried to breech the building. He stated (obviously using information from a timeline) that the building wasn't breeched until some time later by a SWAT team).

So we should stop having negotiators and just kick in the doors now? That would seem to be very different from previous arguements you have made about how potential standoffs should be resolved.

I think a negotiator isn't necessary once you hear gunfire, screams and hear of bloody people jumping out of second story windows.

 

[Katana]

According to the law enforcement specialist watching the student video, these officers never tried to breech the building. He stated (obviously using information from a timeline) that the building wasn't breeched until some time later by a SWAT team).

That does seem odd.

Were they aware that there was only one shooter?

 

[Pardalis]

I can't believe people are seriously asking that question...

If a guy is shooting someone who's shooting other people, it's completely clear. If it's just two guys shooting at each other, there's not much you can do anyway. Once one of them prevails, if he then goes on to shoot others, you can pretty much conclude that he's the bad guy.

Honestly, is the lack of thought level this bad nowadays???

First of all, there's no need to be rude.

But in a situation like this, nobody knows exactly what is going on. You have the luxury of having the news reported to you after the fact, but put yourself in that situation for a sec. You hear shots being fired, people scream, you see a silhouette passing and firing at people. Then there's a massive rush of people trying to get out of there.

That's it. That's the entire data you have of what is going on.

Now add another shooter to the mix.

 

[Kerberos]

Now come on, that's assuming the good guy won't miss.

What if he misses? Now you have two people duking it out with fire guns in a public place, which increases the chaos and the chances of people getting killed.

No, It really doesn't. One gunman systematically lining up people and shooting them in the head will kill far more people than two gunmen shooting at each other, spending some of their time taking cover, only hitting others by mistake, and probably not in the head. The real argument against more guns to solve situations like this is not that it would make the situation worse, because that's hardly possible, but what those guns might be used for the 99,999% of the time where no armed psycho is runninng rampage through the university.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK, this is the tenth page. Is anyone else starting to get worried about Claus?

 

[Mephisto]

That does seem odd.

Were they aware that there was only one shooter?

I'm pretty sure that was still unclear at the time, so that may explain their reluctance. Still four trained officers with automatic weapons makes a considerable force against even two or three citizens armed with "over-the-counter" firearms.

Certainly there were other officers similarly armed on the other (unseen) side of the building - had they coordinated entry it would have been nearly impossible for even multiple gunmen to engage them all effectively.

 

[Mephisto]

OK, this is the tenth page. Is anyone else starting to get worried about Claus?

HEY! You're right! Maybe he's asleep now, I'm sure he'll jump in tonight.

 

[Katana]

A little info about the shooter.

Professor Carolyn Rude, chairwoman of the university’s English department, said she did not personally know the gunman. But she said she spoke with Lucinda Roy, the department’s director of creative writing, who had Cho in one of her classes and described him as “troubled.”

“There was some concern about him,” Rude told The Associated Press. “Sometimes, in creative writing, people reveal things and you never know if it’s creative or if they’re describing things, if they’re imagining things or just how real it might be. But we’re all alert to not ignore things ike this.”

She said Cho was referred to the counseling service, but she said she did not know when or what the outcome was. Rude refused to release any of his writings or his grades, citing privacy laws.

NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that police had found a note in which Cho listed “random grievances,” but few other details were immediately available. That seemed in keeping for a young man who apparently left little impression in the Virginia Tech community.

Link

It would be very interesting to know what was so concerning about his writing. You have to figure these professors see some whacky stuff not infrequently, but I doubt that they recommend counseling every time. It must have been pretty notable.

 

[LawnOven]

That seemed in keeping for a young man who apparently left little impression in the Virginia Tech community.

Some how I think the media wants this to be a highschool shooting rather than a shooting on a campus of 26,000. Was everyone at the school supposed to know him?

 

[Katana]

Some how I think the media wants this to be a highschool shooting rather than a shooting on a campus of 26,000. Was everyone at the school supposed to know him?

I think that it's more that, aside from the professor, they can't find anyone who knew him.

 

[Mephisto]

It would be very interesting to know what was so concerning about his writing. You have to figure these professors see some whacky stuff not infrequently, but I doubt that they recommend counseling every time. It must have been pretty notable.

I agree 100%. Having taught remedial English, I was exposed to some pretty strange lines of thought and they usually had to do with either the two subjects that will make any English teacher roll his/her eyes; abortion and gun-control.

I'd often read things that made me constantly watch a student's hands, but never anything that made me want to recommend counseling. I'm sure the privacy laws will expediently vanish when People magazine makes its offer to print the letters or the grades.

 

[Katana]

I agree 100%. Having taught remedial English, I was exposed to some pretty strange lines of thought and they usually had to do with either the two subjects that will make any English teacher roll his/her eyes; abortion and gun-control.

I'd often read things that made me constantly watch a student's hands, but never anything that made me want to recommend counseling. I'm sure the privacy laws will expediently vanish when People magazine makes it offer to print the letters or the grades.

If the writings become evidence, can they be made public then?

 

[LawnOven]

I think that it's more that, aside from the professor, they can't find anyone who knew him.

Jeez, I guess with the exception of the possibility a girlfriend; whom he shot.

But still he lived in a dorm... its hard to avoid contact with people in that sort of situation. His neighbors didn't even know him?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can't believe people are seriously asking that question...

If a guy is shooting someone who's shooting other people, it's completely clear. If it's just two guys shooting at each other, there's not much you can do anyway. Once one of them prevails, if he then goes on to shoot others, you can pretty much conclude that he's the bad guy.

Honestly, is the lack of thought level this bad nowadays???

And as a police officer you shoot anyone you see with a gun after entering the building who is not also a police officer.