20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

1) Let basically anyone in a country to have weapons legally.

2) Watch how some of them kill each other, even for "fun".

 

[Kopji]

Reverend George Bush is giving a sermon.

 

[steverino]

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.

I am sorry for your tragedy. I don't know much about you, but did read about your terrible accident. I have on many occasions on this forum brought up the fact that we lose almost 70 Americans a day to drunk driving fatalities, and that this horrible reality does not spark outrage in our society in the same proportion as the American death toll in Iraq, or high profile incidents, such as the VT massacre. People should be taking to the streets, marching. There should be high profile Hollywood stars lending their hearts and souls to the cause of not mixing alcohol with driving they way they so generously do to war protests and global warming. It seems it takes a "boutique" drunk driving incident involving a Paris Hilton, or Mel Gibson to make any waves.

I am not sure how one wraps one's mind around the politics of this underrepresented issue. Some high profile DUI deaths have been attributed to illegal aliens. Arguments have played out between Heraldo and O'Rielly. Some of these arguments sound valid, otheres sound more like scapegoating.

While this is all a bit off-topic, it is worth pointing out that the car seems to be as deadly as the gun.

 

[Pardalis]

but what actually happened was that 32 defenseless people were murdered.

Didn't you say yourself that not everyone would have gun in their possession anyway? So it's not a certainty that a person would have had a gun at that time and place when that madman began to shoot people down.

 

[Lonewulf]

1) Let basically anyone in a country to have weapons legally.

Who's been saying this? I don't agree with giving firearms to the mentally challenged and to those with a criminal record.

Otherwise, yes. I think that private citizens should have the tools necessary to defend themselves if need be. I believe that humans have a human-given "right to life", but I also think that humans have a responsibility to work towards protecting that life; such as being able to get a job, being able to defend themselves against attackers, etc.

2) Watch how some of them kill each other, even for "fun".

Ah hah. So you're claiming that anti-gun control advocates actually want to kill each other "for fun"? Or just that they somehow don't care about human life?

Because if it's the latter, then it's obvious that you are not worth my time.

If it's the former, then you are definitely not worth my time.

Didn't you say yourself that not everyone would have gun in their possession anyway? So it's not a certainty that a person would have had a gun at that time and place when that madman began to shoot people down.

Not a certainty, no. But at least they would not be prevented (by law) from potentially being ready to defend themselves if need be.

 

[Pardalis]

Not a certainty, no. But at least they would not be prevented (by law) from potentially being ready to defend themselves if need be.

Wouldn't posting more trained security guards at universities be more effective than hoping that a regular Joe might hit his target in a shooting free for all?

 

[Tailgater]

I believe the idea is the shooter could kill someone and take their gun and ammo, because all you have to do is walk over their corpse, and any useful items they are carrying will be automatically added to your inventory with an audible clicking sound.

Or maybe he will enter stealth mode and climb through the secret vent shaft to find the grenades, body armor and medical packs.

 

[BPSCG]

Didn't you say yourself that not everyone would have gun in their possession anyway? So it's not a certainty that a person would have had a gun at that time and place when that madman began to shoot people down.

No, it's not. What is a certainty is that those people were prohibited from carrying a gun, making Seung-Hui's job easier; he could kill as many people as he wanted, constrained only by the amount of ammo he could carry.

What is the rationale by which society can say, "The police can't be everywhere, and we cannot guarantee your safety, but you are forbidden to take reasonable precautions to protect yourself?"

Are any of the people who last year were so happy that students were forbidden to carry...

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

...rethinking their positions today? Does Larry Hincker still believe that the General Assembly's actions have helped make parents, students, faculty, and visitors safe on VT's campus?

We're hearing on the news how VT is the size of a small city and that it's no more possible to police the whole campus and guarantee everyone's safety than it is to guarantee the safety of everyone in a small city. The difference is, in the small city, people are allowed to keep and bear arms. At Virginia Tech, they're not.

 

[Tailgater]

Wouldn't posting more trained security guards at universities be more effective than hoping that a regular Joe might hit his target in a shooting free for all?

Yes, but the problem is, the chances of this happening does not justify spending the money on more guards. At most schools, this will never happen.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Wouldn't posting more trained security guards at universities be more effective than hoping that a regular Joe might hit his target in a shooting free for all?

Again, is this type of incident a frequent enough occurrence to justify the cost of adding more armed security?

Or maybe he will enter stealth mode and climb through the secret vent shaft to find the grenades, body armor and medical packs.

Well, that's where this kid screwed up. Engineering is probably light on health packs (unless he's a cyborg, maybe). Should have headed to the Biology building.

 

[pgwenthold]

Didn't you say yourself that not everyone would have gun in their possession anyway? So it's not a certainty that a person would have had a gun at that time and place when that madman began to shoot people down.

Even in Texas, which has never been confused with a pacifistic state, only about 1 in 100 actually has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Assuming that the students at VT would have the same rate, and that they were all carrying a weapon, there would only be a 25% chance that a single student would have a weapon in a classroom of 30.

Morover, given that the fraction of 20 year olds that would be carrying a concealed weapon, even if it were legal, is much lower than the average of Texas, the chance that someone in a classroom would have a weapon is probably pretty small.

 

[BPSCG]

Or maybe he will enter stealth mode and climb through the secret vent shaft to find the grenades, body armor and medical packs.

Hah! I spit on your "stealth mode." If you were truly a Doom player, you would have no need of such cheating devices.

Plus you could kill the giant mechanical spider with your fist.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, but the problem is, the chances of this happening does not justify spending the money on more guards. At most schools, this will never happen.

Right. The same argument applies about people carrying weapons "just in case" something like this happens.

 

[Lonewulf]

Wouldn't posting more trained security guards at universities be more effective than hoping that a regular Joe might hit his target in a shooting free for all?

If the regular Joe was encouraged to take training classes with his firearm? No.

Also, you may find it interesting when I tell you about security guards that use the wrong procedures in school zones. I'm talking about guards that force children to the ground, hold dogs just inches from the kids, and actually point their firearms at the children. Scary stuff, neh?

Personally, I don't think that security guards are automatically "better" than a man with training with his firearm and took basic classes on how to properly handle his firearm. But I'm crazy in that I don't assume that guns give you some sort of virus that make you insane.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hah! I spit on your "stealth mode." If you were truly a Doom player, you would have no need of such cheating devices.

Plus you could kill the giant mechanical spider with your fist.

Doom had grenades?

 

[Kerberos]

No, it's not. What is a certainty is that those people were prohibited from carrying a gun, making Seung-Hui's job easier; he could kill as many people as he wanted, constrained only by the amount of ammo he could carry.

What is the rationale by which society can say, "The police can't be everywhere, and we cannot guarantee your safety, but you are forbidden to take reasonable precautions to protect yourself?"

Are any of the people who last year were so happy that students were forbidden to carry...

...rethinking their positions today? Does Larry Hincker still believe that the General Assembly's actions have helped make parents, students, faculty, and visitors safe on VT's campus?

Not if they're rational (yes propostrous I know). Yes guns would in this case either have helped or made no difference but, as many people have pointed out, these kidns of events are so incredibly rare that policy should not be based on them.

 

[Tailgater]

Right. The same argument applies about people carrying weapons "just in case" something like this happens.

Not exactly. Someone carrying a weapon is up to them. Armed guards requires money spent from a budget.

 

[Lonewulf]

Right. The same argument applies about people carrying weapons "just in case" something like this happens.

Keeping citizens from being able to obtain firearms has obviously not stopped the attack. That was the entire goal, and it failed.

 

[Pardalis]

Not exactly. Someone carrying a weapon is up to them. Armed guards requires money spent from a budget.

Yes, I didn't respond clearly, I meant something along the lines of Kerberos's last post, that it it doesn't justify an entire policy.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not exactly. Someone carrying a weapon is up to them. Armed guards requires money spent from a budget.

Precisely. A budget whose increase will be either be paid by an increase in taxes for all or by an increase in tuition for students, and probably both.