20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

[William Parcher]

A motivated suicidal killer could still take out dozens of students and faculty, even if some of them are armed. Some here mentioned that confusion of who is the killer would be eliminated if "everyone was firing at the same guy". But that changes if he uses some tactics. If he shoots up a room and races out to go to another room, he could shoot more people there. The only ones who know that he is the killer are the ones that saw him shooting. Those witnesses cannot give advance warning to everyone everywhere, and many might choose not to pursue the killer even if they are armed themselves. The killer could gain access to the next classroom he goes to by acting fearful and saying that "somebody is shooting down the hallway". In a school with armed students, he might even get away with it (given shelter in another room) while holding his gun in his hand. You can start to imagine other scenarios where he pretends to be a student fleeing a gunman. If an armed vigilante from the first room he hit pokes their head in the room he occupies... the killer could yell "There he is!" That would probably cause any armed students in the room to draw their weapons. Now the killer knows who has guns and shoots them first to start up another classroom massacre.

If it's a suicide pact with more than one killer (Columbine) things could get extremely confusing when combined with armed students. Again only those who have seen the actual killers can point them out to others. If the Columbine killers knew they would face armed students, one of them could have acted as a false hostage (he is concealing a gun) and pretended to be fearing his life with a gun to his head. Then the gunman starts picking off students while holding the fake hostage. Would any armed student in that room think to shoot the "hostage" and the gunman until it's too late? If some sharpshooter in that room nails the gunman, the hostage takes over and now knows who is armed. But he will be treated as if he is a "lucky guy" until he pulls his own gun. He might even flee out the window and start picking off students on the lawn after he shot up the room.

These are just imaginary scenarios when you have a motivated suicidal killer(s) that wants to inflict maximum carnage and still knows that some students may be armed. We've seen numerous cases where the killer(s) has put considerable thought and strategy into their terrible plan.

 

[Meadmaker]

Did I leave anything/one out?

I think the shooter left a note. I vaguely recall debauchery and charlatans being mentioned in the note. On JREF, the first is generally defended, and the second villified, but I haven't heard either one being linked to murder.

 

[Tailgater]

Ah, I thought you meant in general. Yes, you're quite right. Teachers could show "concern" but that is about it.

Yes. I'm more worried about when people start talking about "fixing" others.

"That guy wears black, likes guns, and listens to death metal. He needs mental healthcare before he shoots someone."

 

[Tony]

I was not aware of your avatar, nor the fact that you live in Texas. My bad. Now, when you finish your ad hominem and understand about arguments you will get it. Have a nice day sir.

In addition to making stupid arguments, you're also unaware of the meaning of "ad hominem". Read and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

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.

I never once attacked you. But I did attack your argument, calling it "stupid". So I never made an ad hominem.

To re-cap, I refute and show the absurdity of your "argument", you fail to defend it, instead you claim, without evidence, that I "don't get it", then you falsly accuse me of making an ad hom attack.

Is that how you always behave when your arguments are destroyed?

 

[Meadmaker]

Excellent point. Why do we have to find something besides the person who committed this atrocity to blame?

If "blame" means to hold morally responsible, it does seem like the shooter is the only one to blame.

Still, it might be worthwhile to ask why people who commit these sorts of acts are disproportionately likely to live in the United States. That isn't quite the same thing as "blaming" anyone, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was not aware of your avatar, nor the fact that you live in Texas. My bad. Now, when you finish your ad hominem and understand about arguments you will get it. Have a nice day sir.

You do realize that you just used two ad hominem arguments?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder what the armchair psychologists will read into the fact that he chose a Rice Krispy treat with which to kill the father.

When Rice Krispies are outlawed, only outlaws will have Rice Krispies.

I blame Kellogg's for this tragedy.

 

[BPSCG]

I think Beeps is suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong) that an armed society is a polite society. Is that essentially it?

Well, no, that wasn't really what I've been trying to say. Though I'll certainly acknowledge that if I am having a discussion with an armed man, I will make every effort to be respectful and courteous to him.

What I have been trying to say is that if society can only protect me up to a certain point, then I have a right and a responsibility to protect myself. And society has no ethical right to try to take that right away from me. The bill that would have allowed VT students to carry weapons should be revisited, in light of yesterday's events, unless the school can show a compelling reason that the population in general would be safer by continuing the ban.

Driving home from work today, I started thinking about a question I wanted to post on this forum. Maybe it needs another thread, but here goes:

1. How difficult would it be for you to bring a concealed weapon like Mr. Cho's .22 to work with you and start killing people?
2. How many people do you think you'd be able to kill, given a large supply of ammo?

I'll go first:

1) Not at all difficult. Where I work, only contractors have to go through a metal detector, and nobody checks inside my backpack.
2) I would say at least eight or ten. A lot more if I went to the cafeteria at lunch time.

(Note: I have no intention of killing anyone, now or ever. So please don't report me to your English teacher.)

That may be true. I can't say for certain what people would be like if they all lived as if everyone might have a gun. But since it's hard to tell right now who might be armed and who isn't, why aren't we already living under that assumption? Isn't it already true, at least for pratical purposes?

No, it isn't. Oh, lots of people have guns. But how many of them are carrying them around with them when they're walking the streets?

But you're right slingblade. There are no guarantees of safety; as my dad used to say, none of us is going to get out of this world alive. But we do have the right to try to keep ourselves safe.

 

[Thabiguy]

The problem is, the "no guns on campus" rule is not only not a perfect solution to a problem; it is a disastrous failure. It didn't fail in some subordinate purpose; it utterly failed in its primary ones: to keep guns off campus, and to make everyone safe. It did neither. It wasn't just imperfect; it was a catastrophic failure.

Write down the annual number of firearm victims on university grounds, per capita. Write down the annual number of firearm victims outside university grounds, per capita. Use elementary math.

If that doesn't help, I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If the professors were trained in firearms and all had a firearm at hand, or if a few select trusted students were trained in firearms and had access to a firearm, I guarantee that this guy wouldn't of killed but a fraction of the amount of people he did.

 

[Tony]

Because if there are reasons in outside of the person itself that contributed to the tragedy, perhaps if we discover those reasons and, moreover, find a way to adjust them, perhaps this type of situation can be avoided in the future.

Basically, if this type of incident requires some combination of A + B + C +D, then, while it is difficult to fix the wiring of the perp alone, if you can reasonably find ways to address B, C, and D, perhaps you can keep the combination of them below the breaking point.

I absolutely agree. But ultimatley, this guy alone made the decision to go on a shooting spree. We can address B, C, and D to the best of our abilities and without going crazy ourselves, but there will always be an A to think of new and deadly ways to harm people.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll add it to the list, along mental health care issues.

So far we have the blame going to

• abortion (parent of a Columbine victim)

• the ban on school prayer (multiple sites)

• gun control

• no gun control

• homosexuals (Phelps' usual rant)

• evil (for whatever reason God doesn't interfere)

• God (for reasons unknown, not punishment as claimed by Phelps, et al., and because obviously he controls these things)

• the university for not warning people and/or closing the campus down

• the police for not assuming a murder in a dorm meant a madman was possibly on his way to a shooting rampage

• Bush

• society

• lack of mental health care for various reasons (can't force it on someone, not available, no one took action to help shooter get it)

Did I leave anything/one out?

Oh yeah, the shooter.

Rock Music. Video Games. Kelloggs.

And stop trying to blame the shooter! It's un-American!

 

[Tailgater]

A motivated suicidal killer could still take out dozens of students and faculty, -snip-

-snip-We've seen numerous cases where the killer(s) has put considerable thought and strategy into their terrible plan.

I absolutely agree. But ultimatley, this guy alone made the decision to go on a shooting spree. We can address B, C, and D to the best of our abilities and without going crazy ourselves, but there will always be an A to think of new and deadly ways to harm people.

No kidding.

 

[Tony]

Still, it might be worthwhile to ask why people who commit these sorts of acts are disproportionately likely to live in the United States. That isn't quite the same thing as "blaming" anyone, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Absolutely. And that's a question that should be asked. But I think it's silly, in the pursuit of answering that question, to jump to the conclusion that society or guns are to blame. It's much more complicated and goes much deeper than that.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You do realize that you just used two ad hominem arguments?

yup, but note that mine are "classy"

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Still, it might be worthwhile to ask why people who commit these sorts of acts are disproportionately likely to live in the United States. That isn't quite the same thing as "blaming" anyone, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Is that true? It would be a very interesting statistic if so.

 

[Tony]

yup, but note that mine are "classy"

Since when it is "classy" to be a xenophobe and a racist?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Driving home from work today, I started thinking about a question I wanted to post on this forum. Maybe it needs another thread, but here goes:
How difficult would it be for you to bring a concealed weapon like Mr. Cho's .22 to work with you and start killing people?
How many people do you think you'd be able to kill, given a large supply of ammo?

Well, I'm a student, so I could get 30 in just one class. But I absolutely hate my school's policy. They tell us to line up against the wall in the case of a shooting! WTF? I'm sure it is to make the room look empty, but come on. The shooter would have to be a moron.

 

[Tony]

Good, now try and apply that logic to the terrorist bombings in Iraq.

Why?

 

[William Parcher]

If the professors were trained in firearms and all had a firearm at hand, or if a few select trusted students were trained in firearms and had access to a firearm, I guarantee that this guy wouldn't of killed but a fraction of the amount of people he did.

Then the killer knows to shoot the professor first without giving any warning. Then don't just stand there and shoot at others...take some form of cover (the doorway?) and start popping and ducking. If you see anyone in the room with a gun, you focus on them or just flee. If you get return fire from the room, you flee. Just as you are about to duck into another room, you hide your gun and pretend to be running from a killer. You can give a "description" of the killer or not. You might get those students to help you barracade the door and even find out if any are armed by asking for just that. At the right moment you drop the proff and start banging away at any known students with guns.

If you are the killer and you intentionally give false information to students who do not know you are the killer, you could ramp up the deaths. Of course it's all going to stop at some point, but the death toll might still be something like at VT.