• 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

Indeed, non shooters don't realize just how difficult it is to actually hit a rapidly moving target with a pistol in a crisis situation, but action movies would have you believe it is as simple as point and clicking. The only reason he was able to kill so many people was they were confined yet attempting to move away from him. Had he stepped through that door and was immediately tackled, he would have been completely taken off guard, even if he managed to drop the assailant. There was also, apparently, three shots for every victim. I would be living with a lot of guilt had I ran away in such a situation. Sad..

I agree, and people should be taught to stay away from the notion that hiding beneath a desk offers any protection at all. In a fair number of workplace shootings those killed are found in that location.

One piece of advice we learned this week is that employees should not hide under their desks. Moving targets are harder to hit, one consultant with an extensive background in workplace violence noted. Better security, however, will only go so far. Knowledgeable observers also suggest employers should work to create an environment where employees believe the are being treated fairly.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/041307/opi_2007041365.shtml

Here in the U.S. there is such a history of workplace violence that there are several websites dedicated to addressing that particular problem. Certainly students and the general public could benefit from plans such as these:

Homicides in the workplace—677 last year—represent a relatively small share of the 18,000 to 20,000 homicides nationwide, says Eugene Rugala, supervisory special agent at the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at Quantico, Va. But according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, each year about 1 million workers are victims of nonfatal workplace violence. “Most are simple assaults,” says Rugala.

Yet the costs are enormous. Paula Leslie, founder of Essential Life Strategies, a consulting firm in Palo Alto, Calif., says that statistics, including some from the National Center for Health Statistics, indicate that the annual tab for violence as well as stress-inducing hostility in the workplace comes to about “$13.5 billion in medical costs [and] 500,000 workers missing 1.75 million days of work.”

As frightening as the numbers are, the situation may, in fact, be even worse. “Our guess is that half of the violent incidents are not reported,” says Peek-Asa. “Some industries, like fast-food chains, don’t share their data.”

“Nobody’s immune—there’s some level of violence going on everywhere,” says Rugala. “Statistically, workplace homicide is an infrequent event. What’s not infrequent is that you have this other behavior that managers have to deal with every day—assaults, stalking, domestic violence.”

If there is any hope to be drawn from these disheartening statistics, it may be offered by Rugala, who says that violence develops over time—which means HR professionals may have a chance to spot and stop it before it happens.

“Nobody just snaps,” says Rugala. “You’ll see behavior that builds up. Then there’s a triggering event—a reprimand, a layoff, a demotion—that causes somebody to put into place their plan to act out violently. But they’ve been thinking about it beforehand. It’s premeditated.”

http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/articles/1102/1102covstory.asp#rg
 
Again that does not fit the question as the individual was a off duty law enforcement officer again. The point being sherifs deputy. Want to try for a civilian bystander?
How is the fact that he was a sheriff's deputy significant? He didn't shoot the guy, there's no indication he yelled, "Freeze! Police!"; he just pointed his revolver at him and the guy dropped his gun. Anyone with access to a revolver could have done the same. You're clutching at straws here.
 
Need any more straw?

According to Give Everybody A Gun And Nobody Will Ever Get Shot Advocates, people with guns never make mistakes, are able to appraise every situation immediately with 100% accuracy and their performance is completely unaffected by pressure/stress, also their bullets are magic and will always hit a guilty person first time without fail leaving all innocent people around them completely unharmed. No guns ever go off accidentally or are misused.

There you go. A pair of strawmen. What do you think it adds to the discussion?

Nothing more than has already been added.

This discussion from the beginning has been fruitless. Why even bother?

I've listened to people like Cain, CFLarsen, etc. blather on and on and on and on. Nothing ever gets anywhere. Eventually guns are compared to nuclear weapons and grenades. Eventually pistols seem to be seen in the same light as assault rifles. Eventually people talk about how they'd make a flying kick to superheroically kill an Air Marshal on a plane with ninja prowess (oh no wait, that's just Larsen).

Cherry picking data? Check. Expressing superiority between their country and us "evil" Americans? Check. Stereotyping Americans and people that happen to live in Texas? Check. People judging others based on avatars? Check. Overgeneralizing? Check. I could run through this thread and spot any number of fallacies, and maybe not necessarily on one side of the argument. But it irks me to no end how many Heavy Gun Control advocates portray themselves as superior to us "evil gun advocates". Larsen once referred to eliminating guns as The Ultimate Good. Sorry if I disagree with that assessment.

I'm sorry if my respect for the subject has gone down. I'd make logical arguments, but it's never done any good.
 
Last edited:
False dichotomy. Somewhere between "pussies" and "real men" is "Joe Blow."

Then why do you constantly think that having a gun would make the individuals involved resist instead of what they did and not resist?

The individuals did not resist, why would fire arms be a magical solution increase resistance?
In any case, as others have repeatedly pointed out here, firearms do not change the type of person you are; they only change your ability to react in this kind of situation. If there's a fire in your house, and you have no fire extinguisher, you get out. That does not make you a pussy. If you have a fire extinguisher, you might stay and try to fight the fire. That does not make you a "real man."

So all the people making the point that at short distances like say a class room that knives and the like are more dangerous in close confines than firearms?

If you are traped in your room with a fire and a wool blanket, then it is clear that you need a fire extinguisher, or better yet a fire truck.
 
And the guns make real men out of pussies is a weird arguement that gun advocates seem to use alot.
You keep saying that. Who here do you believe has been making that argument?

No one has done anything to show that having a gun makes resistance instead of compliance more likely.
Would you like to revise that claim after you revisit the Appalachian School of Law incident?
 
Let's try to follow that train of thoughts to its (il)logical conclusion. Churchill should not have opposed Hitler because WW2 resulted in tens of millions of dead people, any negative consequences of letting Hitler go on unopposed can be apparently be discounted because they're hypothetical, not actual (on account of the fact it wasn't done). Somehow though I doubt you'd support such use of the same "logic". Fact is that it is 100% pointless to assess a policy except against either another policy which will of cause be hypothetical.

So real safety does not matter?

You must be agaisnt helmet and seatbelt laws as well.
 
How is the fact that he was a sheriff's deputy significant? He didn't shoot the guy, there's no indication he yelled, "Freeze! Police!"; he just pointed his revolver at him and the guy dropped his gun. Anyone with access to a revolver could have done the same. You're clutching at straws here.

The point is that it does not fit the asked for situation. That was where a bystander with a concealed carry permit, but not law enforcement training helped the situation.

Off duty officers cary in most all states regardless of the concealed carry laws.
 
Then why do you constantly think that having a gun would make the individuals involved resist instead of what they did and not resist?
Because if you have a problem, and have a tool to deal with that problem, you are more likely to use that tool to deal with the problem than if you do not have that tool. What is difficult about understanding that? :confused:

The individuals did not resist, why would fire arms be a magical solution increase resistance?
Because if you have a problem, and have a tool to deal with that problem, you are more likely to use that tool to deal with the problem than if you do not have that tool. What is difficult about understanding that? :confused:


So all the people making the point that at short distances like say a class room that knives and the like are more dangerous in close confines than firearms?
That's not even a sentence. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

If you are traped in your room with a fire and a wool blanket, then it is clear that you need a fire extinguisher, or better yet a fire truck.
Okay, you've driven completely off the road here. Sorry.
 
You keep saying that. Who here do you believe has been making that argument?

Everyone who thinks that having a gun will change behavior so much that someone goes from compliance to resistance. Oddly these same people make arguements about how firearms do not change peoples behavior as a general statement. These are seemingly incompatable views
Would you like to revise that claim after you revisit the Appalachian School of Law incident?

So the firearm made the deputy decide to do something about the shooter? London bobbies would just run like the scared little nancy boys they are?

the point is that it was not an average individual as marked by the fact that they where a sheriffs deputy.

This all just shows that no one makes rational arguement about gun control. Both sides depend on emotion and the same sorts of falacies.

Guns will not make someone more apt to use violence, except when violence would be sociataly sanctioned? Could you please support such a odd position.
 
Then why do you constantly think that having a gun would make the individuals involved resist instead of what they did and not resist? The individuals did not resist, why would fire arms be a magical solution increase resistance?

This is a rhetorical question, right? I mean absolutely NOBODY can really be this clueless. Please tell me it's a rhetorical question.

Anyway, just in case it's not, lets fill in that void in your understanding of the world.

1) by simply having the gun in your possession makes you aware of the self-defense capability a gun affords,
2) merely by having a gun in your possession means you have taken an active measure to ensuring the safety of yourself and those around you meaning you are no longer thoughtless and passive about protection,
3) a gun in your possession means you have taken a concealed carry course and know how to handle the weapon for protection, meaning you are prepared by prior thought and practice to enact protective measures,
4) inclination to resist, as demonstrated by carrying the gun in the first place, greatly increases the ability and implementation of resistance.

Now look. This is fundamental stuff. There is no question as much common precedent validates it.
 
Because if you have a problem, and have a tool to deal with that problem, you are more likely to use that tool to deal with the problem than if you do not have that tool. What is difficult about understanding that? :confused:

And if you have a hammer, all problems start to look like a nail.

that is exactly the point of arguement that an armed society is a polite society. Well remeber a woman owned by the husband is a polite woman, so what?
 
Eventually people talk about how they'd make a flying kick to superheroically kill an Air Marshal on a plane with ninja prowess (oh no wait, that's just Larsen).

Has anyone got a link for the post where he said that? I can't find it...
 
This is a rhetorical question, right? I mean absolutely NOBODY can really be this clueless. Please tell me it's a rhetorical question.

Anyway, just in case it's not, lets fill in that void in your understanding of the world.

1) by simply having the gun in your possession makes you aware of the self-defense capability a gun affords,
2) merely by having a gun in your possession means you have taken an active measure to ensuring the safety of yourself and those around you meaning you are no longer thoughtless and passive about protection,
3) a gun in your possession means you have taken a concealed carry course and know how to handle the weapon for protection, meaning you are prepared by prior thought and practice to enact protective measures,
4) inclination to resist, as demonstrated by carrying the gun in the first place, greatly increases the ability and implementation of resistance.

Now look. This is fundamental stuff. There is no question as much common precedent validates it.
So you accept that having a gun will make you more likely to innitiate violence against someone else, but only in societaly sanctioned manners, not in any of those anti social ways, like the individual in this case did. Why?
 
FarmallMTA said:
This is a rhetorical question, right? I mean absolutely NOBODY can really be this clueless. Please tell me it's a rhetorical question.

It's a Gun Control Thread. What did you expect?
 
This discussion from the beginning has been fruitless. Why even bother?

<snip>

I'm sorry if my respect for the subject has gone down. I'd make logical arguments, but it's never done any good.

Depends what you mean by "good".

Reading and participating in threads on gun control on here have changed my view. Originally I was what you would call a "heavy gun control advocate". Over time that has changed and I think that there is no "one size fits all" answer. What is right for the UK (which I know most about) is unlikely to be right for the US and vice versa given the different existing situation/attitudes/background/culture. Some will call that good, some won't.

What made me change my mind were the posts when people talked about the real issues without resorting to attacking a gross caricature of the other persons viewpoint.

I agree that there are some people, on both sides of the argument, who will never change their view. I think (and hope) that there are a lot more people who are open to listening to the arguments and who are open to changing their view. They may be the ones who read the thread, rather than the ones who post in it. Problem is that most similar threads descend into a lot of heat and very little light.

Do not take this post to imply that you are any more guilty than anyone else on either side of such behaviour, it just happened to be your post that I replied to, there were plenty of others.
 
Last edited:
The south korean gentlemen was sent to the crazy doctors in 2005.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...OTING?SITE=KTVB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.
He said the woman declined to press charges, and neither woman was among the victims of Monday's massacre on the Virginia Tech campus.
During the stalking second incident, also in late 2005, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho's who was concerned that he might be suicidal, and Cho was taken to a mental health facility, Flinchum said. About the same time, in fall 2005, Cho's professor informally shared some concerns about the young man's writing but no official report was filed, he said.

Hey ladies, if you have any creepy guys stalking you, make sure to press charges.
 
Everyone who thinks that having a gun will change behavior so much that someone goes from compliance to resistance. Oddly these same people make arguements about how firearms do not change peoples behavior as a general statement. These are seemingly incompatable views
Please give me the names of people here who have claimed that anyone who would not use a gun to defend himself is a "pussy," and link to the posts where they said so.

Guns will not make someone more apt to use violence, except when violence would be sociataly sanctioned? Could you please support such a odd position.
Could you please explain what the hell you're talking about?
 

Back
Top Bottom