20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

[Kariboo]

I must be a glutton for pain...I read the whole thread and now I'm even posting in the politics forum

I'll leave the eloquence and background research to other posters (pro and con). Just my $0.02. What I don't understand is why people think that a good way of defending us against violence is the use of violence. If we say that a good way of defending yourself against a threat is to get rid of that threat, don't we teach the Cho's growing up that using violence against whatever threats he was seeing (real or perceived) by going out and shooting is OK ? How will we ever be able to teach people the difference between what is a "reasonable" threat to defend yourself against by shooting at it and what isn't? Everybody shooting at someone else thinks at that moment they have righteousness on their side

Wouldn't a better way be to teach that problems can be dealt with in other ways? I understand that this makes me seem like an Utopian living on a pink cloud (or whatever the saying would be). The thing is, I think that the best way of having less violence in a society is to be less violent, even (especially?) as a reaction to violence.

I have been shot at a couple of times (luckily by those with bad aim). At the time I was working with troubled adolescents (in a half way home, the shooters were not living there). Would my carrying a gun have made a positive impact on them? If I would have shot back and killed one of the people shooting at me, what would that have taught them? Would it have made them more or less likely to deal with a problem in a violent manner?

Needless to say, I am not carrying a gun (or knife or whatever), nor do I intend to. If you do want to have a weapon on you I think that that is your right, I do not want to tell other people how to live their lives. I do think however that we cannot hope for a safer community on one hand if on the other we propagate the use of violence to protect ourselves.

Again, my first post in politics so please be gentle with me....

Kariboo

 

[BPSCG]

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

The proper quote is, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like a nail." Please show where I or anyone else here has said the the only solution to all problems, or even this one, is guns.

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?

Okay, you've completely stopped making sense. Thank you for playing; good-bye.

 

[ConspiRaider]

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.

Lemme post here what I responded to you in another thread:

I think all college students in the United States of America should have to do what I did when I was 18. Go through 10 weeks of boot camp. But instead of the military, this would be in preparation for their attendance (as Art majors, for example) in our nation's schools of higher learning.

Do I even have to mention how easy this would be to setup? I guess so. All the Feddies and Staties have to do is pick a huge college campus (I vote for Kent State University), clear it of students and other annoyances, and then remake it into Lock and Load University at Lockdown.

During training, all classrooms would no longer have rows of desks all facing front. Every classroom would have the student desks ringing the perimeter of the room, facing outward. With the Teach in the middle, on one of those turntable deals like they have in microwave ovens. Total vigilance.

Kids already know how to type one-handed, or write one-handed, or cell-phone one-handed, or goose a potential mate for life in the desk ahead as a subtle hint of attraction one-handed. That leaves one hand free. For the Glock 10. Same with the teacher. Laser pointer in one hand, Uzi / M-16 in t'other.

Combating gun violence with more guns is the only answer. When everyone's armed, no one's harmed.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OK, I've read through all 16 pages, and I think I can sum up the arguments:

"You're a poopy head!"
"No, you're a poopy head!"

 

[LawnOven]

Kids already know how to type one-handed, or write one-handed, or cell-phone one-handed, or goose a potential mate for life in the desk ahead as a subtle hint of attraction one-handed. That leaves one hand free. For the Glock 10. Same with the teacher. Laser pointer in one hand, Uzi / M-16 in t'other.

Combating gun violence with more guns is the only answer. When everyone's armed, no one's harmed.

I like it; where are you running for office?

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

A view which is only, unfortunately, expressed in the minority of posts, even though I feel that the majority of posters actually feel it.

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.

We agree, then.

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.

When people stop calling me "stupid" for having a dissenting viewpoint, perhaps I will change my attitude. When people can avoid strawman arguments and ridiculous insults from page one, I will change my attitude.

I admit, you are helping to change that attitude as finally I see a voice of reason. But until then, I see no reason why to treat opposition so undeserving of respect with respect.

I agree that there are some people, on both sides of the argument, who will never change their view.

You're right. They tend to post the most.

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.

I hear about these people, but rarely see them. You are an exception.

Maybe if they posted more often, I'd be less jaded.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I respond to negativity negatively. I shouldn't, as it fuels the flames. But it is hard to avoid.

Seriously, how can I take these posts seriously? I'm going to quote Conspiraider:

Kids already know how to type one-handed, or write one-handed, or cell-phone one-handed, or goose a potential mate for life in the desk ahead as a subtle hint of attraction one-handed. That leaves one hand free. For the Glock 10. Same with the teacher. Laser pointer in one hand, Uzi / M-16 in t'other.

Combating gun violence with more guns is the only answer. When everyone's armed, no one's harmed.

I can't take this guy seriously. At all. Why should I even respond to this post with anything but sneering and derision? That's all it deserves.

 

[BPSCG]

Kariboo - It's a thoughtful post; no reason to beat you up.

What I don't understand is why people think that a good way of defending us against violence is the use of violence.

Well, how do you stop someone from being violent? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's by force, which may or may not be violent (physically restraining a violent person is force, but isn't necessarily violent). But when restraint is not possible, how else do you stop the violent person?

If we say that a good way of defending yourself against a threat is to get rid of that threat, don't we teach the Cho's growing up that using violence against whatever threats he was seeing (real or perceived) by going out and shooting is OK ?

No. For starts, a threat isn't the same as violence. A threat is a warning or a promise of violence yet to come. There are lots of ways to deal with threats before they become violent, and I don't believe any rational person teaches his children that the way to deal with a threat is to immediately resort to violence.

In Mr. Cho's case, it appears to me that what he was taught had very little to do with his actions. I doubt his parents, or anyone else, taught him that the way to deal with the injustices he perceived in the world was to take up a gun and slay.

How will we ever be able to teach people the difference between what is a "reasonable" threat to defend yourself against by shooting at it and what isn't?

Well, as nominally intelligent animals, we are supposed to be able to evaluate a situation and decide whether a threat demands a violent response. If Mrs. BPSCG yells at me because I didn't take out the garbage, I'm not going to assess her yelling as being on the same level as her yelling she that hates me while pointing a gun at my head. We're supposed to learn how to make those distinctions as part of growing up. (For the record, Mrs. BPSCG doesn't yell. She smiles tightly and gets very sarcastic. And she's never pointed a gun at me. Yet.)

But that training is meaningless in the case of someone who is completely unhinged.

Wouldn't a better way be to teach that problems can be dealt with in other ways?

Sure. And that's what we try to do. And that approach generally works with people who are more or less reasonable and rational. But, sadly, there are people in this world who are evil, and there are people who are psychotic, and there are people who are both psychotic and evil, who wish to do us harm. No amount of persuasion short of physical force will suffice when dealing with them. That is why we have police forces, and why we have armies. And that is why some of us believe we should be allowed to carry weapons if we believe our safety is in danger.

The thing is, I think that the best way of having less violence in a society is to be less violent, even (especially?) as a reaction to violence.

Do you think that would have made any difference in Blacksburg on Monday?

Needless to say, I am not carrying a gun (or knife or whatever), nor do I intend to. If you do want to have a weapon on you I think that that is your right, I do not want to tell other people how to live their lives. I do think however that we cannot hope for a safer community on one hand if on the other we propagate the use of violence to protect ourselves.

Again, what do you do when all non-violent means of protecting yourself have failed?

Again, my first post in politics so please be gentle with me....

Fair questions, asked reasonably and non-judgmentally. Hope it's not your last post. Though you are surely aware the water can get very rough here.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I like it; where are you running for office?

I'll be running for office soon in a State legislature near you.

And you damned well had better vote for me. Or else.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'll be running for office soon in a State legislature near you.

And you damned well had better vote for me. Or else.

Coercion! Coercion!

I'm telling mommy!

 

[ConspiRaider]

Coercion! Coercion!

I'm telling mommy!

Hey, I fell asleep during Influence Peddling 101 so I hafta take shortcuts. I snoozed through Handling Corporate Handouts 202. I snored while the Teach droned on in Creative Vote Counting 303.

I gotta do what I know.

Like Clint said: Man's got to know his limitations.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

When people stop calling me "stupid" for having a dissenting viewpoint, perhaps I will change my attitude. When people can avoid strawman arguments and ridiculous insults from page one, I will change my attitude.

<snip>

But until then, I see no reason why to treat opposition so undeserving of respect with respect.

Can I give you what I think is a reason? The people who will read your post that did not write the one you are replying to. After all there will be many more of them.

If you respond to insults and strawmen with arguments and reason, it makes your argument far more credible to the reader than those you disagree with.

It is not easy and I am as bad as anyone at getting caught up in petty arguments, but I believe it is worth the effort.

 

[LawnOven]

I'll be running for office soon in a State legislature near you.

And you damned well had better vote for me. Or else.

...Or else, the terrorists will win?

 

[Lonewulf]

Can I give you what I think is a reason?

Of course.

The people who will read your post that did not write the one you are replying to. After all there will be many more of them.

Perhaps. But it still leaves me jaded.

If you respond to insults and strawmen with arguments and reason, it makes your argument far more credible to the reader than those you disagree with.

It is not easy and I am as bad as anyone at getting caught up in petty arguments, but I believe it is worth the effort.

Perhaps it is.

I admit, you make a good point, and I cannot fault you for that.

 

[ConspiRaider]

...Or else, the terrorists will win?

You got it. And so I say: Shop til you drop! Terrists live in quaking fear of layaway and blue light specials.

 

[BPSCG]

Can I give you what I think is a reason? The people who will read your post that did not write the one you are replying to. After all there will be many more of them.

If you respond to insults and strawmen with arguments and reason, it makes your argument far more credible to the reader than those you disagree with.

It is not easy and I am as bad as anyone at getting caught up in petty arguments, but I believe it is worth the effort.

Damn you, how come when I'm all ready to write you off as an incurable doofus, you have to write something as good as that? Bastage...

 

[LawnOven]

You got it. And so I say: Shop til you drop! Terrists live in quaking fear of layaway and blue light specials.

Well hell yeah! You are totally getting my vote!

 

[BPSCG]

Wow! We have a big fat gun control thread and a big fat abortion thread going at the same time.

Quick, Jeff, more servers!

 

[LawnOven]

he he

 

[fuelair]

Just to make sure I understand you:

If the statistics are right (a whole separate argument), and fewer people in total would die with a "no guns on campus" policy than a "allow some/all guns" policy, the former is morally flawed?

If so, why?

Feel free to explain what was morally right about 33 people dying - many together - without even a chance to defend themselves in any effective way - as opposed to allowing any responsible and trained person to be legally armed. My full belief is that any system that cannot reasonably guarantee the safety of all its' citizens and does not properly punish all those who act to destroy that safety (murderers, rapists, muggers, etc,) has a moral obligation to assist and allow its' citizens to defend themselves. By my definition, proper punishment is punishment that guarantees it is better to not harm others than to harm others. Our system is pathetic at that.

 

[Mephisto]

I must be a glutton for pain...I read the whole thread and now I'm even posting in the politics forum

I'll leave the eloquence and background research to other posters (pro and con). Just my $0.02. What I don't understand is why people think that a good way of defending us against violence is the use of violence. If we say that a good way of defending yourself against a threat is to get rid of that threat, don't we teach the Cho's growing up that using violence against whatever threats he was seeing (real or perceived) by going out and shooting is OK ? How will we ever be able to teach people the difference between what is a "reasonable" threat to defend yourself against by shooting at it and what isn't? Everybody shooting at someone else thinks at that moment they have righteousness on their side

Wouldn't a better way be to teach that problems can be dealt with in other ways? I understand that this makes me seem like an Utopian living on a pink cloud (or whatever the saying would be). The thing is, I think that the best way of having less violence in a society is to be less violent, even (especially?) as a reaction to violence.

I have been shot at a couple of times (luckily by those with bad aim). At the time I was working with troubled adolescents (in a half way home, the shooters were not living there). Would my carrying a gun have made a positive impact on them? If I would have shot back and killed one of the people shooting at me, what would that have taught them? Would it have made them more or less likely to deal with a problem in a violent manner?

Needless to say, I am not carrying a gun (or knife or whatever), nor do I intend to. If you do want to have a weapon on you I think that that is your right, I do not want to tell other people how to live their lives. I do think however that we cannot hope for a safer community on one hand if on the other we propagate the use of violence to protect ourselves.

Again, my first post in politics so please be gentle with me....

Kariboo

Welcome to the forum, Kariboo.

I'll have to start out agreeing with BPSCG, which if you've been lurking in the forums for awhile you'll realize is no small thing.

We're both anomalies of a sort - he's a conservative who will admit when he's wrong, and I'm a liberal gun-owner who supports the death penalty.

I think BPSCG has covered all your questions sufficiently, but I would like to add that in order to stop violence once it's at the point that it reached yesterday, one would have to be extremely well-trained in some form of martial art (that emphasized non-violence - not all do) or have a non-lethal weapon on hand (a stun gun, pepper spray) that could distract the gunman long enough to allow the victims to subdue him.

The recent attack at the Amish school should prove that non-violence alone won't stop a gunman determined to kill and injure innocent people. However, I would strongly assert that even a non-lethal weapon that would incapacitate an attack would leave him vulnerable to a very emotional counter attack.