# Shootings at Virginia Tech



## Daekar (Apr 16, 2007)

[rant]I don't know if you have been following the news, but at least 22 people are dead and many wounded at the hands of a single gunman at Virginia Tech. The first shooting happened in the building where I lived when I was on campus, and my brother arrived on campus from drill with the Marine Reserves just in time to see SWAT breach the building where the gunman was. To the best of my knowledge, SWAT killed the attacker. I'm sorry for the choppy writing, but I'm sort of in shock. The tragic irony here is that firearms aren't allowed on campus - even my friend who does security there carries a 3D maglite as a weapon and uses a real flashlight for light because he's not allowed to have a firearm when on duty. This is a very costly lesson that gun control DOES NOT WORK. If it had been routine to allow students and professors to have and carry firearms, it's very possible this wouldn't have happened, or fewer people would have been killed. I just makes me angry that the people were forced into a situation where they were absolutely defenseless... you CAN'T just call the police if something happens because when they arrive you'll be DEAD. Just like being prepared with a flashlight, a firearm is something you carry and pray that you never have to use. Even in the UK, where personal firearm ownership (and pointy knives) are either completely prohibited or discouraged, there is still gun violence. In fact, since weapons were banned, violence using those weapons has drastically INCREASED. The only way to protect yourself is to be lucky or to take care of yourself, no one else can or will do it for you. [/rant]

Thanks for letting me write - my brother and my girlfriend (practically my fiance) were both on campus and this hit me much harder than I ever anticipated. I... think I'm going to be a little lost the rest of today...


----------



## cchurchi (Apr 16, 2007)

The news of this made me physically sick. What a complete waste.


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 16, 2007)

RIP to the victims, unfortunately their deaths will be exploited to further push agendas of the present congress.

they were forced to choose between expulsion for carrying self-protection tools or death, they followed the law and paid with the ultimate price, my heart goes out to their families and hope people will be rational and focus on the weakness in human-nature rather than the tool


----------



## abvidledUK (Apr 16, 2007)

The "War on Terror" needs to start at home...


----------



## WNG (Apr 16, 2007)

The previous sensationalized campus shooting was McGill University this past Fall in Montreal, CA. where gun ownership is prohibited. That didn't stop the psychopath from arming up and go on a shooting rampage.
Speaking to the locals up there, it's revealed many people own guns, just illegally.

And this is same case in the USA. Gun control only removes the guns from law-abiding citizens, not those operating outside the law.

It's sad and shocking to read about the loss of innocent lives.....again.
My thoughts go out to those families of the murdered and wounded.

Arguments for and against gun control can be made from this terrible event.
I have my personal views on the subject but now isn't the time/place to debate it.


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 16, 2007)

WNG said:


> The previous sensationalized campus shooting was McGill University this past Fall in Montreal, CA. where gun ownership is prohibited. That didn't stop the psychopath from arming up and go on a shooting rampage.
> Speaking to the locals up there, it's revealed many people own guns, just illegally.
> 
> And this is same case in the USA. Gun control only removes the guns from law-abiding citizens, not those operating outside the law.
> ...



I agree, only heartless monsters would capitalize on this tragedy to further their political agendas.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 16, 2007)

Gonna be REAL interesting to find out all about the shooter. 

I have some thoughts that I will NOT be sharing on this forum!


----------



## PhotonAddict (Apr 16, 2007)

Just a little correction - the shooting was at Dawson College, a CEGEP, in Montreal. In that case I believe the gunman had legal permits for the guns he used. Sorry to nitpick, but sometimes facts get muddled as the story get passed along and hasty conclusions are made.



WNG said:


> The previous sensationalized campus shooting was McGill University this past Fall in Montreal, CA. where gun ownership is prohibited. That didn't stop the psychopath from arming up and go on a shooting rampage.
> Speaking to the locals up there, it's revealed many people own guns, just illegally.
> 
> And this is same case in the USA. Gun control only removes the guns from law-abiding citizens, not those operating outside the law.
> ...


----------



## McGizmo (Apr 16, 2007)

So sad. So disgusting. IMHO, gun control like the war on drugs and some other programs deny realty as well as human nature. They do so at a cost. I believe in the right to bear arms but if one is not properly prepared while attending a place of higher learning unless one is armed, we are facing a serious problem and one that may need to be addressed by society at large and not _managed_ by a small number tasked with serving and protecting us. Will that small number need to grow in size and expense? Is national and domestic defense a new growth industry? Lot of questions raised by this event and I hope some reasonable answers may come forth. So sad! This lone gunman has parents and presumably friends. How did he fall below such a basic human standard of live and let live?


----------



## LowBat (Apr 16, 2007)

Death toll now reported at 31. Not counting the wounded, the shooter must have had a lot of ammo and maybe several weapons. Too bad nobody had a way of defending themselves or their fellow classmates.


----------



## jtice (Apr 16, 2007)

I think certain members of the faculty should have guns.
It would put an end to alot of this Sh*t.

I know that if I was still in school, I would carry my gun there also.
Id rather be expelled than dead.

~John


----------



## kitelights (Apr 16, 2007)

My daughter's half sister and her fiancee attend there. He checks into a building where one of the shootings took place every AM. He didn't check in this AM only b/c he had a dentist appointment or he would have been there during the event.

While I agree with the comments on "control," I don't know that I'm ready to agree that college kids on a campus are ready for blanket carry rights, especially a school like Tech that has a reputation for being such a major party school.

And where I also agree that the known presence of gun carrying citizens deter crime, this doesn't fit - this guy was obviously beyond normal rational thinking. He might have been taken out a lot sooner, but we'll never know.


----------



## TITAN1833 (Apr 16, 2007)

The death toll i belive would have been a lot lower..if some of those killed had guns to defend themselves..thoughts for all the famlies involved.


----------



## Wolfen (Apr 16, 2007)

I am sick, my wife is a college professor and these shootings hit very close to home for me.


----------



## cchurchi (Apr 16, 2007)

TITAN1833 said:


> The death toll i belive would have been a lot lower..if some of those killed had guns to defend themselves..thoughts for all the famlies involved.


 
That is exactly why these psychos pick places like colleges to go on killing sprees. It's the large signs our front that read: "this is a gun free zone".


----------



## Dutch (Apr 16, 2007)

LowBat said:


> the shooter must have had a lot of ammo and maybe several weapons.



Not necessarily. One magazine of a full size 9mm pistol holds 17 rounds.

One in the gun and two on your person makes for 51 rounds... Easily concealable.


----------



## ikendu (Apr 16, 2007)

This is pretty darn sad. I wonder if we will ever understand what happened.

As far as guns on campus... I just retired from a university.

Every weekend, there are throngs of students around the bars drunk on alcohol. Mostly, the worst that ever happens are a few fist fights and loud talk hurled at one another. I'm not sure what might happen if enough students were carrying loaded firearms to deter or stop some potential, determined, insane shooter.

There was a shooting on our campus in 1991 (killed 5 people).

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

Its not always easy to know what will be best. Our campus security people carry Tasers (I believe) and of course the city police are fully armed.


----------



## Coop (Apr 16, 2007)

News like this really makes me sad...


----------



## JJH (Apr 16, 2007)

I kind of feel like we're missing the point here.
It seems to me that the only meaningful way to prevent such a tragedy lies with those that knew the gunman. Somehow somebody somewhere knew this guy and knew he needed help, that he was about to go off, and could not, did not act to help or get help.
Somehow the people in this guys life did not reach out to him and he totally lost it.
Let's all be vigilant with the people we are both close to and acquainted with that are lost and need some kind of help.
Thanks,
JJ


----------



## CLHC (Apr 16, 2007)

Just read that news article. . .Truly sad. . .


----------



## greenlight (Apr 16, 2007)

It's the worst mass shooting in US history. It's a terrible tragedy, but at the same time we're lucky that there hasn't been WORSE.
The shooter must have been really pissed off, or really deranged.


----------



## Wolfen (Apr 16, 2007)

It's being reported that the shooting took place in two parts about two hours apart.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266374,00.html


----------



## havand (Apr 16, 2007)

Jack Thompson is already cashing in on the tragedy and using it to further his crusade against videogames. What a horrible person. 

My thoughts go out to the victims. Being on a college campus myself, It is a bit scary.


----------



## Gene (Apr 16, 2007)

Pray for their families and what a tragedy. Hide your fireams though. The lib led house and senate will be now coming after them BIG TIME! This is a tragedy all the way around.


----------



## Illum (Apr 16, 2007)

Daekar said:


> [rant]I don't know if you have been following the news, but at least 22 people are dead and many wounded at the hands of a single gunman at Virginia Tech.



the news updated to over 30 people died

what I found most outragous was the fact the gun man can travel from the dorm to the engineering hall and in the first two hours no one not even campus security responded 


Sad day indeed...Happened between 9-10AM...I just heard about it


----------



## carbine15 (Apr 16, 2007)

When will they learn that its not the private ownership of guns but the anti-gun laws themselves that are facilitating these shootings by disarming the students and faculty who would otherwise be in a position to halt this type of anti-social behavior before the perp has a chance to reload a dozen times.


----------



## cslinger (Apr 16, 2007)

> When will they learn that its not the private ownership of guns but the anti-gun laws themselves that are facilitating these shootings by disarming the students and faculty who would otherwise be in a position to halt this type of anti-social behavior before the perp has a chance to reload a dozen times.



Agreed but how much do you want to bet our shooter was medicated or has been medicated in the past. Almost every single one of these shootings ends up being done by somebody medicated by certain brands of drugs. We medicate way to fast in this country.

God it makes me sad. Why these folks cannot just take themselves out and call it a day I will never understand. Prayers for all those involved.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Apr 16, 2007)

My heart goes out to those who have suffered today. I'll be shining a light up into the sky for them tonight.



Dutch said:


> Not necessarily. One magazine of a full size 9mm pistol holds 17 rounds.
> 
> One in the gun and two on your person makes for 51 rounds... Easily concealable.



I can easily buy 32 round magazines for my 9mm pistol. I've not done so specifically because the only reason I can imagine needing that many rounds is in a situation like this.

:buddies:


----------



## cslinger (Apr 16, 2007)

Still this is a strangely high death toll. Handgun wounds are typically survivable unless the shooter was a very good shot. Not sure what happened and why the toll is so high. 

Tragedy doesn't even begin to cover it. Why are there so many evil and or crazy people in the world. I don't mean to sound naive as I am most certainly not but I just cannot understand why we cannot get along with each other at least on a civil level. 

Stuff like this really bums me out.


----------



## chocho (Apr 16, 2007)

carbine15 said:


> When will they learn that its not the private ownership of guns but the anti-gun laws themselves that are facilitating these shootings by disarming the students and faculty who would otherwise be in a position to halt this type of anti-social behavior before the perp has a chance to reload a dozen times.



My heart goes out to the families.

However, to all who feel that arming the general population is a satisfactory solution to this, I offer the following scenario and ask what you would do:

You are a student on campus - in a classroom. You hear gunfire. You immediately draw your firearm and hole up. Minutes pass - you hear scurrying outside the door of your classroom. In bursts a young girl carrying a firearm. Startled, she levels it at you. What do you do?

Shoot first? What if she is just like you - an innocent with a firearm? What does she do? Shoot first? This scenario repeats itself throughtout the building, throughout the campus. If everybody shot first, we'd have an equally tragic situation.

The problem with arming *everybody* is that this provides excellent cover for the shooter. He or she blends in with everybody else. You don't know who the shooter is. Neither does the armed young girl who ran into your room looking for cover.

Now if somebody could come up with a non-lethal, incapacitating device - that everybody could carry - then you'd have something. At least (1) you could identify the perp (since he/she's the one with the true firearm), (2) you could reasonably shoot without permanent repercussions, (3) you could reasonably miss your target without permanent repercussions (which is perhaps the bigger problem with an armed general public).

-C
(and yes - I own, collect, and regularly shoot my firearms)


----------



## ikendu (Apr 16, 2007)

Yup. A reliable, dependable device that would harmlessly incapcitate any opponent would be a highly useful thing to have. I wonder if we will ever have such a thing. Until then... we will face hard choices.


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 16, 2007)

Recent VA Tech graduate / current townie here...

Everyone here is in shock (understatement). My girlfriend goes to nearby Radford University, they all got sent home early, when they thought that the gunman was on the loose. I'm still waiting to hear from all of my friends & fraternity brothers. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone who has loved ones there.

It's so windy here that they've been unable to fly the medivac helicopters. I'm afraid that may have made the situation worse.

When I was at Tech, I carried a (permitted) concealed handgun to class every day, despite the school rules against it. I'm hoping they'll reconsider the policy now.


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 16, 2007)

chocho said:


> My heart goes out to the families.
> 
> However, to all who feel that arming the general population is a satisfactory solution to this, I offer the following scenario and ask what you would do:
> 
> ...



nonlethal self-defense tools like stunguns, pepper sprays, etc are also banned on campus of VT.


----------



## AlexGT (Apr 16, 2007)

My condolences to the victims, families and friends affected by this deplorable act of evil, May God give them peace.

AlexGT


----------



## Dutch (Apr 16, 2007)

Diesel_Bomber said:


> My heart goes out to those who have suffered today. I'll be shining a light up into the sky for them tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup. I have a couple 33 rounders for my G17 for plinking/novelty.

My illustration was going more for the conceal-ability factor.


----------



## PEU (Apr 16, 2007)

I see the majority of the replies aim (no phun intended) at a retaliative response from the victims to be.

IMHO there lies the problem, the liberty US citizens have on purchasing/carrying/using guns is the main problem here, I know NRA/Pro-gun members will trash my opinion, but hey, its my opinion...


Pablo


----------



## Phredd (Apr 16, 2007)

chocho said:


> I offer the following scenario and ask what you would do



An alternative scenario:

Someone comes in to your classroom and starts shooting. A few students draw their guns and kill the shooter.


----------



## McGizmo (Apr 16, 2007)

chocho,

You ask some good questions. In my simplistic view, had some of the students or faculty been armed, there might have been a couple changes in the situation. First being the case of deterant. I don't know if this idiot today would have reconsidered his rampage if he knew he could meet with armed resistance. Second being that it is possible that someone might have been in a position to defend themselves and those around them and put a stop to this spree of violence had the idiot gone ahead with his actions.

We use caution and take precautions in many of our daily activities but few are of mortal significance; driving being one such activity. One likes to be prepared for the unexpected or when the "rules" are broken.

If a rule is likely to be broken by the bad, should it be in play if it hinders the good?








If we relinquish our responsibilities and control to others then we are at the mercy of others and not just the ones we have willingly passed our care to.


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 16, 2007)

PEU said:


> I see the majority of the replies aim (no phun intended) at a retaliative response from the victims to be.
> 
> IMHO there lies the problem, the liberty US citizens have on purchasing/carrying/using guns is the main problem here, I know NRA/Pro-gun members will trash my opinion, but hey, its my opinion...
> 
> ...



Pablo:

in my recollection Argentina outside of the comfort of Buenos Aires is not a fun place to be. This is a really bad time to pull politics into the discussion. We have had many countries in history with extremely strict guns laws and their citizens ended up being exterminated by the millions and I'm sure we can go into a debate over that and I have a long list of countries to debate you with. But that would not be the point of this thread.

You and other people who don't like guns will have a field day today, I hope you guys enjoy yourselves looking down on us and making social commentaries.


----------



## PEU (Apr 16, 2007)

270winchester said:


> Pablo:
> 
> in my recollection Argentina outside of the comfort of Buenos Aires is not a fun place to be. This is a really bad time to pull politics into the discussion. We have had many countries in history with extremely strict guns laws and their citizens ended up being exterminated by the millions and I'm sure we can go into a debate over that and I have a long list of countries to debate you with. But that would not be the point of this thread.
> 
> You and other people who don't like guns will have a field day today, I hope you guys enjoy yourselves looking down on us and making social commentaries.



You are right, there are places that aren't as secure as Buenos Aires, but I dont carry a gun when I go there. There are also unsecure places in NY, DC or any other US big cities too.

Im not an activist and I don't want to transform this thread in a pro/against guns thread.

IMHO less availability, more strict carrying permits will make the gun violence problem smaller...


Pablo


----------



## 65535 (Apr 16, 2007)

This should hopefully (providing peopel aren't to bull headed to realize what really is right) show that Knives guns and other SD tools/weapons need to be legal, more people carry guns and knives around illegally that do legally, since it is illegal to have guns on campuses or knives the good guy is going to be unarmed but the bad guy who is breaking the law anyways is well armed, no one can stop him until he has done ridiculous amounts of damage to society. This is disgusting.


----------



## jtice (Apr 16, 2007)

Sorry Pablo, I am just gonna have to comment on this 

"""IMHO there lies the problem, the liberty US citizens have on purchasing/carrying/using guns is the main problem here, I know NRA/Pro-gun members will trash my opinion, but hey, its my opinion..."""

This is almost the exact opposite actually.
MOST shootings are done by ppl that arent allowed to own guns in the first place.
GUN LAWS are what cause death.
They tried to pass a bill a while back for Virginia, that would have let the faculty (that had a carry permit) carry guns to school.
That would have saved lives today, PERIOD.
If you keep making gun laws that are blatantly against The Constitution, we cant protect our selves, 
if we cant protect ourselves, what the hell do ppl think is gonna happen.

GUN LAWS ONLY HURT LAW OBIDING CITIZENS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take a look at the stats, 
all the states that have taken away the right to carry, the crime rate went WAY up.
States that have gun carrying citezens have lower crime rates, period.
Its not rocket science, where would you want to go on a mad robbing and killing spree?
A gun toting town? or a town that had no guns in it at all?

As for this kid/guy being on drugs, medicated, etc.
I could care less.
I am tired of hearing excuses.
So what if mommy didnt hug him enough when he was a kid, or maybe daddy hugged him TOO much.
Tough sh*t, thats NO excuse to go randomly shooting ppl.

I just hope the SOB didnt use an "Assault Rifle" thats the last thing we need, 
the media hyping it up with key attention getting words like "Assault Weapon"

~John


----------



## highorder (Apr 16, 2007)

> IMHO less availability, more strict carrying permits will make the gun violence problem smaller...



your logic is faulty. law abiding citizens DO NOT COMMIT GUN CRIME.

don't worry, its not your fault. the TV is probably to blame.


----------



## jtice (Apr 16, 2007)

Wow, it is amazing the brain washing the TV/Media can do.

People really think its the guns that kill ppl.
People just dont get it,,, criminals dont follow laws, 
why the hell would anyone think a LAW is gonna stop a CRIMINAL?

Has there ever been a mad killing rampage like this at an NRA meeting?
Yea, didnt think so, not one that lasted more than a couple shots.

Shootings happen at schools for a reason,
The kids know there are other helpless kids there, with no way to protect themselves.
It is afteral, a "Gun Free Zone" remember?
But, wait,,, if its a gun free zone,,, how did that kid bring a gun????
Oh thats right, hes a CRIMINAL !

By law, if I was there, with my carry permit, and my gun, and I shot and killed the guy after he killed only one person,
I would see at LEAST probation, probably jail time.
Since LEGALLY, I wasnt allowed to have the gun there.
Justice system my @$$

~John


----------



## Wolfen (Apr 16, 2007)

My post was a bit hysterical so have have deleted it.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 16, 2007)

Pablo,

I was in Argentina in the early '80s, have the laws changed since then?

When I was there, I could buy a gun in any shooting or sporting goods store. I could buy a pistol, a rifle, a semiautomatic pistol, or even a switchblade knife.

I could even buy as a non-citizen.

Has that changed?

I always thought it was very enlightened that Argentina allowed it's citizens to defend themselves appropriately. And I always regretted that I didn't take the opportunity to pick up a few .45 caliber pistols, as they were quite cheap and VERY well made.

My father taught me as a young man that "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns."

Bill


----------



## highorder (Apr 16, 2007)

. sorry, vent/


----------



## benchmade_boy (Apr 16, 2007)

highorder said:


> your logic is faulty. law abiding citizens DO NOT COMMIT GUN CRIME.
> 
> don't worry, its not your fault. the TV is probably to blame.


+1+1+1 I totally Agree with you, no Law abiding citizin is going to do this B.S I live out in the country, I live by the law, and i wouod never, ever do this.

All I have to say is if this guy makes it so I cant own my gun I am going to be very P!ssed off.


----------



## highorder (Apr 16, 2007)

"this guy" can't do anything. votes are the key; vote, get others to vote, and write your representatives.


----------



## Phredd (Apr 16, 2007)

PEU said:


> IMHO there lies the problem, the liberty US citizens have on purchasing/carrying/using guns is the main problem here, I know NRA/Pro-gun members will trash my opinion, but hey, its my opinion...





PEU said:


> Im not an activist and I don't want to transform this thread in a pro/against guns thread.
> 
> IMHO less availability, more strict carrying permits will make the gun violence problem smaller...
> 
> Pablo



For someone who doesn't want to transform this thread into a pro/con guns thread, you've injected some strong opinions.

Phredd


----------



## Phredd (Apr 16, 2007)

bwaites said:


> My father taught me as a young man that "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns."



I just told my daughter the way I've always heard it, "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Phredd


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 16, 2007)

The last college shooting in Virginia was stopped by two armed students (Appalachian School of Law, January 2002).



Just wanted to throw that out there.


----------



## jtice (Apr 16, 2007)

vtunderground said:


> The last college shooting in Virginia was stopped by two armed students (Appalachian School of Law, January 2002).
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to throw that out there.



GOOD FOR THEM ! :thumbsup:

I bet they were both expelled 

~John


----------



## PEU (Apr 16, 2007)

Phredd said:


> For someone who doesn't want to transform this thread into a pro/con guns thread, you've injected some strong opinions.
> 
> Phredd



I knew I was going to be slammed, and its my understanding that the purpose of this thread is not to discuss about gun laws, so...  I'm gone.

I still believe about what I posted. Sorry for the turbulence


Pablo


----------



## Sigman (Apr 16, 2007)

This event is a TERRIBLE tragedy!! Prayers & positive thoughts to all victims, families, friends, acquaintances, and actually for all of us!

PLEASE keep in mind the ole' "attack the post NOT the poster" and don't turn this into something that must be continued Underground. I'm sure there will be a thread "down there" for those that must "let it out".

:thanks:


----------



## aikiman44 (Apr 16, 2007)

Too sad. The 2 students killed in Arizona last month were my son's best friends. Numbing.
I say there should be a cooling off/investigation period before the purchase of any firearm. In Nassau Co., NY, it takes months to acquire a license.
Why isn't this done nationally?


----------



## highorder (Apr 16, 2007)

because infringement is supposedly forbidden. read the Constitution.


----------



## BIGIRON (Apr 16, 2007)

I agree that discussion of gun laws is not particularly appropriate in this instance. Maybe later. 

One of my grandma's favorite sayings was "I can't get my mind around it". That's exactly how I feel about this. And profound sadness.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Apr 16, 2007)

Dutch said:


> Yup. I have a couple 33 rounders for my G17 for plinking/novelty.
> 
> My illustration was going more for the conceal-ability factor.



It would still depend; I've tried the 32 round mag in my Taurus at the gun shop. It was still completely concealed under my jacket while holstered.

:buddies:


----------



## benchmade_boy (Apr 16, 2007)

I just hear that the person was armed with a 22cal, and a 9mm.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 16, 2007)

This is a tragedy, and it would NOT have been averted in any way by different gun laws.

Though I won't get into an argument about it, I would point out that prior to this the worst school related shooting was in Germany, which has strict gun laws, and that the last school shooting was in Canada, which also has strict gun laws.

When criminals break the law, they don't care what the laws are!!

Bill


----------



## supes (Apr 16, 2007)

I think a lot of people are missing the point and one of the problems that I at least see. 

Where in the freakin WORLD were Campus Police/Security?!?! My god, where are the cops?

Why didn't any of the students call 911?! Cause I KNOW there are students in class who SMS text the whole period!
Why didn't any of the students put up a little fight or something? 30+ dead?! This person must have took his precious time...

I'm about guns but this is NOT the issue here. Arming people and arming people with PROPER TRAINING is two different things. I wonder if the gunman or gunMEN fit the same profiles as others who have done these horrific disgusting acts..


----------



## BUZ (Apr 16, 2007)

First off it makes me sad to see young kids die like this, however the guns themself are not @ fault (the gun will not kill a person unless a person pulls the trigger)! When I was a kid growing up I did not have to worry about some crazed kid coming into my school and shooting us up and back then there were semi auto pistols capable of inflicting same damage! 

I truly think the problem lies in all the crap/garbage that kids and young adults are exposed to these days! Ultra violent horror flicks, music full of lyrics talking about shooting cops ect. and the video games they have out now are just insane (won't let my son touch them)! This is a problem that needs fixing IMO!!!


----------



## BB (Apr 16, 2007)

It appears that the gunman may have been here on a student visa:

Suntimes:


> _*[remove quote as almost everything in this article is wrong. Later post/information shows the person to have been a South Korean student permanent US resident. -BB]*_


On the self-defense issue... I have not been tracking the statistics for a couple of decades--but I believe it is still true--that armed citizens have a lower rate of "shooting the wrong person" vs police... (not to say that the police don't have a hard time of trying to separate the good from the bad).

-Bill


----------



## metalhed (Apr 16, 2007)

jtice said:


> As for this kid/guy being on drugs, medicated, etc.
> I could care less.
> I am tired of hearing excuses.
> So what if mommy didnt hug him enough when he was a kid, or maybe daddy hugged him TOO much.
> ...



As someone who won't have guns in the house because of the (treated) mental illness of another family member, I encourage all of you to consider that the human mind is easily misled...by mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse, Alzheimer's, and a host of other conditions. If you've never known someone with profound mental illness (and you may have, I have no way of knowing), I would ask that you refrain from confusing excuse and reason.

Mental illness isn't an excuse, but it may indeed be the reason for this tragedy. Please understand that those who are mentally disturbed are not rational...there is simply no way to know what perspective this shooter had on life, both his own and others. What is sad is that this one, almost certainly irrational human, felt that killing others was some sort of solution...when we all know the exact opposite is true.


----------



## 4sevens (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm in no way a gun advocate or a gun law advocate. I know generally
firearms are banned from college campuses. But imagine if
students were allowed to carry. Would less people have died? I'd think so.
Bottom line is, no gun law is going to stop a psycho from getting one from
the underground market. But gun laws do prevent people from defending
themselves. Think about that. :thinking:


----------



## VWTim (Apr 16, 2007)

aikiman44 said:


> Too sad. The 2 students killed in Arizona last month were my son's best friends. Numbing.
> I say there should be a cooling off/investigation period before the purchase of any firearm. In Nassau Co., NY, it takes months to acquire a license.
> Why isn't this done nationally?



As far as "investigation" periods, the FBI and many states can now do them in less than 5 minutes, verify if you have a record or any questionable past. If questionable they put a hold on the sale. All that will do is make it harder for my to buy guns. Why would I need a "cooling off" period to buy my 10th? handgun? 

Either way it's a tragedy. But even without firearms it's amazing no one succeeded in disarming him. Although maybe the news will come out later some tried.


----------



## Robocop (Apr 16, 2007)

What is wrong with people these days.....I have seen many in the news question the school and some are even blaming the school for the higher death toll. Many have said they were told to stay inside and away from windows and later said this allowed more to get killed...WTF....this sounds like any good advice to give in a scary situation and I feel the school simply did what was natural in this situation.....sounds to me like many always want to create more drama in an already bad situation and try to blame anyone possible......yeah like the school could somehow be prepared for such a bad situation anyway.....no one could be prepared for this.

I hate to guess this early on however I am also curious to know more of the shooters background. I am willing to bet it turns out he was some troubled kid in and out of the system and taking a host of wonder drugs. Surely there were some signs or warnings and it would not be the first time the system has failed. 

The news made me sick for the victims and families as in todays world kids should not have to worry about being killed while attending class. It seems the world is reaching a desperate situation that may call for desperate measures along the lines.

I also feel the media will surely follow with reports of how the police and agents somehow made it worse....it always happens that way and again I am sure all was done that could be done in such a horrible and unexpected situation. I learned long ago to never second guess anyone in a crisis situation without actually being there.

Bottom line is this is horrible and I am sure the school or any on the scene could have prepared for this. It is not every day you see death on such a large scale and shock sometimes delays things and also distorts many facts after the event. This was a bad thing done by a very bad person and we all have to find ways to cope with it.

If it does turn out the shooter had past problems maybe he should have been locked away somewhere before this could happen however once again society in general is often allowing bad people to walk among us for years. I have seen many suspect people later do bad things after they were handled very mildly and should have simply been locked away. It sounds harsh to many however desperate times mean desperate measures.

Once again this is all speculation on my part and without knowing the history of the shooter I can not say for sure if anything could have been done at all. Time will tell I suppose however we can all rest assured the blame game is far from over on this horrible event.


----------



## Robocop (Apr 16, 2007)

Sorry system locked up....double post


----------



## l1s125 (Apr 16, 2007)

One of the professors held the door to his lecture hall just long enough for his students to escape out the windows. All of the students made it, but he didn't get out. [link]


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Apr 16, 2007)

To all the *media* saying, the LEO could have done this or that or the other, hind sight is always 20/20. When the actual event is going down, the LEO on scene have no idea of how many shooters, if there are snipers, bombs, etc. These LEO's have families/friends, do you expect them to just march in there not having any real idea of what is going on like they are invincible? Would you? 

Mental or not, the shooter is a selfish coward, I hope he's getting it good right now in hades. What goes around comes around.


----------



## highorder (Apr 17, 2007)

> As far as "investigation" periods, the FBI and many states can now do them in less than 5 minutes, verify if you have a record or any questionable past. If questionable they put a hold on the sale. All that will do is make it harder for my to buy guns. Why would I need a "cooling off" period to buy my 10th? handgun?



The NICS (FBI) background check is National in scope and required for purchases from an FFL (licensed dealer); any additional periods are State laws.

you make a great point about new gun purchases with guns in the safe already...


----------



## bwaites (Apr 17, 2007)

There will be a BUNCH of Monday morning quarterbacking about how the school and the LEO's could have done SOMETHING better, but the truth is that this was perhaps the most confusing of all the shootings. 

An initial shooting and then a followup two hours later at another location? 

How could the cops have done anything differently as far as trying to control witnesses at one site, then hearing about another shooting, wondering if the two are related, how many shooters are involved, etc. 

The media is GREAT at making everyone but themselves look bad, and they are managing to smear everyone involved: The school should have done more, the school should have told us all to stay in, the school should have told us all to go home, the cops should have done this, the cops should have done that, etc. 

There are some heroes, like the professor who barricaded the door so students could get out, and died to save them. We SHOULD be honoring the heroes, not looking for someone to blame about how poorly it was handled. 

The only people who go charging into places where there are people shooting are our soldiers, (well, them and the guys in Hollyweird movies) and they have an idea about what is happening. NO ONE had any idea what was happening at VT, and all the rest of us are idiots in believing that WE could have handled anything differently.

MAYBE someone with a gun could have done something earlier, but we'll never KNOW, only speculate and assume, and both of those will not bring anyone back. 

I have a son in law and daughter at school less than 100 miles from VT and I've received phone calls all day about their safety as friends panic and can't remember where my kids are. I live in the town where the 1996 school shooting took place, killing my next door neighbors son. 

We've been through this, and no amount of finger pointing, or complaining about what SHOULD have been done will change anything. Blaming people for what happened doesn't and won't help. Working together WILL, if it is constructive and has an attitude of "what can I do better".

Bill


----------



## metalhed (Apr 17, 2007)

bwaites -- Very well said...I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Wolfen (Apr 17, 2007)

I re-read my post and deleted it. I was upset when I wrote it. Because of personal circumstances I have strong feelings about school security. The entire event will be dissected by smarter people than myself. 

Hopefully, the lessons to be learned will help stop something of this magnitude from happening again. I will continue to pray for the victims, their families as well as all the school staff.


----------



## DonShock (Apr 17, 2007)

PEU said:


> I see the majority of the replies aim (no phun intended) at a retaliative response from the victims to be......


It's not that the victims need to be able to retaliate against their attacker. It's that SOMEBODY needs to have the ability to STOP THE ATTACK and prevent there from being further victims. This case is a textbook example of why it's necessary to allow concealed carry by non-criminals who choose to take on responsibility for protecting themselves and others if the need arises. In all probability, nothing could have stopped the surprise attack on the first victims. But since nobody had the ability to stop the gunman from fleeing the area, he was able to make additional preperations over the next 2 hours and launch his second deadly assault. And it also demonstrates the inability of the police to be everywhere and be the sole protection for the entire populace. After the first shooting, they were present on campus, knew there was a shooting, and that the perpetrator was on the loose. And yet, just by going to the other side of the campus, the murderer had nothing to fear from the rest of the unarmed students and faculty. A good example of how guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can help occurred several ago at the Apalachian Law School where two armed citizens stopped the gunman after his initial attack and saved an unknown number of lives by preventing further attacks.

A good person can possess a gun for a lifetime without firing a shot, and nobody is in any danger from them. A bad person will break a thousand laws to get a gun and is a danger to us all, with or without a gun. If the good guy doesn't have a gun when he is attacked by the bad one with a gun, he is defenseless and dead along with whoever the attacker chooses next. If the good guy has a gun, he has the option of using it if the situaltion warrants and at least stands a chance of saving his life and others.



Robocop said:


> What is wrong with people these days......


They are raised to believe that all use of force is bad and to rely on only a select few trained professionals to stop the criminals. If even a tiny percentage had been encouraged to proudly defend themselves and others, the odds are a few among the hundreds of students in the classrooms would have had the ability to resist. Instead, their only option was to hunker down and hope the attacker would not choose them while they waited for rescue. Just as the attacker was able to trap his victims in an isolated classroom, a single brave individual with a weapon could have protected everyone in that same classroom by guarding the door. 

A safer society doesn't require the complete abscense of guns nor that everybody be armed. It just requires a few armed responsible members who are willing and able to stop the criminals. And this can only be accomplished through being prepared and equipped to meet deadly force with deadly force immediately at the scene of the crime. Arrest and punishment does nothing to stop the criminal during the commission of the crime, the actions of good people can if society will let them have the means.


----------



## Coop (Apr 17, 2007)

Why not place 'emergency firearms' in public locations? in a locked cabinet that can only be opened in such a way that a fingerprint or iris scan from the one that opens it is taken to prevent abuse. Also fit a GPS loacator beacon to the gun, so emergency response personnel immediatly know where they are needed.


----------



## LowBat (Apr 17, 2007)

Since stopping the shooter in the #1 priority, and not necessarily killing him or her, would everyone agree we need something readily available to do so?

My first thought is some type of taser weapon. Yes they have limitations, and I'd be scared to death trying to defend myself against a gun attack with only a taser. It is however better than having nothing and simply watching others being mowed down before it's your turn to catch a bullet.


----------



## Robocop (Apr 17, 2007)

I have found that people react differently to a deadly situation such as this and especially innocent students with no training or past exposure. Many will question why no one simply swarmed this man while he re-loaded and many seemed to just stand by like sheep and got killed......I have seen veteran officers simply "freeze" under gun fire while others reacted quickly and without fear. It is almost for many like the brain simply can not comprehend what is happening thus they go into a stupor or more like a coma not knowing what to do. Honestly a person never knows how they will react until it happens to them.

Simply being armed is better than nothing however again if an average citizen is armed there is a chance that they will still freeze and be little help at all.....it is not everyday one sees a situation like this. Bad things happen to good people all the time and in some cases there is simply no way to prevent it much less know it is coming. I worry nightly of what the world is coming to and even as an armed officer there are times when I still do not feel safe.

What if anything could be done here and what will be done in the future? I really do not like the way the media is surely going to spin this as I just watched one video report that made notice of the expiration of a high capacity ban on pistol clips allowing one to carry a few more rounds in their weapon......honestly does anyone feel this is the true problem here? Does it really matter if the man had 10 clips of 10 rounds or 10 clips of 15 rounds?

He reloaded several times according to witnesses and the amount of clips he carried or their capacity has nothing to do with this I believe....he was a determined killer plain and simple and if he used a baseball bat, or rifle, or even a black powder rifle he wanted to kill and killers always find a way. The media will surely try to sway this to the big bad world of gun ownership when it appears that no one else on the scene was armed other than the bad guy.

I do not feel this should spin out of control and cause a heated discussion on gun control but should focus more on people control. If from now on a man shows signs of this type behavior what will be done with that person.....when does it become ok to error on the side of caution and simply say enough is enough? 

When does it become ok to actually say a person is truly beyond help and a menace rather than saying they are a poor victim and continue to try and rehabilitate them to society....when will it be ok to just start risking hurting a few peoples feelings and actually say they need to be locked away forever. When will it be ok to tell the media to try and be part of the solution rather than the problem....when will society begin to understand what the true problems are and just how far gone many issues are due to being politically correct.

Now I do know some crazy people can go for years acting normal and never stand out thus if they decide to react one day nothing can be done to prevent that. I do also know however that many of these crimes are performed by people that should have been dealt with long before and for many reasons have not. The doctors keep telling them medication and counseling is the key when someone should say you know what who cares they are possibly dangerous and we can not afford to guess here.

The courts keep saying overcrowding and regulations force many out of jail to the streets. The courts also say that a few anger classes are all that is required for one to avoid jail when time has proven that many repeat offenders and early release prisoners resort back to violent crime. Ok so after something like this would it not be ok to simply say enough....we will not try anymore to be politically correct and we want potential killers away from all of us.

Yes this sounds like a rant based solely on my guess that the shooter had a past history however whatever the case I am very angry that so many lost their lives. It was a cowardly act by a crazy person however enough is enough I believe. What will the nations schools do now in order to prevent this? Would it be politically correct to make schools like a prison with armed guards strip searching all students and any visitors? If it turns out this person was a student would it be ok then to actually discriminate against a person based on past mental or criminal records....kind of like saying we do not care what society says we do not allow a person with your past to be a student in our school period. If any school did that the media would run them over but I ask what is the world coming to when we surely must consider doing just that.

I can see it now where many would say... "hey just because he has a violent past he is now ok due to therapy and meds and you can not discriminate against him"....well I say BS in todays world one has to form an opinion on past and with todays death toll there can be no room for error or the hope that nothing will happen.

Looking back on today I am beginning to feel as if this was planned by this person and that it possibly could not have been prevented. I am very much looking forward to learning more of the actual shooter and how the media will spin his story.....all in all many families were destroyed today and for them I do hope that some things will be answered to. I really can not imagine a family member being sent away to school to prepare for their young lives only to be killed in the safety of their classroom.


----------



## Daniel_sk (Apr 17, 2007)

If the students had guns to protect themselves, how would you be able to tell who is bad guy? They would be all running arround with weapons in their hands, and the police wouldn't be able to handle this situation...


----------



## carbine15 (Apr 17, 2007)

Daniel_sk said:


> If the students had guns to protect themselves, how would you be able to tell who is bad guy? They would be all running arround with weapons in their hands, and the police wouldn't be able to handle this situation...



You'd know the bad guy because everyone would be pointing at his bullet ridden corpse and their weapons would be holstered.


----------



## Phredd (Apr 17, 2007)

Daniel_sk said:


> If the students had guns to protect themselves, how would you be able to tell who is bad guy? They would be all running arround with weapons in their hands, and the police wouldn't be able to handle this situation...



No one is suggesting that the students do the job of law enforcement. They are in their classroom, the shooter comes in, students then draw their weapons and defend themselves. They should not patrol the campus looking for the shooter.

Phredd


----------



## DonShock (Apr 17, 2007)

Daniel_sk said:


> If the students had guns to protect themselves, how would you be able to tell who is bad guy? They would be all running arround with weapons in their hands, and the police wouldn't be able to handle this situation...


Honest people don't point amd shoot their guns at the police (or other innocent people), tend to put up their hands if the police point their guns at them, and readily comply with the instructions issued by the police. The bad guys are easily recognized, they're the ones using their guns to shoot at anybody that moves.

Most LEOs I've known don't consider mere gun possession automatically makes you the bad guy, it's what you're doing with the gun that tells them if you are on their side or not.


----------



## Glass (Apr 17, 2007)

In order for someone to be considered a threat, they must show intent, have the means, and have the opportunity. If someone is just standing there with a gun, but has not done anything to indicate they have the intent to harm me or another innocent person, I'm not supposed to use force against that person.

Use of Force 101.

Patrick


----------



## DieselDave (Apr 17, 2007)

Glass,
Before 9/11 everyone would typically obey the orders of a hijacker and eventually get off the plane safe. The rules for use of force on an aircraft changed that day. There's a good chance the rules changed yesterday as well.


----------



## ICUDoc (Apr 17, 2007)

My prayers go out for the victims and their families. I don't know how to prevent these events. I don't think anyone does. I try to teach my children faith, hope, love and respect. I don't know if that's enough either. I wish it were a better world out there for them and the rest of their generation. We should all try to make it better, but God knows it's hard to work out what's right and wrong sometimes- I just wish some good could come of this insanity. I will start in my own backyard.


----------



## Turd_Ferguson (Apr 17, 2007)

Never mind.


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 17, 2007)

This is precisely the moment to understand how things work.

When guns are outlawed only criminals have guns. And that’s EXACTLY what happened at VT. If you don’t understand this, your are behind understanding. 

Had, at least some, of these murdered victims been armed, there might be a couple of them dead, but the criminal would have been stopped before more harm was done.

Things as they are, sheeple have been successful in disarming the victims and this is the result. It is as simple as arithmetic. Those victims died because they were disarmed by a sheeple society bent of suicide. 

Put the blame were it belongs: with the disarmers, the gun controllers, those that want you to be like a defenseless sheep. They are actually telling you “you don’t have the right to defend yourself” which of course means “you don’t have the right to be alive”.

How many of these people died trying to call 911? Remember: a gun in your hand is ALWAYS better than a cop on the phone.

Criminals don’t abide by carry permits or restrictions of any kind. Only decent people do.

Restrict decent people from keeping and bearing arms and you become the criminals best friend. Of course criminals are on the side of gun control. It makes their jobs so much more safe. Hitler had gun control. Look at how well his Germany did. The Jews were disarmed. Look at how well it served them. Watch out! Diane Feinstein wants to give you a stone, tell you it is soap and that you’re going to take a bath. Good luck.


----------



## chmsam (Apr 17, 2007)

Tragedies like this make me think of three things:

1). As horrible as things like this are, they are incredibly rare. While we should always, always be aware of what goes on around us, most of us will never be touched by an event like this, even removed by several degrees (not even to the point where we know someone who knows someone, who...) and it is unreasonable to assume otherwise. Thank God.

2). Almost every single news reporter on every single network will jump to conclusions with few, if any facts, and so they are therefore, morons. They'll point the finger of blame anywhere and will torture the survivors and their friends for information just to sell advertising time. It is utterly disgusting.

3). The good, common, salt of the earth people who will tell you (often without being asked when in person, or grinning ear to ear when on camera) they woulda/shoulda/coulda, if only they were there, are a real piece of work. Unless they were there at the time, or have been through something like it, they should ST*U, please, because their ideas and advice are dangerous.

The whole horror of this simply ends up being tragically sad for all.

As always, we should keep our wits about us, say an extra prayer or two, and have a little more respect for everyone and/or treat everyone a little bit nicer. Life's too darned short.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Apr 17, 2007)

IMO, this shooting just goes to show how much people (in this case, a foreign asian) envy the American way of life. This very low act is nothing but pure jealousy. If I was a Korean, I'd be really ashamed right now.


----------



## BB (Apr 17, 2007)

The first report I posted about the identity of the shooter was incorrect... Here are the updates:

AP



> Police identified the classroom shooter as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a senior from South Korea who was in the English department at Virginia Tech and lived in a different dorm on campus. Cho committed suicide after the attacks, and there was no indication Tuesday of any possible motive.
> 
> "He was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said.



ABC News


----------



## ikendu (Apr 17, 2007)

Jorge Banner said:


> Had, at least some, of these murdered victims been armed, there might be a couple of them dead, but the criminal would have been stopped before more harm was done.



Since you are making a case for this, what percent of the students (in your opinion) would need to be carrying loaded firearms right at the time when needed to achieve the effect you are describing? And considering that some armed students may not have their weapons with them just at the right time, what percent of students generally need to be so armed?

Students come and go, sometimes in one class, sometimes in another.

So... to have a reliable opportunity that in that building, if there'd be a person armed and ready to stop the criminal... what percent of the entire student body?


----------



## bwaites (Apr 17, 2007)

Why should Koreans be ashamed? I wouldn't be ashamed solely if the shooter was from the United States.

This was a despicable act, but the fact that he was Korean, or Canadian, or German, or Dutch, or a US citizen doesn't reflect on the other citizens of those countries.

This was obviously an individual who was beyond all issues of nationality. 

For some reason he made decisions that led to the shootings, but his nationality didn't have anything to do with it.

From the descriptions of witnesses, he obviously had practiced, and probably used one of the "shooter" games to prepare. (speculation on my part, based on past similar incidents).

We need to do better, but being a foreign national doesn't change anything, at least in my viewpoint.

Bill


----------



## Phredd (Apr 17, 2007)

xiaowenzu said:


> IMO, this shooting just goes to show how much people (in this case, a foreign asian) envy the American way of life. This very low act is nothing but pure jealousy. If I was a Korean, I'd be really ashamed right now.



There's no sign that this had anything to do with nationality. If anything, there was evidence that he was distraught over problems with his girlfriend. Let's not turn this into an American vs ROTW argument.

Phredd


----------



## revolvergeek (Apr 17, 2007)

ikendu said:


> Yup. A reliable, dependable device that would harmlessly incapcitate any opponent would be a highly useful thing to have. I wonder if we will ever have such a thing. Until then... we will face hard choices.



If I could get a Phaser and set it on Heavy Stun, I would lock all my guns up in a safe and carry it every where that I went. Sadly, this does just not exist yet.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 17, 2007)

Arming everyone is simply not an option.

Even trained officers panic, as has been pointed out by Robocop.

I have a good friend who is retired FBI, and we have talked about the many gun battles in the last couple decades that trained LEO's, FBI, etc were involved in, including the LA bank robbery.

Look at the number of rounds fired vs the number of hits in those incidents and you realize that even determined, trained people may not be effective under this kind of pressure. 

However, the fact that SOMEONE else may have a weapon IS a deterrent to crime, but has not been proven to be a deterrent to people who are suicide bound, as this young man was. 

Bill


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 17, 2007)

ikendu said:


> Since you are making a case for this, what percent of the students (in your opinion) would need to be carrying loaded firearms right at the time when needed to achieve the effect you are describing? And considering that some armed students may not have their weapons with them just at the right time, what percent of students generally need to be so armed?
> 
> Students come and go, sometimes in one class, sometimes in another.
> 
> So... to have a reliable opportunity that in that building, if there'd be a person armed and ready to stop the criminal... what percent of the entire student body?


 This is not about percentages. Any member of the institution, including students, should have the right to be armed if they so decide. 

Have a look here. “Virginia Tech University Prof. Liviu Librescu, described as a family man who once did research for NASA, sacrificed his life to save his students in the shooting rampage yesterday. When he heard the gunfire, he blocked the entrance and got shot through the door," his daughter-in-law Ayala Schmulevich said.” 

What kind of sadistic, crazy or immoral mentality thinks that it is more moral for this teacher to have been unarmed and have to die with nothing else than his chest to face the criminal? Why is it better for him to have died in this way than for him to have taken his own gun and killed the criminal? Why is it more moral the all these people to have died defenseless than for several of them to have confronted the criminal with a barrage of bullets and maybe be ALL of then unharmed? Is it really better to die a sheeple than to stand your ground and defend yourself?


----------



## cchurchi (Apr 17, 2007)

ikendu said:


> Since you are making a case for this, what percent of the students (in your opinion) would need to be carrying loaded firearms right at the time when needed to achieve the effect you are describing? And considering that some armed students may not have their weapons with them just at the right time, what percent of students generally need to be so armed?
> 
> Students come and go, sometimes in one class, sometimes in another.
> 
> So... to have a reliable opportunity that in that building, if there'd be a person armed and ready to stop the criminal... what percent of the entire student body?


 

You can't control what other people do. What percentage of students need to be armed - to achieve the desired effect? Just one - Me - 100% armed.


----------



## BB (Apr 17, 2007)

There are a few researchers that have attempted to quantify how an armed population prevents crimes:

Old article from 2000:



> Some 2.5 million violent crimes are prevented by armed citizens each year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course, there are people that disagree with Lott and others:


> The statistics are bogus, said David Bernstein, spokesman for Handgun Control Inc. The numbers come from studies done by Gary Kleck of Florida State University and from author John R. Lott Jr. The studies have been criticized by other academics and statisticians.
> 
> "It's the two people they parade out every time they want to make a statistical argument," Bernstein said. "It's all bogus statistics."
> ...
> ...



I always love the anti-gun argument that the statistics, when they show a drop, are just a natural decline even when right to carry laws are passed--yet they oppose right to carry laws because these folks will creat blood baths when passed.

In practice, it appears that armed citizens prevent more crimes than the police themselves in this country... But, in a way, that only make sense in that, for example, in our area of the country there is only one police officer on duty for every 10,000 residences (in a city of 30,000--there are only three cops on patrol). Even if only 1% of the population is armed, that means that there is a 100:1 ratio between armed citizens to police.

So--police are usually only present to clean up after the fact. And, as many in the US already know--the police do not have to even show up at a crime if they don't want too:



> State and city governments — rather than the Federal authorities — are responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection. However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)].
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right to police protection. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that: “… there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)]. — Excerpted from Dial 911 and Die



So--if the police are not responsible for public safety--it leaves it to citizens to be responsible for their own safety. While I believe that the shooter is responsible for their own actions and I don't believe in the "deep pocket" method of suing everyone within 100 miles of a shooting... When a State or University passes laws/regulations (and prosecutes folks) that prevent otherwise legally carried weapons (guns, knives, pepper spray--which were probably all illegal on the VT campus)--then they do deserved to be sued for preventing self defense by the citizens themselves.

And, again, in the US--upwards of 50% of the homes in the US have guns (outside of New York, Washington DC and probably a few other places where the possession of guns legally is very difficult). Making more guns available for use than police could ever have available--even in a police state.

-Bill


----------



## Thujone (Apr 17, 2007)

Concealed carry recently passed in Nebraska. But UNL as with other educational facilities promptly posted gun free zone signs everywhere on campus. Nothing like telling a criminal he will be the only armed person.


----------



## BB (Apr 17, 2007)

Regarding "sensible" gun laws... Virginia apparently has a 1 gun per month law--so... He bought two guns about 1 month apart.

Not to mention all of the other gun laws he violated (you know--murder ~32 times, carrying a gun on campus, discharging a weapon in the city limits, etc.).

-Bill


----------



## revolvergeek (Apr 17, 2007)

*Opps* I just read further in the thread and saw that this had already been posted / referenced, but the story moved me nearly to tears and I feel that I must honor this man's sacrifice. More laws will never stop crazy, dangerous, determined people, but brave determined men and women can make a difference.

Brothers and Sisters, let us take a moment to celebrate Liviu Librescu. He survived the Holocaust and gave his life helping his students escape. Had he been armed, who knows, with this level of bravery and determination he might have been able to stop it. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266506,0 0.html

Quoted:

Students of Liviu Librescu, 76, a holocaust survivor who was an engineering science and mathematics lecturer at Virginia Tech for 20 years, sent e-mails to his wife, Marlena, telling of how he blocked the gunman's way and saved their lives, said the son, Joe.

"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu said in a telephone interview from his home outside of Tel Aviv. "Students started opening windows and jumping out."


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeah, let celebrate! He survived the nazis. He couldn’t survive America’s “gun controllers”. The nazis couldn’t kill him. “Gun control”, could. I wonder . . ., is there a lesson here? Like “gun control” is worse than nazism? Mmmm . . .

The right to self-defense is an immediate, necessary and natural consequence of the right to life. The right to self-defense can’t exist without the means to carry it out. So the right to own and carry the means to implement the right of self defense should be considered a basic human right. And nobody deprived of it, should be considered free. No Right to Keep and Bear Arms, no freedom. Now, what other Constitution in the planet has an amendment like the American Second? The measure of the success in upholding the Second Amendment is the measure of the survival of the American Dream. Let go of the first and kiss the second good bye.

Jorge Banner
Life Member, JPFO


----------



## Empath (Apr 17, 2007)

There's been 113 posts on a currrent event here that should be open for all people on CPF to discuss. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, it became a soapbox for a political agenda from the very start. It developed into a hostile environment from the start, and guarantees participation only from a select group that projects a feel of intolerance toward anyone else.

Unfortunately, those that would think complaints of such hostilities, or even a closing of such a thread is an expression of suppression of ideas, can't see that it is they that suppress ideas.

No, I'm not going to close it; I'll leave that up to someone else. It's already been closed from nearly the start for many members.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 17, 2007)

270winchester said:


> nonlethal self-defense tools like stunguns, pepper sprays, etc are also banned on campus of VT.


That is just totally insane! Any states/loactions that outlaw pepper spray have got their heads so far up their a** that there is nothing I could think to say to enlighten them.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 17, 2007)

jtice said:


> Wow, it is amazing the brain washing the TV/Media can do.
> 
> People really think its the guns that kill ppl.
> People just dont get it,,, criminals dont follow laws,
> ...


+1 +1 +1
Agree totally!


----------



## ikendu (Apr 17, 2007)

Jorge Banner said:


> This is not about percentages. Any member of the institution, including students, should have the right to be armed if they so decide.



Sorry, I was starting to think this through... and that is clearly not what is at work here.


----------



## nobody (Apr 17, 2007)

R.I.P.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 17, 2007)

ikendu said:


> Yup. A reliable, dependable device that would harmlessly incapcitate any opponent would be a highly useful thing to have. I wonder if we will ever have such a thing. Until then... we will face hard choices.


KIMBER LIFEACT GUARDIAN ANGEL PEPPER SPRAY
This SHOOTS at something like 90 MPH I believe a good distance (maybe 15 feet?) to disable someone. Maybe these would help in such a situation - maybe not - but I would think if a lot of people had such an item and someone got a shot at him knowing they were about to be shot then being blinded by this would give others time to jump the crazy shooter and disarm him/pound him to a pulp. While I'm all for gun rights and CCW I don't think it's going to happen on school campuses and may not even be the best idea but the Guardian Angel Pepper spray - well just think if it was MANDATORY for everyone to carry it.....


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 17, 2007)

Well, the truth is tough on some people. Sure it is nicer if nothing harsh is said. And wouldn’t it be even nicer if everyone wore pink? And ribbons on their hair. And, hey . . ., flowers! Bunches and bunches of flowers. And we would all love one another. And hug. And we could have bunnies, too. White ones.

America’s Founding Fathers would be so proud.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 17, 2007)

Empath said:


> There's been 113 posts on a currrent event here that should be open for all people on CPF to discuss. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, it became a soapbox for a political agenda from the very start. It developed into a hostile environment from the start, and guarantees participation only from a select group that projects a feel of intolerance toward anyone else.
> 
> Unfortunately, those that would think complaints of such hostilities, or even a closing of such a thread is an expression of suppression of ideas, can't see that it is they that suppress ideas.
> 
> No, I'm not going to close it; I'll leave that up to someone else. It's already been closed from nearly the start for many members.



I haven't seen any indication in the past that prevents people from voicing their nearly anonymous opinion on the Internet or CPF. I suspect it is the way the majority thinks here. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'd hope others feel free to express to anyone here of how this terrible tradedy might have realistically been prevented or lessened. Not that this thread was started to find a solution but it's a natural progression from seeing such a devastating event.


----------



## cchurchi (Apr 17, 2007)

matrixshaman said:


> I haven't seen any indication in the past that prevents people from voicing their nearly anonymous opinion on the Internet or CPF. I suspect it is the way the majority thinks here. But everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'd hope others feel free to express to anyone here of how this terrible tradedy might have realistically been prevented or lessened. Not that this thread was started to find a solution but it's a natural progression from seeing such a devastating event.


 
+1

Although, I admit I am a little intolerant of ideas that take away my rights.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 17, 2007)

Empath et al., I think the response you see here is perfectly natural as a counterpoint to all the "News" reports about how easy it is to buy a gun, how if we had stricter laws these things wouldn't happen, etc.

Does arming everyone solve the problem? Of course not, not any more than taking the guns away solves the problem.

A lot of this is anger that the only viewpoint expressed broadly is that more gun control will prevent these types of things when it has been shown that more gun control will not and cannot stop those who are going to commit criminal acts from committing them. Gun control laws don't prevent criminal acts and it has been shown that stricter gun control laws in Great Britain have actually led to MORE violent crime committed with guns.

This is one of the few forums that allow adult debate of such issues, and I for one am glad that it has been left open.

As far as listening to others viewpoints, I don't think ANYONE should be forced to carry a weapon against their will, but I do believe that our Constitution guarantees us the right to carry a weapon if we so desire. Those who propose otherwise are in direct contradiction to what is included as part of the Constitution and reinforced by recent court rulings.

At this point, we have a ton of simplistic "I told you so's" from both sides of the argument, none of which will be effective in the long run.

I would point out that we are currently enjoying the longest period of worldwide peace between major powers in history. That occurred because both sides were holding a gun that ensured mutual destruction if the other acted. 

Mutual destruction served as a great deterrant for countries, and it has been shown that it also serves as a deterrant for individuals who are otherwise sane.

I DON'T think it would have stopped this event, though I do believe that it MIGHT have decreased the numbers. This individual clearly did NOT CARE what was going to happen to him, period. In those cases, just like in the case of suicide bombers, having armed people might decrease the number of dead, but it won't stop SOMEONE from dying.

Bill


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 17, 2007)

Daniel_sk said:


> If the students had guns to protect themselves, how would you be able to tell who is bad guy? They would be all running arround with weapons in their hands, and the police wouldn't be able to handle this situation...



yes, thank goodness only the bad guy had the guns. the 31 dead victims are infinitely more morally superior now that they died without a struggle. 

By your logic the Slovak National Uprising should never have happened because with all the Slovaks running around with guns, the Red Army might not know who's the resistance once the Red Army moves in.


----------



## BIGIRON (Apr 17, 2007)

I've pretty much refrained from posting until I felt less emotion.

I believe that in today's America, the only way this could have been prevented would be by airport type security at every door at every campus in the nation.

As long as firearms exist, these incidents will happen. The logical solution is to collect and destroy all firearms in private ownership in the nation.

The question remains - how far will we go to assure security and saftey for all memebers of our society. Will we ban bathtubs to prevent babies and elders from drowning or falling? Will we ban beverage alcohol to stop the tremenous loss of life, productivity and psychological hardships it causes? Privately owned automobiles? Pointed knives? Computers that are capable of running violent video games?

A belief I've held for a long time is reinforced by my current thinking. It is harsh and very politically incorrect. The bottom line is that we are a historically violent culture and as long as we want the freedoms we have now, we will remain one. This then, is the price we pay for our freedon.


----------



## Phredd (Apr 17, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> The logical solution is to collect and destroy all firearms in private ownership in the nation.



You'll have to explain the logic to me. Besides, you'd have no better success than just trying to eliminate all the evil in the world.

Phredd


----------



## BIGIRON (Apr 17, 2007)

No gun = no shooting.


----------



## Phredd (Apr 17, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> No gun = no shooting.



You can take all the guns away, but those bent on crime will always manage to get a hold of one. The only solution is to even the playing field and allow people to defend themselves.

Armed citizens = Fear in criminals = Chance of survival

Phredd


----------



## Thujone (Apr 17, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> No gun = no shooting.



Yeah that is working in Washington DC. Any location in the world that is 'gun free' is simply a location where only criminals are armed (by definition). This makes no one safer. In an environment where anyone _could _have a gun is one where a criminal must assume they are not the only ones armed. This reduces crime. Much like was said above, arming everyone and disarming everyone are equally ridiculous goals.


----------



## McGizmo (Apr 17, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> ............
> A belief I've held for a long time is reinforced by my current thinking. It is harsh and very politically incorrect. The bottom line is that we are a historically violent culture and as long as we want the freedoms we have now, we will remain one. This then, is the price we pay for our freedon.


 
Had staff and students been free to carry firearms in this tragedy, would the cost of freedom been less, in number of lives lost? I think this is the crux of debate going on here. If this young man was indeed bent on a suicide mission then a potentially armed "target group" may not have been much of a deterrant but a armed "target group" may have had impact on this man's effect and success in his killing spree. A law abiding citizen who elects to "carry" also assumes a significant and real responsibility. That is part of the cost inherrent in the freedom to choose to carry or not. This young man was free to go about his mission of terror and killing. His victims were not free, by law, to arm themselves. 

"In case of fire, Break Glass". Law abiding citizens don't break the glass unless a fire dictates.


----------



## revolvergeek (Apr 17, 2007)

2002 analysis of Cause of Death broken out by age group. 

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Firearms account for 1.2% of the overall total and "OTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police", so we can't tell from these numbers what percentage are actually homicides. Overall, heart disease, cancer, the flu, diabetes and cars are each more common causes of death. Shootings like this are terrible, terrible things, but thankfully they are rather uncommon.


----------



## Biker Bear (Apr 17, 2007)

I find it absolutely appalling how many of you are arguing about gun issues practically before the bodies are cold.

Are you all that blasted numb? To hades with the [bleep]ing politics, over 30 people are DEAD.

Y'all should be completely ashamed of yourselves, on both sides of the argument.


----------



## Thujone (Apr 17, 2007)

I don't think it is disrespectful to discuss the reasons why a tragedy was able to occur while it is still fresh. Many have just lost their lives and demanding answers and changes that could help prevent further tragedy is perfectly reasonable IMO. Condolences to those families affected by this event. You are in my prayers. But in the same breath there are those that are alive now that will meet an untimely death due to the issues being discussed. That makes them important to discuss and discuss now rather than later, or as some seem to prefer, never.


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 17, 2007)

This IS precisely the moment to think about how to make thing different the next time. And there WILL be a next time. We can be sure of that. There WILL be a next time. Yes, when the bodies are not yet cold, this IS the moment. It is now that you can think: “OK, next time it’s me. What do I want? Do I want to die like a sheep in the slaughter house like the victims in VT? Or do I want a fighting chance? Am I a sheep or a man?”.

What will happen the next time? Will again decent folks have nothing but their skin to oppose an armed criminal? Why is this moral? Why is being defenseless moral? Why, when there is an alternative proven to work to give decent people a chance in the face of evil, it is moral to deprive them of it? Why is the death of a decent person, moral, but the chance to defend oneself, immoral? Where does this totally un-American hatred of self-defense come from? Not from America’s past. Those who founded America were of a different metal. What unfathomable level of brain washing has been so successful as to turn men into sheep?


----------



## BIGIRON (Apr 17, 2007)

I was afraid I wouldn't write clearly and I guess I didn't. I was attempting to explain a concept not a fact.

Simplistically here it is -- if there were no guns (repeat no guns) there could be no shootings. If there were no beverage alcohol, there would be no drunk drivers. That is basic logic. It is logical but not realistic. 

The bottom line of what I intended to say, and this is seriously harsh, is to answer the question - "Are you willing to accept the death or injury of yourself or another so that you may....(fill in the blank).... drink alcohol or drive a powerful car or own a firearm."

The current tragedy and other shooting deaths are the price we pay for the freedom to own a firearm. The death toll from drunken drivers is the price we pay for the freedom to drink beverage alcohol.

I am not addressing whether guns should be on campus, airplanes or anything else. Those arguments are neverending.

While we deplore the deaths and are saddened by them, ultimately we accept them as a part of our culture.


----------



## Danbo (Apr 17, 2007)

Biker Bear said:


> I find it absolutely appalling how many of you are arguing about gun issues practically before the bodies are cold.
> 
> Are you all that blasted numb? To hades with the [bleep]ing politics, over 30 people are DEAD.
> 
> Y'all should be completely ashamed of yourselves, on both sides of the argument.



Sorry, but what IS appalling is how people like the Mayor of Chicago can get on the news, supposedly to offer their condolences to the victims family, and jump on their private anti-gun bandwagon, utilizing a tragedy to boost support for their sick and twisted agenda. 

This was an act of a sick mind. The gun couldn't have done anything by itself. If a gun weren't available to this sicko, he probably would've just burned down the building or utilized another means to enact his terror on the world.

I am VERY sorry for what the families of these victims have gone through and are going through.


----------



## BIGIRON (Apr 17, 2007)

I learned of this when I walked into the carwash waiting room and saw it on the TV.

Honestly, my very first thought was what a circus the anti-gunners would put together.


----------



## chmsam (Apr 17, 2007)

Gee, it would really be nice to live in a world where there was no violence, or where there was someone to protect the innocent 24/7, or where people were treated well and could be healthy enough not to go off the deep end. Roy Rodgers isn't around to shoot the gun out of the hand of the bad guy.

Here's the reality: bad and horrible things happen. These things happen out of the blue. I don't have a problem with gun ownership by responsible persons. However, the shooter passed a background check. If people had seen him behaving strangely in the past, it never made it into his records. Also, neither of the weapons used were cheap knock offs. They didn't have what I would call high capacity clips (15 rounds for one and 10 for the other). He reloaded quickly and methodically. This was a college student who didn't make enough waves to have a record and had the funds to buy the pistols.

I have run off a burglar at gunpoint. Firing or not firing under those circumstances tends to raise your blood pressure and pulse rate. I know people who have fired guns in anger or in self defense. I know people who have been shot at and returned fire. Not one I know would want to go through it again. More importantly, they all feel that anyone who has a gun solely to use for self defense is most probably dangerous. Why? Anyone we've met who fit that description has been untrained, lacking in self control, and pretty much a meat-head. Last time I compared notes with my friends, we figured that number of people was small (maybe only 15 to 20), but those are idiots with firearms and that scared us a whole bunch. They all think they know what they are doing, but have zero range hours and no common sense.

IMHO, these are the people who are more liable to fly off the handle and use the gun on a family member who ticks them off and far more likely than they are to prevent a crime. They are wanna be vigilantes. The possibilty of meeting a crazed individual or a wanna be macho vigilante -- guess who I am more afraid of? Also, guess which have I personally had the priviledge of meeting more often? The folks who have watched too many episodes of Walker, Texas Ranger out number the crazies by a large number.

Now, to put this topic back on track, let's maybe consider moving the gun philosophies to a new thread and all please say a prayer or two for the families of the victims, but also for the family of the shooter. If you have a problem with the latter, then I would like you to just say a prayer that your child never does anything horrible and that you never end up with CNN satellite TV trucks parked in your front yard.

I can imagine the pain of the families of the victims, but the pain and shame of the shooter's family must be even deeper than that. There are a lot of victims from this who could use a kind thought and some compassion.


----------



## BB (Apr 17, 2007)

Biker Bear said:


> I find it absolutely appalling how many of you are arguing about gun issues practically before the bodies are cold.
> ...
> Y'all should be completely ashamed of yourselves, on both sides of the argument.


I can understand how you feel. I don't even argue that you should/could have those feelings.

Just remember the initial post by somebody who could have been one of the victims (first post):



Daekar said:


> [rant]I don't know if you have been following the news, but at least 22 people are dead and many wounded at the hands of a single gunman at Virginia Tech. The first shooting happened in the building where I lived when I was on campus, and my brother arrived on campus from drill with the Marine Reserves just in time to see SWAT breach the building where the gunman was. To the best of my knowledge, SWAT killed the attacker. I'm sorry for the choppy writing, but I'm sort of in shock. The tragic irony here is that firearms aren't allowed on campus - even my friend who does security there carries a 3D maglite as a weapon and uses a real flashlight for light because he's not allowed to have a firearm when on duty. This is a very costly lesson that gun control DOES NOT WORK. If it had been routine to allow students and professors to have and carry firearms, it's very possible this wouldn't have happened, or fewer people would have been killed. I just makes me angry that the people were forced into a situation where they were absolutely defenseless... you CAN'T just call the police if something happens because when they arrive you'll be DEAD. Just like being prepared with a flashlight, a firearm is something you carry and pray that you never have to use. Even in the UK, where personal firearm ownership (and pointy knives) are either completely prohibited or discouraged, there is still gun violence. In fact, since weapons were banned, violence using those weapons has drastically INCREASED. The only way to protect yourself is to be lucky or to take care of yourself, no one else can or will do it for you. [/rant]
> 
> Thanks for letting me write - my brother and my girlfriend (practically my fiance) were both on campus and this hit me much harder than I ever anticipated. I... think I'm going to be a little lost the rest of today...



Raised the very points--because he (I think) was instantly aware of the issues around weapons control laws.

This thread has been pretty much true to the first post.

-Bill


----------



## bwaites (Apr 17, 2007)

Some of the cause for this is inherent in who we are. WE are risk takers, it was bred into us by our ancestors. As a group they left countries looking for a better, more free life. Those who weren’t risk takers stayed behind, at least as a group. (I’m sure a few risk takers stuck around, but by and large, they split.)

Risk takers accept risks, period. That is what they did. They immigrated, while all those comfortable ones stayed home and out of the cold and wet and harsh and scary environment. 

Risk takers accept that there is a cost for that risk, and an even higher one for the freedom to accept that risk. We are them, and this is one of the costs. It hurts, it always hurts, but we will overcome it, just like we overcame the horrors of WWII and Korea and Vietnam and the Texas Tower Shooting and Columbine and too many others to name.

We accept that sometimes those risks and the consequences are horrible. But we also acknowledge that we will try to make it better. 

We accept the responsibility inherent in the freedoms that are guaranteed by our Constitution. We accept that those freedoms sometimes have horrible repercussions. But we fight now for freedoms around the world that too many have not had, and we refuse to accept less freedom than that guaranteed by our laws and the framers of the Constitution.

These are our laws, and we will live by them, defend them, and challenge those who try to overturn them.

I stand by my signature line, because he was one of us, even if only in spirit. 

It’s who we are.

Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 17, 2007)

I've refrained from posting in this thread thus far but I think the focus on gun control/lack of gun control is mostly irrelevant here. What's more relevant are the factors that would cause a person to end up in such a state of mind that they feel mass murder/suicide is the only way out. Along that line of thought I'm surprised nobody mentioned that the shooter had probably been medicated for depression at some point. It's been a well known fact that antidepressants as well as many other types of drugs can cause psychotic or just plain atypical behavior in some people. Was this more to blame than easy access to guns? I think so. You can have all the guns in the world but they'll only do harm if someone suddenly feels a need to harm others. That is really the larger problem. I feel the combination of our largely superficial society, many people living alone without any emotional support, _and_ the use of psychoactive drugs as the primary treatment for the inevitable depression caused by the first two factors, are what is at fault here. Perhaps had some of the potential victims been armed the slaughter could have been curtailed, but it speaks volumes for the type of society we live in that so many suddenly decide to embark on this violent course of action in the first place.

Yes, we need fundamental changes in how we live, interact with eact other, etc. However, the idiot politicians and media pundits have it all wrong by focusing on gun control or gun ownership. A gun is merely a tool. The shooter could probably have killed as many by getting in a motor vehicle and driving through a few crowded intersections. An intelligent person can think of scores of ways to commit mass murder, many of which have a high probability of success, especially if the person doesn't care about dying with his victims. Should we ban motor vehicles or anything else potentially lethal now as well? No, of course not. Rather, we should examine what it is about our society which is causing a disconnect among increasing numbers of people, and in turn leads to small numbers of them committing atrocities like this. Another debate on gun control will accomplish nothing. There is something terribly wrong in the society in which we live. Any of us could have been the shooter given the right circumstances. We all have our breaking point. However, it will take a brave leader to come out and admit it. If someone can do that, then these poor souls will not have died in vain.


----------



## flashfan (Apr 17, 2007)

As I see it, this event is _not_ about gun control, for or against. It is about _mental health,_ and perhaps about parenting and perhaps about society and the human race as a whole.

This guy appears to have been _determined _to wreak havoc, and if he had _not_ been able to obtain guns, would we today be talking about the _hundreds_ of people who died and were injured due to a suicide bomb or Oklahoma-type attack?

Edit: Hmm, looks like jtr beat me to it.


----------



## dano (Apr 17, 2007)

Some thoughts:

VT Campus has ordinances about no weapons on campus, including guns. I think the VT Campus POlice are also unarmed (but I can't verify this). This gun law didn't help the victims.

He reloaded several times, by current accounts, yet no one, that we know of in this stage of the investigation, attempted to intervene? I find the current generation of 18-20+ year olds pacifistic mentality very troublesome.

This is a huge tragedy that will change many things about this country. Politicians will debate it for years, and ultimately no good will come out of their rhetoric. 

From a law enforcement standpoint, heads will roll on this, as I don't think there was efficient containment nor a sufficient, proactive search to contact for the suspect.


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 17, 2007)

dano said:


> VT Campus has ordinances about no weapons on campus, including guns. I think the VT Campus POlice are also unarmed (but I can't verify this).



No, the campus police are armed.


----------



## tradderran (Apr 17, 2007)

never mind. I had this long post typed out ready to post. But I just
deleted it.


----------



## highorder (Apr 17, 2007)

> I find the current generation of 18-20+ year olds pacifistic mentality very troublesome.



+1


----------



## amanichen (Apr 17, 2007)

tradderran said:


> never mind. I had this long post typed out ready to post. But I just
> deleted it.


Same here. And even though I have a closer connection to what happened yesterday than just about everybody who's posted in this thread so far, I'm saddened to see the direction this thread has taken, and I feel my words, no matter how relevant, would fall on deaf ears.


----------



## BB (Apr 17, 2007)

One reason to talk about what happened now to these poor folks is the attitude of the government, chief of police association, and university officials before this horrible shooting happened:

From January 31, 2006 (Roanoke Times):


> *Gun bill gets shot down by panel*
> 
> _HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee._ [font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] By Greg Esposito
> [/font] 381-1675
> ...



-Bill

_The article quoted in it's entirety has been reduced down to only the first paragraph. View the link given for the entire article. See CPF rule #5. - Empath_


----------



## Glass (Apr 17, 2007)

DieselDave said:


> Glass,
> Before 9/11 everyone would typically obey the orders of a hijacker and eventually get off the plane safe. The rules for use of force on an aircraft changed that day. There's a good chance the rules changed yesterday as well.



I agree with you. However, I feel that compliance with a threat in that type of situation was a mistake then, and it is a mistake now. If the person wants to move you from one place to another, they are doing that so they can give themselves even more of an advantage. You don't want that to happen.

But, I was just addressing the comment that a cop could just engage someone mearly because they are armed. It doesn't work that way. We are trained to react to behaviors and perceived intent. Just having a weapon is never a justification to engage with force.

Patrick

P.S. I don't have the words to truly express what a tradgedy this was. God help those people.


----------



## 83Venture (Apr 17, 2007)

Originally Posted by Daekar
"The tragic irony here is that firearms aren't allowed on campus - even my friend who does security there carries a 3D maglite as a weapon and uses a real flashlight for light because he's not allowed to have a firearm when on duty"

VTunderground post # 134 Says "No, the campus police are armed"

Which is it? Are there two different security forces for the University?


----------



## BB (Apr 17, 2007)

Just to summarize a few points of the article (sorry it was a full quote--there was so much background information)--as I think that they were important--A VTECH spokesman said "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."

Also that VT has disciplined a student with a (legally) concealed weapon (reason for proposed law to prevent universities from implementing their own bans) and the VT board had reiterated a violence prevention policy to prevent employees and students from bringing guns on campus.

-Bill


----------



## cutlerylover (Apr 17, 2007)

Just for the record the guns he had were purchased illegaly from what I heard on the news...but thats totaly besides the point, this should be about the horrible loss of the people who lost their lives, not about whethere or not guns are good...There are some thgin that will NEVER change about people...we will always have weapons....and we will always have drugs....and no matter what we will never have complete peace with each other, yes this was a horrible loss to the families involved but people die everyday, just because you dotn hear about it doesn't mean its not happening, because this was at a school its being exploited by the press...life in general is too sad to think about so when stuff like this happens I try to just forget about it, nothgin will change what happened to those innocent people...I try not to watch the news to muchb eitger so Im not always depressed...

Dont get me wrong I really do feel for those peoples families, but this is just life, we will always have crazy people doing insane things...At this point it doesnt matter what people think about guns or gun laws, if someone wants a gun they will most likely get one no matter what laws are made or changed...


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 17, 2007)

83Venture said:


> Originally Posted by Daekar
> "The tragic irony here is that firearms aren't allowed on campus - even my friend who does security there carries a 3D maglite as a weapon and uses a real flashlight for light because he's not allowed to have a firearm when on duty"
> 
> VTunderground post # 134 Says "No, the campus police are armed"
> ...



Virginia Tech has a real police department, that carries guns. There is also a "Campus Watch", which I imagine is the security mentioned. The Campus Watch guys walk around campus - usually at night on weekends - just keeping an eye out for trouble (drunk people), and contacting the real police via radio if they're needed.


----------



## matrixshaman (Apr 17, 2007)

As horrible as this was I think we are all very lucky in comparison. Think about how many innocent little kids and people are killed nearly every day in Iraq by suicide bombers and people who are so brainwashed that they think they are doing right by their religion. All of this is tied to some horribly wrong thinking. What brought the person at VT to such incorrect thinking? Was it drugs? I would not be surprised if that was some of the cause. Was he a Manchurian candidate? I know that last question has a strong sense of 'conspiracy theory' and many people hate to think along the lines that any strong influential group could be plotting to change their lives or remove their rights - BUT I personally am not ruling that out as a possibility. Consider that IIRC the last couple of shooting or killing spree's that have happened (one WAS with a car) have been by foreigners. Is it anti-American sentiment has increased so much that this is happening or is this an example of an M.C. or is it just one individual gone off the deep end. A lot of questions and I'm sure some of these questions will be very bothersome. As CNN news has titled on their page right now "Looking for Answers" but I tend to think outside the box or as I like to say 'Outside the Matrix' and maybe we are not finding the answers because we are not asking the right questions. Based on some spiritual teachings I've learned that if something bad keeps happening over and over than it is best to ask 'What is the lesson that needs to be learned?' This is not as simple of a question as it might seem and involves asking what is the real meaning hidden behind the appearances. Referring back to my first statement that we are lucky here in the U.S. compared to some places what is it that has brought some countries to such a high level of violence? Has the level of violence been increasing here? I don't have the answers at this time but I believe it is time for some deep thinking on many of these questions. Ramble mode ON: Just a hint of one thing that occurs to me as a reason for such insanity and problems. I think it's rarely spoken of because it is a good thing for big business and good for many - Overpopulation and overcrowding. How many people in the city of Bagdhad alone? - almost 6 million. The population of the U.S. just went over 300 million recently. Personal responsibility in birth control would go a long way to solving ALL of the worlds problems. We would not have the great fear of LACK (lack of food, housing, your next tank of gas, competiton for jobs, water - yes water was listed by the military think tank as being the next item to worry about for shortages in the next 30-40 years that will likely lead to more terrorism) if it was not for a rapidly growing population. I believe it was stated on CNN that the shooter in the VT tragedy may have been distraught over problems with a girlfriend and it was stated that he was angry at the rich kids on campus. Did some rich jock get his GF's attention? Too much competition again - overcrowding can be seen as a root cause for that scenario if look deep enough. One more thing - You empower that which you focus on. What do you think the shooter was focusing on in his thinking? What do you empower if you focus on the light? (and no I'm not talking about our flashlights here but I am going back to focusing on flashlights now as they may be a just a hint of reminder of the real light I'm referring to - and a good break from all this deep thinking) Ramble mode Off.
Sending light to all those affected by this tragedy.


----------



## BB (Apr 18, 2007)

It is probably best to wait for hard information about the person who did the shooting and what happened in the classrooms...

For example, I am reading that the "shooter" may not have been the boyfriend at any time with the first girl killed in the dorm room--and she may not have even really known him. Also, it sounds like he may have been on anti-depressants at some point in his life (while they help 50-99% of the people who take them, there is still that 0.1-1.0% of people that may flip out with them--either in the first few days/weeks, or if they drop them later).

I don't think that there is any conspiracy going with some guy who came to the US something like a decade +/- ago.

Also, it sounds like there were a few folks that went above and beyond in protecting those around them (professor that gave his life, another student that blocked the door before the gunman came, etc.).

We will probably never know all of what happened and it is too early to make sweeping generalizations at this point in time. Sounds like a troubled person who fell through the cracks with family, friends, and institutions. And it is probably the downside of a system were personal rights trump almost everything else (difficult to commit folks for being "different"--don't lose our rights just on the word of one person/doctor).

Prayers to all.:grouphug:
-Bill


----------



## cutlerylover (Apr 18, 2007)

Oh yeah the professor...Talk about irony, the man survived the holocaust and he ended up shot by some crazy punk and on the holocaust rememberance day no less...What a shame...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 18, 2007)

I know what you were trying to say Big. I have said many times myself "If you can assure me that ALL the guns are gone, I'll give mine up".

As to Tazers and such... There is a BIG push going on in Houston to get the use of them by the police stopped. "Surely there must be some other way to deal with the situation"

Yeah. Bullets.

My heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

I feel that there should be "Sky Cop" sort of teachers. Armed but unknown to other teachers. And honestly, if nothing precludes the ownership of a gun, it should be the right of any "GOOD" person to carry one.

And as has been said, any Rambo that just wants to carry is little better than nothing. I'm a shooter, not just a gun nut. I don't have a CHL but did take the class. I saw some good smart people in that class, and some that should NEVER EVER be allowed to carry! Oh, and my buddy and I were the only ones to shoot expert at the man shaped target. Using 1911's no less.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 18, 2007)

It seems like every special interest group has a script standing by just waiting to make political hay out of any tragedy that comes along. The pro and anti gun people, the pro and anti Psychiatry people. The list go on and on.

The latest story in the news to be debunked is that he was on anti depressants, or was on the in the past. According to this article, senior government officials say there is no record in any government database of him ever having a prescription for anti depressants.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=2


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

Wait...There are government databases that show who has received antidepressants?

That would be a HUGE violation of the HIPPA laws...wait, never mind, it's the government, they are allowed to invade our privacy!

Bill


----------



## havand (Apr 18, 2007)

dano said:


> <snip>
> 
> He reloaded several times, by current accounts, yet no one, that we know of in this stage of the investigation, attempted to intervene? I find the current generation of 18-20+ year olds pacifistic mentality very troublesome.
> 
> <snip>



How can you blame them? When I was in high school, if you were attacked and threw a single punch to defend yourself, you were in as much trouble as the person that attacked you. How are kids supposed to not become pacifists after that? The entire culture in America has shifted towards making men less 'manly' and part of that, I believe, is becoming more pacifist. I get the feeling that 'back in the day' violence occured just as often, but was not as extreme as today. Now it is such a big deal when it occurs, that it truly is 'mark on your record'. Try getting a job after being convicted of an assault. Wasn't your fault? Try explaining that to an employer as they shred your resume and ask you to leave.

And I don't believe ridding America of guns is the answer either. But neither are they the solution. Everything is risks. Trying to protect a college campus the size of many in America is simply impossible. Literally hundreds of buildings, 40-50k+ students. It is impossible. I feel that attempts to do so simply waste everyone's money and irritate them at being 'watched' all the time. I'm hoping my school avoids the typical knee jerk reaction and doesn't do something totally ridiculous that won't protect me at all, but will annoy me and waste my tuition. Basically, it comes down to a price. You cannot remain in a free society and not have things of this nature or 9/11 happen. 

I guess it comes down to a price and a risk. Personally, i'm willing to risk my own life to live in a relatively free society. I don't want crazy security or anything of the sort. I feel it does little to deter those that are determined and only hurts 99.9% of the people instead of helps. I actually feel guilty saying this on a message board in relation to either this tragedy or 9/11, but it is how I feel and felt after 9/11 and Columbine shootings. And gun control has nothing to do with it. I don't own a gun or plan to in the immediate future.


But, I digress.



I feel deeply for the victims and their families involved in this ridiculous act and can never understand why people feel they have the right to pick out others seemingly at random to take their lives. My thoughts are with them.





EDIT: I would like to just say how disgusted I am at the media, interest groups and the circus in general. I watched a few news reports today and it looked like the reporters were reveling in the situation. The one woman on CNN had a smirk/half smile on her face the whole time and was just making ridiculous claims. It hurts me to see what this country will do for money. Why does everyone feel they have to justify this or come up with a reason for it. Every station has a 'specialist' on giving their opinion. Why can't people just be messed up and not right in the head? Not everything has an explanation.


----------



## DonShock (Apr 18, 2007)

Today I heard Suzanna Hupp, who watched her parents get killed in the Luby's massacre, express what I think a lot of us "pro-gun nuts" feel. It's not a desire to push a political agenda. It's anger at knowing that the victims were rendered defenseless by stupid laws. After similar instances have happenned in the past, people have asked to have the ability to defend themselves. But they are told that they are over-reacting and not to worry, law enforcement will protect you. And then before very long, BOOM, another shooting in a "gun free safe school zone" or some other area where weapons possession is restricted. It's anger at picturing these poor people cowering in fear with no practical way to defend themselves. It's anger at the idea of your loved ones being in the same situation. And it's anger at knowing that a gun in the right hands can save lives, but just as after the past incidents, the deaths of these poor people are going to be used to make easy victims of even more people.

Yes, I'm angry! How many more people have to die because we are more concerned with "why" the perpetrator did it than stopping him when he does it? I don't care about the politics, I just want to stop the killing. We've tried restrictive gun laws and psychology long enough with no appreciable results. We have proof, in a few rare incidents, that guns in the right hands will stop the shooter. Let's give what works a try and see what happens. So far, all the predictons of wild drunken gun battles in the streets once concealed carry is approved have proven unfounded. There is no reason to believe that, if you allowed it in these currently banned areas, it would begin happening. I don't want to win the next election. The next time a shooting happens, and it will happen again, I want to hear that the shooter was stopped immediately by a responsible individual before more people could be killed. As previous incidents have shown, this doesn't require a gun battle. Usually, just the fact that he is now facing armed resistance is enough to get the shooter to lay down his weapon without any further shooting by either side.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 18, 2007)

bwaites said:


> Wait...There are government databases that show who has received antidepressants?
> 
> That would be a HUGE violation of the HIPPA laws...wait, never mind, it's the government, they are allowed to invade our privacy!
> 
> Bill



Privacy is long gone. The big drug companies can also see which Doctors are prescribing how much medication so they know who to reward.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

They're rewarding us now? How do we get rewarded?

I'm missing out on the rewards?

Bill


----------



## turbodog (Apr 18, 2007)

I remember when I was in college at Mississippi State U. We could have guns on campus. Campus police would even store them for you if you liked. They would also allow you 24/7 access to them. I usually kept one in the dorm room, one in the car, and my hunting rifle (expensive) in the police locker.

This crap would not have happened down here. Remember the Pearl High School shooting? It was stopped by a faculty member who retrieved their own gun and used it against the gunman.


----------



## WNG (Apr 18, 2007)

DonShock said:


> Usually, just the fact that he is now facing armed resistance is enough to get the shooter to lay down his weapon without any further shooting by either side.



I don't think your claim above would apply to today's tragedy. That case involved specifically targeted victims.

Perhaps a criminal utilizing a weapon for a robbery, sexual assault, might react as you stated. Someone retaining a fear of death.
But not an individual with mental illness, hell-bent on destruction. The danger lies in applying our mental logic and thought process into the minds of the criminally insane.

The only way to have stopped the carnage was not ignoring the warning signs that this person gave out before he set forth on taking lives.
He was a VERY troubled individual. The focus should be on how and why such persons come to such a mental state.
Such mass murders are not isolated to the USA. Canada, China, Australia, Japan, Germany, England, Italy, Russia, Ireland, South Korea, Brazil, India, Thailand, are some countries (civilized?) that I can remember similar tragedies occuring.
Just what sets these people off like this? 

The US Postal System suffered from a rash of incidents where workers went on a shooting rampage. Coining the phrase "gone postal".
They managed to implement a policy that popped the mental fuses of workers.


----------



## turbodog (Apr 18, 2007)

dano said:


> Some thoughts:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Ah yes, the pussification of the American male.


----------



## Robocop (Apr 18, 2007)

While I do not feel this situation could have been prevented due to certain events I do feel that even with less strict gun laws few students would have been armed anyway. Many people choose to not carry even in places where they can.

I so feel that first to have some form of order and control the courts must deal with the laws that are already on the books. Here we have something known as project I.C.E. and was labeled as the solution to all gun violence. It began as a way to fight violent criminals who used a firearm. The state made up these huge signs and placed them on the roadways stating..."have a gun and drugs go to jail...period"

The new program was based around federal laws that stated if one has a firearm while in possession of narcotics the charge became federal with much stronger penalties. It was said to be a no questions asked charge with simple terms....if you have a gun and drugs you will be in big trouble and will spend a lengthy time in jail.

Well at first the courts did arrest a few on gun and drug charges and made it a federal case under the I.C.E program. I myself had over 30 I.C.E. cases in one year and was so happy to know these criminals would do minimum mandatory jail times however quickly became discouraged when I found out that many were allowed to plead out to lesser crimes and many even avoided jail times.....what a joke the whole mess was.

Even if we did have laws banning all guns what would the courts do with the criminals who broke these laws....probably nothing as they have shown in the past that nothing is done to todays violators. They would be released most likely down the road and guess what....they would find a weapon somehow because they are criminals.

Lets be realistic here.....even if lawmakers did ban all firearms how could they be sure every gun was accounted for? This will never happen as there are hundreds of thousands of firearms in this country illegally. They are brought in from other countries and in many cases firearms bought here are stolen and altered so as not to be traced.

There are way too many firearms out there to account for so total banning of all firearms would do little good anyway. Yes if one could guarantee that no one in the world could get a gun then the "no gun = no shoot" would be correct but sad to say this is simply physically not possible to do. I so wish it were just that easy but it is not and never will be.

So what is the answer?.....Does it take a genious to figure it out?....I do not see how any can argue todays courts are screwed up enough already and do not seem to be getting any better. Criminals do bad things and many times we know who the criminals are. Many times these type people slip through the system to freely walk among us and eventually do what they do best....very bad things.

In order to start any change I believe we as a society need to start changing peoples mind set. Forget the silly politically correct views regarding prisons and make it a place where criminals do not want to go....remove the TVs and internet and cut costs down to a bare minimum in order to build more prisons. take out the libraries and soda machines and make it a jail rather than a recreational area. Yes overcrowding is an issue and todays jails are so bogged down with rules I would hate to work as a corrections officer. You know what if one does not like the crowded 2 or 3 to a room and bare minimum living quarters then stay out of jail at all costs.

This was a horrible event and should not reflect badly on the good or bad of gun control issues but more along the lines of the criminal mind. This man would have done something bad no matter what his choice of weapons were. If we want to get picky on the details we could try and trace where the weapons were bought and I believe I read that the guns were bought illegally......ok if so would it not be interesting to maybe find the person who sold the guns was a known criminal.....maybe find that they were in and out of the so very weak system already.....maybe they were given very little punishment and reduced jail times....you get my point I hope.

I am saying that criminals in general and gun crimes are a result of several breakdowns at many different levels. Absolute and harsh penalties are going to have to be required period.....no deals or people feeling sorry for some cracked out coke head with a sad past and sob story.

Maybe rather than banning all guns society could focus on banning all the damn criminals. If people would focus on the real problems and put as much money and effort into the real problems we could have a better place to live.

While I do understand the thinking of gun control people I can not understand the refusal to accept the REALITY of todays criminals. No matter what type laws we pass guns will be here to stay and criminals will ALWAYS have guns....what is so hard to understand about that.......I honestly think that some believe that if we ban all weapons crime will go away. I can see some person watching the news 20 years from now and seeing where a masked gunman kills 4 people. This person looks at their wife and says..."how did that happen guns were banned 10 years ago"....Then the news tells the story of the gunman stealing the gun or maybe buying it on the street from guess who.....yes another criminal....imagine that.

So to sum it up gun control or no gun control crime will happen and people will die. We can all watch it get worse as it seems to be going that way or we can demand something be done. When we see where a violent criminal gets early release demand to know why.....when we see a plea bargain for a lesser and easier to prosecute charge demand to know why....I know it is not that easy but it takes very little smarts to see the facts. The world is a mess and getting worse and I hope something changes soon but sadly do not expect it to do so.


----------



## Raven (Apr 18, 2007)

This creep was here legally, but why was he treated with such kid gloves. The minute his odd behavior was reported, he should have had been tossed out of the country immediately, but that would have resulted in whines and accusations of xenophobia, so nothing was done, and now over 30 people are dead.


----------



## Kristofg (Apr 18, 2007)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I know what you were trying to say Big. I have said many times myself "If you can assure me that ALL the guns are gone, I'll give mine up".



This point puts the pro/anti gun debates in pretty good perspective. There are already way too much guns available in order to make any difference by prohibiting them. Even if they were prohibited, how would you prevent people from carrying them? At the same time, people who are incapable of hitting their intended target (as defense) should best not be encouraged to carry guns.
Perhaps something like a permit in the way a drivers licence for cars works? i.e. having to demonstrate that you can actually use the weapon in a professional way before you are allowed to carry it outside of your private property.

Furthermore, would metal detectors at entry points be of any help? Then it would be much harder to bring a gun into the building itself, without getting noticed by security. This system was used at an airport where i worked for a while. There was armed security, but entering or leaving the grounds was by means of a guarded gate system.

Every post here concerning the weapons has been about using weapons as defense, but what about bullet-proof vests? It seems to be a great way to defend yourself from unexpected events (before you have time to dig out the gun from the backpack)

Have there been any studies done on what would happen if a group of people is attacked in an unexpected situation and they have individual means of defense? (i.e. does everybody manage to stop the attacker or does the number of innocent victims rise due to friendly fire)


----------



## carbine15 (Apr 18, 2007)

There have been studies on homicides by police officers vs citizens on the scene shooting suspects; and the rate of "hitting the wrong guy" is higher for the police responding to an incident. 
A few years back a police officer in Tacoma had his son steal an unmarked cruser while no one was looking. What followed was a chase of half a dozen cars (some also unmarked). The cops ended up stopping the wrong cruiser and firing 600 rounds at each other before they realized their blunder. Thankfully *no one was injured!*


----------



## Daekar (Apr 18, 2007)

I haven't been able to read this whole thread, but I have a few comments:

1) The behavior of the media has been appalling. They have swarmed in huge numbers and have no respect for anyone here - it's just a story to them. As far as I can tell, the impact of having to support the huge influx of media teams has been as taxing to the area as the shootings.

2) Someone mentioned "where were the police?" Well, the shooter had an hour (!) inside Norris Hall after he fired the first shots before SWAT entered the building. He had already committed suicide by then. I don't blame them for letting him escape Ambler Johnston - he was a student, he blended in with everybody. To expect to just "pick him out" would be arrogance of the highest degree. However, I find it appalling that it took an hour for police to enter Norris. According to my a friend who is on Tech Security, they didn't let the local cops (who were there well before an hour elapsed) enter because they were afraid the shooter wouldn't come out alive.  Incidentally, Tech Security personnel aren't allowed to carry firearms, or any other weapons besides batons. To the best of my knowledge, Tech Police don't have firearms either. My friend carries a maglite for protection, not for light.

3) Campus communication was non-existent. There are large PA speakers scattered around the perimeter of campus (those of you who are familiar with the VT campus will be falling out of your chairs laughing at this point) that they broadcast things on - but there are none in any buildings at all. You can't hear the PA speakers inside anywhere... and guess where most students are at any given time? Oh yeah, inside... I'm surprised in our "always under threat of terrorism" state, things were so bad.

I know I'm "monday quarterbacking" but these are my feelings. Overall it was handled well with some critical mistakes thrown in.


----------



## prof (Apr 18, 2007)

Very sad. I teach on a university campus. I'm surprised this does not happen more, honestly. Our students are stressed out from many different issues--for example, finals are coming up. Others have personal issues. However, almost all of them handle it very well. We, like most campuses, have resources for those that need help. I do not know how effective those centers are, and have never had to refer anyone to them. 

So sad. I have no words for this.

Gun control: my best friend lives in a country where ALL guns are banned. He is a law-abiding citizen and is unarmed, although he travels in dangerous areas (often with his wife and children). He's been caught and held at machine-gun point. Machine guns are brought in by people fleeing a nearby country which is at war. The guns are sold or traded for food. I do not believe these laws help, as many of you have pointed out. Criminals do not care. However, I really do not think that letting my students have guns on campus would help either. That would be scary in itself, especially when returning exams. I don't know the answer here. There are no easy answers.


----------



## BB (Apr 18, 2007)

Even bullet proof vests would not have stopped the guy in VT, or the Lubby's killing, etc... Many of these people were simply shot in the head at close range.

And yet, in the LA Shootings a decade ago--several robbers armed with full automatic weapons and bullet proof vests themselves, shooting anything that moved in the middle of a major city--did not kill one other person themselves (granted, several police officers were badly wounded).

And, as Carbine15 has seen from (current?) research (and I from research even 30 years ago)--killing the wrong person is more likely by highly trained police then by he "average" person (and, again from decades old research, citizens are responsible for something 1.5+ times the police regarding justifiable homicide)--so by that reasoning, we should be taking guns away from the police and only arming citizens as armed citizens have a much better record in preventing crime and less errors in using weapons. And--we have more people being killed by governments (wars, police actions, etc.) than killed by "criminals"--again disarming nations and politicians (if that was even possible) should be a good thing (not being serious here--just trying to make a point).

So, I guess you have your research right there when armed citizens stop more crimes and kill fewer unintentional victims than police. Remember, even VTECH was not stopped by the police--it was stopped when the attacker was done killing and committed suicide--like several other school shootings (again--realizing the police have an, at times, an almost impossible job). And there are at least several other recent school shootings in the US that were stopped by armed citizens rather than the police (including one where the guy had to run a 1/2 mile to his car+gun because he had to park outside of the "gun free" zone--talk about irony).

Also, remember that even the US Supreme Court has ruled multiple times (over a 100+ year period--earlier post from me) that "government" has no duty to protect their citizens, or even respond to calls for help. US Citizens are the only ones with a duty (in the US constitution) to protect themselves.

And if we could reduce gun possession to near zero (say, as in a "small city" with ~30,000 adults--no "children" and many thousands of employees--say gun possession by per 1/40,000 people which is very close to zero guns in a large population)--we get VTECH.

In the end, we still have some of the largest mass-murders in (at least) US history that took place without even using guns (largest US school killing was in ~1927 using explosives, ~168 Oklahoma by explosives, ~90 people killed by ATF/FBI/government in Waco--most killed by fire, and ~3,000 people in 9-11 killed by 19 hijackers armed with simple box cutters).

And still the largest number of US dead--from any cause of violence, ~600,000+ people (most dying from disease rather than guns), is the result of a disagreement between two groups of United States politicians (US Civil War--1860's).

-Bill


----------



## chmsam (Apr 18, 2007)

*** Major rant warning!

Now, this is for anyone who thinks that the kids in those classrooms were wussies -- let somebody come up and fire blanks behind you macho types and not watch you crap your tighty white-ies. How dare you call those kids and faculty anything but heroes. Before some say that they should have attacked Cho, remember that he had two pistols and that he was firing and reloading quickly. Let me please see just one of the folks who have the advantage of such good 20/20 hindsight charge a person with two weapons while he is firing at them. I bet you'd say that you'd throw yourself on a grenade in combat, but you know what?, saying it is one thing and actually doing it when you're in the crap up to your ankles is quite another. Talk is cheap, chumps.

A large number of these kids risked their lives by barricading doors that Cho then fired through. They were behind wooden doors and cinderblock walls -- and neither of those will stop a 9mm round. Faculty and students literally put their bodies in the line of fire and kept him from coming into the room and firing at others. Several were shot and a few died doing it. Sure as hell doesn't sound like they were wusses, and guess what? That sounds like an honest-to-God bunch of heroes to me, and quite a number of them, too. They put the lives of others ahead of their own as scared as they were at the time. In the military that usually gets a Bronze Star, and for those who died doing it, sometimes a Medal of Honor. I'd like to remind a few of you tough guys that these were teenage kids and one of the professors was an old man, and he was a concentration camp survivor at that. That old man had looked death in the face before and he still had the guts to stand there while his students got out through the windows. It sounds like that old man knew he was going to die and yet he did it anyway. What have you done that makes you able to call any one of those people anyhting less than a hero?

Real heroes don't brag. The real heroes don't need to justify what they did and don't even feel heroic. Those kids are feeling guilty they couldn't have saved even more lives than they already did. The other real heroes are kids like the Eagle Scout who remained calm enough to put his finger in his own bloody wound and be able make a tourniquet so his arterial bleeding would be controlled and he wouldn't bleed to death before he could get hauled out and still wait there patiently -- Geez, that took guts! The real heroes are the police and EMT's who cried when they heard the cell phones of the dead kids they were carrying out start ringing and then realized that it was probably family and friends calling to check on those dead kids. Could anyone who has a child not picture themself in those parents' shoes? The people who did these things are far braver than most of us simply because they will eventually learn to live with those memories that will last for the rest of their lives. I doubt very many of any of us had that sort of courage when we were that young. A few of us probably will still be dumb enough to brag that we would, but I doubt most have it even now.

To those people here who actually do know what happens when you go into burning buildings, into the line of fire, or have to put your body in front of somebody who was hurt or was about to be, please forgive my rant, but those wanna be's have no idea just how deep the crap gets and how scary it gets once you decide you have to do something even though you're scared, too. Guess I am not smart enough to realize that I don't have the patience to spare anymore on folks who will never, ever get it. To those of you who know, I apologize.

Can we PLEASE get this back to being about the tragedy and the victims, and not about a few people who need to justify something to or about themselves?


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 18, 2007)

I’ve read from two sources about a very interesting phenomenon. Don’t have the links nor do I remember who they were, but the coincidence stuck in my mind and it’s very enlightening. One was a Japanese author writing on what happened when the Samurai world was coming to an end and the government prohibited the carrying of swords. The other was a French author, writing about when, apparently after the 1789 revolution, the carrying of swords was prohibited in France, also. And both mention that one of the consequences was the loss of common courtesy. Previously, people thought very carefully at how they treated others. Because they were all armed. Afterwards, things changed. People did not respect others, any more. No matter what your behavior, what could others do? Ban weapons, ban respect.

And on this vein, many of you may not have noticed or experienced this, but people are VERY polite at a range. 

Now to our present problems. Doesn’t it express an amazing amount of disrespect the attitude of walking into a room full of people and slaughtering them like animals, not worried in the least about the possibility of retaliation? Think about it. These killers don’t hide. They don’t attack from behind cover. They don’t stalk people in the night. Just one single individual can simply walk into a room and start shooting away. Why? Because he knows something that before these politically correct, liberal, times, was very different. He knows that his victims will be disarmed. By law. Defenseless. By law. At his mercy. By law. Almost prepared for death. By law.

Here’s an idea for the liberal, gun control crowd, lets force people to wear a target on their chest. To make it easy for the killers to aim, you know?


----------



## greenLED (Apr 18, 2007)

prof said:


> Very sad. I teach on a university campus. I'm surprised this does not happen more, honestly. Our students are stressed out from many different issues--for example, finals are coming up. Others have personal issues. However, almost all of them handle it very well. We, like most campuses, have resources for those that need help. I do not know how effective those centers are, and have never had to refer anyone to them.
> 
> So sad. I have no words for this.
> 
> Gun control: ... I really do not think that letting my students have guns on campus would help either. ... There are no easy answers.


Good points, prof. 

I'd rather see discussion of more agressive mental health programs made available for students rather than focusing on whether they should be allowed to carry guns. Anything can be used for harming/killing oneself or others, so trying to control everything is a moot point, IMO. Learning tools to manage one's emotions, stress levels, and reactions to every day events is far more useful in terms of being a successful human being. I like to think that's one of the reasons students come to a university campus.

In my campus experience, we've had to refer 2 students to anger management therapy, and there's always one or two per term that make it to our "watch" list because of some type of unusual behavior.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Apr 18, 2007)

As each decade passes our society loses more of the *"Prerequisites of Democracy."* First literacy, then a cohesive culture. Idiots neither see the future or remember the past. While I firmly believe that no one should be murdered, anyone who defaults to passivity and believes some fat, balding bureaucrat or politician when they tell them that they are in no way responsible for their own defense is a prime candidate for a *Darwin Award* could do the rest of humanity favor by just wandering off a cliff somewhere, bringing their loopy genetic line to a grinding halt. Those who sold V Tech to so many idiots as a *"Gun Free Zone"* got some 'splaininn' to do. 

Unfortunately, there are so many brainless sheep who believe them that nothing will make any difference at this point. The tragedy of yesterday is not the deaths on the campus -- not by a long shot. The real tragedy is the Gun Control pandering that must follow. _"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls..."_

This is a religious issue, essentially like Global Warming. It will do no good to point to yesterday and tell the believers that _there is no such thing as a Gun Free Zone._ Virginia Tech is a *Defense Free Zone.* All Gun Free Zones are Defense Free Zones. The problem with religious issues like this is that even after the horrific truth is explicitly revealed *as it was yesterday* the Church of Gun Control will go on preaching to the faithful in spite of the elephant in the living room. Mark my words, Gun Free Zone will continue to be a very popular promise by the _ministers_ of Gun Control in the future -- even though no such zone has ever been created anywhere -- *even in a prison.* If it can't be done in a prison where the inmates have lost nearly all of their rights and mobility, it certainly cant be done on the 'outside.'

There is no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## COMMANDR (Apr 18, 2007)

Just read this on NewsMax, thought I'd share.

Gary

NewsMax.com Did Killer Learn from Video Games

The media have been quick to point the finger at "guns" as the problem
in the Virginia Tech massacre. But NewsMax exposes the dirty secret
of violent "First Person Shooter" video games and how this particular
killer's style mimicked game play. 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/17/171751.shtml?s=al&promo_code=3298-1


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

Mental health issues are going to be next to impossible to address and here's why:

This thread is a microcosm of the attitudes toward mental health care.

There are two main viewpoints:

We need more mental healthcare, which means more counselors and more meds.

OR

Too many people are already medicated, and it's the meds which cause the problems.

You can't have it both ways. Just like any other disease, people have the right to accept or not accept mental healthcare. 

Our current legal system cannot force any adult to accept care if they don't want it, at least under most circumstances.
(It's a little more complicated with juveniles). 

The only time that patients can be forced into healthcare is when they have PROVEN themselves to be a danger to themselves or others, as determined by a state certified mental health professional. (In most states that means an employee of the county or state, not a doctor or psychiatrist or psychologists or counselor in private practice.)

This guy wouldn't have fit. At least from what we know now, he had never actually injured himself or others. Threatening doesn't count if there is no actual plan of action. 

So we can Monday Morning Quarterback all we want, the system isn't set up to stop these kinds of issues, as has been shown by Columbine, VT, and so many others!

Bill

The only way to force


----------



## BB (Apr 18, 2007)

Mr. Cho was well known to both the mental health community, the campus police, the teachers, the students, and his dorm mates as somebody "not right"... He was "profiled". Now what?

Va. Gunman Had 2 Previous Stalking Ca[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]se[/font]


> The gunman ... had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.[font=Verdana,Sans-serif] 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 Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system. During one of those incidents, both in late 2005, the department received a call from Cho's parents who were concerned that he might be suicidal, and he was taken to a mental health facility, he said.
> ...
> ...



Some people (students and, even, at least one proffessor) have already decided for themselves that Mr. Cho's writings and behaviour was so "out of the norm" that they dropped/dropped him/changed classes/had security passwords with staff incase he "went off".

In our current legal/medical climate--choosing to remove one's self from situations where somebody chooses not to follow society's norms--is about the only choice for self defense we have left today (in many states/cities/other locations).

There will be more to learn in the days and months coming--but long ago government and courts have decided that being significantly weird is not enough reason to lock people up and/or force medications (with their own issues) on people (after the courts, city hall and other locations have choosing to install metal detectors and hiring of armed guards--at a disarmed population's expense).

-Bill


[/font][/font]


----------



## greenLED (Apr 18, 2007)

bwaites said:


> This guy wouldn't have fit. At least from what we know now, he had never actually injured himself or others. Threatening doesn't count if there is no actual plan of action.


Even if a plan was not openly disclosed, there were enough PIN's to raise red flags among his teachers and peers. Fellow students were already _afraid _of him beforehand, teachers were aware of his distrubed mental status, asking him to limit interaction with peers because of safety concerns, and trying to get him into counseling. As usual, these factors are often downplayed (if not completely ignored), and not enough is done to provide the potential agressor with the type of support they need. These events are then labeled as "random acts of violence" when in fact there was a long trail of indicators suggesting a terrible outcome.

A sad tragedy indeed, and no simple solution to prevent it from occurring again.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

The sad thing is that there isn't even a COMPLICATED solution for the problem. 

Yes, he had been seen as a stalker; the vast majority of stalkers never do anything violent, simply wanting to be close to someone.

Yes, he had written some disturbing stuff; Anyone here ever head of Stephen King or Dean Koontz?

Red Flags? Yes! Smoke? Yes! But our society allows people a lot of freedom to act weird or even dangerous before we choose to do anything. 

We aren't the only ones. Security people had been saying for years that a major catastrophe would happen if paparazzi were allowed to continue chasing celebrities; anyone hear about Princess Diana? 

Freedom, by it's very definition, means that sometimes someone will take advantage of that situation, like Cho did. When that happens, there is the possibility that someone will die. 

It's tragic, but is a price that we pay.

Bill


----------



## TedTheLed (Apr 18, 2007)

Nikki Giovanni's Moving Speech from Yesterday's Service

Apr 17, 2007


*** “We are Virginia Tech. We are sad today and we will be sad for quite awhile. WE are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning. We are Virginia Tech. We are strong enough to know when to cry and sad enough to know we must laugh again. We are Virginia Tech. We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did not deserve it but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, but neither do the invisible children walking the night to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant i killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy. We are Virginia Tech. The Hokier Nation embraces our own with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong and brave and innocent and unafraid. We are better than we think, not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imagination and the possibility we will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears, through all this sadness. We are the Hokies. We will prevail, we will prevail. We are Virginia Tech. "

*


----------



## Robocop (Apr 18, 2007)

So it does appear that this man was well known to have issues and had made threats in the past....

I very much like the way bwaites said it above in saying that society allows people to act very dangerous for long times before anything is done....excellent way to put it however it is so very true.

In an earlier post I said desperate times will mean desperate measures in order to prevent future problems. I for one would be willing to lose some of my freedoms if it would mean a safer place to live. Maybe the rules have changed after this incident and just maybe some areas will be much more aggressive in dealing with persons who show signs of violence or danger.

I fully understand what the school and security there are dealing with as this is one example of many cases through the nation. If a person shows signs or even has several documented events of stalking or threats it takes months to even get anyone involved. It seems as if everyone involved at each level simply wants to pass it on to the next person for review or follow up.

If the school were to simply say hey that guy has had a few past problems lets just kick him out.....well thats not going to happen because he has "rights". It is very hard these days to really do much of anything and you cant simply think someone may be a problem you have to be able to prove it after they have been allowed to mis-behave for months or even years.

Maybe the rules will change a little now in that schools will be allowed to be very much more strict.....maybe it will not be ok to make threats or to even be weird. Maybe you can be kicked out of school for certain beliefs or actions even if they are really not against the law. Yes it sounds extreme or harsh but again maybe this will be something we must endure to guarantee safety in schools.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

Robocop,

The problem with restricting freedoms in the hope of safety is that those restrictions seldom, if ever, actually make you safer!

Remember, it's not the law abiding citizens that cause the problem, it's the ones who operate outside the law anyway.

If you restrict the guns, crazy people will build bombs. If you cut off the materials to make bombs, they will use airplanes. If you cut off access to airplanes, they will find another way.

IF you don't care if you die, there is always a way!

As others have said, prove to me that the bad guys don't have guns and I'd be willing to give mine up, too. Otherwise, all we are is sitting ducks or fish in a barrel, just like those poor students at VT.

Bill


----------



## BB (Apr 18, 2007)

People gave up a lot of their freedom to feel safer at VTech... Per a press release from a "Pro-Gun" web site quoting VTech Vice President Hincher in an editorial reply in the local paper (VCDL?) to a student editorial written by Bradford Wiles...



> And then in September 2006, after a shooting near campus (that included the shooting death of a deputy sheriff by an escaped prisoner) prompted a campus panic as a gunman wondered about, Vice President Hinkler *[may be a typo--Hincher. -BB]* belittled adult students for wanting their gun rights on campus:
> 
> “After the fear, and dare I say, panic from the events of Aug. 21, it is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles . . .The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself . . .
> 
> ...


Sorry--but the quote from VP Hincher "...tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him..." scares me a bit more. And they certainly did not (and probably could not) have done much more than simply clean up the results.

-Bill


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

I hate to really butt in here - there's lots going already and adding another layer onto the onion may not serve the purpose that I want it to, but I'm going to say it anyway.

I'm 23 years old. I am a network engineer in Alaska, where I have been designing and building everything from office LANs to helping with an entire wireless ISP system. I am happy, healthy, stable, and about to get married. I've been playing video games since I can remember. I've had every console from the Atari 2600 up to an XBox 360 hooked to an HDTV. I've played games as diverse as Pac-Man and Galaga to Grand Theft Auto, and I've enjoyed the lot of them. I am one of millions of people in the United States and the world that wears the label of *gamer *with pride. 

Video games _do not_ - any more than rock music, comic books, movies or television shows - cause people to go on rampages. Don't for one _*******_ _second _try to blame the deaths of thirty-two people on collections of ones and zeros in plastic cases. I know it's the hip thing in the media to do, but as a nation - as a people, as a species, we're smarter than that. This was the product of a sick mind, of someone who was messed up without the external influence of a controller.

You want a look at what gamers are? The most sterling example these days is Child's Play run by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins over at Penny Arcade. We are not murdering psychopaths, lying in wait with our automatic weapons to mow you down in the streets. Every misleading article, every psychotic demagogue who stands in front of you and lies, every attempt to peg this tragedy in a cookie-cutter "Youth of Today" is an insult and a slap in the face to those who were killed, those who were irrepairably harmed, and those who will never see their son, daughter, or lover again.

There may or may not be sense behind this - it might only be the product of a sick mind that no system, simple or complex, could have adequately prevented. The mind searches for easy answers when things like this happen, but in this as so many others _there are none_. The answer doesn't lie in video games - just as it doesn't lie in gun control. It may lie in our society as a whole - or it may lie only in the mind of the shooter.

Thanks for listening to my diatribe - our world is complicated enough as it is...lies and misinformation only make it worse.


----------



## cchurchi (Apr 18, 2007)

There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of another massacre just like this one from happening TOMORROW! If this were to happen again tomorrow on some other campus, I hope that at least some instructors and professors are packing inspite of what the campus rules say.


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

There's nothing preventing you from being hit by a geriatric in the crosswalk who can't remember which one is the gas pedal! NOTHING!

Clearly, the solution is to live in a locked closet with a shotgun pointed at the door!


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

Blaming video games is like blaming guns.

Neither of them caused the act, the act would have occurred in some form without either.

Shooters (video games where someone or something is shot) may allow the individual to practice and plot, but they don't cause the problem.

The problem is that some percentage of the worlds population has problems, and we have a hard time dealing with them when they lose their ability to continue coping with their problems.

Bill


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Apr 18, 2007)

> ...I for one would be willing to lose some of my freedoms if it would mean a safer place to live.


So *how many rights* would you be willing to give up, and for what *promises* that you would be safer? 

I'm old enough to remember when an *underground gun factory run by inmates* was broken up in the *Arizona State Penitentiary* in the early 70s. For those who are having trouble connecting the dots, prisons are generally thought to have tougher, more stringent, intrusive *Gun Control* than anything that may be imposed on any free man anywhere in the country. The mobility of the inmates is limited to a degree which may not be imposed on any free man anywhere in the nation. All of the minutia of the lives of prisoners is constantly scrutinized -- when and who they may talk to on the phone or send or get mail from to name just a couple things that freemen take for granted _every day._ These examples and a thousand others are imposed on inmates in an attempt to _control their behavior_ and none of it works.

Those who would give up any of their rights for the mere promise of security are deluded IMO. According to that rational *prisons should be the safest places on earth!* Since I am in a connecting the dot mode I will state that prisons clearly *are not* the safest places on earth and most people, _even Gun Control advocates_ know this to be true.

So, if very nearly all of a person's rights may be stripped away from him and he may be locked in a prison _and he will still build a working gun factory to serve his needs_ it is insane to think that one may impose _a much less draconian plan_ on freemen and expect anything near compliance. (One definition of insanity is when someone keeps doing exactly the same thing over and over again -- and always expects a different result.)

This is all really very simple. One thing you may do is just take away *all of everyone's rights.* Everyone will be less safe -- but _who cares about that?_ They will be so cowed that they won't remember that they are less safe and even if they did realize what's going on it's no big deal -- with no rights there won't be anything that they could do about it anyway. Problem solved.

The second solution is completely radical compared to the first one and _totally unthinkable_ to well over half of the population -- study the writings of the founding fathers and go from there. Treat all people as individuals who have a right to defend themselves. Hold everyone accountable. Of course there will be slip-ups and some ugliness. Bear in mind that _the founding fathers knew that and deemed it the lesser of the evils_ -- sort of a cost of doing business, if you will. (Has anyone forgotten that we have ugliness now?) 

Many feel that they are incompetent to defend themselves or that their lives are perhaps not worth defending -- they won't get any argument from me there -- I fully agree with their assessment of themselves. Their desire to impose their folly on me is a whole 'nother matter, however.

Don't tread on me.


----------



## L.E.D. (Apr 18, 2007)

Very saddenned when I heard about this, and sickened. My condolensces and prayers to the friends and family of Virginia Tech victims. In the news they reported about a 'man' that had done the shootings. This was no man, it was a cowardly, selfish, weak piece of s***. As someone said though, it could have been much worse. If it wasn't able to get a gun, it may have used a far more lethal device such as a car bomb... May the scumbag burn in hades for what it's done.

R.I.P. , victims...


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

*bwaits* - In the spirit of genuine inquiry, how does a video game "train" you in firearm use? I'm quite well-versed in firearms (Handguns and rifles) as well as being a lifelong gamer. In this arena I see zero correlation - all my time with WSAD and a mouse didn't help me with handgun accuracy, loading, or compensating for the kick. I also have a couple of games that use light-gun accessories (Elemental Gearbolt and Time Crisis with the Namco Guncon) that have quite realistic peripherals - but these did not teach me about reloading or even aiming, as the cords are far too short for anything other than adjusting to the game's sensitivity levels. The Guncon also weighs substantially less than any handgun I have ever held, never jams, and has no clip to replace. Every moment I've had to depress the right thumbstick in Halo sure didn't help me in working with a rifle; as much as I hate admitting scoping myself a couple of times, I have nevertheless. If Halo and Half-Life were training me to deal with high-caliber firearms and long-range targetting they sure didn't do a very good job. Also, I missed.

I don't believe a game can "train" you to kill people or things - your accuracy is determined not by your ability to fire a bullet but your ability to click a mouse. Motion is handled by buttons on a keyboard. Your field of view and depth of vision are all corrolated directly to things like screen resolution and colour depth. Playing against human opponents arguably does even less - the instant changes in direction, comparable target size, and overall experience has little to nothing to do with actually drawing a weapon on somone or something, tracking it, and pulling the trigger.

I also find it exceptionally unlikely that firing virtual weapons on polygonal avatars that are far from photorealistic (Although they can be quite good) can mentally prepare you for firing at a real person. If you're not going to care about that kind of action, playing a video game isn't going to change your opinion one way or another. Gamers themselves report being more influenced by the television and movies than their games in the realm of violence, as well.

Edited to include some previously missing grammar.


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

bwaites said:


> Blaming video games is like blaming guns.
> 
> Neither of them caused the act, the act would have occurred in some form without either.
> 
> ...



Can you tell me why kids need these ultra violent video games, I for one think the games along with all the other garbage (like violent music and these ultra violent gore horror flicks) have no place in our society!


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

Can you tell me why _parents_ are purchasing these titles _for_ their children? Don't be telling me that ten-year-olds are coughing up sixty bucks for M-rated games.


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

Sable said:


> Can you tell me why _parents_ are purchasing these titles _for_ their children? Don't be telling me that ten-year-olds are coughing up sixty bucks for M-rated games.



Well the partents are as much to blame for buying this crap, I do know however that most store will sell this stuff to kids 14, 15, 16 years old.


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

Sable said:


> *bwaits* - In the spirit of genuine inquiry, how does a video game "train" you in firearm use? I'm quite well-versed in firearms (Handguns and rifles) as well as being a lifelong gamer. In this arena I see zero correlation - all my time with WSAD and a mouse didn't help me with handgun accuracy, loading, or compensating for the kick. I also have a couple of games that use light-gun accessories (Elemental Gearbolt and Time Crisis with the Namco Guncon) that have quite realistic peripherals - but these did not teach me about reloading or even aiming, as the cords are far too short for anything other than adjusting to the game's sensitivity levels. The Guncon also weighs substantially less than any handgun I have ever held, never jams, and has no clip to replace. Every moment I've had to depress the right thumbstick in Halo sure didn't help me in working with a rifle; as much as I hate admitting scoping myself a couple of times, I have nevertheless. If Halo and Half-Life were training me to deal with high-caliber firearms and long-range targetting they sure didn't do a very good job. Also, I missed.
> 
> I don't believe a game can "train" you to kill people or things - your accuracy is determined not by your ability to fire a bullet but your ability to click a mouse. Motion is handled by buttons on a keyboard. Your field of view and depth of vision are all corrolated directly to things like screen resolution and colour depth. Playing against human opponents arguably does even less - the instant changes in direction, comparable target size, and overall experience has little to nothing to do with actually drawing a weapon on somone or something, tracking it, and pulling the trigger.
> 
> ...




Well why does the US military use similar games to train troops for combat?


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

Not where I live - I'm 23 and I _still_ have to produce ID for M-rated games.

Moreover, it goes back to the parents - Mature-rated games say "17+" on them prominently. If little Johnny's hangin' out in front of that, it's the parent's responsibility to do something about it.

Edited: They do? Prove it, please. The "Army Games" displayed at E3 are run-of-the-mill first-person shooters, and full-tilt-boogie flight simulators are not "video games."


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

Sable said:


> Edited: They do? Prove it, please. The "Army Games" displayed at E3 are run-of-the-mill first-person shooters, and full-tilt-boogie flight simulators are not "video games."



Do a google search! 
















BTW as far as age goes I have seen on the news kids purchasing these viloent video games (even the 17+). Also how many 14,15,16 year old kids buy items like video games online (where there are really no restrictions)?


----------



## Art Vandelay (Apr 18, 2007)

The Army has it's own combat video game that it uses to recruit young gamers.

http://www.goarmy.com/aarmy/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601505.html


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> The Army has it's own combat video game that it uses to recruit young gamers.
> 
> http://www.goarmy.com/aarmy/
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601505.html



LOL didn't know that, I was in the Marines. :laughing:


----------



## Phredd (Apr 18, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> The Army has it's own combat video game that it uses to recruit young gamers.



Right, they're for recruiting, not for training.


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

EDIT


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

BUZ:

The impetus is not on me to prove that video games train people to kill. I have made the assertation that games do no such thing - I will however concede they can be an _influence _on already-unstable minds. I have made an assertation (That games are not the killer-trainers the media wants them to be). You have made the opposite charge, therefore the impetus is on you to prove me wrong. It is not my responisbility in this line of discussion to "do a google search."

The examples you have shown me are not publically-available games and perhipherals [That is, I cannot purchase them and play them on my consoles or computer at home] - if you can show me a place I can buy that bazooka game, I'll go and grab it because it looks awesome! More to the point it actually weakens your position - plenty of kids must have played that game and I doubt it's enticed them to build or purchase a rocket launcher and shoot down helicopters. Moreover, the game is for _recruitment_ - not training.

Availability of the games is also an issue that leads us astray from whatever was going on before: It isn't the problem. Why should we have them? Because this country is built on basic freedoms of speech. You can disagree with what is being said with the loudest voice possible and that is _your basic right_, which no-one should ever take away. Games, novels, films and music fall into this kind of protected action and speech.

Are you _so afraid_ of whatever it is that these games, books, and movies represent that you would strip that right away from anyone that you don't approve of? A quite famous gentleman once said "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." When we start selectively implementing freedom of speech (Which is the subject of a major kafuffle in my own hometown at the moment) we damage the system, and when the system breaks down it _all_ breaks down.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

Sable,

EVERY single one of the school shooters has been found, after the fact, to have used shooters to simulate the situation that they will face. They all talked about it in videos they left, notes they wrote, or email. 

Video games CAN and ARE used to learn how to handle stress, control the heart rate, and plan the action. 

The military has used first person shooters that they have devised, flight simulators, and other electronic means to present soldiers with non-real combat situations for decades. Heck, I flew the F4 simulator 30+ years ago. 

To believe that these games don't have an impact or the ability to affect young people, or old people, for that matter is immature and naive. The heads of major health care organizations have testified before Congress that shooters have a definite impact on young people playing them.

Why would they do that? They have NO incentive either way. They did it because health care providers saw it happening a long time ago, and talked about. 

Even the FBI uses it as one of their profile points in investigations. 

Once again, though, the games aren't the REASON it happens, just like guns aren't the REASON it happens. Facilitating the training is something different, though.

Finally, you can blame parents when the kid is 15, but what age do the parents stop being responsible? It looked to me like his parents tried, calling the ambulance because he was suicidal. 

Parents have a huge responsibility in these kinds of issues while the child lives under their roof, but once they move out, the responsibility shifts to the individual. 

My wife and I decided early on that if it wasn't appropriate for our children, than it wasn't appropriate for our home. That meant that we (my wife and I) didn't and don't go to R rated movies. We didn't allow violent video games in our home, we didn't and don't allow violent music, and we discussed the reasons as a family. Has some of that influence crept through? Of course, you can't completely shield everything, but we did and do discuss the issues regularly, and our children understand and have, by and large, kept those same standards for themselves. The general rule was that if it didn't make your life better in some way, why bother with it? We're hardly prudes, but our kids weren't and aren't couch potatoes, with both sons playing 3 sports, a daughter on 3 National Championship drill/dance teams, and our youngest daughter playing high school basketball. NONE of them feels cheated that they missed those things.

I own and regularly practice with firearms. I have participated in tactical shotgun and other shooting competitions. My wife and children have also participated in similar activities from time to time. 

One of the things I find most interesting is the vehement anger that gamers come up with as soon as you mention that games may be part of the issue. Where does the anger come from? 

So yes, video games do, most definitely, allow you to practice some things that carry over into real life. If not, why would schools use driving simulators, the military use fighter plane simulators, airlines use flight simulators, and so on? 

Bill


----------



## BUZ (Apr 18, 2007)

Sable said:


> BUZ:
> 
> The impetus is not on me to prove that video games train people to kill. I have made the assertation that games do no such thing - I will however concede they can be an _influence _on already-unstable minds. I have made an assertation (That games are not the killer-trainers the media wants them to be). You have made the opposite charge, therefore the impetus is on you to prove me wrong. It is not my responisbility in this line of discussion to "do a google search."
> 
> ...




Hey justify this garbage if you want, however the fact of the matter is that this crap is influencing our kids (period)! 

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHQz-AFCMKY




.


----------



## Sable (Apr 18, 2007)

It appears clear that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I will happily answer some questions...

The biggest question, where does the anger come from? Indignation is the more correct term, I think.

Gamers - as a whole - are presented by what may be called as the mainstream media as nothing but slavering, zombie-like slaves to our alters of entertainment. Whenever video games - our hobby - are discussed, the likes of Jack Thompson are brought out to be the "voice of reason" about what and who video games are.

_Our _side is _never_ represented in any meaningful way.

If this situation was applied, let's say, to handgun owners - many of (Most of! More than 90% than!) whom are perfectly capable law-abiding citizens, 
don't you think a certain sense of indignation would apply? If everyone branded handgun carriers as trigger-happy maniacs, would the situation be different?

I think I'm walking away from this discussion now - clearly I'm a psychopathic murderer-in-potentia who only defends a worthless passtime. I'm disappointed - with such a thorough back-and-forth on CPF about guns, knives and concealed carry, who would have thought that a passion for video games could fall on such deaf ears?


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Apr 18, 2007)

A piece of paper and a pencil can help somebody plan an attack just as much as a video game.


----------



## cutlerylover (Apr 18, 2007)

well the media has a bad influence on kids too, everytime you turn on the news what do you hear? NEGATIVE news...why dont they broadcast more posotive stories? whats acceptable in our culture has changed dramatically over the years for the worse...I am not very old, but I remember only about 5 years ago when you wouldn't even see a breat on TV until afetr 11pm, now there are full sex scenes on as early as 5pm...not to mention horror films, which are getting more violent and detailed...remember when the bad guy would lift his weapon and they showed the victom, then it went black and you heard a scream? Not anymore, now we get to see exactly what happens, the torture and creative ways to kill people...alot of it is pretty sick...but what can I say, sex, and violence sells, and no one likes it more than teens... Although this incident in ym mind has nothgin to do with violent video games, this kid was mental, he had problems I dont think he killed those people because he played video games, he had major anger issues, Im sure he got rejected by girls, so he obviously hated them all, and he was poor, so he also hated rich kids...He went nuts like alot of people do...


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

Sable,

On my part, I have absolutely NO problem with you or any adult playing any video game you desire.

But that is up to you to do so, you are an adult!

But do you really believe that 30 million other adults bought GTA or San Andreas fault?

Of course not, those games were bought by teenagers who ARE immensely suseptible to the hardening that may be created by the violence depicted there. Are their parents falling down on the job? In my viewpoint, yes. But I also don't ask for their opinion on how to raise MY children.

If you want others to be open, you have to share why you don't believe these games influence young people.

I would ask 3 simple questions:

1) Is there a socially redeeming quality to GTA, San Andreas, or similar games? 
2) How do YOU feel about the deaths caused in the game by the gamer?
3) What do you think the best and the brightest minds you know or are aware of would think about the game, and who are they? When I pose that question, I try to picture what Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Einstein, or other people I have admired would say about the violence depicted there. Maybe those people mean nothing to you, but for many of us, and I have children your age, those people shaped the world we hoped to live in.

Bill


----------



## Robocop (Apr 18, 2007)

Maybe some have mis-understood what I mean when I say certain freedoms I would gladly give up....I firmly believe in the right to bear arms and in no way do I feel tougher gun laws will solve anything. If guns were restricted in all the nation this of course would only apply to the law abiding citizens as the true criminals would find a way to get guns.....and of course there is simply no way possible to account for every gun in America. If there were a magic button I could push that would somehow destroy every gun in the world then that would be great but this is simply not going to ever happen.

By freedoms I am speaking of every day privacy type things such as being searched or maybe scanned by an x-ray machine before entering class. Yes we all have an expectation of privacy however in todays times and violent world maybe the rules will change. Maybe I would feel ok about Doctors sharing my information with others if it could somehow stop a problem before it began. It is ok with me simply as I have nothing to hide.

If I were a student and found out that a classmate were allowed into my class after having several past problems (both mental and violent) I would surely be very angry. There would be little I could do because in todays world it is not allowed to judge a person anymore based on their past actions....or so it seems.

In reading some of the news stories it says that police and school staff was well aware of this persons problems and of his unbalanced behavior. It also said their hands were tied as he first had to do something really bad before they could take action.....see it was ok for him to be a little weird or maybe he was just confused. My point is that when will it be ok to simply say so what?.....Yes he may be confused and maybe he is just weird but we can not afford to take any chances. The bad part is that with all of our so called freedoms it actually allows nothing to be done until something very bad happens.

So yes I would be ok with allowing more restrictive actions on some of my freedoms as in being fairly normal it would most likely never effect me anyway. Now if I suddenly began stalking women or saying crazy things then it would be ok with me to be dealt with very harshly or even judged as dangerous.....Sure it may hurt my feelings as I have a 'right" to be different or maybe some in my family would be upset feeling I was being singled out or somehow discriminated against but again it is to a point now where something must be done.

At the very start of this thread,even before knowing any details, I guessed that this person would most likely have had past warning signs. Turns out he was treated for mental issues and released and on top of that had been charged with 2 stalking of women incidents.....who knows what else will come to light in future weeks.

My point is that I will almost bet that he was found to be crazy or maybe borderline but with todays freedoms this was not enough to hold him in custody away from the public....why not I ask? Is it because we are not allowed to act based on opinion anymore .

On a much smaller scale I have seen this very system at work daily. We have people who have criminal tendancies and are often labeled as dangerous. We watch them get worse daily and all attempts to simply put them away are for nothing as they have "rights". We are told by many that yes we think they are dangerous but we can not take action until we really know they are dangerous.....so we wait then when they finally commit some violent crime they are dealt with. Yes if it meant we could be safer I would gladly say it is ok to take action based on simply thinking a person is dangerous. It would mean I give up certain freedoms to be a little different but for myself and many more we do not act dangerous so it would not have an impact on us.

I am not saying it is ok to take action towards some normal citizen who has a bad day nor am I saying to gather up every troubled person in the world and hide them away. I am saying that if a person shows valid signs of being mentally dangerous or even violent then by all means judge them quickly and stop allowing them freedom to get worse.

I hope I have explained this to the best of my ability however I tend to be long winded and often talk for hours without actually saying anything. So in light of this would anyone agree that it should be ok to have very strict rules for allowing people to enroll into schools even if they have a "right' to education? Would anyone object to their children being forced to walk through x-ray machines before entering said school? How about having armed and trained guards on a fenced perimeter with only one entry point?

It is sad to think of it becoming this way however it seems that we can not afford to enjoy many such freedoms anymore. It is way too easy to be dangerous and go un-noticed these days. 50 years back people who were dangerous stood out more clearly and could be labeled and taken care of early on.....sad to say many just blend in with todays freedoms and very sheepish society.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 18, 2007)

As for your side, I wasn't aware I was taking sides. 

I am only wondering why your experience is different than the thousands of health care providers who see children with mental health issues and who have come out and said that violent shooter games ARE having an impact on children.

I am only wondering why your experience is different than what the FBI obviously believes is an issue.

I look on the internet and I find twice as many people defending these games as opposing them. I don't much agree with Jack Thompson myself, I think individuals have to answer for their actions, because from what I can see, NO video game ever forced someone to play it, or forced someone to go act it out.

I see the video game industry spending millions in advertising for their games, does that not count as "meaningful"? I see them trotting out study after study that says that video games don't influence kids, is that not meaningful? 

Are you saying that the industry, which makes BILLIONS of dollars anually isn't being well represented? If that is the case, they are awfully successful failures, at least financially!!!

Saying the games have no influence is like saying the gun had no influence on the death. Of course the gun had influence, it launched the projectile, but it could only work if wielded by someone. The video game only works through who it influences. 

But make no mistake, it has an influence, at least some of the time and on some individuals.

Bill


----------



## Robocop (Apr 18, 2007)

I almost forgot to add......as far as games being responsible for such horrible actions I am mixed on that issue. On one hand I was shocked when I once saw a video game that was aimed towards getting higher points for killing cops. Yes it was a game where the hero was a thug and went around killing citizens and cops. I quickly became so angry that such a game could even be allowed to market however I realize that a normal person simply is not influenced by such things....or so I hope not.

I grew up watching that crazy coyote trying to kill that roadrunner bird every day after school. I watched bugs bunny shoot several other cartoon characters with all types of guns. I even once saw Daffy Duck blow up FogHorn LegHorn with a huge explosive and not once did I ever think of doing the same thing at school.....why because I was a normal kid and normal kids do not do such things.

As a teenager I watched the A-Team beat the crap out of people all the time and yes I played video games (and still do) where I was a ninja warrior cutting up everything that moved. I later moved up to military games where I snuck up on people and just killed them or maybe used a sniper rifle to do the job from afar. After playing for a while I went to the store and bought dinner and later went to sleep......not once did I think of sneaking up on the cashier and killing them nor did I snipe the security guard for telling me I could not park on the curb....you know why because I was a normal young adult.

My point is yes I was angry at the police killing video game but again must assume that normal people will not be influenced by it. Abnormal people do not need much to be influenced and there will always be something that sets them off so it is better to deal with the person rather than the trigger I believe.


----------



## fieldops (Apr 18, 2007)

Unfortunately the discussion about weapons in this domain is fruitless. The weapons are irrelvant. if it were not a gun, it would be another means. Like a suicide bomber, there is little you can do to stop someone willing to die unless you are fortunate enough to get them first. I think the first thing people need to do is stop wanting someone to blame. The police are not responsible for this carnage, nor are the NRA, the University or anyone else. The only one responsible is a demented man who ultimately put a round in his own head. He is responsible. Period. Are there other factors that have enhanced this phenomenon as of late. yes I think so, as do many of you. It is the decline in moral values and the ever increasing cheapening of human life that cuts to the core of this. Why is this? Unfortunately it is probably the result of many dozens of things which have come together to create a culture of death. Anyone who thinks restricting the access to weapons will reduce carnage is sadly mistaken. You can put a man of true peace and non violence in a room loaded with people, nuclear weapons, bombs and missles. No one will get hurt. Yet you can take a man like this deranged individual and put him in a room with people. You can be sure he will find a way to kill, even with his bare hands. It is what lies behind the faces of the people we see do such deeds that is the true enemy. The mere _presence of a weapon_ is a false argument. Over 100 years ago most people had weapons hanging freely in their residences. Yet where were the school shootings? where were the massacres? whatever has happened has evolved over time (actually in the last few decades). I do not pretend to have answers to this, but i think we need to start looking fast. How long before a crazy carnage kills a thousand or ten thousand? As much as we decry our inhumanity, I suspect only our humanity will get us out of this mess in the end. At least i pray it is so.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 18, 2007)

Political Correctness will destroy our country.

PC is why nobody does/can do anything about "crazy" people.

PC is why anywhere from 2-10 million illegal aliens are in this country to stay.

I THINK PC is why we only see BAD news on TV.

PC is POISON!


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 18, 2007)

Robocop said:


> I am not saying it is ok to take action towards some normal citizen who has a bad day nor am I saying to gather up every troubled person in the world and hide them away. I am saying that if a person shows valid signs of being mentally dangerous or even violent then by all means judge them quickly and stop allowing them freedom to get worse.


The problem with this is that it's a judgement call. What's to stop me from maybe filming a few "weird" things a neighbor I don't like does out of context, presenting those videos to a judge, and then the judge perhaps deciding to lock the person up? What I see happening under the system you describe is exactly what you fear-normal people who happened to have a bad day, or who just may not be liked by those around them, being locked up, perhaps for years, until so-called mental health professionals declared them competent to live in society again. And to make it worse, such a system probably _still_ would have failed miserably at preventing mass shootings like this one. After all, quite a few of these shooters give no outward signs at all prior to snapping.

Another problem I see with your "better safe than sorry" approach is that it penalizes people who have as yet committed no crime. The movie _Minority Report _dramatizes what such an approach would be like taken to the extreme. As it is we have enough "preventative" laws which penalize people for doing something the politicians in their ivory towers feel _might_ be dangerous. We don't need yet more ways for the average citizen to end up getting fined or detained. The way the courts are all it takes is one encounter with the law to ruin your life both financially and socially, even if you're found not guilty. Rather, we should focus on what exactly drives people to these extremes, and see what can be changed in our society to lessen these incidents. I personally feel many factors are in play. Violent entertainment, a shallow, materialistic culture, the isolation of suburbia, the high rate of divorce, absentee parenting are just a few factors I can think of offhand. Add to that a severe lack of role models to mitigate the negative things in our culture, and it's no surprise more people don't just snap as seen in the movie _Falling Down_ (an excellent depiction of how external circumstances cause an otherwise average person to just lose it). Sure, the individual who did this was certainly sick but the society which helped shaped him was even sicker.


----------



## DonShock (Apr 18, 2007)

DonShock said:


> Usually, just the fact that he is now facing armed resistance is enough to get the shooter to lay down his weapon without any further shooting by either side_._........





WNG said:


> I don't think your claim above would apply to today's tragedy. That case involved specifically targeted victims........


But the point is that that is EXACTLY what has happened in the past when these nutjobs have been confronted by armed resistance. Here's some excerpts from Wiki:

1997 Pearl High Shooting
"Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham..."

2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting
"At the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personally owned firearms"......."Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun. Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students."

What I would really like to know is how many people died diring the time it took these individuals to retrieve their firearms from their vehicles. That would be a real world example of the difference between having a weapon available when needed and not having one available.


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 18, 2007)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Political Correctness will destroy our country.
> 
> PC is why nobody does/can do anything about "crazy" people.
> 
> ...


 I agree with you, PlayboyJoeShmoe, but PC is just the name of a game. 

The real disease is the originators of that, and other, games.

They are called liberals.

Along that suicide pact called modern democracy, by simple majority, they’ll take away your guns, they’ll take away all your rights and they’ll give you a Cuba-like country to live in.

They are not mistaken. Theirs is not an honest mistake. It is a conscious, meditated, will to enslave others.

PC, gun control, global warming, endangered species, the united nations, “it’s for the children”, feminazis, you know the deal. 

Those who don’t understand it’s because they don’t want to. Because liberals are not hiding their ideas. They never have. It’s only that the truth of evil men is so dark that decent folks (and good Americans ARE decent folks) convince themselves that it is not possible and give the benefit of the doubt to those that want to treat them like inhuman animals with no rights whatsoever. Like those that prefer to see people die by the dozens than allow them the basic individual right of having the means to defend their rights.

America was not founded neither for sheep nor for liberals.

The only true, endangered species on this planet is the American Dream.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 18, 2007)

Oh yeah, in relation to video games...

One of my faves is A-10 Thunderbolt II. Blasting tanks and missle shooters is KEWL!

I guess that makes me a mouth breathing trigger happy idiot. NOT!


----------



## flashfan (Apr 18, 2007)

Posted by jtr: "...we should focus on what exactly drives people to these extremes, and see what can be changed in our society to lessen these incidents. I personally feel many factors are in play. Violent entertainment, a shallow, materialistic culture, the isolation of suburbia, the high rate of divorce, absentee parenting are just a few factors..."

Well said, jtr. Bwaites, you make some good points, too.

If we're going to start locking up everyone who appears "weird," there will be noone left on the "outside." Heck, all of us on CPF will be rounded up--I'd bet that there are people who would consider a flashlight "obsession" _abnormal._


----------



## Robocop (Apr 18, 2007)

jtr1962 made some good points and in many ways I have never thought of it that way. In spite of the risks you mentioned I am simply frustrated hoping for a solution. I understand the risks involved however what other choices do we have? I am saying that even in spite of the risks in todays world maybe it should be ok to take the risks you mentioned.

If we were to evolve into a "better safe than sorry" society I would hope such judgement calls would be realistic and that your neighbor could not be forced into treatment for acting a little strange......I mean we are adults mostly and as adults can honestly tell the difference between a little weird and possibly dangerous. 

From the news stories I have heard it appears that this man was in treatment and released with the doctor stating he was a definate danger....why was he released.....maybe because technically he had not yet done anything wrong? In spite of a doctors concerns he was released to walk among others again. This happens all the time nationwide and after recent events will it continue to be this way?

Even with doctors thinking a person is dangerous their options are limited because society demands even crazy people must do something bad before they can be kept away from society.....yeah thats working out real well.

The whole mess frustrates me and we all have good points even on both sides of the issues.......It just makes me very angry as a solution should not be this hard to find.


----------



## Jorge Banner (Apr 18, 2007)

Sub_Umbra said:


> As each decade passes our society loses more of the *"Prerequisites of Democracy."* First literacy, then a cohesive culture. Idiots neither see the future or remember the past. While I firmly believe that no one should be murdered, anyone who defaults to passivity and believes some fat, balding bureaucrat or politician when they tell them that they are in no way responsible for their own defense is a prime candidate for a *Darwin Award* could do the rest of humanity favor by just wandering off a cliff somewhere, bringing their loopy genetic line to a grinding halt. Those who sold V Tech to so many idiots as a *"Gun Free Zone"* got some 'splaininn' to do.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are so many brainless sheep who believe them that nothing will make any difference at this point. The tragedy of yesterday is not the deaths on the campus -- not by a long shot. The real tragedy is the Gun Control pandering that must follow. _"Do not ask for whom the bell tolls..."_
> 
> ...


 Sub_Umbra, you are so right, this is a religion like phenomenon. A liberal will tell you, albeit in other words, that you either have faith in liberalism or you can’t be helped. But THEY, now what’s best for you cause THEY, know the real truth. Theirs IS the true religion and they are going to do whatever it takes to save you from yourself, even against your will.

There’s an election coming. One of the parties is going to endeavor to give you not a “gun free zone” but a “gun free country”.

And America will become something else.


----------



## flashfan (Apr 18, 2007)

Posted by Robo: ..."we are adults mostly and as adults can honestly tell the difference between a little weird and possibly dangerous..."

Robo, you have more confidence in "mankind" than I. In any event, I don't think Cho would have fit the dangerous profile. Reportedly, he _voluntarily_ admitted himself for treatment which lasted one day, and it appears to have been for suicidal tendencies, not homicidal. The stalking matter was something else, but did it rise to the level for having him "committed?"

I also watched an interview with one of Cho's roommates (shared living quarters with him since last August), and unless I misheard the conversation, he said that he would never have thought Cho was capable of this carnage. At one point in the interview, a word he used in reference to Cho was "shy." That one surprised me...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 18, 2007)

There’s an election coming. One of the parties is going to endeavor to give you not a “gun free zone” but a “gun free country”.
And America will become something else.[/QUOTE said:


> And I am deathly afraid that we WILL in fact get something else! Though at this point W ain't exactly making me real happy...
> 
> But again, my heart and prayers go out to the victims and the famlies!!!


----------



## Robocop (Apr 18, 2007)

Maybe I do have a little more faith than some however honestly I am willing to try almost anything if it means a better world to live in. With todays rules and laws maybe there was simply nothing that could have been done to prevent this who knows however I would like to think we can prevent it in the future.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Apr 18, 2007)

fieldops said:


> ...I think the first thing people need to do is stop wanting someone to blame...


That is very close to the crux of this matter IMO. More on this later.


fieldops said:


> ...The police are not responsible for this carnage, nor are the NRA, the University or anyone else. The only one responsible is a demented man who ultimately put a round in his own head. He is responsible. Period...


This is where I must respectfully disagree. We are all responsible to the extent that there exists in the West a _massive cult_ that believes that violence is so abhorrent, so reprehensible, _so barbaric_ that they profess that they will not use it _in self defense_ or even to defend their loved ones. Politicians, bureaucrats and often _the heads_ of police organizations have reinforced this kind of thinking by insisting for decades that the only people smart enough and skilled enough to use deadly force are LEOs and criminals.

I hate to keep harping on the founding fathers but they _knew that there was no way that the police could protect people all the time._ They knew that it is the responsibility of _every citizen_ to take part of the responsibility for his own security. They felt that all humans were special in this regard and it may be seen in documents that go back as far as the _Declaration of Independance._ Not just citizens -- not just those with concealed carry permits -- but _all humans._

The problem with Gun Control is that it is a *trap.* It puts the police in a position where they are given a job that they were never designed to do. Call the police tonight and tell them that you have to work late and you'd like some protection from them on your way home. They will crack up. They'll be blowing donut crumbs through their nose. Gun Control has set them up with a job that they can not possibly accomplish and they will be increasingly alienated from law abiding citizens who are left unarmed in the crossfire. 

It is not the fault of the police but they will bear the brunt of the hostility of law abiding citizens who are increasingly left defenseless.

In the West we have all but given Law Enforcement *a monopoly on the legitimate use of deadly force in our society.* That can not work. It has never worked anywhere. The founders knew it couldn't work. To the extent that many of us have been convinced _to our very bones_ that we will be better served by farming out all aspects of the security of ourselves and of our loved ones to third party's we are setting up our Law Enforcement for failure and alienation. Many LEOs I've talked to agree with me -- it's the policy wonks at the top of the departments who aren't on the street who seem to have their heads in a very dark place. 

To the extent that citizens are so poorly informed of their responsibilities as citizens *and* so willing to assign them to anyone who claimes they will protect them *we are definately part of the problem.* It must be understood that any entity that claims it knows how to solve the problem will have blame heaped on them when they ultimately fail -- as they must. There is enough blame to go around for everyone.

Disclosure: I'm 56 yrs old, no criminal record whatsoever and am very pro Law Enforcement.


----------



## Empath (Apr 18, 2007)

The thread has become 100% politics. Those too fearful to take their extreme stands to the Underground, can do without the discussion. The thread is closed.


----------

