VT Shootings- Some thoughts

Dune wrote: Just because there was one instance of it working does not mean it would be the same. Therefore, being pro-guns on college campuses is just as much idiotic rhetort right now as being anti-gun. Get into a situation like that, then come tell me how you reacted.

Yes, it has been stated many many times now that human instinct will kick in and the person may not act. But just as rednekk said, I still fail to see how an armed person could have made the situation any worse. And the one instance is pretty significant, considering that there have only been a few college shootings, and during one of them an armed person happen to be present and was able to control the situation.

I was reading the first part and was genially interested in what he was saying.

I (as well as other writers) have been trying to asses how it all went down, what the campus police did correctly and poorly and how to correct it. I tend to agree with OS with the idea that they didn't fumble the process between the first murder and the killing spree. The best they could tell with the first two killings were an isolated domestic dispute. How could they have known what was coming?

And as far as the people who cry that they should have shut the campus down after the first one, that much is silly. Campuses for colleges are not meant to be locked down. They are built and designed to be free and open to the public. You cannot just shuffle out that many people at once.




I was hoping that the whole thread would stay strategic and insightful.


Then...

oldsoldier wrote: blah blah blah 2nd Admendment Rights

I quit reading.


Edited by Tae Kwon Do - 17 April 2007 at 11:22pm

Dune wrote: An armed person could have been dramatically worse. More innocents killed, the civilian killed leaving more ammo, etc. I'm not saying it wouldn't have swung either way, but too much credit is going to one instance and all the negatives are overlooked. All these individuals shot and killed by one gunman, I'm sure if asked many of them would have said they would have taken down a shooter in a hypothetical situation too.

Can I point out that he didn't run out of ammo? The extra ammo would most likely have been a moot point. He wasn't spraying and praying, he was obviously disciplined about his firing, so saying the CCW owner would have been useless is ridiculous.

Pariel wrote: Dune wrote: An armed person could have been dramatically worse. More innocents killed, the civilian killed leaving more ammo, etc. I'm not saying it wouldn't have swung either way, but too much credit is going to one instance and all the negatives are overlooked. All these individuals shot and killed by one gunman, I'm sure if asked many of them would have said they would have taken down a shooter in a hypothetical situation too. Can I point out that he didn't run out of ammo? The extra ammo would most likely have been a moot point. He wasn't spraying and praying, he was obviously disciplined about his firing, so saying the CCW owner would have been useless is ridiculous.

Let's make it easier:

If you were one of the students in that class room, would you or would you not have preferred to have a gun and the basic knowledge to use it?

If you answer yes, than how could you deny that same self-protective instinct to others facing similar situations?

Following that train of logic, and given that these situations cannot be predicted, but are growing increasingly frequent, why should an individual not have the right to possess the means to defend him or herself if those means made them felt secure?

Clearly law enforcement are ineffective at stopping these situations until they've already passed the point of tragedy... If noone else can protect you effectively, how can those same people who fail in the duty the state has assumed ethically deny you the opportunity to protect yourself more effectively than they are able to?

Woooowww...As much as I agree with both sides...I think that things could have gone different if more guns were there...cause lets face it people with guns does not really equal intelligent, if we have one tard who has a gun but is completely ignorant to accuracy and the use of his gun all he has done is be shot and add to the anger of the shoot

The other side of this would be someone who actually is good with a gun and takes him out...but then there are legal things and conspiracy crap and that could would never live down shooting someone else, and that would be a bad situation...so either way nothing good was coming out of that situation...

I think that we just need stricter background checks on people buying guns because do tend to give it to any retard who wants one (given no criminal record or psychotic tendencies)...

Sonex wrote: Woooowww...As much as I agree with both sides...I think that things could have gone different if more guns were there...cause lets face it people with guns does not really equal intelligent, if we have one tard who has a gun but is completely ignorant to accuracy and the use of his gun all he has done is be shot and add to the anger of the shoot The other side of this would be someone who actually is good with a gun and takes him out...but then there are legal things and conspiracy crap and that could would never live down shooting someone else, and that would be a bad situation...so either way nothing good was coming out of that situation... I think that we just need stricter background checks on people buying guns because do tend to give it to any retard who wants one (given no criminal record or psychotic tendencies)...

Screw the legal things and conspiracy crap. My nation's laws are very clear about my rights to self-defense, defense of another party, and stopping an offense in the commission.

Worst comes to worst, I'll trust a court of law more than a psycho gunman.

¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤ wrote: Da Hui wrote: ANARCHY_SCOUT wrote: The American wrote: Tolgak wrote: I agree with everything.

Kristofer wrote: my only concern is this. if you are going ninja style and you are carrying a concealed weapon. then someone starts shooting. so you shoot that person. well here in Mass. youre pretty much screwed. you cant use your weapon to defend anything. so unless more states are like new hampshire or something where you are able to use your weapon in defense of yourself or others, i dont see the whole if everyone is packing heat thing crime will stop or slow down because they are afraid of being shot. its just not possible. i'm all for gun rights and what not. but gun rights only go so far when states screw on them.

  I'd rather tell it to the judge than St. Peter....

Dune, again, we don't know whether or not a CCW holder could have made a difference since there weren't any there. Your assumption that it would not have made any difference is simply that, an assumption. There are too many different variables that we can never know, but I don't think thats a reason to be against CCW. Your preferred policy was in place at the time this occured and I cant see how that made it any better. At least with CCW there is a chance. From what we do know about this case, resistance did work. Several people did manage to keep the shooter out of the classroom and did act under pressure, at least one of these people had already been shot and definatly did not freeze. When a killer is trying to push his way through a door even a can of mace could have disrupted him significantly. Since he was already on a shooting rampage I'm going to make an assumption that it would have been difficult to piss him off more and inflame the situation.

Even where CCW are legal, few people actually carry. CCW hasn't been proven to increase or decrease crime, so why deny people the option?

Again, the assumption that CCW holders would not be able to react under the stress of the situation cant be a blanket statement. There are probably several hundred thousand Iraq and Afgahnistan vets out there who've been in high stress situations and have good training. I'd say there is probably one in half of my classes, and several with purple hearts.

I'll make a deal with you dune. If you dont assume any CCW holder would muck the situation up completely, I won't assume he'd run towards the gunfire and double tap the shooter in the head.

 

Laws dont matter, if your going to go shoot somebody, chances are you dont really care about going into a "Gun-Free Zone". This guy most likely planned on killing himself before capture. So what does putting more restrictions on those of us who own guns and use them lawfully. It doesn't help.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: And as far as the people who cry that they should have shut the campus down after the first one, that much is silly. Campuses for colleges are not meant to be locked down. They are built and designed to be free and open to the public. You cannot just shuffle out that many people at once.

I'll admit, I was in that camp at first, basing my thoughts on the fact that with this day and age, as soon as something like a shooting goes down, institutions usually lock up tighter than first night. Schools practice lockdown drills, emergency evacuation drills, and so on.

But after the initial shock of the whole mess faded away, you're absolutely right. Locking down an entire college campus is something that is damn near impossible to do. I did think that someone, somewhere along the lines boggled something up, but in retrospect, it looks like protocol and SOP were done right along the lines of how they were supposed to......there isn't anyone to blame or at fault here other than the guy who pulled the trigger.