NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't know if anyone here attends Virginia Tech, but if you do or you know someone who does, please use this thread to check in and let us know you're okay. Reports have the dead around 20 right now. I'll post a link when I can get a goddamn news site to open up.

Here's the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18134671/), what there is of it at present.

Wow... are there actually people on NS who go there? hope not.

I just heard about this :(

I hope the other 20 something wounded pull thru okay.

What the monkey fuck?

Christ that sucks.

Damn.

oh shit, why do people do this? i will never understand it :(


BBC says the gunman is now dead, but they're also showing someone being arrested. seems pretty confused still.

oh shit, why do people do this? i will never understand it :(
Does anyone understand it? :(

oh shit, why do people do this? i will never understand it :(

You can't understand because you can't fit into that frame of mind.

I go to VT. I'm in the dorm next to Ambler-Johnston hall. Thankfully, I wasn't up on the upper end of campus when the second shooting happened. Though I was leaving my dorm for a class when the first did.

Please take care!

God, CNN just showed some cell phone footage and you can hear how the gun shots just won't stop. It was going on forever.

all the cable news networks seem to coincide with the fact that at least 21 were killed and about that many wounded.

Its hard to fathom. people trying to make sense of something that can never make any sense.

There are way too many families about to get bad news-or worse news.

God, CNN just showed some cell phone footage and you can hear how the gun shots just won't stop. It was going on forever.

Realistically speaking, until someone else who wants to stop the gunman shows up with a gun (i.e., campus security or police, since guns are forbidden on campus), it would go on until he runs out of ammunition.

25 dead, and the number will rise.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574

It's going to take some time to get a handle on the total, considering that the gunman wandered all over.

Jesus, its officially the worst campus shooting in US History...

The police are searching all the buildings for another gunman. There may be another one but this is apparently standard procedure (as I've heard). The way the times between shootings are spaced apart, it could be just the one. I don't know for sure.

EDIT: The university newspaper has a timeline of the events so far: http://collegemedia.com/

Well take care. You'll no doubt have been told, but don't go outside that room k?

Geez this is just shocking.

Well take care. You'll no doubt have been told, but don't go outside that room k?

Geez this is just shocking.

Evidently, people who hid behind locked doors were shot through the doors. He evidently just kept shooting and shooting through the doors until he hit people.

Piling up furniture in front of the door might help.

*wonders when the inevitable gun control debate will start*
With your post...

EDIT:Curse Time Warp's sense of irony...

*wonders when the inevitable gun control debate will start*

Words fail. My thoughts are with the students and staff of Va Tech.

Virginia Tech sounds like it's the ghetto of colleges. They've been getting bomb threats, and have had two shooting this year..

*wonders when the inevitable gun control debate will start*

I'm not getting involved in that myself.

Right now, I'm thinking about all the victims and their families, all the people hiding not knowing whats next or if they're safe and the people whose loved ones may be alright and they are going through the agony of not knowing yet.

This is the darkest hour for very many people right now.

*wonders when the inevitable gun control debate will start*

Figures that someone would bring this up before the bodies were even cold...

It has only been this year though...nothing like this has been happening in years past. Just an unlucky year I guess...

What the hell is causing this hostility?

Figures that someone would bring this up before the bodies were even cold...

that was my first thought, but then the news networks are inevitably using that as filler anyway as they are reporting. what else do you say after all, once the facts are reported and statements been given by witnesses and sympathy for victims and families expressed? apart from speculation which is even more unhelpful really.

Words fail. My thoughts are with the students and staff of Va Tech.

Mine too. I was truly hoping that the bad weather was the biggest story of the day.

Virginia Tech sounds like it's the ghetto of colleges. They've been getting bomb threats, and have had two shooting this year..It has only been this year though...nothing like this has been happening in years past. Just an unlucky year I guess...

Figures that someone would bring this up before the bodies were even cold...

I was wondering - because it will happen sooner or later.

You seem to be under the impression that this incident affects me somehow. *shrug*

that was my first thought, but then the news networks are inevitably using that as filler anyway as they are reporting. what else do you say after all, once the facts are reported and statements been given by witnesses and sympathy for victims and families expressed? apart from speculation which is even more unhelpful really.

Yes-way too early to speculate. I dont even know if they've cleared all the buildings or accounted for everyone yet.
This story may not be over yet,though I hope it is.

Classic issues of information distribution in a chaotic situation. I'm hearing estimates ranging from 21 to 29 people dead as a result of this. Let's see how this story unfolds.

I keep trying to think of something helpful or useful or wise to say about all this, but the words don't seem to be coming.

Northrop, I hope you and your friends stay safe. This is a truly horrible event.

Holy fuck.

MSNBC has a Columbine veteran on the air, his stepson got shot. He's talking about how there were probably warning signs about this shooting well before it happened, citing that Columbine was planned a year in advance, and complaining about how Columbine victims are stonewalled by the government.

Looks extremely unfortunate.

MSNBC has a Columbine veteran on the air, his stepson got shot. He's talking about how there were probably warning signs about this shooting well before it happened, citing that Columbine was planned a year in advance, and complaining about how Columbine victims are stonewalled by the government.

yeah-nows the time to talk about that

:( That's awful.

Reports says there were 2 separate shootings, but not whether they were related or not.

If that's the case, then I'd say that this was at least, partially, a targeted shooting, rather than just pure, random raging.

It's tragedy, a goddamn tragedy.

32 dead. http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21275256.shtml

According to eyewitness accounts, the shooter was looking for his girlfriend and was lining up people to shoot execution style.

A small bit of advice.

If there's someone with a handgun, and there are many people he's trying to cow into submission, everyone should run.

Increase distance as rapidly as possible. Some of you may get hit, but you won't all die.

Doing what he says, and standing there like cattle while he shoots each of you in the head is a one-way ticket to getting killed.

If that's the case, then I'd say that this was at least, partially, a targeted shooting, rather than just pure, random raging.

It's tragedy, a goddamn tragedy.

It seems that the weapons the gunman was carrying where two handgun's, at least one of which was a 9mm automatic pistol, and he wore a combat vest with plenty of pockets lined with magazines for his guns. So it looks like he thought this through well in advance.

Grim shit indeed. As ever its the poor innocent bastards who are on the receiving end.

Increase distance as rapidly as possible. Some of you may get hit, but you won't all die.

Doing what he says, and standing there like cattle while he shoots each of you in the head is a one-way ticket to getting killed.

I dunno. You ever been in this type of situation before? Because I have a feeling it's a tad different when you're faced with such a literal life and death decision.

It seems that the weapons the gunman was carrying where two handgun's, at least one of which was a 9mm automatic pistol, and he wore a combat vest with plenty of pockets lined with magazines for his guns. So it looks like he thought this through well in advance.

That means he probably left evidence of a motive somewhere. If it's worth anything, we'll find out what his motive, regardless of how psychotic it might have been, was. Having at least that bit of knowledge somehow makes it slightly less terrifying, pure randomness, chaos, frightens me so much.

Grim shit indeed. As ever its the poor innocent bastards who are on the receiving end.

Doesn't that go without saying? I mean, the guilty one is usually the one doing it, right?

I dunno. You ever been in this type of situation before? Because I have a feeling it's a tad different when you're faced with such a literal life and death decision.

Yes, I've been shot at. But not by crazed students with pistols - it was by Iraqi military with rifles.

You have a few choices. Run - especially if you don't have a weapon. It's much more difficult to hit a running target that is increasing the range - that's a fact.

Get behind cover - I don't mean an interior wall or door - most pistol bullets will go right through a wooden door or wallboard - I mean get behind something made of steel or cinderblock.

If you have a weapon and are close enough, use it. Baseball bat. Chair. Whatever. On the VT Campus, guns are forbidden, so unless you're breaking the law, you don't have one.

If he's executing people, your odds of survival go way up if you TRY to save your life.

How could he kill 32 people with dual 9mm? Ok, I can see that hapening with an automatic rifle, but two pistols?

Havent the people heard the shots? If he went to a class and started shooting wildly, people would have time to take cover or run.

Or did they just stood there thinking they were hostages? Looks like he told everyone to stay calm, make a line, and then started shooting.

And two accidents, with a 2 hour interval. That is even weirder. How about the cops? Ok, the campus might be huge, but they should´ve had done something earlier.

Everything sounds very suspicious so far.

...pure randomness, chaos, frightens me so much.

Really? Hmm, that could provide an interest insight into personalities. Is it like some kind of phobia?

How many other people feel like that?

How could he kill 32 people with dual 9mm? Ok, I can see that hapening with an automatic rifle, but two pistols?

Havent the people heard the shots? If he went to a class and started shooting wildly, people would have time to take cover or run.

Or did they just stood there thinking they were hostages? Looks like he told everyone to stay calm, make a line, and then started shooting.

And two accidents, with a 2 hour interval. That is even weirder. How about the cops? Ok, the campus might be huge, but they should´ve had done something earlier.

Everything sounds very suspicious so far.

If he chains the doors to the dorm shut (as an interviewed student just said on TV), and he gets people to obey him and they line up to be shot like cattle, it's fucking easy.

You could kill that many people with a damned knife if they cooperated.

Really? Hmm, that could provide an interest insight into personalities. Is it like some kind of phobia?

How many other people feel like that?

Several news reports indicate he was upset over an ex-girlfriend.

32 dead. http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21275256.shtml

A small bit of advice.

If there's someone with a handgun, and there are many people he's trying to cow into submission, everyone should run.

Increase distance as rapidly as possible. Some of you may get hit, but you won't all die.

Doing what he says, and standing there like cattle while he shoots each of you in the head is a one-way ticket to getting killed.

Yes, I've been shot at. But not by crazed students with pistols - it was by Iraqi military with rifles.

You have a few choices. Run - especially if you don't have a weapon. It's much more difficult to hit a running target that is increasing the range - that's a fact.

Get behind cover - I don't mean an interior wall or door - most pistol bullets will go right through a wooden door or wallboard - I mean get behind something made of steel or cinderblock.

If you have a weapon and are close enough, use it. Baseball bat. Chair. Whatever. On the VT Campus, guns are forbidden, so unless you're breaking the law, you don't have one.

If he's executing people, your odds of survival go way up if you TRY to save your life.

dunno how the dorms in VT are, but if they are anything like other dorms I've been in, you have long corridors... you know... and you have students running down those corridors and you not only get shot students, but also students trampled by those running, add to the shots, the sounds of screaming and you have chaos and pandimonium all over the place, making it harder for everyone.

now factor in that scared people will not think as rationally as you, who recieved some form of training, and I for one won't blame the students for their actions or lack of actions.

How could he kill 32 people with dual 9mm? Ok, I can see that hapening with an automatic rifle, but two pistols?

Havent the people heard the shots? If he went to a class and started shooting wildly, people would have time to take cover or run.

Or did they just stood there thinking they were hostages? Looks like he told everyone to stay calm, make a line, and then started shooting.

And two accidents, with a 2 hour interval. That is even weirder. How about the cops? Ok, the campus might be huge, but they should´ve had done something earlier.

Everything sounds very suspicious so far.

I know I was out at Quantico last Friday for a Marine Corps weapons demo, the M9 Beretta is a mean little gun at short range, even if all you have is one clip. Give some whacko ten clips and he can put 150 rounds into the air right fast.

I also suspect there ought to be serious investigation of the BPD on this one. One shooting on campus should have been enough to shut the place down for an extended period of time.

Really? Hmm, that could provide an interest insight into personalities. Is it like some kind of phobia?

How many other people feel like that?

People are afraid of the unknown, of chaos, of uncertainty.

When you know its dangerous to walk in the streets at night, you feel more safe when you go back home early.

But terrorism works by messing up with your head and making sure you dont feel safe anywhere. I´ve always considered myself quite safe when going to college, even if I did worry about being mugged. But being shot is something totaly diferent.

And also, these random shootings are even worst, because the shooter usually doesnt choose his targets. For example, he may hate rich people, or black people, or women, and if you´re not in these groups, you feel safer. But if the guy just shoots wildly, you have no clue if you are going to be a target next or not.

Have you watched Schingler´s List? That german commander used these scare tactics to hold the jews under controls. Its one of the worst types of controling methods: random killings.

Yes, I've been shot at. But not by crazed students with pistols - it was by Iraqi military with rifles.

You have a few choices. Run - especially if you don't have a weapon. It's much more difficult to hit a running target that is increasing the range - that's a fact.

Get behind cover - I don't mean an interior wall or door - most pistol bullets will go right through a wooden door or wallboard - I mean get behind something made of steel or cinderblock.

If you have a weapon and are close enough, use it. Baseball bat. Chair. Whatever. On the VT Campus, guns are forbidden, so unless you're breaking the law, you don't have one.

If he's executing people, your odds of survival go way up if you TRY to save your life.

Taking the scenario you highlighted. The first person runs - bang. Drops dead. Everyone (already suffering from shock, panic and frightened beyond belief) thinks "If I run, I'm dead too. Maybe he'll only kill those who run and those he's after. Maybe he won't kill those who don't draw his attention. Maybe I can survive it that way."

Not everyone has the military experience of being shot at by insurgents to steady their nerves.

Several news reports indicate he was upset over an ex-girlfriend.

Sounds plausible. But, yanno, not entirely what my post was about. >_>'

How awful. When things like this happens it makes me wished I believed in an afterlife so that I'd know the gunman was getting what he deserved for his actions.

Taking the scenario you highlighted. The first person runs - bang. Drops dead. Everyone (already suffering from shock, panic and frightened beyond belief) thinks "If I run, I'm dead too. Maybe he'll only kill those who run and those he's after. Maybe he won't kill those who don't draw his attention. Maybe I can survive it that way."

Not everyone has the military experience of being shot at by insurgents to steady their nerves.

There's a saying - I don't have to be an Olympic sprinter - I just have to run faster than you do (in such a situation).

Sure, he'll get some of you. But if you all stand there, he'll get all of you.

I know I was out at Quantico last Friday for a Marine Corps weapons demo, the M9 Beretta is a mean little gun at short range, even if all you have is one clip. Give some whacko ten clips and he can put 150 rounds into the air right fast.

I also suspect there ought to be serious investigation of the BPD on this one. One shooting on campus should have been enough to shut the place down for an extended period of time.

Yes, I´ve seen some experienced guys using pistols too. The guy used a 45 and managed to empty a clip in less than 5 seconds.

Now, they will have to research and investigate where the guy got the weapons, where he got the training, and who gave it to him.

There's a saying - I don't have to be an Olympic sprinter - I just have to run faster than you do (in such a situation).

Sure, he'll get some of you. But if you all stand there, he'll get all of you.Not exactly comforting. "If I run I may die, if I stay I may die....hmmm."
or "I might survive if I can use my friend as a bullet shield"

There's a saying - I don't have to be an Olympic sprinter - I just have to run faster than you do (in such a situation).

Sure, he'll get some of you. But if you all stand there, he'll get all of you.

Not exactly comforting. "If I run I may die, if I stay I may die....hmmm."

Edit: I just have to run faster than you do.....? No, you just have to run faster than bullets fly!

Not exactly comforting. "If I run I may die, if I stay I may die....hmmm."

Once he starts popping people in the head, that becomes,

"If I run I may die, if I stay I will die."

There's a saying - I don't have to be an Olympic sprinter - I just have to run faster than you do (in such a situation).

Sure, he'll get some of you. But if you all stand there, he'll get all of you.

I thought it was more of a punchline than a saying.

"I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you"

Columbine anniversary this week, and this...I guess you HS security officers/Campus PD better be careful...You know how copycats are...

Doesn't that go without saying? I mean, the guilty one is usually the one doing it, right?

Let me put it this way, he could have shot at (for instance) Bush and co. He didn't. Hence "poor blameless bastards".

Let me put it this way, he could have shot at (for instance) Bush and co. He didn't. Hence "poor blameless bastards".

I'm not sure you could clear leather and get off a shot in the first instance. We would be reading about what an interesting corpse the intended shooter made, instead of dead victims.

Not even sure you could get close enough just wearing a pistol.

Really? Hmm, that could provide an interest insight into personalities. Is it like some kind of phobia?

How many other people feel like that?

Chaos scares me, when the ordered rules of society break down, that's when it gets dangerous. That's when this stuff happens, when societal breakdown, of some sort, occurs.

AP now says 31 people are dead. Many others wounded.

Wouldn't it depend how close the shooter gets to you? If the bastard is close enough you would probably be better off rushing the gunman. Better odds getting the weapon away from him than being shot in the back as you run away.

My point was that you should do something - anything - except stand there and let him do it.

Let me put it this way, he could have shot at (for instance) Bush and co. He didn't. Hence "poor blameless bastards".

Ah...I suppose that makes sense.

"If I run I may die, if I stay I will die."

Wouldn't it depend how close the shooter gets to you? If the bastard is close enough you would probably be better off rushing the gunman. Better odds getting the weapon away from him than being shot in the back as you run away.

Ah...I suppose that makes sense.

Indeed, my orginal phrasing was a bit loose, so apologies.

Wouldn't it depend how close the shooter gets to you? If the bastard is close enough you would probably be better off rushing the gunman. Better odds getting the weapon away from him than being shot in the back as you run away.

Too many factors. You really cant say unless you´re there, and this kind of thing happens so fast you really dont have time to think about it. Act, believe and try to get lucky.

Training helps a lot, but when you´re unarmed against a guy wielding two pistols, I have to say most of your survival rate is based on luck.

damn...more than one station is reporting 31 were killed now.

Still, how the hell does someone go off and do this? What kind of mental acrobatics do you have to perform to try to justify this sort of action. I can't even comprehend.

Training helps a lot, but when you´re unarmed against a guy wielding two pistols, I have to say most of your survival rate is based on luck.

I can understand that but there is usually a potential hero or two among a crowd. If you have to run across open ground to get away and you have the nerve it would seem that attempting to jump the guy is your best chance to live. I doubt that the gunman would ever expect someone to actually move towards him after all.

Still, how the hell does someone go off and do this? What kind of mental acrobatics do you have to perform to try to justify this sort of action. I can't even comprehend.

*shrug* Who says you'd even be in a mental state where you'd need to justify it?

*shrug* Who says you'd even be in a mental state where you'd need to justify it?

There isn't a justification that would be valid.

People just do these things. Asking "why?" is rather pointless.

What, are we going to tell women, "Don't break up with your boyfriend, because he might go postal! Just give him all the sex he demands, and live with it."

There hardly is a simple answer to the question. Probabily the guy has an history of problems. No one wakes up one day and start shooting people only because their girlfriend dumped them.

Maybe he was bullied in school. Maybe his father used to beat him with guns. Maybe his girlfriend was blackmailing him or abusing him. Maybe all the things happened.

Maybe he just wanted to commit suicide, but wondered how many he could take with him.

There are too many´s. Cops will have to do a lot of research on this case. Much more than Columbine.

Here in Brazil, there was something like that. A guy from the most prestigious (and hard) college here just went nuts, got an UZI and went to a movie theater. Started shooting everywhere, then killed himself. He didnt kill a lot of people, but that kind of stuff had never happened here.

Now, the guy was suffering from a major stress and depressive disorder, and he just snapped.

Wow so close to Columbine in number and date.

Thoughts and condolences with the victims and their loved ones.

This is terrorism right here, those bastard sons of bitches.

And the anti-gun tragedy pimps are creaming their pants. On campus CCW could have stopped this.

No doubt the NRA will make it's own statements soon enough.

Thoughts and condolences with the victims and their loved ones.

This is terrorism right here, those bastard sons of bitches.

And the anti-gun tragedy pimps are creaming their pants. On campus CCW could have stopped this.

Phew. Odd that that tweaked an empathic muscle in me.I missed the part of the news that covered it and only heard the announcement that the channel would continue covering the shooting at a university in Virginia... I was worried sick that something happened at UVa in the three minutes it took me to get to the library and look up where it was...

Still, one of my professors was a Hokie and their fencing club is good friends with ours at UVa (odd considering the rivalry between all other sports teams). I'm glad they're all ok, and my sympathies go out to those that were not so lucky =(

Wow so close to Columbine in number and date.

Which is why I said people should now be careful. There are copycats out there.

A lot of men kill their wives and children in early to mid-spring (I guess winter can't be over soon enough). Had a guy hang his children, and hang himself locally. Immediately afterwards, there was a hanging copycat (hung his two children).

Still, how the hell does someone go off and do this? What kind of mental acrobatics do you have to perform to try to justify this sort of action. I can't even comprehend.

I don't think it's mental acrobatics at hand. Take the fictional tv show the sopranos for instance. Last night there was a former oncologist that murdered his wife, her aunt, the mailman... Why not just his wife? "I figured once I killed her I was in it for the whole mess." Once you start killing what is your motivation to stop? In this case you kill your ex gf, then you kill the guy who comes in because he hears shots. Students are running and screaming throughout the halls so you just start popping off at anyone whose in between you and the door on the way out. I'm not saying this is what happened, just giving an example of how someone can go on a killing spree like this whether it was their intent or not. You're already going to jail for 30 or more, possibly even a death sentence. What difference does 2 or 20 make at that point? God Bless the families of this dead or wounded in this case.

32 dead as per CNN at 3:20 PM

No doubt the NRA will make it's own statements soon enough.

The VPC already made a statement.

I fear the gun debates

Hmmm...CNN says that a (possibly the only) gunman was an Asian male.

I fear the gun debates

Having a gun is not a panacea.

Sure - if you have one, and the opportunity to use it, and you have the mindset and it's legal to do so - it just might work.

Of all of these things, mindset is the most important. And here is where I think people miss out - you don't need a gun to have the mindset.

Having the mindset means you're willing to take advantage of any opportunity you can to either get away from the area, or if cornered, to wrestle with the gunman for the gun.

Having a gun in hand does not make the shooter proof against any form of attack - in fact, he's just as soft and just as able to bleed as he ever was - all you need is a baseball bat and the opportunity.

A fair number of police (who are wearing body armor AND have a gun) are beaten to death or stabbed by assailants - all because they were momentarily inattentive when the assailant was WILLING to do whatever it took to stop the policeman.

You could very well own a gun - and have it on campus in violation of university policy - but be completely without the mindset to use it. You might just as well stand in line with the others, waiting for him to shoot you.

A person with the mindset to survive at any cost would be dangerous - even without the gun.

Considering the kind of firepower this guy was carrying, it looks pretty obvious to me that a killing spree was the intent, not something that just happened.Killing sprees like that almost always are intended.

I missed the part of the news that covered it and only heard the announcement that the channel would continue covering the shooting at a university in Virginia... I was worried sick that something happened at UVa in the three minutes it took me to get to the library and look up where it was...

Still, one of my professors was a Hokie and their fencing club is good friends with ours at UVa (odd considering the rivalry between all other sports teams). I'm glad they're all ok, and my sympathies go out to those that were not so lucky =(

I'm glad they are alright. A lot of people have been holding their breath today.

Considering the kind of firepower this guy was carrying, it looks pretty obvious to me that a killing spree was the intent, not something that just happened.

One 9mm pistol, one .22 pistol, and a lot of ammunition.

A fair number of people begin their murders with a lot of ammunition, but are unwilling to proceed to kill everyone (stopping at a few dead). The idea that he chained the dorm doors shut is more of such intent to me.

I don't think it's mental acrobatics at hand. Take the fictional tv show the sopranos for instance. Last night there was a former oncologist that murdered his wife, her aunt, the mailman... Why not just his wife? "I figured once I killed her I was in it for the whole mess." Once you start killing what is your motivation to stop? In this case you kill your ex gf, then you kill the guy who comes in because he hears shots. Students are running and screaming throughout the halls so you just start popping off at anyone whose in between you and the door on the way out. I'm not saying this is what happened, just giving an example of how someone can go on a killing spree like this whether it was their intent or not. You're already going to jail for 30 or more, possibly even a death sentence. What difference does 2 or 20 make at that point? God Bless the families of this dead or wounded in this case.

32 dead as per CNN at 3:20 PM

Considering the kind of firepower this guy was carrying, it looks pretty obvious to me that a killing spree was the intent, not something that just happened.

Considering the kind of firepower this guy was carrying, it looks pretty obvious to me that a killing spree was the intent, not something that just happened.

They say he chained the door of the second shooting site closed so police would have a hard time getting in. This was planned.

God...this is just crazy. :(

Having a gun is not a panacea.

Sure - if you have one, and the opportunity to use it, and you have the mindset and it's legal to do so - it just might work.

Of all of these things, mindset is the most important. And here is where I think people miss out - you don't need a gun to have the mindset.

Having the mindset means you're willing to take advantage of any opportunity you can to either get away from the area, or if cornered, to wrestle with the gunman for the gun.

Having a gun in hand does not make the shooter proof against any form of attack - in fact, he's just as soft and just as able to bleed as he ever was - all you need is a baseball bat and the opportunity.

A fair number of police (who are wearing body armor AND have a gun) are beaten to death or stabbed by assailants - all because they were momentarily inattentive when the assailant was WILLING to do whatever it took to stop the policeman.

You could very well own a gun - and have it on campus in violation of university policy - but be completely without the mindset to use it. You might just as well stand in line with the others, waiting for him to shoot you.

A person with the mindset to survive at any cost would be dangerous - even without the gun.


MacGyuver for instance.

Still, how the hell does someone go off and do this? What kind of mental acrobatics do you have to perform to try to justify this sort of action. I can't even comprehend.

I'm more interested in knowing how the fuck he pulled this off with a 9-mil and a .22 something-or-other (as reported by MSNBC).

MacGyuver for instance.

Stop being facetious.

What, would you just stand there and quietly let the guy shoot you in the head (after watching him shoot half the people in the hallway who were lined up)?

I fear the gun debates
I'm fairly sure even NSG can't politicise 31 dead students. This is completely appalling. Terrible.:(

32 confirmed killed, and at least 24 others wounded. Worse than Columbine... This is not good :(

People just do these things. Asking "why?" is rather pointless.
I disagree. Maybe the answer would give us a clue as how to stop such random killings from happening; We don't know.

I'm fairly sure even NSG can't politicise 31 dead students.
Has Corneliu posted yet?

shock? Have you ever been in a life or death situation?

Aye. Fear paralyzes, and anyone who isn't normally in a position of dealing with these sorts of situations isn't suddenly going to become an action hero when someone's got a gun to their head.

Stop being facetious.

What, would you just stand there and quietly let the guy shoot you in the head (after watching him shoot half the people in the hallway who were lined up)?

shock? Have you ever been in a life or death situation?

shock? Have you ever been in a life or death situation?

He claims to be a marine.

*puts on huge flame suit and hides behind a 3 foot thick steal bullet proof door*

This does beg the question however, would this have been possible if all he had was a knife?

shock? Have you ever been in a life or death situation?I remember an execution device in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp that looked as though it was meant to measure your height, but instead shot you in the back of the neck. The guards discovered that people faced with certain death would often put up a fight, so they came up with a solution for killing them without them becoming aware of it beforehand.

shock? Have you ever been in a life or death situation?

I think he's been asked that, actually.

I'm more interested in knowing how the fuck he pulled this off with a 9-mil and a .22 something-or-other (as reported by MSNBC).

Contary to what some people think, for reasons only they will ever understand, .22cal and 9mm bullets are both very effective at killing people. "Knockdown power" and all the other gun-nerd jackoff jargon really doesnt mean a whole lot when you get shot to death, I suppose.

What was mind-numbingly absent here was a single legally armed student with, say, his own little .22cal pistol that he could have stopped this monster with.

I'm fairly sure even NSG can't politicise 31 dead students. This is completely appalling. Terrible.:(

I've already gotten E-mails from both sides doing just that.

Stop being facetious.

What, would you just stand there and quietly let the guy shoot you in the head (after watching him shoot half the people in the hallway who were lined up)?

I'm not sure what I would do. If I could easily be picked out I'd probably wait and try to attack the guy when he got near me, but if many people were runnign I would be runnign too.

This thread is growing super fast. This whole thing is horrible but i wonder aswell how he could have killed so many with one 9mm pistol.

Contary to what some people think, for reasons only they will ever understand, .22cal and 9mm bullets are both very effective at killing people. "Knockdown power" and all the other gun-nerd jackoff jargon really doesnt mean a whole lot when you get shot to death, I suppose.

What was mind-numbingly absent here was a single legally armed student with, say, his own little .22cal pistol that he could have stopped this monster with.

Not to mention that:
A) He had 2 9mm from what I heard on the radio.
and
B) His vest was found to be literally COVERED in extra clips

Has Corneliu posted yet?

He's in PA, not VA.

Or so I thought?

He claims to be a marine.
oh, well then, maybe he should cut us civilians a little slack. I didn't do well with a gun pointed at me, I froze......until they said they would shoot me if I didn't move, then I moved.
I think he's been asked that, actually.
oh, missed it. sorry.

on topic (or more on topic)

this is a tragedy, I will never understand what would be going on in someone's life to where they would think killing someone was a good idea, much less to do something like this. I already have everyone affected in the area on my prayer list, I hope they find some kind of comfort.

I'm fairly sure even NSG can't politicise 31 dead students. This is completely appalling. Terrible.:(

I'm not interested in "politicising" anything. Gun rights should not be a political issue, and I am not a republican or a conservative.

The fundamental right to be able to defend yourself should go beyond politics, and a lot of scummy people from both political parties are responsible for the victims being disarmed-by-law here.

Guns were already banned. If 31 dead students aren't enough to to remove all the whiny, senseless, ridiculous, feel-good politicization from this issue I don't know what is.

I'm more interested in knowing how the fuck he pulled this off with a 9-mil and a .22 something-or-other (as reported by MSNBC).

Am I also hearing that he shot people during the 7am hour in a dorm location,then more over an hour later in the classroom areas?

He laid low somewhere til they announced an "all clear" ?

What was mind-numbingly absent here was a single legally armed student with, say, his own little .22cal pistol that he could have stopped this monster with.
College campuses tend to be a bit antsy about the idea of students bringing weapons on campus. Even my pocket knife was considered a rules violation (though I don't go to Tech, so they might be far enough into hick country that trying to deknife the entire student body is too much trouble), so a handgun would be right out.

This thread is growing super fast. This whole thing is horrible but i wonder aswell how he could have killed so many with one 9mm pistol.

By shooting them, obviously...

Oh no here we go...

Contary to what some people think, for reasons only they will ever understand, .22cal and 9mm bullets are both very effective at killing people. "Knockdown power" and all the other gun-nerd jackoff jargon really doesnt mean a whole lot when you get shot to death, I suppose.
He was mainly shooting through doors and such as I hear it, I don't assume the college had lots of traditional Japanese architecture. Also, I hear he had guns with a high rate of fire.

What was mind-numbingly absent here was a single legally armed student with, say, his own little .22cal pistol that he could have stopped this monster with.
Statistically speaking, the average American college student is more likely to be assaulted or attacked by a fellow student than by any outsider. This makes me less than enthusiastic about the idea of my fellow students carrying guns around. I'm not partial to the idea of improving the arsenal of those who are most likely to attack me.

Also, considering the amount of drinking that goes on at your typical college, I think that increasing the presence of deadly weapons will probably not have happy consequences.

College campuses tend to be a bit antsy about the idea of students bringing weapons on campus. Even my pocket knife was considered a rules violation (though I don't go to Tech, so they might be far enough into hick country that trying to deknife the entire student body is too much trouble), so a handgun would be right out.

Exactly, and that policy was catastrophic here today.

Guns were already banned, so that can be scratched off the list of "how to prevent crazy people from having a massacre at school."

You already need to be 21 to get a concealed weapons permit, and to pass a criminal background check and qualify with the gun and with an understanding of the law. This should be sufficient for campuses.

Exactly, and that policy was catastrophic here today.

Guns were already banned, so that can be scratched off the list of "how to prevent crazy people from having a massacre at school."

You already need to be 21 to get a concealed weapons permit, and to pass a criminal background check and qualify with the gun and with an understanding of the law. This should be sufficient for campuses.

Technically, thats not "banning guns". With a system like that, it's easy for a scumbag to get a gun, if not at the shop off someone else.... or his father... etc...

I realize that, I didn't know a few minutes ago that he had 2 and all that extra ammo.

Exactly, and that policy was catastrophic here today.

Of course you make the unfounded assumption if some one had a gun they would be of clear enough mind to get it and, with questionable enough conscience, to use it.

Something tells me that college-educated 21 year olds are not necessarily the problem with random gun violence.A vast majority of college students aren't 21, though.

Statistically speaking, the average American college student is more likely to be assaulted or attacked by a fellow student than by any outsider. This makes me less than enthusiastic about the idea of my fellow students carrying guns around. I'm not partial to the idea of improving the arsenal of those who are most likely to attack me.

Banning guns sure did diminish this guy's arsenal, didnt it ace. Maybe he was "unlikely to attack" though, or whatever.

Why not use existing concealment-permit laws? 21 years old, with a criminal background check and qualification with the gun and knowledge of the applicable law.

Something tells me that college-educated 21 year olds are not necessarily the problem with random gun violence.

Also, I don't know of many 21 year olds who drink on campus, and laws already prohibit carrying a gun into a place that serves alcohol, so if there are no such places on campus, or if the law already prohibits carrying a gun there, then permitting a licesned 21 year old non-criminal adult to carry elsewhere makes that issue completely moot.

*puts on huge flame suit and hides behind a 3 foot thick steal bullet proof door*

This does beg the question however, would this have been possible if all he had was a knife?


Not likely. However in NI, where theres far more restrictions on firearms, one would be "school shooter" constructed a home-made flame thrower.

Plus theres a certain precedent for bombs in the US with Mc Veigh/UNA bomber. In short, if a nut really really wants to kill people, he will. Particularily the type who plans things out.

Why not use existing concealment-permit laws? 21 years old, with a criminal background check and qualification with the gun and knowledge of the applicable law.
That obviously stopped the shooter from getting guns. The basis for your assertion is, as usual with pro-gun arguers, as absurd as that of the people you argue against. If we all lived in gunner utopia, we wouldn't need guns.

Anyone know what happened to the guy who posted and said he's there right now?

He was mainly shooting through doors and such as I hear it, I don't assume the college had lots of traditional Japanese architecture. Also, I hear he had guns with a high rate of fire.

What makes you think a 9mm bullet wont go through a door or a wall? It isnt a BB. A .22 might have a little trouble, depending upon how thick things are stacked.

Most guns can be fired as fast as you can pull the trigger. Some require the manipulation of a bolt or lever, but those are pretty quick too.

Guns were banned on campus.

Like campus police would stop them :rolleyes:

Technically, thats not "banning guns". With a system like that, it's easy for a scumbag to get a gun, if not at the shop off someone else.... or his father... etc...

Guns were banned on campus.

Banning guns sure did diminish this guy's arsenal, didnt it ace. Maybe he was "unlikely to attack" though, or whatever.

Perhaps I was not clear.

My reaction to a story about somebody shooting a bunch of students is not, "Hey, you know what would help? More shooting-weapons placed closer to students!"

I honestly don't think it would help anything to have more students carrying guns. I don't think there would be any significant chance of preventing something like this from happening simply by increasing the number of guns. I don't think there is any chance whatsoever, in any way, that increasing the number of guns on campus will reduce the number of students killed by guns.


Why not use existing concealment-permit laws? 21 years old, with a criminal background check and qualification with the gun and knowledge of the applicable law.

Something tells me that college-educated 21 year olds are not necessarily the problem with random gun violence.
I'd wager that if 21 year old college seniors were encouraged to carry guns on them at all times, they would be a major problem when it comes to gun violence.

You already need to be 21 to get a concealed weapons permit, and to pass a criminal background check and qualify with the gun and with an understanding of the law. This should be sufficient for campuses.
The problem with that is that (at least on my campus) dorm-room theft is a big problem. Each semester a few dozen MP3 Players, laptops, radios and the like are lifted from someone's room, and people are understandably relunctant to start adding handguns to the above list.

Of course you make the unfounded assumption if some one had a gun they would be of clear enough mind to get it and, with questionable enough conscience, to use it.

It is the difference between probably being able to stop the gunman and not being able to stop the gunman.

Anyone with a concealed weapons permit has undergone a class in shooting and on the mental preparations to lives by shooting someone, as well as the legal issues.

The problem with that is that (at least on my campus) dorm-room theft is a big problem. Each semester a few dozen MP3 Players, laptops, radios and the like are lifted from someone's room, and people are understandably relunctant to start adding handguns to the above list.

Concealed carry shouldnt be mandatory, but it should be an option. If someone doesnt feel that he can keep a handgun secured, that is his decision. The problem is that as it stands now, no one except maniac criminals are allowed to carry guns on campus.

That obviously stopped the shooter from getting guns. The basis for your assertion is, as usual with pro-gun arguers, as absurd as that of the people you argue against. If we all lived in gunner utopia, we wouldn't need guns.
Exactly.

The people who use guns to do horrible things virtually never got those guns by being responsible gun owners. They usually TAKE their guns (illegally or illicitly) FROM responsible gun owners.

Think of it this way: more guns on campus is more guns on campus. Maybe the person who legally owns the gun is a very nice, responsible person. But how many times do laptops and backpacks get stolen on campus? How many times do roommates "borrow" something that isn't theirs? Do you really think that increasing the number of guns on a campus would not also increase the opportunities for NON-responsible people to get their hands on guns?

Here's an interesting quote from the VT president after the defeat of a bill allowing CCW on campus:

"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."

Perhaps I was not clear.

My reaction to a story about somebody shooting a bunch of students is not, "Hey, you know what would help? More shooting-weapons placed closer to students!"

I honestly don't think it would help anything to have more students carrying guns. I don't think there would be any significant chance of preventing something like this from happening simply by increasing the number of guns. I don't think there is any chance whatsoever, in any way, that increasing the number of guns on campus will reduce the number of students killed by guns.


I'd wager that if 21 year old college seniors were encouraged to carry guns on them at all times, they would be a major problem when it comes to gun violence.

Exactly, the ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE HELPED would have been for someone else to SHOOT THE CRIMINAL BEFORE HE COULD MURDER 32 PEOPLE.

Obviously the campus security and local police were not up to task, and could never be without posting their own armed guards all around campus.

Permitting state CCW to apply to campus does not encourage people to have guns, it just gives them an option. Does allowing you to join the army encourage you to join the army? That doesnt make any sense.

Exactly.

The people who use guns to do horrible things virtually never got those guns by being responsible gun owners. They usually TAKE their guns (illegally or illicitly) FROM responsible gun owners.

Think of it this way: more guns on campus is more guns on campus. Maybe the person who legally owns the gun is a very nice, responsible person. But how many times do laptops and backpacks get stolen on campus? How many times do roommates "borrow" something that isn't theirs? Do you really think that increasing the number of guns on a campus would not also increase the opportunities for NON-responsible people to get their hands on guns?

Decreasing it sure didn't help.

It is the difference between probably being able to stop the gunman and not being able to stop the gunman.
Again, baseless assertion, and a false dilemma to boot. If you get the jump on him, which you would have to do to shoot him before he shoots you, you could stop him without a gun.

Anyone with a concealed weapons permit has undergone
Unfounded assumption. Who knows if anyone has a concealed carry permit.

the mental preparations to lives by shooting someone, as well as the legal issues.
So to get a concealed carry permit, you have to go to a class that teaches you how to mentally suppress the natural aversion to killing another human being?
Oh yeah, I feel alot safer now :rolleyes:

Exactly, the ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE HELPED would have been for someone else to SHOOT THE CRIMINAL BEFORE HE COULD MURDER 32 PEOPLE.
Regardless of the font size, font type, and amount of caps you use, it is still a false dilemma.

Permitting state CCW to apply to campus does not encourage people to have guns, it just gives them an option.
And it increases the number of guns going around campus and available to people who would go shooting people up by 1 for every gun.

Exactly.

The people who use guns to do horrible things virtually never got those guns by being responsible gun owners. They usually TAKE their guns (illegally or illicitly) FROM responsible gun owners.

Think of it this way: more guns on campus is more guns on campus. Maybe the person who legally owns the gun is a very nice, responsible person. But how many times do laptops and backpacks get stolen on campus? How many times do roommates "borrow" something that isn't theirs? Do you really think that increasing the number of guns on a campus would not also increase the opportunities for NON-responsible people to get their hands on guns?

Criminals don't have any trouble getting guns as it is. It was proven today beyond any doubt that banning guns on campus does not prevent the most dangerous people from getting them or bringing them onto campus.

The argument that "more guns means more guns for criminals" is moot because the criminals already have guns, that is a given. The only significant thing added to the equation is "now not only the criminals have guns, but some law abiding responsible people do too"

Criminals don't have any trouble getting guns as it is. It was proven today beyond any doubt that banning guns on campus does not prevent the most dangerous people from getting them or bringing them onto campus.

The argument that "more guns means more guns for criminals" is moot because the criminals already have guns, that is a given. The only significant thing added to the equation is "now not only the criminals have guns, but some law abiding responsible people do too"

Or you could just have it so nobody has guns, and all problems are solved. If everyone has guns, you sure as hell won't stop the killing.

Exactly, the ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE HELPED would have been for someone else to SHOOT THE CRIMINAL BEFORE HE COULD MURDER 32 PEOPLE.

Really? The only thing?


Obviously the campus security and local police were not up to task, and could never be without posting their own armed guards all around campus.

Now you seem to be suggesting that there IS something else that could have stopped this, like having sufficient campus security. Which is it?


Permitting state CCW to apply to campus does not encourage people to have guns, it just gives them an option. Does allowing you to join the army encourage you to join the army?

Um...yes. If it were illegal to join the army, I think that might discourage people from joining the army. The fact that it is legal to join the army is more encouraging than if it were illegal to join the army.

Criminals don't have any trouble getting guns as it is.
So the logical conclusion is to increase the number of guns easily accessible to said criminals.

It was proven today beyond any doubt that banning guns on campus does not prevent the most dangerous people from getting them or bringing them onto campus.
Wrong. There is no proof. Lack of proof for one thing does not equate to proof for another. Your logic fails, but that is no surprise, you havn't managed one instance of logic yet.

The argument that "more guns means more guns for criminals" is moot because the criminals already have guns,
Criminals can materialize guns from thin air?

Again, baseless assertion, and a false dilemma to boot. If you get the jump on him, which you would have to do to shoot him before he shoots you, you could stop him without a gun.

No, you don't have to "
get the jump on him".


Unfounded assumption. Who knows if anyone has a concealed carry permit.

Huh?


So to get a concealed carry permit, you have to go to a class that teaches you how to mentally suppress the natural aversion to killing another human being?
Oh yeah, I feel alot safer now :rolleyes:

Because training and education is bad.



Regardless of the font size, font type, and amount of caps you use, it is still a false dilemma.

Only if you keep making things up.



And it increases the number of guns going around campus and available to people who would go shooting people up by 1 for every gun.

Speaking of false dilemma's.

Or you could just have it so nobody has guns, and all problems are solved. If everyone has guns, you sure as hell won't stop the killing.


No, "all problems" are not solved.

No, "all problems" are not solved.

It's hypothetical, as I know the situation is impossible. But if absolutely no one had guns in the USA, or just a very small amount of people. Things like this just wouldn't be able to happen.

No, you don't have to "
get the jump on him".
If you want to get shot.

Because training and education is bad.
You deny training of sociopathy is bad?

Only if you keep making things up.
"Either you can have a gun and live or not have a gun and die" is a false dilemma in this situation.
It's pretty hard to not understand what I'm saying if you arn't stupid.

Speaking of false dilemma's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Know your facts before shooting your mouth off.

Again, baseless assertion, and a false dilemma to boot. If you get the jump on him, which you would have to do to shoot him before he shoots you, you could stop him without a gun.


Unfounded assumption. Who knows if anyone has a concealed carry permit.


So to get a concealed carry permit, you have to go to a class that teaches you how to mentally suppress the natural aversion to killing another human being?
Oh yeah, I feel alot safer now :rolleyes:


Regardless of the font size, font type, and amount of caps you use, it is still a false dilemma.


And it increases the number of guns going around campus and available to people who would go shooting people up by 1 for every gun.

1) This isnt even close to being true. A gun allows you to stop someone from a large distance, from behind cover, &c &c. It isnt even close to being reasonable to pretend that "in any situation where a gun could stop a maniac, he could be stopped without a gun."

2) Huh? "anyone with a concealed carry permit has undergone..." is the lead in to explaining what anyone with a concealed carry permit has undergone, not any kind of assertion in itself. All people with concaled carry permits have concealed carry permits, and all have undergone XYZ. I only advocate letting those people carry guns on campus.

3) I hope that if you're ever in a situation where you are going to be severely harmed or killed, someone else can "overcome the natural aversion to killing another human" and save your life, the way that soldiers did when they beat the germans, or police do when they have to defend their own lives or the lives of others. It is sickening to cast aspersions on people who subject themself to the trauma of killing another person in defense of another's life.

4) Can you think of anything else that could have stopped that massacre this morning? The police and campus security couldnt, or they would have. Maybe a magical fairy could have made his scary gun jam up?

Really? The only thing?


Now you seem to be suggesting that there IS something else that could have stopped this, like having sufficient campus security. Which is it?


Um...yes. If it were illegal to join the army, I think that might discourage people from joining the army. The fact that it is legal to join the army is more encouraging than if it were illegal to join the army.


Security wasn't up to the task, as 31 dead people indicate.

What you're saying is that making joining the army illegal would discourage you from joining, this does not imply the opposite. Non sequitur.

Criminals don't have any trouble getting guns as it is. It was proven today beyond any doubt that banning guns on campus does not prevent the most dangerous people from getting them or bringing them onto campus.

Today showed that banning guns doesn't stop bad people from getting their hands on guns. But we have absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened if we hadn't banned guns on campus. We have no way of knowing the "coulda-beens" in this case.


The argument that "more guns means more guns for criminals" is moot because the criminals already have guns, that is a given.

You don't seem to understand my math, here.

If there are 100 guns in the world, that is (theoretically) 100 guns that criminals might be able to get their hands on. They cannot get their hands on 101 guns, because there are only 100 guns in existence.

If you increase the number of guns in the world to 500 guns, now there are 500 guns that criminals could (theoretically) get their hands on. It doesn't matter WHO you give these guns to, because criminals tend to not be put off by the fact that somebody else owns something.


The only significant thing added to the equation is "now not only the criminals have guns, but some law abiding responsible people do too"
Please read my post more carefully.

Law-abiding, responsible people are the victims of theft sometimes. If you increase the number of guns on campus, then you increase the opportunities for a gun to be stolen on campus.

Sure they would. Besides the blackmarket, they can be made w/ basic machine tools.

Hence why I said it was impossible to achieve in reality.

1) This isnt even close to being true. A gun allows you to stop someone from a large distance, from behind cover, &c &c.
So you are surprising the person.

2) Huh? "anyone with a concealed carry permit has undergone..." is the lead in to explaining what anyone with a concealed carry permit has undergone, not any kind of assertion in itself. All people with concaled carry permits have concealed carry permits, and all have undergone XYZ. I only advocate letting those people carry guns on campus.
So only lawful people will carry concealed weapons? I think I've seen a similar argument before...

3) I hope that if you're ever in a situation where you are going to be severely harmed or killed, someone else can "overcome the natural aversion to killing another human" and save your life,
Irrelevant. They are still being taught to arbitrarily overcome the aversion to killing another person. Sociopathy 101.

the way that soldiers did when they beat the germans,
Oh come on, that has to be Godwin'able.

4) Can you think of anything else that could have stopped that massacre this morning? The police and campus security couldnt, or they would have. Maybe a magical fairy could have made his scary gun jam up?
Obviously you can't and therefore it doesn't matter what I say.

It's hypothetical, as I know the situation is impossible. But if absolutely no one had guns in the USA, or just a very small amount of people. Things like this just wouldn't be able to happen.

Sure they would. Besides the blackmarket, they can be made w/ basic machine tools.

If you want to get shot.


You deny training of sociopathy is bad?


"Either you can have a gun and live or not have a gun and die" is a false dilemma in this situation.
It's pretty hard to not understand what I'm saying if you arn't stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Know your facts before shooting your mouth off.

You mean like how you claimed a 9mm can't shoot through a door and how "assault weapons" can't be used for hunting because they "ruin the animal". You don;t know crap about firearms yet continue to make things up about them.

The rest of your post is just nonsense.

I think I would be more comfortable if they were allowed to carry taser guns rather than bullet guns.

If you want to get shot.


You deny training of sociopathy is bad?


"Either you can have a gun and live or not have a gun and die" is a false dilemma in this situation.
It's pretty hard to not understand what I'm saying if you arn't stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Know your facts before shooting your mouth off.

Is it sociopathy to commit suicide? We'd better stop training fireman and paramedics to risk their lives to help other people, why, its "training sociopathy!!!!!"

You have a lot of gall acting like an imbecile and then calling someone else stupid. Your claim that "in any situation where a gun would be effective at stopping an armed maniac, he could be stopped without a gun" is a particularly shining example of your flawless understanding of the world.

Ditto the notion that it is bad to sacrifice yourself to save other people. You should be so lucky as to have a "trained sociopath" on hand to save you from being murdered, or your mother or daughter from being raped.

Killing someone is not categorically wrong, it is soemtimes morally obligatory, and only a degenerate sociopath or coward would refuse his duty.

and how "assault weapons" can't be used for hunting because they "ruin the animal".
If that doesn't prove they are making up my responses in their head and responding to those, nothing does.

Security wasn't up to the task, as 31 dead people indicate.

It wasn't this time, you're right. But your own post suggests that you understand it WOULD be possible for campus security to be increased to a point where this sort of thing couldn't happen. Therefore, having students armed with guns is NOT the only possible way to prevent such a shooting.

It's all subjective as to what solution you personally prefer. I don't happen to prefer the idea of increasing the number of guns on college campuses. I believe this would increase, not decrease, the chances of students being injured or killed by guns.


What you're saying is that making joining the army illegal would discourage you from joining, this does not imply the opposite. Non sequitur.
??

Yes, it really does. If I lived in a country where it was illegal to join the army, but then one day they passed a law saying it would be legal to join the army, I would consider that encouraging. My likelihood of joining the army would increase.

You, yourself, recognize that the number of people who would carry guns will increase if you make it legal for them to carry guns. So why are you trying to insist that legalizing concealed gun carrying does not encourage people to carry guns with them? It does; that's exactly why you are supporting it!

While we do indeed have this debate going on about on-campus concealed carry, I would like to indeed make reference to the Case Western incident in Cleveland a couple of years back. The shooter, who was similarly armed and equipped as the fellow in this incident, was eventually subdued by an authorized student (Off-duty sheriff deputy) with a Concealed-carry weapon.

It's hypothetical, as I know the situation is impossible. But if absolutely no one had guns in the USA, or just a very small amount of people. Things like this just wouldn't be able to happen.

Yes, it would. All it would do is make it slightly more difficult.

If I really wanted to, I could go Wal-Mart, buy a couple ingredients, and make an explosive that could wipe out half of a dorm complex.

If I ordered proper materials, which are INCREDIBLY easy to obtain, I could probably level campus within minutes. A simple pipe bomb can pretty much be made out of house-hold items, a little know how, and a couple of hours. A couple of these could be far more devastating than any gun.

Not only that, but weapons are easy to obtain. And even if you were able to remove all of them from existance, people would still do this kind of thing, only with different weapons.

If that doesn't prove they are making up my responses in their head and responding to those, nothing does.

Be disingenuous on your own time.

It wasn't this time, you're right. But your own post suggests that you understand it WOULD be possible for campus security to be increased to a point where this sort of thing couldn't happen. Therefore, having students armed with guns is NOT the only possible way to prevent such a shooting.

It's all subjective as to what solution you personally prefer. I don't happen to prefer the idea of increasing the number of guns on college campuses. I believe this would increase, not decrease, the chances of students being injured or killed by guns.


??

Yes, it really does. If I lived in a country where it was illegal to join the army, but then one day they passed a law saying it would be legal to join the army, I would consider that encouraging. My likelihood of joining the army would increase.

You, yourself, recognize that the number of people who would carry guns will increase if you make it legal for them to carry guns. So why are you trying to insist that legalizing concealed gun carrying does not encourage people to carry guns with them? It does; that's exactly why you are supporting it!

If we were to alter the law to permit guns on campus, the only people who would increase their carry-rates would be individuals who are planning on adhering to the law. If someone is planning on breaking the law with a gun, restricting their ability to carry a weapon is not going to deter them from bringing it with them anyways.

So you are surprising the person.


So only lawful people will carry concealed weapons? I think I've seen a similar argument before...


Irrelevant. They are still being taught to arbitrarily overcome the aversion to killing another person. Sociopathy 101.


Oh come on, that has to be Godwin'able.


Obviously you can't and therefore it doesn't matter what I say.

1) Not at all, say the shooter shoots you or shoots at you, and you then return fire. No "jump" there. Also, you are changing your position from the ridiculous "any situation where a gun could stop a maniac, he could be stopped without a gun" to some incoherant "the element of surprise is necessary."

So what? Suprise him and then shoot him. Better than surprising him and not shooting him, or getting shot yourself.

It is morally degenerate to say that killing someone to stop his murder or commensurate injury of one or more people is arbitrary.

Criminals already carry weapons, that is moot. The only thing added by permitting CCW is for law abiding responsibile citizens to have that option as well.

Godwinable? I'm sorry, but only in La-La land is repeating some idiotic internet meme a trump card. Historical analogies are historical anaologies. War doesnt cease to exist because of some internet-meme babble.

I am so sorry, this is an appalling thing to have happened. Why does anyone support gun ownership when stuff like this happens? How terrible for the families and friends of the people involved. I hope that the numbers I am hearing are not correct...32....good god

Concealed carry shouldnt be mandatory, but it should be an option. If someone doesnt feel that he can keep a handgun secured, that is his decision. The problem is that as it stands now, no one except maniac criminals are allowed to carry guns on campus.
The purpose of a gun, just like a spear or a sword, is to facilitate physical attack (whether offensively or defensively), and when such things are available, this empowerment gives people the confidence to act. While, yes, you'd probably bring down the number of deaths per attack to 1 or 2 by making weaponry widespread (in that attackers will be brought down almost instantly), the number of incidents would skyrocket as a result of more people having the tools to achieve some degree of success.

I am so sorry, this is an appalling thing to have happened. Why does anyone support gun ownership when stuff like this happens? How terrible for the families and friends of the people involved. I hope that the numbers I am hearing are not correct...32....good god

Why, because the 80 million + other people who own firearms don't do things like this. It's horrible but has nothing to do w/ the majority.

Is it sociopathy to commit suicide? We'd better stop training fireman and paramedics to risk their lives to help other people, why, its "training sociopathy!!!!!"

You have a lot of gall acting like an imbecile and then calling someone else stupid. Your claim that "in any situation where a gun would be effective at stopping an armed maniac, he could be stopped without a gun" is a particularly shining example of your flawless understanding of the world.

Ditto the notion that it is bad to sacrifice yourself to save other people. You should be so lucky as to have a "trained sociopath" on hand to save you from being murdered, or your mother or daughter from being raped.

Killing someone is not categorically wrong, it is soemtimes morally obligatory, and only a degenerate sociopath or coward would refuse his duty.

There are also non-lethal ways to subdue someone.

The purpose of a gun, just like a spear or a sword, is to facilitate physical attack (whether offensively or defensively), and when such things are available, this empowerment gives people the confidence to act. While, yes, you'd probably bring down the number of deaths per attack to 1 or 2 by making weaponry widespread (in that attackers will be brought down almost instantly), the number of incidents would skyrocket as a result of more people having the tools to achieve some degree of success.

No it wouldn't. It hasn't happened in the 48 states that allow CCW.

It wasn't this time, you're right. But your own post suggests that you understand it WOULD be possible for campus security to be increased to a point where this sort of thing couldn't happen. Therefore, having students armed with guns is NOT the only possible way to prevent such a shooting.

It's all subjective as to what solution you personally prefer. I don't happen to prefer the idea of increasing the number of guns on college campuses. I believe this would increase, not decrease, the chances of students being injured or killed by guns.


??

Yes, it really does. If I lived in a country where it was illegal to join the army, but then one day they passed a law saying it would be legal to join the army, I would consider that encouraging. My likelihood of joining the army would increase.

You, yourself, recognize that the number of people who would carry guns will increase if you make it legal for them to carry guns. So why are you trying to insist that legalizing concealed gun carrying does not encourage people to carry guns with them? It does; that's exactly why you are supporting it!

No, it is a non sequitur. Causing "joining the army" to be illegal creates a disincentive - fear of punishment. Making it merely legal does not confer any incentive.

Think of it as a continuum if you can't understand the logic behind it.

Disincentive (illegal) <<<<< neutral (legal) >>>>> incentive (obligatory, rewarded)

There are also non-lethal ways to subdue someone.

In some instances I agree. I wouldn't on this one.

There are also non-lethal ways to subdue someone.

None I would be willing to bet my life on when faced with a suicidal maniac who killed 31 and injured 29 people. Sorry.

I am so sorry, this is an appalling thing to have happened. Why does anyone support gun ownership when stuff like this happens? How terrible for the families and friends of the people involved. I hope that the numbers I am hearing are not correct...32....good god

Because in the real world, including England, guns already exist and criminals and maniacs already have access to them, one way or another.

Make no mistake, this could happen tomorrow in London, or anywhere else in the UK at the drop of a hat, and the outcome would be the same.

Banning guns doesnt make them dissapear.

Because in the real world, including England, guns already exist and criminals and maniacs already have access to them, one way or another.

Make no mistake, this could happen tomorrow in London, or anywhere else in the UK at the drop of a hat, and the outcome would be the same.

Banning guns doesnt make them dissapear.

Actually, it is very very difficult to get your hands on a gun in almost everywhere in england, criminal or not.

If we were to alter the law to permit guns on campus, the only people who would increase their carry-rates would be individuals who are planning on adhering to the law. If someone is planning on breaking the law with a gun, restricting their ability to carry a weapon is not going to deter them from bringing it with them anyways.

Exactly.

Banning guns doesnt make them dissapear.

It seems people fail to grasp this.

The price of the constitutional right to bear arms indirectly involves 32 innocent lives.

I hope it was worth it.

In some instances I agree. I wouldn't on this one.

How would it have been impossible in this case?


None I would be willing to bet my life on when faced with a suicidal maniac who killed 31 and injured 29 people. Sorry.


So they would only be able to subdue him after he killed and injured people if there were students with taser guns?

1) Not at all, say the shooter shoots youCongrats, your likelihood of being able to return fire is around nill.
or shoots at you,
Hoping they can't shoot I see.


Also, you are changing your position from the ridiculous "any situation where a gun could stop a maniac, he could be stopped without a gun"
Which I never even asserted, as opposed to you who said a "maniac" can only be stopped with a gun.
to some incoherant "the element of surprise is necessary."
It obviously isn't incoherent because you were able to understand it it seems.

[quote]It is morally degenerate to say that killing someone to stop his murder or commensurate injury of one or more people is arbitrary.
Are you asserting this isn't trained sociopathy?

The only thing added by permitting CCW is for law abiding responsibile citizens to have that option as well.
Automatically having a gun makes some one a criminal? What if a law abiding citizen doesn't have concealed carry.

Godwinable? I'm sorry, but only in La-La land is repeating some idiotic internet meme a trump card.
As opposed to referring to World War II as some sort of trump card.

Is it sociopathy to commit suicide?
Only if you don't know what sociopathy is.

How would it have been impossible in this case?


I would argue that the risk involved in using non-lethal measures outweighed that of using lethal measures.

No it wouldn't. It hasn't happened in the 48 states that allow CCW.
Wait... so everyone has guns already? Screw it, then. When the virus has hit home, preventative vaccine is useless. It'll either be an end to global conflict or the production of effective non-lethal ranged weaponry that will kill off firearms in the US.

Still hope for the rest of us though as long as the police have the resources to enforce the Ban and people stop selling us their freakin' guns.

How would it have been impossible in this case?





So they would only be able to subdue him after he killed and injured people if there were students with taser guns?

If I had to live or die, or my children or parents or loved ones had to live or die based on the gamble of whether their defenders had tazers or handguns, I'd pick handguns 10 times out of 10.

It is possible, but it is not ideal. The benefits of letting CCW holders have tazers over handguns do not outweight the disadvantages, to me.

Because in the real world, including England, guns already exist and criminals and maniacs already have access to them, one way or another.
But increasing their distribution increases access to them for criminals.

Banning guns doesnt make them dissapear.
Just as increasing their ownership doesn't stop gun crime.


It is possible, but it is not ideal. The benefits of letting CCW holders have tazers over handguns do not outweight the disadvantages, to me.
Because you are the quintessential gun nut.

Exactly.

I wouldn't necessarily say so(On a school campus).

Given these few reasons:

High population density.
Higher amount problems among neighbors.
Heavy alchohol use.

Now, the reason why these could become problematic is that as you cram a lot of people into a small area, there are going to be problems. Given that many problems will be emotionally charged, people may not be thinking rationally. Put a gun into even a law abiding citizen's hand during such a situation, and a merely violent situation could easily turn into a deadly one.

I have seen a great many fights on campus, many of which alchohol related. Put guns into the equation, and things wouldn't turn out nicely.

THAT BEING SAID, I am not for government guns bans. They are ineffective. However, a school-based gun ban does make a great deal of sense considering the nature of schools.

But increasing their distribution increases access to them for criminals.


Just as increasing their ownership doesn't stop gun crime.

Hey ace, you have a lot to answer for in previous posts.

Stay on topic.

ETA: ok you've won the argument ace, i'm the "quintessential gun nut" :rolleyes: good point ace :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: good one :rolleyes::rolleyes: maybe you can godwin me rolleyes::rolleyes: internet memes rofl:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It is possible, but it is not ideal. The benefits of letting CCW holders have tazers over handguns do not outweight the disadvantages, to me.
Then perhaps firearms manufacturers, if they're really being genuine about the intended purpose of their products, should be spending money on research on how to improve the tazer and similar such devices at the expense of the traditional and fundamentally flawed Gun?

I fear the gun debates

Apparently, you were right to do so.

The price of the constitutional right to bear arms indirectly involves 32 innocent lives.

I hope it was worth it.

Oy. If guns were banned, these incidents would still happen. There are still plenty of extremely easy ways to kill lots of people(Even easier than going on a shooting spree).

I would argue that the risk involved in using non-lethal measures outweighed that of using lethal measures.


Having stun guns might have given them more of a chance no? Especially more than having nothing at all to defend themselves with. Also it puts to rest the fears of people who are suggesting that there are kids who could steal these weapons from another room or car or whatever. It's not as worrying if the stolen gun is merely a taser gun vs. any bullet gun.

Edit for a Q: Isn't it usually the case if a gun is stolen and is used in a murder, the owner of the gun is held partially responsible or something?

But increasing their distribution increases access to them for criminals.

Ah, so it's not the fault of criminals for crime. Gotcha.


Just as increasing their ownership doesn't stop gun crime.

Just as decreasing it doesn't stop gun crime.


Because you are the quintessential gun nut.

As compared to the quintessential hoplophobe.

Having stun guns might have given them more of a chance no? Especially more than having nothing at all to defend themselves with. Also it puts to rest the fears of people who are suggesting that there are kids who could steal these weapons from another room or car or whatever. It's not as worrying if the stolen gun is merely a taser gun vs. any bullet gun.

I'd actually agree that it would not be a bad idea to provide students at a university with a nonlethal weapon, such as a stungun or mace. I've heard of universities that provide their students with iPods (for whatever reason that might be :rolleyes:), why not actually provide them with something that could be of use to them, and lessons on the appropriate use of it.

I wouldn't necessarily say so(On a school campus).

Given these few reasons:

High population density.
Higher amount problems among neighbors.
Heavy alchohol use.

Now, the reason why these could become problematic is that as you cram a lot of people into a small area, there are going to be problems. Given that many problems will be emotionally charged, people may not be thinking rationally. Put a gun into even a law abiding citizen's hand during such a situation, and a merely violent situation could easily turn into a deadly one.

I have seen a great many fights on campus, many of which alchohol related. Put guns into the equation, and things wouldn't turn out nicely.

THAT BEING SAID, I am not for government guns bans. They are ineffective. However, a school-based gun ban does make a great deal of sense considering the nature of schools.


I don't approve of just anyone being able to have a gun on campus, just those 21+ y/os who pass permit training class and a background check.

I dont think the number that would take advantage of that right would be very large, as only a tiny fraction of people get CCW permits to begin with, and I think that just as it is in the general population, the CCW process self-selects the most responsible people.

Since legalization only affects the carry-habits of responsible, law abiding people to begin with, the only substantial net increase would be among law abiding, responsible people. The others already disregard the law.

Why would an irresponsible person go through the expense and trouble of getting the permit when guns are already easy to conceal?

Hey ace, you have a lot to answer for in previous posts.

Stay on topic.

ETA: ok you've won the argument ace, i'm the "quintessential gun nut" :rolleyes: good point ace :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: good one :rolleyes::rolleyes: maybe you can godwin me rolleyes::rolleyes: internet memes rofl:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
This is fucking stupid, I will put you on my ignore list to spare my IQ from having to see any more of your posts.

I'm just getting home from work, and discovering all this. My sympathies, for any students, and for anyone trying to pick up the pieces.

Sad, sad, sad...

Having stun guns might have given them more of a chance no? Especially more than having nothing at all to defend themselves with. Also it puts to rest the fears of people who are suggesting that there are kids who could steal these weapons from another room or car or whatever. It's not as worrying if the stolen gun is merely a taser gun vs. any bullet gun.

I would say that in the hands of an average person, a stun gun could actually be more effective than an actual gun.

Why? Well, simply put, in a moment of chaos those who would return fire(And weren't trained as well as, say, officers) accuracy would be diminished incredibly. More than likely a spray of bullets. So, instead of alot of bullets from one gun, you have hundreds of bullets from many guns. Going in more or less random directions. From all points of fire. Imagine how many people could be caught in the crossfire of such a situation. In this case, there is usually only a few lanes of fire from one shooter, not many. Less of a chance of a stray bullet.

Not only that, but a tazer will disable someone pretty much no matter where it hits them, if only for a few seconds(Enough time to subdue them). A bullet in the arm or leg won't stop most people, nor necessarily disable them. Might slow them down, but unless you hit a vital part, they wouldn't be disabled.

Having stun guns might have given them more of a chance no? Especially more than having nothing at all to defend themselves with. Also it puts to rest the fears of people who are suggesting that there are kids who could steal these weapons from another room or car or whatever. It's not as worrying if the stolen gun is merely a taser gun vs. any bullet gun.

Compared to nothing at all, yes.

However, even w/ tazers, you need to get relatively close and they are only one shot. Stun guns you have to be w/i arms length of them. Not something I'd suggest.

But it all comes down to the one word you used, fear. The fear of firearms made it so nobody could defend themselves realistically when someone choose to break the law.

Interestingly enough, I backpack full of bombs and a lighter could have been far, far more devastating in a crowded dorm. People today have no imagination. :rolleyes:

Actually. It's actually very expensive, and difficult, to make a decent bomb that could KILL not injure 32 people.

as per the press conference at 4:30 EDT

31 dead in one building
2 confirmed in another
15 wounded
gunman carried no ID and is confirmed dead
not known whether the 2 shootings were connected
it is POSSIBLE it was domestic in nature, but not confirmed
No listing of victims will be released until tomorrow at the earliest

Its tragic, and there are no answers. There aren't any solutions. I don't think gun control laws would prevent something like this. The people who legally carry guns aren't the people who carry out these crimes, it's the ones who have them illegally that do things like this

Interestingly enough, I backpack full of homemade bombs and a lighter could have been far, far more devastating in a crowded dorm. People today have no imagination. :rolleyes:

This is fucking stupid, I will put you on my ignore list to spare my IQ from having to see any more of your posts.

Get a grip

Ah, so it's not the fault of criminals for crime. Gotcha.
Me: 1+1 = 2
You: Why do you hate cats?!

Basic logic states that if criminals steal something, increasing the supply of that thing increases the amount of that thing criminals can steal.


Just as decreasing it doesn't stop gun crime.
Mathcat. That is what I'm calling my earlier reply. Every time you retort with something inane based on something I didn't say, I'm going to reply mathcat.

This is fucking stupid, I will put you on my ignore list to spare my IQ from having to see any more of your posts.

This is the usual comment from the gun enthusiasts, TPH, because they can't put a cogent argument together they resort to "humourous" comments and call people "ace", "son", "kid" and "boy", which always makes me laugh as I'm old enough to be their father most of the time.

Actually. It's actually very expensive, and difficult, to make a decent bomb that could KILL not injure 32 people.

Depends on how you make it and how you place it. A good portion of a bomb's effectiveness is not in what you use, but where you place it. Size of windows, type of walls/ceiling, size of room you put it in, where in the room you place it, etc. Done right, a small, cheap, and easy to build bomb does a massive amount of damage. If all you want to do is kill people, it's even easier and cheaper than that.

Not going to go into much detail on the subject, though. I'm not a fan of telling people potentially dangerous methods of killing.

Compared to nothing at all, yes.

However, even w/ tazers, you need to get relatively close and they are only one shot. Stun guns you have to be w/i arms length of them. Not something I'd suggest.

But it all comes down to the one word you used, fear. The fear of firearms made it so nobody could defend themselves realistically when someone choose to break the law.

In fact, it could have saved a gang of lives. And I meant taser guns rather than stun guns.

Nothing to really fear about taser guns past an accidental death right? if enough kids are carrying them, and if the shooter is not omniscient it would be possible to take him down before he gets too far. Don't tell me you truely can't understand the fear of students having guns in school.

Again, firearms arent the ONLY way to subdue someone. You and NG seem to really be pushing hard for "it's either guns or nothing".

Actually. It's actually very expensive, and difficult, to make a decent bomb that could KILL not injure 32 people.

No, it really isn't. Getting together a dozen good bombs with about the same kick of dynamite would take maybe, maybe a hundred dollars or so, depending on where you shop.

Making one or two big bombs would actually be easier, cheaper, and more damaging though.

When the facts are against you , make insults. Go away puppy and let the adults talk.

Puppy is a new one, what happened to son or junior?

Me: 1+1 = 2
You: Why do you hate cats?!

Basic logic states that if criminals steal something, increasing the supply of that thing increases the amount of that thing criminals can steal.



Mathcat. That is what I'm calling my earlier reply. Every time you retort with something inane based on something I didn't say, I'm going to reply mathcat.

When the facts are against you , make insults. Go away puppy and let the adults talk.

When the facts are against you , make insults. Go away puppy and let the adults talk.
Mathcat.

There have also been numerous deaths associated w/ tazer guns as well.
Under what circumstances? Yeah that's what I thought.

In fact, it could have saved a gang of lives. And I meant taser guns rather than stun guns.

Nothing to really fear about taser guns past an accidental death right? if enough kids are carrying them, sure if the shooter is not omniscient it would be possible to take him down. Don't tell me you truely can't understand the fear of students having guns in school.

Again, firearms arent the ONLY way to subdue someone. You and NG seem to really be pushing hard for "it's either guns or nothing".

No. I didn't say the SB. I said in this situation, I would argue that non-lethals would pose more of a danger to those using them than using lethals. Even if bunches of the kids had them.

"Students having guns" is not the same as valid CCW permit holders carrying. This includes the teachers and other staff.

There have also been numerous deaths associated w/ tazer guns as well.

Puppy is a new one, what happened to son or junior?

Never used those. That also gives to much credit to mental capabilities. TPH is more in league w/ an abnoxious puppy snapping at your heals and barking uncontrollably.

Under what circumstances? Yeah that's what I thought.

And answering your own questions? They have medication for that.

Here, puppy, use the newspaper:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html

And answering your own questions? They have medication for that.

Here, puppy, use the newspaper:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html

You didn't read these did you.

No. I didn't say the SB. I said in this situation, I would argue that non-lethals would pose more of a danger to those using them than using lethals. Even if bunches of the kids had them.

"Students having guns" is not the same as valid CCW permit holders carrying. This includes the teachers and other staff.

As well as students having guns.

There have also been numerous deaths associated w/ tazer guns as well.

my point being: lethality of guns versus lethality of taser guns

and a further point being made about: undesireables stealing guns versus undesireables stealing taser guns



I'm guessing that the presence of either one could have possibly stopped this guy before he killed the number of kids he killed, but we can't say that noone would have gotten killed if there were people on campus with uzis waiting for just this incident.

This is the usual comment from the gun enthusiasts, TPH, because they can't put a cogent argument together they resort to "humourous" comments and call people "ace", "son", "kid" and "boy", which always makes me laugh as I'm old enough to be their father most of the time.

There was a lot the offender here had to answer for and declined to.

Training people to use force to save lives = "training sociopathy" since shooting people is "sociopathy"

Since suicide is also "sociopathy," then training first-responders to possibly die saving other people must also be "training sociopathy"

Also

"any situation where a gun could stop a maniac, he could be stopped without a gun"

And who is it you're accusing of not putting together coherant arguments?

---

Let me restate, and point out exactly where this isnt coherant, please.

1) CCW licensing self selects the most responsible and law abiding people because
a) it has expense and takes time and hassle
b) guns are easy to conceal
c) going through the hassle and expense when a gun could otherwise be carried conveniently, secretly and techincally illegally demonstrates responsibility and respect for the law

2) irresponsible people and criminals carry guns illegally

3) Making it legal to carry a gun on campus with a CCW will increase the number of responsible CCW holders who carry guns, but will not affect the number of irresponsible gun owners or criminals who do.

4)Therefore, the net change is positive for law-abiding and responsbile people, and null for criminals and the irresponsible.

Please, refer using numbers and letters if you find anything incoherant.

Under what circumstances? Yeah that's what I thought.
It's rare, but possible.

Usually associated with over use of a tazer on a person *can* cause the heart to stop, is the most common(Even though this happening is quite uncommon).

And rarely people will die from a single tazer, either from a heart problem, or a slight malfunction of the tazer itself(both quite rare).

Most people, after a single shock, will not have any lasting problems, or physical inury. Rarely, it does happen, though.

If I was in a school where everyone was walking around with a gun, being scared to shit that it might all suddenly kick off the whole time, that would be my idea of hell.

There was a lot the offender here had to answer for and declined to.

Training people to use force to save lives = "training sociopathy" since shooting people is "sociopathy"

Since suicide is also "sociopathy," then training first-responders to possibly die saving other people must also be "training sociopathy"

Also

"any situation where a gun could stop a maniac, he could be stopped without a gun"

And who is it you're accusing of not putting together coherant arguments?

---

Let me restate, and point out exactly where this isnt coherant, please.

1) CCW licensing self selects the most responsible and law abiding people because
a) it has expense and takes time and hassle
b) guns are easy to conceal
c) going through the hassle and expense demonstrates an affinity for the law and responsibility

2) irresponsible people and criminals carry guns illegally

3) Making it legal to carry a gun on campus with a CCW will increase the number of responsible CCW holders who carry guns, but will not affect the number of irresponsible gun owners or criminals who do.

4)Therefore, the net change is positive for law-abiding and responsbile people, and null for criminals and the irresponsible.

Please, refer using numbers and letters if you find anything incoherant.

You're once again neglecting theft. And the fact that a higher quantity of product means a higher amount to potentially steal.

This is why students need to be armed. Shooters don't rack up many kills when their victims can shoot back.

I wonder what led the shooter to this.

As well as students having guns.

The majority of students couldn't legally own handguns. 21+



my point being: lethality of guns versus lethality of taser guns

and a further point being made about: undesireables stealing guns versus undesireables stealing taser guns



I'm guessing that the presence of either one could have possibly stopped this guy before he killed the number of kids he killed, but we can't say that noone would have gotten killed if there were people on campus with uzis waiting for just this incident.

Don't do the slippery slope SB. Nobody's talking about Uzi's.

pontentially /= actuality.

*shrug*

Potentially save lives because of more legal guns on campus /= actually save lives because of more legal guns on campus.

The majority of students couldn't legally own handguns. 21+
Of course we assume students would only own them legally.
Not to mention if a majority don't own them your defense of "omg give everyone guns make us safe" is moot.


Don't do the slippery slope SB. Nobody's talking about Uzi's.
You people have yet to correctly identify a logical fallacy, or half the words I am using. Granada doesn't even know what sociopathy is.

You didn't read these did you.

Go on puppy, use the paper.

You're once again neglecting theft. And the fact that a higher quantity of product means a higher amount to potentially steal.

pontentially /= actuality.

Go on puppy, use the paper.
Your lack of argument, and intelligence, is astounding. I'm going to toss you on ignore and abandon this thread and nail up a "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" sign for the intelligent people who would get it.

this is just horrible beyond the point of words...

This is the usual comment from the gun enthusiasts, TPH, because they can't put a cogent argument together they resort to "humourous" comments and call people "ace", "son", "kid" and "boy", which always makes me laugh as I'm old enough to be their father most of the time.

And when the anti-gunners can't answer for their own ignorance, they ignore the questions and start putting people on ignore lists. Ignorance is bliss.

Just to throw this out there: firearms, paintball guns, and knives with blades longer than 3" are banned from our campus.

Anyone know what happened to the guy who posted and said he's there right now? Still here, just keeping up with the press conferences and what not.

He was mainly shooting through doors and such as I hear it, I don't assume the college had lots of traditional Japanese architecture. Also, I hear he had guns with a high rate of fire.Norris Hall was built in the 1930's (IIRC) and is mainly concrete and stone, designed in Neo-Gothic architecture and is able to be used as a fallout shelter as most buildings are around that area of campus. Ambler-Johnston hall is about the same way but was constructed in the 1960's.

If ignorance is bliss, you, sir, are on cloud nine.
True bliss is freedom from ignorant people.

This is why students need to be armed. Shooters don't rack up many kills when their victims can shoot back.

I wonder what led the shooter to this.

Not so sure. In a tense and confusing situation like this, it could have turned out much, much worse had many people had guns. It would be very difficult to get a good handle on the situation, who was shooting at who, who was the "bad guy", multiple lines of fire, etc.

You also completely ignored my other points.
They arn't actually replying to anyone but themselves. It's pro-gun mental masturbation.

The majority of students couldn't legally own handguns. 21+

But if a minority of students could then that would mean students with guns on campus. Period.

Don't do the slippery slope SB. Nobody's talking about Uzi's.

I didn't mean to imply that uzis would be involved at some point; I thought the point I made was quite clear - Even if they had armed gaurds waiting in every dorm and classroom, it doesn't mean that there would have been no lives lost.

You also completely ignored my other points.

Your lack of argument, and intelligence, is astounding. I'm going to toss you on ignore and abandon this thread and nail up a "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" sign for the intelligent people who would get it.

Bye bye puppy.

You know what's pathetic, is 30+ people are dead because some wackjob decided for whatever reasons to go on a rampage, and here a bunch of you can't resist the opportunity to get your rocks off sniping at each other, trying to look superior, smugly telling folks what ought to have been done after the fact, and coming up with either fairytale, simplistic, unworkable, or idiotic solutions to a rather complex problem like you're some sort of experts on How To Solve the World's Problems. You're no better than the politicians you criticize for using tragedies as a vehicle for your political views when you pull crap like that - worse in fact, using the inherent anonymity of the internet to hide behind.

It never fails around here, whenever there's opportunity to get nasty. Maybe it's time to back up, cut the childish baiting, and take a moment to show a bit of humanity, and sympathy for those affected by all this. Just a thought.

this is just horrible beyond the point of words...and yet nobody is really surprised anymore...

I haven't read the whole thread, but I've seen enough to say


Knock it the fuck off

If you want a gun control thread, start one. This isn't it.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I've seen enough to say


Knock it the fuck off

If you want a gun control thread, start one. This isn't it.
methinks a split is required Fris...

This is just terrible :(. I hope everyone from Ns that goes there is ok.

Also, wtf is up with all the shootings at campuses lately? There was on at Ginnoria's uni, and this is the second one at VT. I'm sure there was another one or two that happened as well. Anyways, it just kind scares me, because here in good ol' western illinois, I know tons of people with guns in their cars or what have ya. I'd hate to have that happen here.:(

methinks a split is required Fris...

I'm not going to spend an hour reading 260+ posts to humor these idiots. In fact, I think I'll review this thread and do some forumbanning.

[QUOTE=Sumamba Buwhan;12551133]QUOTE]

I wish this guy slipped on a banana peel on his way in this morning and knocked himself out and someone saw the guns while they were trying to revive him.

It'd be much nicer if he was in jail now.

I never intended to get sucked into a dopey argument about laws,etc... when so many people have suffered so much today.

My thoughts and prayers are with the people that were involved and affected. Not the wasteland of never-ending arguments.

oops sorry the whole deletion thing was going on while I was writing that last response. My apologies.

oops sorry the whole deletion thing was going on while I was writing that last response. My apologies.

mine too.

I've got no beef with you here. Sorry if I got you upset.

I'm sure we're both as shocked and disgisted by what happened today,regardless of our differing opinions on whatever else.

A bunch of kids from my high school said they were going to Virginia Tech. I didn't know them that well, but I hope they're ok.

Before anyone blames violence in the media look back to an incident in the early 30s when a farmer killed 70+ school children because of the 'noise' from next door.

As Chris Rock said: "Everyone's blaming it on music, tv, and video games. Whatever happened to people who were just plain crazy?"

I'm hope when he blew his face off he was left alive enough to suffer for a little.

Just goes to show it's not good to debate in a topic labelled "Extremely Unfortunate". Maybe if it was only 'Rather Unfortunate', it'd go over better.

mine too.

I've got no beef with you here. Sorry if I got you upset.

I'm sure we're both as shocked and disgisted by what happened today,regardless of our differing opinions on whatever else.


Yeah I am very saddened by this. It's no wonder people can become so passionate when trying to figure out a way to lessen these occurances.

A bunch of kids from my high school said they were going to Virginia Tech. I didn't know them that well, but I hope they're ok.

Before anyone blames violence in the media look back to an incident in the early 30s when a farmer killed 70+ school children because of the 'noise' from next door.

As Chris Rock said: "Everyone's blaming it on music, tv, and video games. Whatever happened to people who were just plain crazy?"

I'm hope when he blew his face off he was left alive enough to suffer for a little.

70 children in the 1930s? Damn, can you provide alinky to that?

Yeah I am very saddened by this. It's no wonder people can become so passionate when trying to figure out a way to lessen these occurances.

You dont know if this guy was always a nut, or if today he snapped. We all do our thing and how many of us are just one piece of bad news away from doing something on this scale?
Where do people lose their ability to recognize how horrendous something like this is?
Its not like he knew his victims and was getting some type of revenge that he felt justified in.

Was he like me yesterday and today went beserk? When will my day come?

70 children in the 1930s? Damn, can you provide alinky to that?

Give me a little bit to find it. I read it a while ago.

Wiki was the fastest way to find it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)

You dont know if this guy was always a nut, or if today he snapped. We all do our thing and how many of us are just one piece of bad news away from doing something on this scale?
Where do people lose their ability to recognize how horrendous something like this is?
Its not like he knew his victims and was getting some type of revenge that he felt justified in.

Was he like me yesterday and today went beserk? When will my day come?

I tell ya, a couple more years of driving in Las Vegas and you might be hearing about me in the news.

Oh my God... Oh my god... Oh my god...

I haven't read the whole thread, but I've seen enough to say


Knock it the fuck off

If you want a gun control thread, start one. This isn't it.

Apparently I need to repeat this on every page. If I have to do it again, forumbans will follow.

Oh my God... Oh my god... Oh my god...

That's about all the reaction I can muster right now. My prayers are with the victims and their families.

what part of "lay off the gun control debate in this thread" do you not understand?

Sorry, I was actually in the middle of writing that when you layeth thy smackdown. I wasn't aware that you had said anything. :(

The more you post, the worse you make it on yourselves regardless.