Today's Virginia Tech Shooting

Frogman

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
1
Location
I promise to nicer if you promise to be smarter.
Obviously, Gun Free Zones don't work. IMHO Let the CCW students carry on campus and during class. The casualty count could have been a LOT lower if some of those students would have been allowed to legally carry in their classrooms.

Discuss...
 
I totally agree. my campus does not allow guns, or even knives over 4 inches. I plan to get a CCW permit when I turn 21
 
Off topic... My friend lives in West Ambler Johnston and she was the floor below where the shooting started. Scary stuff.
 
Obviously, Gun Free Zones don't work. IMHO Let the CCW students carry on campus and during class. The casualty count could have been a LOT lower if some of those students would have been allowed to legally carry in their classrooms.

Discuss...
I was thinking about that, too. It seems criminals can and do walk around with guns, but law-abiding citizens can't even defend themselves.
 
More people would have lived if the law enforcement down there weren't a bunch of Barney Fifes! Talk about stupid, unprofessional, and just plain retarded.

Anyways, I agree that gun-free zones just don't work. A gun-free zone is nothing more than a sitting-duck range for crooks!
 
I live a couple hours away and have friends who went to Tech and my own daughter wanted to go to there ( looks like Clemson now). This has affected the community, commonwealth of VA and it the whole US. Guns laws would not have matted squat... this kid a was foreign national on a visa with two guns with serial numbers missing, people like this would get their hands on weapons, no matter what it takes..

You better believe my daughter will have a concealed weapons permit and the knowledge of how to properly use the weapon, when she is of legal age of course.

To change the topic slightly look at Washington D.C. There is a no gun law and they have been labeled murder capital of the country -duh something isn't working here.
 
I don't think he's saying it was the cops' fault, I think he's just saying they're incompetent. But that could be said by any number of LEA's around the country.

Gun control works. Here are 40 reasons for gun control. Yes, they are satirical reasons, I know Gun Control doesn't work.

40 Reasons For Gun Control


40 Reasons For Gun Control
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
 
I have to agree that if some people, PROPERLY trained and evaluated were allowed to 'carry' this might not have been this bad. I do not want just anyone, however, to carry-if you have any kind of checkered past (convictions for drug use, police record/convictions, mental issues), you should not be allowed. I'll go a step further and suggest that it be licensed, you have to perform to qualify to carry, and you have to be reviewed to renew.

As to why those 2 hours passed, what were they (police) thinking? It's all Monday morning q-backing now, but I would think they would swoop over the entire campus, surrounding the entire area if they did not have the shooter. I guess, living in or near big cities all my life, that's how it is handled here-they swarm over an area, and everything stops until they know there is no danger. That is easier to do if you have a large force, maybe it was a matter of numbers not being available. No matter what, I'm glad my kid wasn't in that, I'd be crazy thinking about what might have been done wrong.

A terrible day for America, God bless those poor kids and teachers and everyone who has to live with the memory of yesterday.
 
how are the cops at fault?-I am still reading news articles and not completly up to speed-

The assh0le shooter walked into a campus dorm and shot two people- then fled to hide out for a while. The cops show up. They see two dead bodies and no gun- so logically, it was a murder/suicide :eyeroll: So they close the hall for two hours to figure out what's going on. They cleared everything and figured, "hey, sh!t happens, no big deal" and everyone went about their business.

Two hours later, the shooter assh0le chains two doors and begins opening fire in a crowded lecture hall, killing the majority of students with a 9mm Glock. This is what baffles me- one assh0le with 50 bullets and no experience manages to achieve such a high kill ratio. Weird.

When the chief was asked by the press to explain the logic behind the decision to resume normal without being sure everything was alright...he didn't know what to say. He had no idea of what to say, so turned the question over to some non-LEO clown who replied "...what?". How embarrassing! :eyeroll: Not to mention, you see all the footage of these SWAT teams and cops with special weapons and rifles running around ducking behind trees. Why the fvck weren't they in there shooting the SOB? Why did the little prick have to off himself? That little bastard should have been dead after dropping his first two victims.

And now all these foreign pussies are pissing-and-moaning about OUR gun laws and out alleged "gun culture" that kills million of people every day :eyeroll: Piss-off, you wankers! God damn, the world is full of such whiny pvssy-ass fāggots. :mad:
 
I have to agree that if some people, PROPERLY trained and evaluated were allowed to 'carry' this might not have been this bad. I do not want just anyone, however, to carry...

Just FYI (your post makes it sound as if you don't know): Last I checked, I believe there are FEDERAL laws in place that are supposed to (note, I do not say "that do") keep people with past felony charges, or history of certain mental illnesses from purchasing firearms, let alone being permitted to legally carry one.

Also, most states that do allow concealed carry do require some form of registration and/or qualification for a person to do so legally.

Of course, as has already been stated, none of this does well enough to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Personally, I think that we would do well to have all "gun control" laws repealed and have stricter and more punitive laws enforced on actual usage (that's discharge, not just carry) of firearms.
 
I can't really believe all I am hearing about gun control, etc. and the police, etc. Get a grip here.

#1 Virginia is a Concealed Carry State. Good for them. However, the campus is NOT. Bingo. So who is the person carrying the weapon against the law? Bingo. The bad guy. Do bad guys really care what the laws are?

#2 The police had a double murder. A girl and the RA. The obvious suspect in this case would be the boyfriend (not the S. Korean). They had the boyfriend in custody within an hour or so.

Conclusion. Bad people are always going to do bad things. Unless you allow people the chance to defend themselves, they will be sitting ducks. You can pass all the gun laws in the world thus creating the largest underground weapons program in the world, but all these laws and feel good attempts to protect the innocent won't do squat. Only a guy or a gal that had been packing 'might' have changed the outcome.

We need look no further than the Nagasaki mayor murder yesterday. Japan has one the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Didn't stop the bad guy did it?
 
Nagasaki mayor murder was a Yakuza mob hit for a King pin's car getting damaged at one of the city controlled construction sites. The shooter admitted his guilt and gave himself up.

Not really even close to being the same as VT tragedy but it does illustrate that criminals will always find ways to get around the law where as normal law abiding citizens are getting the short end.
 
Not really even close to being the same as VT tragedy but it does illustrate that criminals will always find ways to get around the law where as normal law abiding citizens are getting the short end.

Precisely.
 
"Obviously, Gun Free Zones don't work. IMHO Let the CCW students carry on campus and during class. The casualty count could have been a LOT lower if some of those students would have been allowed to legally carry in their classrooms."

I agree completely, after the initial shock of what happened this exact thought came to mind. If even one student in those class rooms had a gun and knew how to effectively use it...ya know.

Last year I attended RIT(I've since transfered for many reasons). That was a campus of nearly 20,000. No guns allowed on campus. "Campus safety" not allowed to carry either. No local police as I recall(its in the suburbs of Rochester). So in an emergency we would have left the Monroe County sheriff who also needs to cover the rest of the county.

...I do not want just anyone, however, to carry-if you have any kind of checkered past (convictions for drug use, police record/convictions, mental issues), you should not be allowed....
I think that's how it is....or at least is supposed to be. I thought that was the purpose of the "3 day waiting period" when buying a gun, to give them time to do all the proper background/criminal checks.

#1 Virginia is a Concealed Carry State. Good for them. However, the campus is NOT. Bingo. So who is the person carrying the weapon against the law? Bingo. The bad guy. Do bad guys really care what the laws are?
As I said in the gun control thread. If gun's are outlawed, criminals will still have them.
 
I heard on the Radio that one of the Grad students at VT was a freshman at Columbine 8 years ago.
 
As I said in the gun control thread. If gun's are outlawed, criminals will still have them.

I saw something on the VT shooting last night. One of the reporters was saying that if the shooter had been committed to a mental institution (like they think he should have been, long ago) then it would have been in his record, and he wouldn't have been able to buy guns to shoot people with.

I'm surprised the same guy wasn't asking how he got the guns onto campus. I mean, if it's against the law then it's supposed to be impossible, right? ;-)
 
I was checking out Chris Hitchens articles this morning over coffee. And while I certainly don't always agree with him (atheist liberal) he's an excellent writer, very insightful, provocative, and completely unapologetic.

Suck It Up
After the shootings came an orgy of mawkishness, sloppiness, and false sentiment.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2007, at 2:29 PM ET

When people in America say "no man is an island," as Joan Didion once put it, they think they are quoting Ernest Hemingway. But when Hemingway annexed the seductive words from John Donne's Devotions, quoting the whole paragraph on his title page and borrowing from it one of the 20th century's most resonant titles, he did not literally mean to say that all funerals are the same or that all deaths are to be regretted equally. He meant that if the Spanish republic went under to fascism, we should all be the losers. It was a matter both of solidarity and of self-interest: Stand by your friends now, or be shamed (and deserted in your turn) later on.

The grisly events at Virginia Tech involved no struggle, no sacrifice, no great principle. They were random and pointless. Those who died were not soldiers in any cause. They were not murdered by our enemies. They were not martyrs. But—just to take one example from the exhausting national sob fest of the past few days—here is how the bells were tolled for them at another national seat of learning. The president of Cornell University, David J. Skorton, ordered the chimes on his campus to be rung 33 times before addressing a memorial gathering. Thirty-three times? Yes. "We are here," announced the head of an institution of higher learning:

for all of those who are gone, for all 33. We are here for the 32 who have passed from the immediate to another place, not by their own choice. We are also here for the one who has also passed. We are one.

For an academic president to have equated 32 of his fellow humans with their murderer in an orgy of "one-ness" was probably the stupidest thing that happened last week, but not by a very wide margin. Almost everybody in the country seems to have taken this non-event as permission to talk the starkest nonsense. And why not? Since the slaughter raised no real issues, it was a blank slate on which anyone could doodle. Try this, from the eighth straight day of breathless coverage in the New York Times. The person being quoted is the Rev. Susan Verbrugge of Blacksburg Presbyterian Church, addressing her congregation in an attempt, in the silly argot of the day, "to make sense of the senseless":

Ms. Verbrugge recounted breaking through the previous week's numbness as she stopped on a morning walk and found herself yelling at the mountains and at God. Though her shouts were initially met with silence, she said, she soon was reassured by the simplest of things, the chirping of birds.

"God was doing something about the world," she said. "Starting with my own heart, I could see good."

Yes, it's always about you, isn't it? (By the way, I'd watch that habit of yelling at mountains and God in the greater Blacksburg area if I were you. Some idiot might take it for a "warning sign.") When piffle like this gets respectful treatment from the media, we can guess that it's not because of the profundity of the emotion but rather because of its extreme shallowness. Those birds were singing just as loudly and just as sweetly when the bullets were finding their targets.

But the quest for greater "meaning" was unstoppable. Will Korean-Americans be "targeted"? (Thanks for putting the idea into the head of some nutcase, but really, what an insulting question!) Last week, I noticed from my window in Washington, D.C., that the Russian trade mission had lowered its flag. President Putin's commercial envoys, too, want to be a part of it all: surely proof in itself of how utterly painless all this vicarious "pain" really is. (And now, what are they going to do for Boris Yeltsin?)

On Saturday night, I watched disgustedly as the president of the United States declined to give his speech to the White House Correspondents Dinner on the grounds that this was no time to be swapping jokes and satires. (What? No words of courage? No urging us to put on a brave face and go shopping or visit Disneyland?) Everyone in the room knew that this was a dismal cop-out, but then everyone in the room also knew that our own profession was co-responsible. If the president actually had performed his annual duty, there were people in the press corps who would have affected shock and accused him of "insensitivity." So, this was indeed a moment of unity—everyone united in mawkishness and sloppiness and false sentiment. From now on, any president who wants to duck the occasion need only employ a staffer on permanent weepy-watch. In any given week, there is sure to be some maimed orphan, or splattered home, or bus plunge, or bunch of pilgrims put to the sword. Best to be ready in advance to surrender all critical faculties and whip out the national hankie.

It was my friend Adolph Reed who first pointed out this tendency to what he called "vicarious identification." At the time of the murder of Lisa Steinberg in New York in 1987, he was struck by the tendency of crowds to show up for funerals of people they didn't know, often throwing teddy bears over the railings and in other ways showing that (as well as needing to get a life) they in some bizarre way seemed to need to get a death. The hysteria that followed a traffic accident in Paris involving a disco princess—surely the most hyped non-event of all time—seemed to suggest an even wider surrender to the overwhelming need to emote: The less at stake, the greater the grieving.

And surrender may be the keyword here. What, for instance, is this dismal rush to lower the national colors all the damned time? At times of real crisis and genuine emergency, such as the assault on our society that was mounted almost six years ago, some emotion could be pardoned. But even then, the signs of sickliness and foolishness were incipient (as in Billy Graham's disgusting sermon at the National Cathedral where he spoke of the victims being "called into eternity"). If we did this every time, the flag would spend its entire time drooping. One should express a decent sympathy for the families and friends of the murdered, a decent sympathy that ought to be accompanied by a decent reticence. Because Virginia Tech—alas for poor humanity—was a calamity with no implications beyond itself. In the meantime, and in expectation of rather stiffer challenges to our composure, we might practice nailing the colors to the mast rather than engaging in a permanent dress rehearsal for masochism and the lachrymose.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of the newly published God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2164914/
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top