Second round of shooting at VA Tech

[ungulateman]

Alan knows where it's at

 

[Ace Emerald]

Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone" before the last shooting.

Then they ramped up security in a massive overreaction to make it an even more "gun free zone."

It would seem that those persons most likely to shoot at others interpret the words "gun free zone" to mean "target rich environment."

Solution:

1) Arm yourself and respect your weapon (this means store it safely and properly as needed to protect your family, maintain it, and practice with it regularly)

2) Encourage all your friends and loved ones to do the same

3) Pray that you and no one you know will ever have to use your weapon

4) When something still goes down, be confident in the knowledge that you and everyone you know now have the power to make a crazed gunman's first shot his last at any given moment, and congratulate yourself for the net increase in the gene pool's quality you may cause should you be forced into using your weapon.

The problem is not the weapons but the people that use them irresponsibly and / or with malice and intent to harm others. Often the weapon they are using is itself obtained illegally, and unless they are in a drug cartel it is likely they are barely experienced enough to use an actual weapon properly (though erratic shooting in someone's general direction can and will often injure or kill the victim). This means that if you have professional training you will be able to incapacitate or, if it comes to that, kill the average assailant with much more efficacy than their erratic, random attempts to cause chaos and mayhem through dumb application of lethal force.

Best case scenario: assailant gives up quickly when clearly outgunned.
Second best: assailant is injured and disarmed, but no one dies.
Worst of all good options: a smaller kill count than otherwise would have occurred.

So you honestly think that while these students are being shot, they will get their weapons, then be able to take down the gunman?

 

[Wikey]

DK, this guy targeted a cop. I'm assuming that cop was armed. Wrong topic for your NRA shtick.

Anyway, I'm not sure why my first post was deleted? I was merely stating that the media and the OP were being irresponsible in drawing parallels between the murder of one police officer and the tragedy that happened at VT in 07. (The death of this officer is a tragedy as well) The fact that the media made this into such a huge deal and brought up 07 was a disgusting ratings ploy. The same day this happened an officer was shot by a pedestrian on I-95 (thankfully he's okay) but it wasn't a national issue. Why, because the location wasn't rife with painful history that can be brought up for ratings? The two shootings had way more in common with each other than the one at VT had in common with 07. Also, as was pointed out, the OP was irresponsible and linked to a VERY EARLY report from before it was confirmed that the shooter took his own life and said, "and the shooter is still out there!"

Also, I agree with what I think Alan is saying. There will never be a way to prevent people from killing people. Especially when people are not only willing, but planning on dying. Strict gun laws do nothing because criminals break laws. They'll break gun laws. So why put ourselves in a position where we couldn't overthrow our government for nothing? And you don't even need a gun. You could walk into a crowded mall with a big knife and kill at least one person before being stopped. (Realistically probably a lot) If you're planning to kill yourself or commit death by police there is NOTHING stopping you. It's scary but it is the world we live in. The only cure is improving the standard of living so sick people have less stress and have the ability to get the help they need.

 

[iDunno]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16099552

www.washingtonpost.com/national/friend-va-tech-shooter-had-visited-gun-range-but-couldnt-afford-bullets-to-go-recently/2011/12/11/gIQA6hv3mO_story.html

The guy got his gun legally and he was a completely average guy. There was absolutely, positively, no way to stop what he did given the information that is out there now. He probably had a profound reason to kill this one man. Until we know more information about both of the parties involved, we will never really know whether it was preventable or not, nor will we know the reason why it happened. The only way it could have been stopped in my opinion is if guns were illegal or if the purchasing process was much, much, much harder. MUCH harder.

I just came across this question on yahoo answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081209153137AABQ7ph

That's kinda a little too easy...

 

[Umbreon Dan]

Better mental health care systems and more awareness about mental illness would be a great start. Heightened school security is helpful too, but in order to solve problems like these, you need to get to the root of them, which is mental illness.

i agree with the rest of your post, but what exactly led you to this conclusion? there's no reason to believe a diagnosable mental illness was involved at all. this attacker might have had a grudge, or could have been a radical anarchist, or maybe was simply bored. your immediate leap from "public safety" to "more psychiatry" is, frankly, terrifying.

Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone" before the last shooting.

Then they ramped up security in a massive overreaction to make it an even more "gun free zone."

It would seem that those persons most likely to shoot at others interpret the words "gun free zone" to mean "target rich environment."

right, because students at other schools carries at least three guns on them at any given time (five during special events where there is heightened risk)

Strict gun laws do nothing because criminals break laws. They'll break gun laws. So why put ourselves in a position where we couldn't overthrow our government for nothing?

i'm sorry, but the statement "strict gun laws do nothing" is patently false. see: canada

It's scary but it is the world we live in. The only cure is improving the standard of living so sick people have less stress and have the ability to get the help they need.

this i agree with completely.

in general, i tend to agree that inanimate objects shouldn't be banned because they are dangerous or could be used to inflict harm. i don't see why a person who has never harmed another person shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. as much as this is a republican thing to say, guns really don't harm people -- people do. they can do it with or without guns.

of course, no sane person would carry their gun with them when they go to class. then again no sane person would worship a magical creator either so what do i know???

 

[Matthew]

Eat
Pray
Gun

 

[Umbreon Dan]

they'll get over it when i'm burning in hellfire and they're bathing in their god's love

 

[Mercy]

So you honestly think that while these students are being shot, they will get their weapons, then be able to take down the gunman?

Yes Deck Knight thinks that if you get some training they will have no problem taking him down!

Only in America.

 

[Tortferngatr]

Read sig. Shut up, UD.

This was a tragic event.

 

[capefeather]

i'm sorry, but the statement "strict gun laws do nothing" is patently false. see: canada

Yes, Canada and its amazing gun reg- OH WAIT GDI (yes I know there are other gun laws)

I was merely stating that the media and the OP were being irresponsible in drawing parallels between the murder of one police officer and the tragedy that happened at VT in 07. (The death of this officer is a tragedy as well) The fact that the media made this into such a huge deal and brought up 07 was a disgusting ratings ploy.

Honestly, it's not practical to be fair. We could have it so that the news is so "fair" that it talks about starving children in third world countries all the time, with no room for local news. That would be pretty depressing... I'm not saying I condone any specific news choice, but just pointing out that you can't cover everything.

 

[Vineon]

There will never be a way to prevent people from killing people.

This is a ridiculous statement and one you are in contradiction with just a few lines below by suggesting a way to do it :

The only cure is improving the standard of living so sick people have less stress and have the ability to get the help they need.

 

[Alan]

 

[ungulateman]

Goddammit alan stop being right about everything

that's my job

 

[CaptKirby]

How would you possibly enforce metal detectors in something like a 2000 person dormitory? They would have to be on the staircases and lots of other places. I am not an expert on things like evading metal detectors, but surely there must be some way to trick one if you really wanted to ONE time (to get a gun into your dormitory room), and afterward you could hide it in your room in several places no matter how invasive contraband checks are allowed to be. (When I was at the University of Texas, contraband checks were generally completely not invasive unless you were a known problem student by the RA or something)

 

[iDunno]

Metal detectors are for inner city schools - not colleges.

(well maybe community colleges)

 

[MrIndigo]

Statistically, gun control laws don't reduce the per-capita incidents of violent crime (Australia has good gun control laws - we also have far more stabbings than America).

We do have less per capita rampages like this though, FWIW, but these are so low that noone really cares.

 

[Wikey]

This is a ridiculous statement and one you are in contradiction with just a few lines below by suggesting a way to do it :

My second statement is just a way to lessen the number of sick people that kill people. Nothing will ever stop a sane person who wants to kill people.

 

[Vineon]

My second statement is just a way to lessen the number of sick people that kill people. Nothing will ever stop a sane person who wants to kill people.

I would not usually consider a person that wants to kill people to be all that 'sane' and while prevention cannot possibly reach a perfect success rate, it probably can always be made more effective.

Yes there are ways that 'stop people from killing people' and by reducing the amount, you are doing exactly that. I don't think any tragedy should be treated as if it were fatality, like you insist on doing.

 

[JimBob]

If guns don't stop gun violence, then why did they call every police department in the area, the FBI, SWAT, and the fucking ATF? The fact that after the first shooting, almost everyone this guy could run into would be packing meant that he couldn't really shoot anyone else.

 

[MrIndigo]

If guns don't stop gun violence, then why did they call every police department in the area, the FBI, SWAT, and the fucking ATF? The fact that after the first shooting, almost everyone this guy could run into would be packing meant that he couldn't really shoot anyone else.

They called them because it's their job.

Your argument also doesn't make sense - it's like saying "Fighting reduces violence if you win."

 

[JimBob]

Or that you can reduce violence by giving others a chance to fight back, whereas the entire student body has little to no chance of fighting back since they are all unarmed. Would you rather attack someone who couldn't fight back, or someone who could kill you?

Obviously this is a pretty unpopular opinion on this site, whatever.

 

[iDunno]

Or one could overreact at something and shoot them without probable cause at suspicion that they are going to shoot you when it is not the case. People are dumb - you cannot put too much faith that they are going to do the right thing because chances are they are not. We don't want our entire country to be like the deep south. That would be the worst thing ever and our country would disintegrate due to its own stupidity.

 

[Fishy]

Fighting fire with fire is only the solution when things have gone too far - in this case, it would be much more prudent to solve the problem before it begins, like trying to keep guns out of schools in general.

 

[az]

They called them because it's their job.

Your argument also doesn't make sense - it's like saying "Fighting reduces violence if you win."

this is a good post

 

[Son of Disaster]

Fighting fire with fire is only the solution when things have gone too far - in this case, it would be much more prudent to solve the problem before it begins, like trying to keep guns out of schools in general.

I think this has been tried for quite some time