Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Is Virginia one of them?
|
for concealed, there is a training requirement. no requirements for open carry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Likewise can you prove it would be lower?
|
As I also admitted before, lower death rates are also hypothetical, but it's about giving otherwise defenseless students a chance where right now, they have none.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I was referring to Cho.
|
then you've made no sense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Did they deserve to die? What are you talking about? No one deserves to die, especially innocent people. We aren't talking about whether you or I think anyone deserves to die, though, we're talking about Cho and his likely decisions based on his intent. Based on his intent (which was covered again and again by media), he wanted to punish them for being "rich kids", being involved in "debauchery", and being "deceitful charlatans". It had everything to do with his narcissism and potential anti social disorder. He had a deep resentment for the student body and viewed himself as a Christ character. He believed that their behaviors and lifestyles warranted retribution. It tends to be personality types and attitudes like this that are common among school shooters, which is why it's important to this thread.
|
and since it's been near impossible to identify who has this personality, you should decide whether or not you want to give students the means of defense, or let them be defenseless. Letting them remain defenseless because you think guns on campus is insane, is a tacit admission that you don't care enough to let them have the means to defend themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
It wasn't the means to stop him but apprehend him that was most likely a concern. Some of those that defended themselves and others are alive and others are not. There's no necessary connection between resisting him and dying, though.
|
and how would they 'apprehend' him? using guns. if he resisted them, do you really think they wouldn't have killed him?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Fences and metal detectors are a really simple and effective method. I mean there's already campus police. Considering it could have saved 32 lives and many more injured (not sure as to an exact count on injured), I suspect it would have been a good investment.
|
then explain how they keep finding weapons (guns and knives) in prisons?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I see wrongness in the mentality that more guns make people safe. The opposite is of course true. Had there been no guns on campus at all, had Cho not been armed, no one would have died.
|
I see wrongness in the mentality that a law or a sign is going to be enough keep guns out of schools. maybe because it hasn't worked in the last 15 years that it's been tried. I also see wrongness with a beauracracy that tells students they cannot have a weapon on campus with which to defend themselves and then say that they do not have the obligation or ability to provide those students with safety from someone with a weapon.
I do know that a person with a gun has a better chance of defending himself against another with a gun, than if that person was unarmed against a person with a gun.