dk: i you were referring to me above with the say your piece and skedaddle, you're wrong: against my better judgement i have been reading this sorry thread off and on this afternoon as it has unfolded. i just dont have anything to say to you: i think your position concerning university students carrying guns around with them because somewhere, sometime, something like this might happen is crazy.
there is no possible debate about this so far as i am concerned.

you might note that many of the folk who have posted whose positions might incline them to oppose you have not indulged the knee-jerk reaction game. it seems that many are waiting until they know more. you are not. it is almost as if you need no information to run out arguments. that does not help the impression that you are backing yourself into a corner.

Those poor kids....horrible.

No joy at all, in fact there is a lot of anger about it. It was predicted based on two things...a statement from this guy
and the house bill being killed in subcomittee, we knew it was just a matter of time.


for about 95% of them, I agree. It's not a scenario that they envision. That shouldn't mean that it should not be prepared for, like some I know. woulda, coulda, shoulda indeed. we are on the same page with that one.

it's a sad event, however gun control does not stop things like this, gun control only stops legit people from owning guns.

Where did it say he got his guns from? Just curious.

[QUOTE=roachboy]dk: i you were referring to me above with the say your piece and skedaddle, you're wrong:[/ QUOTE]It wasn't directed at you.

because somewhere, sometime, something like this might happen......and what happened?
and NOW it's directed at you.

and yet, i don't feel backed in to a corner because 32 innocent students and one suicidal coward are dead....what do the 32 have in common? They were the ones without the gun.

You can' carry a gun on campus, so you're assertion is incorrect.

Body armor, on the other hand, is totally allowed and could have saved their lives.

Last I heard they were trying to figure that out in order to identify him.

As far as gun control, this seems like a law enforcement issue rather than a gun control issue. Letting students go to class packing heat? Absurd. We have law enforcement that is trained to deal with these things (ideally....). We should be pondering why, during a two hour period between shootings, the law enforcement didn't get a hold of this guy. Not whether gun control is adequate.

Yeah, I've been to dozens of site and none of them has information on the source of the weapons. The logical conclusion from that lack of information would be that saying gun control wouldn't have prevented this is premature to say the least. These could have been purchased legally for all we know.

Oh, and is 'Borgs' the plural for Borg? Cause that's clever. :thumbsup:

Virginia Tech does not allow students, faculty, or parents to carry on campus UNLESS it is required by their job description, i.e. law enforcement.

Body Armor doesn't do crap when you're lined up against the wall and get a bullet put in your head, like most of these kids were.

I think we need to make sure this was done by the same man dont we? They are saying the descriptions of the person at each shooting dont match.....

you didn't learn anything from columbine, did you? Law enforcement can not be expected to be there as each crime occurs, especially in situations such as this, where an unknown number of gunmen was a factor, as well as the doors were CHAINED shut, preventing law enforcement from reacting any quicker than it would take to find a way around the chains.

And as far as we know a vast majority of the victims fall into the students, faculty, or parents category.
Unless all of the kids were shot in the head, my statement is still 100% correct.

Also, guns don't do crap if you're being shot in the head.

It seems you may not have learned that condescending isn't an effective way too communicate.

thank you for helping me make my point.

do you think that the parents of kids that WERE shot in the head give a damn about that?

A gun in the back of the head does an awful lot of crap, but a gun can also be used before that other gun makes it to the back of your head.

Your point is that guns wouldn't have helped them? I wasn't aware that you'd joined my side of the gun debate. Welcome. :thumbsup:
They're dead, so they don't give a damn about anything anymore.
Or one could simply stay home from school. More guns would have meant more flying bullets. More flying bullets could have very easily meant more fatalities. There's absolutely no guarantee that if some vigilante had a gun he or she could have stopped the gunman. The fact of the matter is that they weren't allowed to have guns to avoid just such an occasion. Had security done it's job, this might have been a much different story.

Not hardly, but you know this. Those three categories were those that were DENIED the ability to have a gun, not that it wouldn't help them.

So we don't give a crap about dead people anymore, got it.

yeah, I can just imagine that if one student had a gun and fired back, the death toll would be at 50 or 60 instead of just 32. :orly:
why would the cops carry a gun then if flying bullets just mean more dead people?

Alas, I am not a clever man. It's a shorthand version of my last name. In any case, I still accept the thumbsup. :thumbsup:

I've heard varying reports. This is just one of those things where a million different stories are coming in during the first day, and it takes a few days to sort it all out. You could be right, I have no idea.

Perhaps it is the law enforcement that has learned nothing, rather than me. Why were students still going to class two hours after a shooting on campus, especially considering they hadn't got the shooter in custody yet? This baffles me. I understand that there is a period of time in which they need to react, but give me a break. At least from accounts that I've read so far, this seems like a serious lapse in the response from law enforcement.

On this very point, I do not disagree with you in the slightest. This was an egregious lapse of judgement on the campus authorities as well as Virginia Law Enforcement which HELPED cause the deaths of 32 young kids.

i think its WAY too early to start blaming law enforcement with this. no one deserves the blame other than the person or persons who committed the murders. i can think of numerous reasons why they might not have shut the campus down. no one could have substantially predicted a mass slaughter on the basis of a more-than-likely domestic violence case. i think that's pure hindsight talking.

According the last press conference (where they said the two peoples descriptions didnt match) they had a person they were questioning that they thought was involved. They thought the situation was under control.

Its very possible these were two seperate incidences and the 2nd gunman took advantage of the police's preoccuption of the first shooting.

Anyone can armchair quarterback....

Today's event was horrific, and I will say a prayer for the victims/families.

However, while I honestly believe that the likelyhood of another gun saving all those students was rather low, I also feel that "a" chance is better than "no" chance.

There are thousands of stories where the right person (not necessarily a cop) having a weapon has saved lives, yet these stories don't seem to be highlighted on the news. I know people whose lives/property were saved by the fact that they had a gun, and I myself have come *very* close to needing one. Close enough for me to realize that I'd rather have one nearby. Not everywhere I go mind you, but nearby when possible/practical.

This has been an interesting thread....

So you think having a policy that allows everyone to carry on campus would have helped to prevent a school shooting?
You're trying to speak on their behalf. They no longer have voices outside their friends and family. I don't pretend to know their politics.
Can you say that it's impossible that more people having guns will mean more guns fired and thus a higher probability of renegade bullets? Have you ever taken fire from several semi or automatic weapons? I haven't but I can imagine it may be more intense than a firing range.
They often do, unfortunately. Google 'accidental police shootings '.

And I still bestow it! :thumbsup:

Personally, I would think that the more guns in the hands of people the more chance someone would get shot, rather than less. Arguably, someone might have stopped this guy halfway through his rampage - equally arguably, 3 other people might have flipped their lids prior to now and reacted with the weapon at hand and killed even more in some fit of violence or while fired up by something else.

I confess, I will never understand the extremist/fundamentalist viewpoint some people in the US have about "the right to bear arms". I find it a frightening thing. Perhaps that's the reaction some people crave.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. There is NO LAW that will ever prevent a massacre like this.....NONE....BUT, if those that WANTED to were allowed to carry, this massacre COULD have ended with alot less deaths.

so they are inconsequential to the issue at hand now that they are dead because of said politics. I heard you the first time.

No, and neither can you say say the opposite, since the ONLY thing that stopped this was the gunman taking his own life.

uh, 6 years, US MARINE!!!!! not fun at all, but I was damn glad to have had a weapon myself, thank you very much.

yeah, i know. I pointed this out to you in the san francisco ban thread. I also pointed out how cops shoot innocent bystanders 9% more than civilians using a gun as self defense.

HT, it's all about in how much you value your life. If you desire to place the responsibility of protecting your life in the hands of a paid government official, by all means....do so. Understand though, that that government official (or his department) suffer no legal consequences for failure to do such.
On the other hand, if you value your life enough that you trust nobody with it but yourself....well, there you go. You become the ultimate responsibility for yourself and your life.

...in theory. That's the real standstill when we come to blows about this time and again. You say, "Guns could have protected them." I say, "Guns could have killed them." I suppose we're both right. It's possible that more guns in this situation could have helped, or it's possible it could have made the situation even worse. We can't really know. On one thing we can agree: I doubt any law could have conclusively and completely prevented this.
They're the subject, so they're obviously consequential. The point, as above, is that the hypothetical scenarios are moot. If someone who knew them and came on talking about how they were pro or anti gun, then their words would have clout. We're just supposing.
Precisely. I can believe that my philosophy on guns is correct, and you can believe that yours is.
Exactly....I'm sure you can attest very clearly as to how different a gun range, the typical gun owner's experience, is with a situation where one is under fire.
Could that be because they're more armed than the populace? I wonder.

I understand what you are saying - I carried on the job for several years. I totally trust myself. But I don't trust the general population with a weapon.

Good people should have the right to reasonably defend themselves when government and policing agencies can not provide adequate personal protection.

To the families of the victims, students, faculty and staff at Virginia Tech - I know words can not provide comfort, but keep your heads up.

Does the same apply to bad people or people who may simply be irresponsible or have poor judgement skills?

I haven't read over this thread beforehand, so I apologize if this was discussed already. Was the killer a registered gun user? Furthermore, just how many killers are registered gun users?

There should always be negative consequences for negligent irresponsible behavior. There should also be negative consequences for illegal behavior. If a person proves to have poor judgement they should not be in a position requiring high levels of responsibility.

Looks like I did not answer the question - my answer is yes. Example - Even if a "bad" person is in prison, they should have the right to defend themselves against "badder" persons if prison authorities can not.

From the reports i've heard the guns he had seem to be illegal guns (they had the serial numbers removed) however the gunman also used special clips that hold much more ammo then the regular clips. These clips were outlawed with the assault weapons ban which the GOP congress and Bush let expire. Making this case likely to be cited by both sides of the gun control issue.

ace....as I understand the gun laws in Virginia, there is no registration or permit required (except for concealed), there is no NICS check to determine the possibility of the person having a criminal background, and there is no waiting period. (dk can correct me if I am wrong about VA laws)

How do you determine potential negative consequences until its too late?

Our gun laws should be federal, the same in each state and local.

Similar to our driving laws. Before an individual can drive on our roads they have to have training and prove they know the rules and can handle a vehicle on the road.

Again, I did not answer the question ( I guess it is time for bed). The key word in the prmise for my argument is "reasonable", and I therefore think reasonable people should determine the consequences.

Unfortunatlely you can not totally prevent negligent gun behavior. You could n ot do it even if guns where made illegal. If a person is in a situation where it would not be reasonable for them to defend themselves with a gun, they sould not do it. On the otherhand if it is reasonable they should have that right.

If government is providing reasonable personal security a gun would not be necessary in my view, and that specific argument for guns goes away.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

The lunatic had a gun where it was PROHIBITED to have a gun and killed 33 people. The man broke several laws in the process of this heinous crime so what makes everyone think that having more laws is going to stop this kind of tragedy? It's not. Every single time a crime is committed with a gun someone probably broke at least a half a dozen laws to commit that crime, what is one more law gonna do to prevent it? The short answer.... absolutely nothing. Someone will just break that law to commit another crime and we will get all up in arms with our panties in a bunch and pass another law for someone else to break. It's a viciously endless cycle. Soon no one will have any rights left and people will still be dying needless deaths. End of story.

Rights "given" in the US Constitution can be taken. The only thing protecting our rights is our willingness to fight (not necessarily in a violent manner) to defend them.

My personal view is that we should have a right to bear arms, but then my neighbor has a right to reasonable safety from people who may want weapons that go beyond personal protection. My neighbor should not have the right to have nuclear bombs.

ace...you and I are pretty close on this one, if I understand you correctly.

The right to bear arms is not unrestricted. We agree on "reasonable" ownership requirements...like licensing and training (ie your driver license example) and I would add background checks and child safety locks.

I think it is sad that the victims are hardly 12 hours dead and we are trying to use their deaths to gain political points. Have some respect.

I think it's sad that 32 people died today and some people don't want to try and figure out how to stop it from happening again.

How do you stop any type of crime from happening?

It's impossible in my opinion.