bloodykisses

http://concealedcampus.org/

Not that it will matter on my native campus where if you are not far left of center you will be tied up by the feet and pelted with eggs and paintballs, but nonetheless...

This is a national organization that believes students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus for defense purposes, such as in the case of school shooting.

Thoughts? I figured I'd post here and not in the firearms forum for some lively discussion.

__________________
all dried up and tied up forever
all fucked up and dead to the world

Bear Cub

I'm for it personally.

Not only do I think it's less likely to produce another VT scenario, but it may actually force some other students and teachers to speak up about individuals they may recognize with a "troubled" past, rather than letting them slip by the wayside.

My position is not so much for the fact that it applies to campuses, but rather the promotion of CC in general.

Challah

I still haven't formed a general opinion on firearm control, but here's my take on what allowing students to carry personal firearms would and wouldn't do in the university/college environment.

The biggest argument for the right to carry concealed firearms seems to revolve around self defense. CW and others I've spoken to/read about have suggested that allowing concealed firearms would somehow prevent/reduce the effects of shootings like the one that took place at Virginia Tech. I simply can't agree with this. The idea that students sitting in class could effectively react with deadly force to a gunman on campus is ABSURD. The increased confusion, panic and number of bullets flying through the air would completely outweigh the benefits of any possible heroic action against an attacker. It would also make a measured, effective police reaction much more difficult, as you would have many armed people running around instead of one or two.

The other major concern I have has to do with college/university life in general, especially for those living on campus. Now, I go to an EXTREMELY liberal school (the police only come to campus on the rarest occasion - we have student-run security) and on campus, alcohol flows in mighty rivers. You're actually allowed to carry it around the quad, providing it is sealed and in a bag. Apparently some American schools have a dry campus policy (an idea that I can only barely begin to understand), so the following doesn't apply to all campuses...

People get thoroughly smashed. And sometimes they smoke stuff, stuff that makes them see stuff. These things combine to form a massive cocktail of passion and debauchery. The thought of this being combined with guns is pretty fucking scary. Then you say "Well, Challah, if you were packin' then you'd have nothing to worry about!" Nope, wrong. I've been in potentially dangerous situations where a gun would have only made things worse. "Ok, but the people have to be of a certain age and pass certain tests and stuff like that, so it's cool!" Nope, wrong again. Looking at the number of idiots who are allowed to drive cars, I have very little faith in government tests of this sort. Even if only 5% of a campus population had guns, that's still too much.

Sorry this post is so long, but the subject is an important one. I'll finish by saying that I do not want guns to be a regular thing on my campus. The thought that anyone could have a concealed firearm would only increase the fear, paranoia and potential for explosive situations on university campuses.

bloodykisses

It's happened. Twice. Once by a teacher getting a gun from his car and then more recently by some fellow students.

__________________
all dried up and tied up forever
all fucked up and dead to the world

Challah

When and where? How many people died anyway?

bloodykisses

Case A

Pearl, Mississippi. Luke Woodham shot and killed his own mother before driving her car to school and killing two girls, one his ex-girlfriend. Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham while he was trying to drive off campus. Woodham had been planning to drive to the Pearl Middle School to continue his murderous rampage;

---------------
Case B

Grundy, Virginia. At Appalachian Law School, a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots fired, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Bridges' gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air.
--------------------
Case C

Edinboro, Pennsylvania. A 14-year-old middle school student, Andrew Wurst opened fire at a school graduation dance, being held at a local restaurant. The shooter killed one teacher and wounded two students and another teacher. The armed teenager was apprehended by the restaurant owner, who grabbed his own shotgun from his office and went after the shooter, though Wurst was already out of ammunition.



And even though there may still have been deaths and injuries, you can bet that the students doing the shooting were NOT carrying their guns legally. They either a) bought them illegally or b) far more likely, got them from parents, siblings, or older friends.

__________________
all dried up and tied up forever
all fucked up and dead to the world

host

All three of you cause me great concern. You're all college students or live in close proximity to college campuses, and you have all expressed conservative sympathies. I'm curious about what your major political influences have been; about what has influenced you to post the things that you have here, and on the "presidential test" thread.

roachboy, do you see these three posters as typical...you've spent time working and visiting in classrooms and other campus loctions. I am not trying to criticize. I am consumed with curiousity. What has changed in the last 30 years?

Here is a site dedicated to the memory of events "on campus", on May 4, 1970, and it attempts to link the april, 2006 VT tragedy to the one in 1970, in an attempt to offer support and experience:

http://www.may4archive.org/

In the days after the Kent State shootings, no one was talking about CC for students as a "never again" preventative.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=40 There is a description here about the reaction of a now famous politician to the mid 1960's student protests at Berkeley.

I listened <a href="http://dennisprager.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=47e648f8-2be3-43e3-97ec-38fbd682e7fc">(it starts at 24:20...)</a> to Dennis Prager on the radio tonight, and I heard him say that "Sarkhozy loves the United States, only the left around the world, hates the United States, the United States is hated by the left...leftist Frenchman hate America, conservative Frenchmen love America..."

Prager is a prominent, nationally syndicated radio personality and columnist on the 1200 plus station, Salem Radio Network, and on Salem owned townhall.com conservative political website.

It would have never occurred to me to consider my campus in 1970. as
"very liberal", but I'm also astounded that there would be a discussion about arming college students with concealed handguns...in a society that does not trust them to legally possess and responsibly consume alcohol until most of them are at least third year students.

...and people, including those who attain higher education, generally become more conservative politically, as they age and/or prosper. What are these signs of having a "head start", about?

loquitur

........ uh, the bankruptcy of the current left? (not that the current right is so attractive, either.........)

ottopilot

edit

Bear Cub

host: and what is wrong with conservative sympathies? And just to satisfy your curiosity, I come from a middle class family in an urban suburb of southwestern CT, with two strongly pro-democrat parents, and two equally liberal siblings.

I have been responsibly handling firearms since a very young age, and have done everything from instruct safety courses, to coach young shooters, to compete at a division 1 collegiate level.

I attended school initially at the second largest campus in the united states. Many friends already had their pistol permits, and you were hard pressed to find someone who didn't carry at least a small pocket knife on them, with no intention of inflicting any harm upon anyone who crossed their paths.

On the much smaller campus where I spend the majority of my time these days, the use of firearms is the norm. In fact, firearms are such an important part of these people's lives, that even the elementary and secondary schools are given off the first day of buck season. The campus is but a few blocks wide, and while no one on campus houses firearms in their dorms, you can bet that the surrounding homes and apartments are. I can also assure you that a number of these students drink rather heavily, but have yet to be sighted running around on a drunken redneck rampage.

The common factor linking both schools, is that given the opportunity, the vast majority of the permit holders would, with great certainty, exercise the right to carry a firearm on campus.

In fact, I don't even see why this is such a debate. Those who are anti-gun are going to find the possibility entirely absurd, while those who are pro-gun will remain under the notion that those who are responsible enough to own a CC permit will exercise that responsibility in any environment.

Like ottopilot mentioned, it's typically the "power trip" that enables those who have done what they have to do just that. They think they can, therefore, they will. While they may be gods in their own right, the notion that they can exercise their power at will is greatly diminished when others share that same power.

ottopilot

edit

Ustwo

In light of your second link, it shows that guns should be allowed on campus.

Had say the faculty been armed then the shooting spree would most likely been far shorter.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

host---my experience teaching is particular. i dont really have an idea of what constitutes "the typical"...anything i'd say would be anecdotal.

==================================

on the op:

i think it a lunatic idea that students should be allowed to wander around a university strapped. it isnt worth serious consideration---its just fucking nuts.

aside: i have no problem with retro-organizations amongst students. a conservative political organization--even one predicated on a nutjob idea like enabling students to carry weapons on campus--is unlikely to be more stupid and retrograde than a fraternity or sorority. if i were to start banning things, i'd begin with those.

i would even be cheered by conservative political organizations if they provided conservative students with some idea of how to argue their politics to people who assume--to my mind rightly (but that's just me)----that there's no there there either logically or in terms of consequences in the 3-d world behind conservative politics.

you see this limitation continually here: conservatives do not and cannot outline or defend the premises for their arguments. it's as if the relation to politics that is presupposed by being-conservative is immediacy, and its some kind of strange rule violation to explain how arguments work. the result is that there is no debate--there is the repetition of mutually exclusive claims ("left"/right) based on axioms/assumptions that are never articulated. you would think that if a political ideology is worth investment that it'd be worth articulating at a remove and amenable to being defended logically--you know, at the level of the in-itself (as ideology) and with reference to effects on the world (empirical falsifiability)...but no.

that said, i doubt seriously that any organization the basis for which is an idea this laughable could possibly do anything in this regard.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Bill O'Rights

Wow!

Y'know what causes me great concern? The fact that you cannot concieve that a college student, or one that lives within close proximity to a college campus, could possibly have any thoughts, or beliefs, that lean toward the conservative.

Then...you proceed to solicit advice, from a resident academic, as to whether or not you actually saw your worst nightmare. Not one, but several conservatives entrenched within the traditional bastion of liberals. The college campus. I read it as: "Oh..my gawd! How could things have possibly gotten so far out of hand?!?"

Host. Know first, that I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh. But you, sir, are giving the appearance of the very embodiment of his sterotypical liberal. That of the elitist snob. I mean, what you are basically saying is that conservatives have no right, or business, anywhere near a college campus. Right? Or, at least show me that I have horribly misinterpreted everything that you've written in that post. Please?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

filtherton

I think that presently the only things standing between me and a concealed carry permit are time and money. Not because i've ever been in a situation where i thought to myself, "If only i had a gun." And definitely not because i want to shoot someone- that's a fucked up situation that i would prefer to avoid. But, if you accept the self defense premise, which, part of me does, then it makes complete sense to not limit the number of places where carrying is allowed.

edit: after reading rb's post, and noting my own experiences in classrooms following particularly strenuous mid terms, i can see why a professor might frown on the idea that his students are packing. Shit, looking around me right now(in the computer lab), i'd frown on the idea that a few of those mofos are packing.

Searcher

I am not really going to get involved in this discussion, cept to say we live in one sad sorry world. What happened to being educated in a safe and secure enviourment??? Personally I thinks guns are one of the worst inventions ever. I often wonder is this the society that the founding fathers of the states envisioned....somehow me thinks not!!

__________________
Carpe Diem.....an unexamined life is not worth living!

roachboy

addendum:

i dont see how this particularly idiotic idea can function to define the conservative/everybody else distinction. if it can function in this way, it seems to me to legitimate the marginalization of conservativism. this simply because it is an ideology that makes genuinely insane ideas seem reasonable.

if the "problem" with conservatism is that academics tend not to take it seriously--in part (to my mind) because conservatives refuse more often than not to argue effectively for their own positions, preferring instead to use only language directed at an in-group for that in-group---then organizations like this would have to be a sane conservative's worst nightmare. i would think these folk--and i know they exist, i know that not all conservatives are of one mind about guns and so on---would be first in line to oppose groups like these.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ottopilot

edit

Ustwo

roachboy - That was perhaps the most arrogant rant of yours yet, (well at least that I have read) congratulations. I think it even surpasses host's referring to TFP not getting your arguments due to us being simple people.

Edit: Your first rant in this thread.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

you want to play this tiresome little game ustwo?
ok then...
prove me wrong.
i've sure as hell seen nothing from you that'd do it so far.
not even close.

as far as dk's post is concerned, perhaps you can riddle me this:
how is repeating the problem that i outline a response to the problem?

and you wonder why i think that conservatives in the main cant argue their positions without simply relying on and repeating the private language of conservative ideology.

please.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ottopilot

edit

Ustwo

Jesus Christ on a stick. Academics don't tend to take conservatives seriously because such academics have no clue what they are talking about. They live in sheltered isolated environments, often sucking off the government tit, and have no idea how the real world works day to day.

And whats even more amusing is how many Academics think all of their brethren must be liberals as well. While most conservatives do go out into the 'real world' there are more than a few that qualify as academics, and whats interesting is how they can be persecuted if they let their political leanings known to the liberal majority.

Universities are perfect for people like you where you can get kids with pretty much no clue and convince them your own unproven system of government is the correct one. Then they go out and get jobs.

I personally don't think its insane to allow the public as a whole to be armed, so why would I draw the line at a college campus? There is no real evidence that allowing legal concealed carry increases violent crime and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure it decreases it.

I suppose thats the difference between conservatives and liberals in this country. Liberals base their beliefs on what they think SHOULD work in theory, conservatives base it on what does based on human nature.

Really when sororities and fraternity are on your list of retro-organizations that should be banned, without explanation on your part I might add, it makes you look more like someone with a personal agenda than the thinking intellectual you try to come across as.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

ok ustwo..

trivial aside: on the fraternity statement: it was in the subjunctive.
"were i to start...." is the subjunctive.
it doesnt mean i am actually considering it. it doesnt mean i would do it. it means that, sitting in this chair thinking vaguely about organizations that i see as serving a retrograde function...WERE I to on that basis imagine banning them, i'd start there.
you can figure it out.

jesus christ on a stick indeed.


your "argument" is basically a series of sophistries that demonstrate what i said before. you rely on a series of empty terms that you do not and presumably cannot explain.

this means nothing.
for example, you seem to be under the illusion that a university is not a space within which people have regular jobs and are just as much involved with "real life" as you are.
when you write that, you say to me that you havent the first idea what you are talking about. that because, frankly, you dont.

so what i learned from it is that you operate through stereotypes.
but i knew this already.
everyone knows this.

ad hominem.

you dont know me.
but hey, dont let that stop you from making stuff up.

this:
is limbaugh level nonsense, the waving about of an ill-considered straw men...another stereotype...well, two of them, actually: the first of those who oppose you politically, whom you do not understand but whom you feel justified--for reasons that baffle me--in feeling yourself superior to--and of conservatives, who you caricature as being conservative for the same reasons you are.

and you have a category in there---"human nature"---which is to my mind meaningless. but you presume to know what it is.
and i am the arrogant one.
you make me laugh.

you cannot possibly be serious in imagining that this is an argument that does not do exactly what i criticized conservatives here for doing--relying on a private language that has some currency in a very limited world that you do not and cannot either explain or defend.
you only repeat it.
its like that's all you can do, ustwo--and i say that because its all you ever do.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sapiens

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I do think that it would be interesting for the premises of different political ideologies to be outlined. How do you see this happening? How would you articulate a liberal ideology (or your own ideology) in such a fashion? Could you give an example?

This may be a topic for another thread...

If you're an academic and you disagree with a conservative position (or "don't take it seriously"), you have no idea what you're talking about, you live in a sheltered environment, and you're probably "sucking of the government tit"? Yikes!

ottopilot

edit

dksuddeth

hence the rationale from roach that he just doesn't need to debate the topic, because it's fucking nuts.

a very interesting way to provide a juxtaposition of the liberal/conservative argument.

and yet in utah, and soon to be more states, are allowing this to actually occur. who'd a thunk?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

this is partly a reaction to far too many non-debates.
it doesnt seem unreasonable to me to ask that folk be able to interact with their political ideologies at a remove, be able to figure out which are the main structuring features and which are derivative
for example i dont recognize any strict separation between the economic and other areas of social life. so when i think abut economic activity or policies, i find it not problematic to move from ideology to descriptive analysis and back again, and to generate critiques of ideological positions based on outcomes.
neoliberal economic ideology departs from such a split.
i find it untenable.

i dont think there are essences; i dont think social being can be understood AT ALL using objects as the point of departure.
if you look at, say, ustwo's post above, he works from the assumption (whether he knows it or not) that human beings are a type of thing which have an essence which you can point at and call "human nature".

stuff like the above constitutes what seem to me premise-level differences between conservatives and other folk. (this is not at all an exclusive list, btw)
i think that if there is to be productive debate across political positions, they should involve debate about these premises.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

You will get over your shock quickly enough.

This would be the academics who don't take conservative thought 'seriously'. My best friend in my academic carrier, one who I owe more to than pretty much anyone, was a European socialist. For us our differences were not factually but interpretation and we took each others ideas quite seriously. He could see my points and I could see his,

My blanket statement was no more 'yikes' than roachboys, but I tend to state mine clearer, or is it true that no 'academics' whatever they exactly are take conservative thought seriously because we can't defend our point of view?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

one of two things happened.....either people like the columbine shooters and the VT shooter didn't GET that memo, or they did and took full fucking advantage of it.

it is most definitely NOT the society the founders envisioned. two reasons why.
1) too many people decided that they could and should absolutely rely on government for the safety and security, therefore giving up their guns, and making themselves unarmed victims or cowards.....

2) letting said governments make gun ownership unlawful, which did crap because criminals (those who prey on unarmed victims) don't give a damn about guns being unlawful.

for the record, I have met a handful of 'liberals' who totally believe in carrying, on campus as well as everywhere else, so this 'idiotic notion' that you assume to be completely conservative is alot of BS.

exactly like your statement that anyone who could possibly advocate students carrying on campus is consumed with a idiotic conservative idea?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

no, because i think this idea is insane.
completely, entirely insane.
demonstrating that it might not be seems little more than an exercise in scenario building--for example, it is pretty obvious (from being around) where your arguments in support of this might go, and they'd probably rely on one or another version of the claim that if everyone is strapped that somehow the potential for lethal responses to lethal force would result in a more peaceful overall society. i think that argument fantasy--but even if i didnt think it fantasy, i would still oppose students being able to wander around universities with guns.

another possible claim that you have floated before is a version of the "gun controls anywhere will mean gun controls everywhere, which means that the oppressive state has reduced all of us to slavery"--and even if i agreed with this (which i am ambivalent about, frankly) i would still oppose the idea that university students be allowed to wander around campuses with guns.

but who knows, maybe you've got another tack to develop.
why no go for it rather than wasting time mischaracterizing what i post?
but i am pretty sure that even if i were--against expectations, but hey if i wasnt open to that i wouldnt play here---i would still oppose the idea that students at university should be strapped.

gotta go.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

This is a picture of an injured student from the Virginia Tech shootings.

I always hear the argument, "Had more students been armed, it wouldn't have been so bad", but they fail to include in their theory that the number of bullets flying would have exponentially risen had that been the case, and even the most experienced law enforcement or military officer can tell you that more guns means a higher probability of a stray bullet hitting someone unintended even if you're well or expertly trained. So not only would you have the shooter, in this case Seung-Hui Cho, with the armament that was in reality able to kill 32 people and wound many more, shooting, but you'd also have people firing on him. The Norris Hall location (the first of three areas where Seung-Hui Cho opened fire) provides a lot of cover, which could very reasonably mean a long and drawn out shootout with stray bullets heading in multiple directions. Not only that, but most of the buildings in that area were occupied on that particular morning. Bear in mind that in 9 minutes over 170 rounds were fired from Seung-Hui Cho alone, and the ammunitions were hollow point (making the impact much worse).

The Virginia Tech case clearly illustrates why guns should not be allowed on campus.

filtherton

All the virginia tech case illustrates is that given the opportunity to speculate folks are inclined to rationalize the things they see around them in ways that support what they already think they know.

dksuddeth

And they would certainly know, given the mike bell incident in new york.
I also always hear the argument that mere civilians carrying would simply increase exponentially the number of innocent bystanders slaughtered because if you're not wearing a badge, you just aren't good enough.


You're implying that having just one other person that could fire back would only result in MORE than 32 people dead, which is clearly hypothetical, admittedly so is saying that another armed person would reduce the number of deaths but the difference between the two is that in the hypothetical of no armed students, nobody has a chance, whereas if even one person is armed, there IS a chance.

This is assuming that little hui cho would be totally unconcerned about someone firing back at him. This is CLEARLY false because he took his own life before the cops could get him. The only shootout i've ever seen where the gunmen were totally unconcerned about anyone firing back happened to be the two in the north hollywood shootout. Maybe because they had head to toe body armor, you think? statistics show that cops have a higher percentage of random victims in shootings than do non-leos. gunfacts.info

and guns weren't allowed on campus but that obviously didn't stop cho, did it?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Strawman. More police shooting can also create an environment where accidental shootings are more likely, just as civilians. That's why I mentioned specifically military and police officers. They make mistakes, too. At least, though, I know if I see a police officer that they are trained. While it'd be nice to require training before getting a fire arm, that's simply not the case right now.
All of this is hypothetical. It's hypothetical both ways. To purposefully ignore that fact does a disservice and to this very serious subject. With no one armed, 32 people didn't have a chance. With everyone armed, how can you possibly say that the death toll could not have gone up? How can you possibly say that? It's almost as if you believe that it's not reasonable to factor in stray bullets in a fire fight.
Another strawman. *sigh* I specifically cited where he could have taken cover. He wanted to inflict death, and had the people he was targeting opened fire, it's not unreasonable to believe that he would have returned fire. He would be concerned, and would likely return fire as those firing on him were his targets. The police, on the other hand, were not his targets and he ended his life because he didn't want to be taken alive.
It's a shame they don't take steps to better enforce a policy of no guns on campus, which is what this thread is about.

dksuddeth

then i'd say you are completely unfamiliar with at least half the states gun laws.

so you're point is that you'd rather 32 die with zero chance than to risk the possibility of more deaths, but give them a chance. thanks.

forcing him to take cover would have negated his ability to just fire with no concern. this gives students a chance, but I'm beginning to understand that you'd rather just have them die than to have a chance.

This is illogical. If he is only concerned with death, than he would have just shot it out with police, suicide by cop, and maybe taking one or more of them with him. This obviously wasn't what he was up to. He only wanted to kill with abandon while he faced no resistance.

maybe more signs that said 'guns not allowed' would help?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Do you notice how you're vague here? That's intentional. Do you have anything to cite?
I'd rather have no one die, but this thread isn't about gun bans. I'd rather have 32 die than a reasonably higher death count, yes. The idea is to have as little injuries and fatalities as possible, after all.
You'd rather have these people murdered by idiots who were trying to be Rambo and have no concept of real consequences, but that has nothing to do with anything so maybe it's time to tone down the weak appeal to emotion fallacies. Cho taking cover wouldn't have prevented people from fleeing, and those fleeing people would have been hit.
He's concerned with killing fellow students that he feels are somehow deserving of death. That had nothing to do with police. Of course he wanted to kill without resistance, but assuming he would have stopped because of resistance from those he was trying to kill runs counter to reason. You do know people tried to stop him, right? Two professors held doors shut, and there were unconfirmed reports of people trying to fight back. He didn't stop and shoot himself because of any of that. He shot himself to prevent incarceration.
Are you really going to joke about this? What does that tell you about your feelings concerning victims? They should be armed, but because they weren't you make fun?

dksuddeth

yeah, in fact I do.
handgunlaw.us, opencarry.org
In any state, except vermont and alaska, it requires an average of an 8 hour training course and a range qualifier, background check, fingerprinting, and a sometimes sizable 'fee'(unconstitutional, btw) to acquire a concealed weapons license. SOME states require a license with the same training requirements to carry openly. california is not one of them FYI.

again, this implies that there will always be a higher death count simply by adding guns. A hypothesis that cannot be proven.

because people defending themselves have only the ability to fire random bullets which unerringly strike fleeing students.....every time.

did they deserve to die then? and you also have evidence that resistance NEVER works?

which really means he stopped and took his own life when people who had the real means to stop him showed up. i.e. people with guns. otherwise, those that tried to fight back unarmed still died, unarmed and basically defenseless.

i'm making jokes about your 'wish' that there was a better way to enforce a no guns policy. tell us will, how does a no guns policy get better enforced? They should be armed, but they aren't because others who are in no danger on a campus make rules and laws that impact those that ARE in danger on a campus, you don't see the wrongness in that?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Is Virginia one of them?
Likewise can you prove it would be lower?
I was referring to Cho.
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.
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.
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.
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.

dksuddeth

for concealed, there is a training requirement. no requirements for open carry.

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.

then you've made no sense.

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.

and how would they 'apprehend' him? using guns. if he resisted them, do you really think they wouldn't have killed him?

then explain how they keep finding weapons (guns and knives) in prisons?

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I'd call that a stalemate between positions.
This, I suppose, is also a stalemate. Without knowing a lot more, there's really no way to say if more or less deaths were likely.
Cho still could have fired on innocent people if he were in a defendable position and people were fleeing. That's what I said.
Both Columbine and V-Tech could have been avoided by simple cessions with a psychologist. I'm sure you'd agree that prevention that doesn't effect guns one way or the other would be preferable to either unarmed or armed innocent people being fired on.
If someone is scared about getting shot at school, kevlar vests are available to anyone without a permit or training. And you can't get killed by a kevlar vest. That's defensive. Bringing a gun is not defensive, but offensive.
You must know how these things work, considering you have so many articles about armed lawbreakers. If you're in a gun fight with a police officer or officers, there's a reasonable chance you'll survive even if shot. Him blowing off his head didn't have the same chances of survival by far.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to get guns a mistrial due to inadequate council. Knifes in prison? You mean shanks that aren't really knives? And what guns? And what does prison have to do with school?
So I guess colleges don't have campus security and police... You make your case weaker by exaggerating and using misinformation.
You're misusing the word defending. Again.