Last year Va Assembly rejected all gun-carry permits for VaTech

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Here's what happens when a would-be school shooter encounters armed resistance:

Though my survey indicates that simply brandishing a gun stops crimes 95 percent of the time, it is very rare to see a story of such an event reported in the media. A dead gunshot victim on the ground is highly newsworthy, while a criminal fleeing after a woman points a gun is apparently not considered news at all. That’s not impossible to understand; after all, no shots were fired, no crime was committed, and no one is even sure what crime would have been committed had a weapon not been drawn.

In other words, airplane crashes get news coverage, while successful take-offs and landings do not. Even though fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses result in the death of the attacker, the newsman’s penchant for drama means that the bloodier cases are usually covered. Even in the rare cases where guns are used to shoot someone, injuries are about six times more frequent than deaths. You wouldn’t know this from the stories the media choose to report.

But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the medias selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control.

Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.

The fast responses of Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges undoubtedly saved many lives. Mikael was outside the law school returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started shooting. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start. When the shots rang out, chaos erupted. Mikael and Tracy were prepared to do something more constructive: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns, then approached the shooter from different sides. Thus confronted, the attacker threw his gun down.

Isn’t it remarkable that out of 208 news stories (from a Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four mentioned that the students who stopped the shooter had guns? A typical description of the event in the Washington Post. "Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived." New York’s Newsday noted only that the attacker was "restrained by students." Many stories mentioned the law-enforcement or military backgrounds of these student heroes, but virtually all of the media, in discussing how the killer was stopped, said things such as: "students tackled the man while he was still armed" "students tackled the gunman" the attacker "dropped his gun after being confronted by students, who then tackled him to the ground" or "students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon"

In all, 72 stories described how the attacker was stopped, without mentioning that the heroes had guns. Yet 68 stories provided precise details on the gun used by the attacker: The New York Times made sure to point out it was "a .380 semiautomatic handgun"; the Los Angeles Times noted it was "a .380-caliber semiautomatic pistol."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott14.html

 

[Bern80]

I am for keeping concealed weapons out of classrooms and off of campuses

I guess I would equate the introduction of guns into such a society (college campusses in this case) similarily to the introduction of alcohol or sex into a society.

The legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21. The introduction if sexual material of any type, T.V., magazines, etc. Is also heavily regulated. Yet despite attempts to heavily regulate both of these things our country has some amazing problems coping with and/or accepting either, in comparison to other countries anyway that have younger drinking ages and more are open about sex.

If that were the case in the U.S. in terms of guns I believe the same would be true. If more of them were introduced into society not because people are in fear but just for protection's sake, then we would reach a point where you think nothing of your class mate haveing a gun in his back pack.

Somehow, someway the people who want to control guns need to seperate the instrument, which in of itself is completely harmless, from the mentality of the person using it.

 

[Edward]

I did...you are suggesting that law abiding students carry concealed weapons on campus.

I think that is insane.

That is because it is insane. Why? Because the man who did this was law abiding before he decided to go on a shooting rampage. What Little Acorn is suggesting is allowing anyone to carry a gun on campus simply because they haven't yet killed anyone. When you put guns in the hands of more people are are likely to increase the chance of a shooting and when you place these people in an environment such as a College Campus you throw in many other factors which could lead to these types of shootings. Bad grades, angry faculty, an angry ex-boyfriend or a stalker who gets angry and starts to shoot people because he can't live without the woman of his dreams who can't stand him. After reading what he wrote it became obvious that he is an insane piece of shit.

 

[Edward]

I read what you wrote but was under the impression that you are FOR concealed weapons for students on campus? Or are you for weapons for campus security? You must be more clear. If you are for weapons for campus security, i agree. If you are for the right of students to carry weapons on campus, I completely dissagree and would call that notion a dangerous one, and anyone who agrees with it (along with Todd Gilbert) to competely lack any sense of logic and intellegence beyond that of a jr high drop out who plays too much Grand Theft Auto.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. More campus security and better trained local law enforcement will mean a quicker response time. More guns in the hands of more students means a greater chance that a student will go on a shooting rampage.

 

[Edward]

Id be curious to know if the shooter was, before today, considered a qualified, law abiding citizen with no criminal background before making grand assumptions that are neither here nor there. I do agree that private law abiding citizens shouldbe allowed to carry guns... but im not sure that students at a university is quite the same thing any more than any other government location that prohibits personal weapons despite conceal and carry laws.

Id probably wait for more details before grandstanding and using this to further an agenda.

I have no problem with people having the right to carry guns but I do believe that there can and should be restrictions on where those guns can be carried and that is why I support employers who don't allow their employees to carry guns on company property. It is why I support the government not allowing guns in courts, jails, and other locations where there is an increased chance of a shooting incident and it is ultimately why I do not believe that guns have a place in schools and colleges except in the hands of security and police. I do not think that this issue has anything to do with an agenda except for those who are advocating a "free gun policy" and those who are advocating a "no gun policy." Both types are insane motherfuckers who need to get a clue.

 

[Edward]

Why would it be insane of they are law abidding?

Let me break it down for you. Before you commit a crime you are law abiding which meanss that before this guy broke the law he too was law abiding. What does this mean? It means that Little Acorn and you are advocating that this MAN who DID THIS should have a GUN on a UNIVERSITY CAMPUS so he CAN KILL people and so INSANE MOTHERFUCKERS like you can kill him. The one thing you have in common with this guy is your lust to kill.

 

[Edward]

So it is much better that they be killed. Right?

The answer to your question is that it isn't better that they should be killed and that is why guns should not be allowed in places where the risk is higher. It doesn't fucking matter that everyone in a courtroom has a gun because the risk of a shooting is higher in a fucking courtroom just like it is on a college campus. It is the location that requires that guns be prohibited simply because it is these places where these types of crimes occur and where law abiding citizens because insane shooters. For all we know your law-abiding ass could be the next shooter.

 

[Edward]

No, that was my point. Seems they should be able to be armed, if they choose to be.

My take on concealed carry, it should be legal all over. I might choose never to own a gun, but no one knows who is and isn't armed. I do know if anyone else had a gun, that guy could not have just thrown chains on the door and kept shooting and reloading at will.

That is very doubtful instead it is more likely that more people would have died as a result. Imagine this scenario. The shooter walks into the building with the intent to kill one woman who stood him up and he does shoot her but as he is leaving another guy shoots him and someone is confused about who is the real shooter and shoots the guy who was trying to stop the guy who shot the girl and from there it escalates because no one knows who is the bad guy. This isn't true with security and police who are in uniform for a reason. We put them in uniform so we can recognize them and they can recognize each other and act accordingly. This is only one way where these types of incidents can turn for the worst. He was just as likely to throw chains on the door and to keep shooting even if others had a gun. In fact, the situation could have been much worst had he had partners. What your argument comes down to is to put guns in the hands of people in a situation where gun violence of this type is likely to occur. If you are insane enough to think that this guy would have been stopped by another shooter than you are delusional and stupid. More guns means more students have guns and more students having guns means that there is a greater pool of people who have a gun in a situation where they are more likely to use it for criminal purposes. We don't know why this guy did what he did and it could have been something as minor as his professor not giving him the grade he wanted.

 

[Edward]

As i said before, this was a student that was carrying a concealed weapon who massacerd all these people. The same thing you people are for. Not to mention he chained the doors shut before he did it, meaning that if anyone was to be a hero, it would have to be the students inside the classroom!! Your for guns inside the classroom!!!?!?!?! Good luck getting that to pass. Kathianne i thought you had more sense? Does anyone agree that to argue for concealed weapons on campus and in the classroom is ridiculess?

I agree with you on this one. I think Kathianne is stupid for arguing that this man should be allowed to have a gun on campus. There are stupid people who think that more guns will equal less gun violence but this simply isn't the case instead it only increases the availabilty of guns in situations where gun violence is likely to occur. What is being argued is that so long as this man was law abiding he should be allowed to have a gun in a classroom. What does this mean? It means that this man who was clearly unstable would legally have a right to have a gun in a situation where he is more likely to use it which increases the chance that more people with similar mental and emotional issues will have guns in these situations and this will increase the number of school and university shootings. Does it really matter if it is 45 different shootings by 45 different people who kill 90 people but are killed after shooting two people by someone or whether it is one man who kills 33 people. Are these 90 different people of less value than those 33 simply because they did not all die at once? I don't think so and that is why it makes absolutely no sense to argue that there should be more guns on campus so that someone can kill the shooter before he can kill a lot of people because more guns means a greater chance of a shooting which will increase the number of these shootings.

 

[Edward]

So your carefully reasoned response is that no one should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon?

The same thing I am for? Get real. I am for people haveing the ability to protect themselves from danger. Not for arming psychopaths. If you can't see the distinction then you're pretty much hopeless

That is bullshit. You are for more people having guns in a situation where they are more likely to use them and more people will die as a result. It doesn't matter if you kill them after they kill two if a hundred more people go on these shootings because they have a gun on them. If you give someone time to think before they have access to a gun you are going to decrease the liklihood of a shooting. This guy killed 33 people yet you would have hundreds of these emotionally and mentally unstable people having guns on campus. There is no doubt that your psychotic ass is hopeless. What's next? More guns in courtrooms because you are "for people having the ability to protect themselves from danger. Not for arming psychopaths?"

 

[bush lover]

It would be interesting to attend a frat party full of drunken college kids with concealed weapons! Animal House II (With Guns).

 

[Bern80]

Let me break it down for you. Before you commit a crime you are law abiding which meanss that before this guy broke the law he too was law abiding. What does this mean? It means that Little Acorn and you are advocating that this MAN who DID THIS should have a GUN on a UNIVERSITY CAMPUS so he CAN KILL people and so INSANE MOTHERFUCKERS like you can kill him. The one thing you have in common with this guy is your lust to kill.

Wow I'm amazed at much you know about me. As I stated before you really are incapable of seperating an inanimate object from human behavior aren't you?

 

[Bern80]

That is bullshit. You are for more people having guns in a situation where they are more likely to use them and more people will die as a result. It doesn't matter if you kill them after they kill two if a hundred more people go on these shootings because they have a gun on them. If you give someone time to think before they have access to a gun you are going to decrease the liklihood of a shooting. This guy killed 33 people yet you would have hundreds of these emotionally and mentally unstable people having guns on campus. There is no doubt that your psychotic ass is hopeless. What's next? More guns in courtrooms because you are "for people having the ability to protect themselves from danger. Not for arming psychopaths?"

Again amazing how much you know about my 'psychotic ass'.

 

[Hamiltonian]

If people are in favor of allowing the guns on the college campus, I'm just wondering how far you think people should be able to go to protect themselves. Do you think that people in high school should be able to carry guns to be able to protect themselves. Who knows, if some 18 year olds were allowed to carry guns in high school, then perhaps Columbine would have been prevented. If people were allowed to carry concealed firearms on airplanes, then maybe they could have prevented 9/11. I think that some of you will likely disagree with letting people carry guns in the two situations I proposed, so could you add some other principles other than the "self protection" principle that should govern where people can take guns. Clarify where you draw the line and why.

 

[Bern80]

It's not about drawing a line really. It's about in what instances is the most efficient way of keeping people safe. On a college campus, honestly I'm undecided. When I was in school I ran a trap shooting club. Members brought there guns to school and campus security allowed us to use a locker that was kept shut at all times except for when we went to the range.

Instead of college students carrying concealed guns maybe the most efficient thing to do would be to have an armed security gaurd in every building on every campus. I don't know how feasible that would be. But in college or otherwise people need an efffective means to protect themselves.
For whatever reason some people on this board (Edward) seem to be under the impression that simply carrying a gun turns people into raving lunatics.

On a plane? I would say at the very least if you were transporting one it would have to be checked and not kept on your person. If we could put an armed air marshall on every flight that would be the best IMO.

Guns are one of those things where 99.9% of people know how to and do handle them safely and responsibily. But, incidents like the one at VA Tech and columbine are then used to start yet another crusade on gun control. Yet neither incident really has anything to do with guns.

 

[Vintij]

That is very doubtful instead it is more likely that more people would have died as a result. Imagine this scenario. The shooter walks into the building with the intent to kill one woman who stood him up and he does shoot her but as he is leaving another guy shoots him and someone is confused about who is the real shooter and shoots the guy who was trying to stop the guy who shot the girl and from there it escalates because no one knows who is the bad guy. This isn't true with security and police who are in uniform for a reason. We put them in uniform so we can recognize them and they can recognize each other and act accordingly. This is only one way where these types of incidents can turn for the worst. He was just as likely to throw chains on the door and to keep shooting even if others had a gun. In fact, the situation could have been much worst had he had partners. What your argument comes down to is to put guns in the hands of people in a situation where gun violence of this type is likely to occur. If you are insane enough to think that this guy would have been stopped by another shooter than you are delusional and stupid. More guns means more students have guns and more students having guns means that there is a greater pool of people who have a gun in a situation where they are more likely to use it for criminal purposes. We don't know why this guy did what he did and it could have been something as minor as his professor not giving him the grade he wanted.

Exactly!!!!! Very well put!!!!

The police who finally broke the chain and rushed the building would see several people with guns, a bunch of dead bodys, and blood everywhere. Please explain to me, how in gods name are they to tell the difference between an insane murderer and a hero, if everyone has guns, guess what.....they dont know who to kill!!!!!! For gods sake people use your fucking brains, its getting annoying already. How can you be fore guns on campus and in the classroom, when police are in a frenzy trying to keep order and find this asswhole!!! Guess what else, when the police barge in and see a hero shooting a muderer, they are going to spray that hero full of lead based on the fact that they dont know who he is or why he just shot someone.

Really I am losing nearly all respect for everyone who supports guns in a classroom. I cant believe this is even a debate. Edward and mainman are the only people on this thread with half a brain.

 

[Bern80]

Exactly!!!!! Very well put!!!!

Yes a completely plausible scenario. Get real. Do you not see the asanine assumptions in Edwards' scenario.

Assumption 1) Since legal everyone on campus will have a gun. Probably not.

Assumption 2) those that do have guns will make snap judgements and poor decisions. Also probably not.

The police who finally broke the chain and rushed the building would see several people with guns, a bunch of dead bodys, and blood everywhere. Please explain to me, how in gods name are they to tell the difference between an insane murderer and a hero, if everyone has guns, guess what.....they dont know who to kill!!!!!! For gods sake people use your fucking brains, its getting annoying already. How can you be fore guns on campus and in the classroom, when police are in a frenzy trying to keep order and find this asswhole!!! Guess what else, when the police barge in and see a hero shooting a muderer, they are going to spray that hero full of lead based on the fact that they dont know who he is or why he just shot someone.

For god's sake use your fucking brain. You two keep piling assumption on top of assumption on top of assumptions. The most likely thing that would happen in you scenario is when the police get on the scene and encounter these poeple with guns, they would tell them to let them takeover and relinquis there guns. there is no reason to believe that as responsible gun owners they wouldn't do just that.


the assumptions you have in your made up scenario are not very plausible. Think logically for a second and attempt to answer your question reasonably. What would happen if a cop came upon two people with guns in a classroom. Well first most cops yell freeze. Your 'hero' will most likely freeze and drop his weapon. It is not police procedure to jump into a room and blindly start spraying bullets.

 

[boedicca]

There is a lot of misinformation and Bogosity about conceal carry permits in this thread. I'm a gun owner and enjoy an occassional bit of target shooting. All of the gunowers that I know are very respectful of their weapons and practice responsible gun safety measures.

To think that allowing students who have had proper training to purchase a gun will cause them to get drunk and shoot people up at random is ludicrous. Anyone who has not gone through proper training can easily be screened out of the process.

 

[Vintij]

Yes a completely plausible scenario. Get real. Do you not see the asanine assumptions in Edwards' scenario.

Assumption 1) Since legal everyone on campus will have a gun. Probably not.

Assumption 2) those that do have guns will make snap judgements and poor decisions. Also probably not.



For god's sake use your fucking brain. You two keep piling assumption on top of assumption on top of assumptions. The most likely thing that would happen in you scenario is when the police get on the scene and encounter these poeple with guns, they would tell them to let them takeover and relinquis there guns. there is no reason to believe that as responsible gun owners they wouldn't do just that.


the assumptions you have in your made up scenario are not very plausible. Think logically for a second and attempt to answer your question reasonably. What would happen if a cop came upon two people with guns in a classroom. Well first most cops yell freeze. Your 'hero' will most likely freeze and drop his weapon. It is not police procedure to jump into a room and blindly start spraying bullets.

Ok genius, so when the cops yell "freeze" everyone pauses for a second, the killer shoots the hero. And the killer gets shot. Wow, great solution.....you just allowed the killer enough time to get one more shot off. Great job you idiot. The cops should know that ANYONE with a gun on campus is the suspect. Seriously, you must start taking your own advice and think logically. Did you ever think that maybe the gunman could pretend to be a hero???? Pretend that he was going to throw his gun to police, and just start spraying police or the hero??!?!? You have to think ahead, you have to think of every scenario before you allow people to conceal weapons on campus.

Also assumption one) Why wouldnt everyone have a gun? If the few "honest" people have guns decide to sell them or circulate them. Guess what, now "un honest" people have guns. Not to mention, this gunman had no record, meaning he was "honest" before he killed 31 people.

After the first shooting, they thought the gunman had fled. Why not at least stop classes? And the exuse of "there are too many people" is so stupid. Thats why you have 2 hours to yell on the bull horn "classes are cancelled" or email constantly, trust me 2 hours was plenty of time to stop classes. Assuming this gunman left was stupid, letting classes continue was even more stupid. But im not going to blame anyone, becuase this was not anyones fault.

Though I am really against guns on campus and i would assume that the majority of america agree. So it looks like your alone on this

 

[Hamiltonian]

It's not about drawing a line really. It's about in what instances is the most efficient way of keeping people safe. On a college campus, honestly I'm undecided. When I was in school I ran a trap shooting club. Members brought there guns to school and campus security allowed us to use a locker that was kept shut at all times except for when we went to the range.

Instead of college students carrying concealed guns maybe the most efficient thing to do would be to have an armed security gaurd in every building on every campus. I don't know how feasible that would be. But in college or otherwise people need an efffective means to protect themselves.
For whatever reason some people on this board (Edward) seem to be under the impression that simply carrying a gun turns people into raving lunatics.

It is pretty feasible to put an armed guard in every building. From my college experience, there was always an armed security guard or campus policeman close by, but maybe that's just because the area isn't nice. Armed security guards are the most efficient means of protection.