# Would Guns Have Prevented The Shooting?



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

So we don't sidetrack the discussion on the Virginia shootings, I thought I'd start this thread.  There was mention in the other thread that a news spokesperson stated that if the students of the college were allowed to carry guns, then perhaps this tragic event could have been stopped sooner.

Thoughts?


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> So we don't sidetrack the discussion on the Virginia shootings, I thought I'd start this thread.  There was mention in the other thread that a news spokesperson stated that if the students of the college were allowed to carry guns, then perhaps this tragic event could have been stopped sooner.
> 
> Thoughts?


How about other options? Stricter gun control would have prevented the crime? Having looser gun control would have made it worse? I honestly don't believe those, but they are valid options, and I'm sure some people believe it.


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> How about other options? Stricter gun control would have prevented the crime? Having looser gun control would have made it worse? I honestly don't believe those, but they are valid options, and I'm sure some people believe it.


 
Yes, you make some good points.    While I don't carry or even own a handgun, I'm not against people owning them.  I do feel though, that if someone is going to own one, that they should be responsible with it.  This includes, but is not limited to care, operation, the laws and my personal one...if you're going to use it for protection, be sure that you can operate under stressful conditions.  

Would tighter gun control have made a difference?  I read in my local paper that the guns did not have serial numbers.  That should be a sign right there that something was not right with those guns.

Mike


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of college students walking with guns. In the long run, potential is for more shootings if anything. Whether it's accidental, or a spur of moment response in anger. In this instance I don't it would have stopped the shootings, it _may _have stopped the shooter sooner. Then again, it could have resulted in hundreds of kids firing all over the place in a panic.


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> Yes, you make some good points.    While I don't carry or even own a handgun, I'm not against people owning them.  I do feel though, that if someone is going to own one, that they should be responsible with it.  This includes, but is not limited to care, operation, the laws and my personal one...if you're going to use it for protection, be sure that you can operate under stressful conditions.


totally agreed... Between me and my family, we have a small arsenal  My dad collects some old guns (ww1, ww2) and my brother-in-law is a cop. We all love target shooting 

I think a concealed carry permit is an excellant idea. However, from my understanding, at most public universities you are not allowed to carry. Would it have helped? I think so... people still would have died, but it might have been alot less.



> Would tighter gun control have made a difference?  I read in my local paper that the guns did not have serial numbers.  That should be a sign right there that something was not right with those guns.



Yeah, thats going to make tracking the gun hard. That's really the only logical reason for this, especially since he killed himself. Might protect a friend that he got the gun from.... I'm not up on gun laws, but can a non-citizen purchase a hand-gun?



			
				Jade Tigress said:
			
		

> I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of college students walking with guns. In the long run, potential is for more shootings if anything. Whether it's accidental, or a spur of moment response in anger. In this instance I don't it would have stopped the shootings, it _may _have stopped the shooter sooner. Then again, it could have resulted in hundreds of kids firing all over the place in a panic.


Does this happen in places that do allow concealed carry w/ permit? Honestly, I don't know that many people that carry even when allowed. On this board, those numbers might be a bit higher, but in the general public I'd be suprised to see more than 10% of the people carrying. I'd be curious to see how crime statistics change when regions allow concealed carry...


----------



## Lisa (Apr 17, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of college students walking with guns. In the long run, potential is for more shootings if anything. Whether it's accidental, or a spur of moment response in anger. In this instance I don't it would have stopped the shootings, it _may _have stopped the shooter sooner. Then again, it could have resulted in hundreds of kids firing all over the place in a panic.



I have to respectfully disagree with this statement.  You would never have hundreds of kids with them.

If given the option to carry a handgun, the vast majority would not do so.  Simply put, most people don't feel the need to have one.  If given the opportunity to have a CCW on campus, most would not take advantage of that situation because they fear, just as you do, the same things happening as you stated above.  Those that would have them most likely are those that have the training, know how to use it and are more then likely ready to do so thus eliminating unwarranted shootings and accidents.

People get the idea that if you give the majority of the population a choice, that all hell could break loose.  If this were true, we would be seeing cowboy type shoot outs all across the nation.

Now, I don't know if there would have been an opportunity for someone to gun down the gunman and thus save some lives.  That is all dependent on timing and situation.  We could speculate forever and never know the answer.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 17, 2007)

People in Virginia, who want to carry a concealed firearm lawfully, must apply for permits through the proper channels, undergo training, and demonstrate that they can reasonably handle a firearm.  

Also, people who do choose to get concealed carry permits are not permitted to have any violent misdemeanors or domestic violence incidents on their records, and any sort of felony = automatic denial.  

If someone has a concealed carry permit, then I have no problems with them carrying around a lawfully-owned concealed firearm, provided that they keep it concealed, and behave in a responsible manner.  

Whether it's a student, faculty member, staff member, etc., makes no difference to me.  

The incident in Mississippi, where assistant principal Joel Myrick, stopped a rampage with his lawfully-owned handgun, along with the incident in Austin, Texas (Charles Whitman, the tower sniper) should be more than enough proof, that having law abiding armed citizens can make the difference in lives being saved.


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 17, 2007)

First, thank you very much for taking this discussion off to a new thread, and not bogging down the other thread.  I was deeply grieved to see, on another forum I frequent, an entire thread dedicated to solace for the victims and their families completely hijacked for the denunciation by non-US citizens of Americans and their guns.

Second, I wish there were a few more options on the poll.  I don't believe arming students would have stopped the attack.  It would almost certainly have lowered the duration and lethality, however.  And given the maturity level (or total lack thereof) an typical American college campuses, I'm not sure arming students is wise, either.

Several people have already commented in other places about the part that armed bystanders played in allowing the capture of the 'Tower Shooter' back in 1966.  I had also heard years ago (MUST check sources - if anyone else can confirm or deny, please post) that schools in northern Israel were routinely being raided by gunmen based in the Shaaba region of southern Lebanon in the late 1960's, until all teachers in those schools were *required* to carry guns.  Obviously, being armed does provide some protection and a deterent.

I think it would be wise to authorize carry permits for faculty in most school settings, especially faculty teaching the most vulnerable (i.e., youngest) students.  Training could be mandated and enforced, and locked storage within the classroom could be required.  Such limited availability of guns in a controlled fashion by the 'goodguys', together with lockdown procedures already in place in most schools, could go a long way towards limiting the lethality of future attacks.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 17, 2007)

It depends.  If students were allowed to carry guns, it might have prevented the shooting altogether *if *the shooter was rational enough to factor that in.  Since he killed himself we know that he wasn't afraid to die.  But if he knew that he would die before being able to create a large spectacle, he might have changed his mind.  Or he might have gone elsewhere.  Or he might have run the odds and decided that very few students would a) purchase a gun; and b) carry it with them everywhere, and he might have gone through with it.

Kids* being what they are, I expect that we would have seen over the years a number of accidental discharge reports or other kinds of dumb****ery followed by the inevitable push to disallow CCW.  Whether this happened before or after yesterday would determine whether this would even be a factor in the shootings.



*or rather, childish adults, of which colleges have many.


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 17, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> I'm not comfortable with the thought of a bunch of college students walking with guns. In the long run, potential is for more shootings if anything. Whether it's accidental, or a spur of moment response in anger. In this instance I don't it would have stopped the shootings, it _may _have stopped the shooter sooner. Then again, it could have resulted in hundreds of kids firing all over the place in a panic.




I completely disagree!  First off, just because someone carries a gun does not mean they are going to start firing wilding in panic.  I believe that is a misconception that the media has perpetuated.  I believe that most if not all states that allow carry, require some form of training or other on gun safety and marksmanship.  

Aside from that, I question why that many students allowed the shooter to line them up and shoot them execution style (as I understood CNN this morning).  Even unarmed, how could this person kill 32 people. Didn't anyone make stand?  I think this points to something far more problematic.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 17, 2007)

This from the President of the University:



> When asked what could be done to avert a tragedy like this, the
> president of the University responded that, "We obviously can't have
> an armed guard in front of every classroom every day."  To which the
> Firearms Coalition responds: If you admit that you can't protect
> ...


 
I feel the University has some fault in this.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 17, 2007)

I guess my concerns stemmed from two things, one is I was picturing the youngest of college students, like right out of high school. The other is that while I have fired a guns before, I am not a firearms enthusiast so I do not have the education you all do on the matter, and I do believe people should be allowed to carry. I just had the "cowboy shootout" image in my head in this specific situation. LOL It was just the initial image that came to mind, and admittedly, the image I had is not accurate, but it was all I could think of nonetheless. So, from the firearm educated, do you feel the situation _would _have been prevented if students were carrying? Isn't there already security on campus?


----------



## jdinca (Apr 17, 2007)

Tighter gun control isn't the answer. Better standards for training and screening before being allowed to purchase a gun may help but if someone wants a gun for the wrong reasons, they're going to find one, no matter what restrictions you put in place.

The thought that some of the students may have been armed could have given this guy pause for thought, or at the very least, given the students a fighting chance, instead of waiting in their rooms like cattle. 

I'm not sure there will be a lot of lessons to be learned from this one, other than reinforcement that there are sick people in this world, bent on taking others down with them.


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 17, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> This from the President of the University:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the University has some fault in this.



Certainly they do!  I agree!  IMO If the university prevents the students from protecting themselves, then the university is OBLIGATED to provide personal security.  If they cannot, they shouldn't be allowed to deny students personal protection.  I believe the same goes for businesses that do not allow legal conceal carry on their property.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 17, 2007)

Jade Tigress said:


> So, from the firearm educated, do you feel the situation _would _have been prevented if students were carrying?


 
A bit of a side note: You have to be 21 or older to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in Virginia.  Thus, few of the students would have had the opportunity to get a concealed carry permit.  

Still, the fact remains, that faculty, staff, and older students, could have been eligible to carry, could have certainly made a difference.  It would not have prevented the tragedy entirely; someone hell-bent on trying to kill another is going to at least find a way, and most likely, be somewhat successful, but the number of casualties could have been cut down.  




> Isn't there already security on campus?


 
Yes, but Virginia Tech is a very large, populous campus, and they can't be everywhere at the same time.  I can't fault the campus police, nor the police of Blacksburg, etc., since they can only do what they are told to do.  The fact that they knew very little about the shooter (that he was an Asian wearing a vest) did little to help their situation, since there are many Asians on campus.  I don't even fault them for pointing their guns at the students (who were probably already terrified beyond what most of us here have ever felt), since the shooter could have been hiding amongst them, or pretending to be one of them.


----------



## Ping898 (Apr 17, 2007)

On a similar vein, someone at work recently asked why liscenced owners weren't allowed to carry guns on our property and the response was:

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces that allow workers to carry firearms and other weapons at work were five times more likely to be the site of an on the job homicide compared to workplaces that prohibit workers from carrying weapons. ("Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace," American Journal of Public Health, May 2005, pp. 830-832.)


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 17, 2007)

FYI, By late middle school I was already pretty handy with the steel.  I knew many high school students who I would have no problems trusting with a gun.



Jade Tigress said:


> So, from the firearm educated, do you feel the situation _would _have been prevented if students were carrying?



Prevented?  Probably not, nut jobs like that will always find a way to kill.  If it were not a gun it could have very well been a wall hanger samurai sword, a machete, kitchen knife, baseball bat, etc.    There is myriad of devices out there to bludgeon and kill with.  People like the shooter will kill regardless.  However, the killing could have been minimized if students were carrying.



Jade Tigress said:


> Isn't there already security on campus?



Campus security is no different than Municipal security (aka Law Enforcement).  They are to keep the peace of the community.  They are not there for personal security.  The best they can do is mop up, count the dead, and write the report after it is over.   With the exception of taking out the killer if he/she is still on the loose.  Protection is a personal responsibility.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 17, 2007)

Thanks for enlightening me on the specifics folks. It's a tragic event, and something must be done to prevent these things from happening again. FWIW, I have never supported tighter gun control. My concern is more from a school enviroment/age factor. There's just lots of things to think about and it's upsetting to hear of such an event as took place yesterday.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 17, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Certainly they do! I agree! IMO If the university prevents the students from protecting themselves, then the university is OBLIGATED to provide personal security. If they cannot, they shouldn't be allowed to deny students personal protection. I believe the same goes for businesses that do not allow legal conceal carry on their property.


 
Yup. On the same note, I can remember a time when Banks had thick glass windows in front of the Tellers. Now, most seem to have an open look to them. Of all the places someone is going to rob with a gun, and now they do this.

I'm not saying that college clasrooms need to be inside Vaults, but they and businesses alike need to allow people to excercise their 2nd Ammendment rights if they can't provide security.

My company is the same way. But at this point in time, the paycheck is worth more than my making a statement and quitting over their idiotic policy. However, they do require keycards to gain access. But that doesn't provent the wierdo down the hall to go "Ballistic."


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 17, 2007)

Ping898 said:


> A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces that allow workers to carry firearms and other weapons at work were five times more likely to be the site of an on the job homicide compared to workplaces that prohibit workers from carrying weapons. ("Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace," American Journal of Public Health, May 2005, pp. 830-832.)



To be honest, I don't put a whole lot of stock in their studies when it comes to the topic of guns.  They are notoriously anti-gun, so their studies about guns carry about as much influence in my opinions and thoughts as those published by Sarah Brady's organizations.


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 17, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> But that doesn't provent the wierdo down the hall to go "Ballistic."



Exactly!  I bet you could easily get your gun inside unnoticed (just to show how much of a placebo the card security is...  not implying anything).  Fortunately my company doesn't have that policy, there are several folks here who carry, including the president/owner of the company.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 17, 2007)

IMO:

Strict gun control doesn't work.  Chicago has about as strict of gun control as you can get nowadays. (Basically, it says Own a firearm in the city, go to jail) and yet handgun crime in the city has skyrocketed.

So much for that theory.  Oh yeah... thats right, criminals don't obey the laws, thats why they are CRIMINALS.  So, no.  Gun control wouldn't help.

If 1 or 2 professors or students HAD been carrying... they would have had the opportunity to TRY and stop this from happening, and thats what may have made the difference.

Like any other weapon or force multiplier, Guns are POWER and I worry over a society where we have to live with that power not in the hands of its Citizens, but in the hands of its Criminals, who are willing to TAKE that power.​


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 17, 2007)

This just in:



> The gunman suspected of carrying out the Virginia Tech massacre that left 33 people dead was identified Tuesday as a English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school's counseling service.


 
I don't knwo if this guy was legal to be carrying, but some states have laws that they will not issue if you have mental issues.

Even more disturbing,

World reacts to U.S. university shooting



> In Sydney, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Tuesday the university shooting in Virginia showed that America's "gun culture" was a negative force in society


 
Let the finger pointing begin.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> This just in:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Unfortunately in most states they *just ask* you if you have mental issues.  There is no check in other words and really no way to check at this point unless you have been arrested regarding this issue.  Then it would also be important that the agency reporting it made sure it was on the counties records as well as the states and finally in the federal database.  Sometimes things slide by and people slip through the cracks.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2007)

As to the origional question of would guns have prevented this?  *We will never know*.  Maybe or maybe not.  It is a question that cannot be answered and that is sad as I wish this tragedy would not have happened.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 17, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Unfortunately in most states they *just ask* you if you have mental issues. There is no check in other words and really no way to check at this point unless you have been arrested regarding this issue. Then it would also be important that the agency reporting it made sure it was on the counties records as well as the states and finally in the federal database. Sometimes things slide by and people slip through the cracks.


 
That's right. There's just a warning that you will get in trouble if you knowingly lie on the application. Unfortunately, backgroud checks do nothing to stop the up and coming "first-timer."

And nobody wants their medical info being passed around the state. So that's not searchable either.

Personally, I think things like this can only increase as the population grows, just statistically speaking. There's nothing we can do, but try and be more prepared for it in the future.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> That's right. There's just a warning that you will get in trouble if you knowingly lie on the application. Unfortunately, backgroud checks do nothing to stop the up and coming "first-timer."
> 
> And nobody wants their medical info being passed around the state. So that's not searchable either.
> 
> Personally, I think things like this can only increase as the population grows, just statistically speaking. There's nothing we can do, but try and be more prepared for it in the future.


 
I think you are *absolutely right* about it increasing as the population increases.  There is always a certain percentage of predators, people with mental illnesses, etc.  As our population increases exponentially we will see more of this but let us hope that we can find a balance where police/security can catch some of them as well.  It is also important to remember that we all train to defend ourselves if necessary so pick up your training with the understanding that you may need it someday even if all you do is run to save your life.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 17, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> Second, I wish there were a few more options on the poll. I don't believe arming students would have stopped the attack. It would almost certainly have lowered the duration and lethality, however. And given the maturity level (or total lack thereof) an typical American college campuses, I'm not sure arming students is wise, either.


 
I quite agree with this sentiment :tup:.  I'm going to go with the "Yes" vote on the poll, as it's closest to what I think but *Ninjamom*'s comment on armed students reducing the extent of the assault encapsulates my view nicely.


----------



## avm247 (Apr 17, 2007)

I don't know if I would trust 1/10 of the people I went to college with to be armed.  Having said that, I have taken many of my university mates with me to the shooting range after a particularly stress filled week.  Gun safety was paramount and I made sure that everyone know how to handle the firearm they were using properly.  Still, gun ownership requires a standard of care that most university age students just don't have.  Guns and alcohol just don't mix.  Even dry campuses have students that get a little tipsy and have impaired judgement.

Put into that situation, I think that a creating a refuge of saftey would be better than chasing after and trying to find the shooter.  I think that barracading the door and waiting for help to arrive would be the better option...at least that way, if and when the authorities go in, you won't be mistaken for the shooter.  If the opportunity to get away presents itself, then it should be taken.

Now then say the shooter did not have access to a gun, could something similar have happened?  In my view, absolutely.  Speaking hypothetically, a person, bordering on insanity (c'mon folks, these are not actions of a sane individual), even temporarily hell bent on wreaking havoc, will find the means to cause death, doom, destruction and mayhem.  In the Philippines at the turn of the last century, moros would go "juramentado" - bezerk, killing radomly (usually non-moros) with a bladed weapon until they themselves were killed (though in the Philippines, there was more ritual involved in these actions, but then again, a shooter who cleans his weapons, loads his magazines and mentally prepares for their actions can be argued to be acting in a ritual manner).

In any event, my deepest condolences go out to those affected by the actions of one individual at VT.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 17, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Tighter gun control isn't the answer. Better standards for training and screening before being allowed to purchase a gun may help but if someone wants a gun for the wrong reasons, they're going to find one, no matter what restrictions you put in place.
> 
> The thought that some of the students may have been armed could have given this guy pause for thought, or at the very least, given the students a fighting chance, instead of waiting in their rooms like cattle.
> 
> I'm not sure there will be a lot of lessons to be learned from this one, other than reinforcement that there are sick people in this world, bent on taking others down with them.


 
Not a lot to disagree with there, particularly the point regarding gun laws only affecting the law abiding :tup:.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 17, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> How about other options? Stricter gun control would have prevented the crime? Having looser gun control would have made it worse? I honestly don't believe those, but they are valid options, and I'm sure some people believe it.


I have to agree; I can't answer the poll.

Could students, staff or teachers who were legally armed have stopped this shooter before he shot more than 30 people?  Certainly, they COULD have. But WOULD they have?  I don't know...  Would it even have been wise?  I don't know; only in TV/Movie-world do bullets magically stop a person every time (unless he's the hero!) with a single shot, and never pass onto an innocent in the background.

Could different requirements to buy a gun have prevented this?  Sure... but again, we can't say they WOULD have.  Maybe he'd just have waited a week longer, for example, in the case of a waiting period.  Or he'd have obtained the guns in another way...


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> First, thank you very much for taking this discussion off to a new thread, and not bogging down the other thread. I was deeply grieved to see, on another forum I frequent, an entire thread dedicated to solace for the victims and their families completely hijacked for the denunciation by non-US citizens of Americans and their guns.


 
You're welcome. 



> Second, I wish there were a few more options on the poll. I don't believe arming students would have stopped the attack. It would almost certainly have lowered the duration and lethality, however. And given the maturity level (or total lack thereof) an typical American college campuses, I'm not sure arming students is wise, either.


 
At the moment, I could only think of those two.   I too am not sure if arming students or allowing them to carry on campus is wise.  I'm wondering if they had campus security/police.  If that was the case, perhaps they may have been able to do something.


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. You would never have hundreds of kids with them.
> 
> If given the option to carry a handgun, the vast majority would not do so. Simply put, most people don't feel the need to have one. If given the opportunity to have a CCW on campus, most would not take advantage of that situation because they fear, just as you do, the same things happening as you stated above. Those that would have them most likely are those that have the training, know how to use it and are more then likely ready to do so thus eliminating unwarranted shootings and accidents.
> 
> ...


 


Bigshadow said:


> I completely disagree! First off, just because someone carries a gun does not mean they are going to start firing wilding in panic. I believe that is a misconception that the media has perpetuated. I believe that most if not all states that allow carry, require some form of training or other on gun safety and marksmanship.


 
Good point, although people, and not necessarily anyone here, are probably comparing citizens to LEOs, in which LEOs most likely have more training, etc.



> Aside from that, I question why that many students allowed the shooter to line them up and shoot them execution style (as I understood CNN this morning). Even unarmed, how could this person kill 32 people. Didn't anyone make stand? I think this points to something far more problematic.


 
Well, looking back to 9/11, wasn't there only one plane in which people actually took a stand?  Same thing here.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 17, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> Could different requirements to buy a gun have prevented this?


 
Nope.  Anyone can obtain firearms illegally, if they want.  The case of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith shows that criminals can get access to firearms even if they are denied lawful purchases.  



> Sure... but again, we can't say they WOULD have. Maybe he'd just have waited a week longer, for example, in the case of a waiting period. Or he'd have obtained the guns in another way...


 
Waiting periods would not have helped.  He had purchased one of the firearms back in March.


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, looking back to 9/11, wasn't there only one plane in which people actually took a stand?  Same thing here.



I wonder if this is another form of the Genovese syndrome?


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 17, 2007)

I voted yes even though, as others have said, I don't think that concealed-carry on campus would have prevented the incident. However, it could have allowed someone to stop the shooter before that many people died.

a few thoughts:

1) Stricter gun-control laws WILL NOT prevent crimes like this. Waiting periods, background checks, and banning weapons with certain features (hi-cap magazines, etc.) only affect those that are actually going to follow the laws in the first place. Someone that is going to commit a crime like this is not going to be stopped by any sort of restrictions. Even though stricter gun control laws will be inefective, we're going to have to listen to all the morons calling for more laws and citing this incident as yet another "reason" to ban firearms.

2) The police/security cannot be everywhere at once. They were unable to prevent or stop this incident just as they have been unable to prevent or stop previous incidents. This is not a reflection on our LEO's...it's just the way it is. As a result, YOU are the only one you can count on for your safety. You can't expect a cop to magically appear and take care of the problem for you. We have already seen the effectiveness of an armed citizen in stopping these types of incidents. There was the assisstant principle in Pearl, Mississippi in 1997 that was able to stop the shooter before he was able to kill anyone else. A similar incided occured in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. In this incident, two students (one of them armed with a handgun he retrieved from his vehicle) held the shooter until police could arrive. The body-count in these two incidents was far lower than it would have been had an armed citizen not intervened; and far lower than many of the shootings where they had to wait for the police to attempt to stop the shooter. 

3) "Gun Free Zones" are STUPID! Instead of gun-free zones they ought to be called "soft target zones." This goes back to what I was talking about earlier about gun laws being totally ineffective. Someone who is willing to commit a crime like robbery or murder is not going to have any problem breaking a minor law like carrying a weapon onto the campus of a school. Anyone who actually believes that making places into gun free zones is going to make those places safer is an idiot. 
On a side-note: A bill was proposed in Virginia in 2005 that would have made it legal for CCW-license holders to carry on campus. Unfortunately this bill was defeated. Larry Hincker, the associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech, was quoted as saying 





> "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions," Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."


 I wonder how safe they feel in light of yesterday's events...


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2007)

> Gun bill gets shot down by panel
> HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died
> in subcommittee.
> 
> ...



http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 17, 2007)

While I dont want to criticize the dead and wounded. Didnt the guy have to reload? Did everybody just stand by and watch?


----------



## Lisa (Apr 17, 2007)

Take a look at this video.  I apologise for not knowing the young ladies name, I just can't remember.  

She is testifying at a hearing.  She lost both her parents to a crazed gunman.  I think she speaks a lot of truth in what she says.  Very impressive young lady.


----------



## Carol (Apr 17, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Did everybody just stand by and watch?



Apparantly not.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-react17apr17,0,2587827.story

http://www.myfoxwghp.com/myfox/page...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> While I dont want to criticize the dead and wounded. Didnt the guy have to reload? Did everybody just stand by and watch?


 

Yes, I'd imagine that he did have to relaod, unless he had alot of extra ammo with him.  Like I said to Bigshadow, this was most likely a similar scenario to 9/11. I can only assume that the people in the area were too overcome by the moment to think clearly.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 17, 2007)

As you say, *Lisa*, very impressive and eloquent and within the parameters of her circumstances it's hard to refute her.  Her final sentence, again within the parameters of the American socio/political structure, is a touch off mark from the original intent of the amendment ... but not all that far.

For the record, I am against the general carrying of firearms in public places but I'm also against arbitrarily legislating them out of the hands of the law abiding citzenry.  That sounds mutually exclusive but let me elaborate.

Here in Britain, before the government went a bit mad and banned them entirely, if you owned a pistol then you kept it secured and safe at all times, even during transport to the gunclub.  We had almost no problem with gun-crime, no crazed gunmen and, back then, we also had no armed response teams cruising about with MP5's in the boots of their cars.  

Then the gun control laws were passed.  

Now no law abiding subject can own a non-deactivated pistol, gun crime is spiralling ever upward in a (no offense intended) facsimilie of America and we have armed officers guarding the entrances to our County Court.

The two facts are not unconnected I feel (tho' the entertainment media's 'progoganda' that (preferably armed) violence is the *first* solution to any problem bears some share of the blame IMHO).

I don't think that lax legislation on gun ownership/carriage is good but, properly regulated to weed out those mentally unsuitable to bear arms at the time of application (paranoids, schitzophrenics, depressives et al) there is no reason not to have an armed, self responsible, citizenry.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 17, 2007)

Bad question


----------



## mijemi (Apr 17, 2007)

This is a sad situation to be sure. Perhaps there would have been fewer casualties had someone in the classroom had a gun but maybe when we find out more about the gunman we can see a more effective means of stopping this sort of thing in the future. From news accounts so far he was a suspicious person already and the university certainly wasn't as cautious as I think they should have been. 

As far as students not overpowering him - seeing the lecturer die in his attempts to save his students was probably part of the reason less people want to take a stand. What a hero though!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 17, 2007)

Ping898 said:


> On a similar vein, someone at work recently asked why liscenced owners weren't allowed to carry guns on our property and the response was:
> 
> A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces that allow workers to carry firearms and other weapons at work were five times more likely to be the site of an on the job homicide compared to workplaces that prohibit workers from carrying weapons. ("Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace," American Journal of Public Health, May 2005, pp. 830-832.)




I will have to see if I can dig this up. Not because I do not believe it, but to see what data went into the figures. Are their numbers for when the company(ies) are hving mass lay-offs? Are their figures for when the company is doing bad or when the local economy is bad? I think this would help to shift how these numbers appear.

I mean I know when I went to Ann Arbor it was considered one of the most safe cities in the country. All the crime on the campus was reported separately from that of the city, so the school(s) could and can and did advertise based upon the city numbers. 

This example with my math/engineering background always makes me ask why and can I see the data to draw my own conclusions. 

Like I said I have no issue believing that those that allow guns at the work place have the possibility of havng a higher risk of a shooting.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> There was mention in the other thread that a news spokesperson stated that if the students of the college were allowed to carry guns, then perhaps this tragic event could have been stopped sooner.



I had the same thought. I've always been resistant to the idea of concealed carry, but...this makes me re-think the matter. One person with a concealed carry--if the school allowed it on their grounds--could have saved many lives.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 17, 2007)

Now to answer the question of the thread:

I think if the person is in the middle of an crime of passion as some call it then no having other guns around or the possibility of having other guns around would not make a difference.

Yet, since the suspect was involved with multiple shootings in one day with multiple guns and in differnet locations but both schools/universities, it makes me think he knew there would be no student guns and the officers with guns would be fewer then if he went into a bank. 

I have a prime example of the idea of being polite. There is a local gun store that has great prices. The service sucks soo bad it makes people wonder why they walked in at all. If the price was so low they never would come back at all. Well in one area it is real tight and I was shopping for a holster or jacket or what have you. Checking sizes and cost just to see. People were bumping and being rude without saying excuse me or pardon me or anything. So in a real loud voice I said to the air around me, "One would think that in a Gun shop where most of the people are carrying, that people would be more polite." The owners wife just smiled at me while everyone else realized that the probability of someone else having a gun on them is real high given the location. 

I think it would have made a difference.


----------



## MJS (Apr 17, 2007)

arnisador said:


> I had the same thought. I've always been resistant to the idea of concealed carry, but...this makes me re-think the matter. One person with a concealed carry--if the school allowed it on their grounds--could have saved many lives.


 
Good point!  Same thing with an air marshall.  Having armed people may not totally solve the problem, but it could be a help.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 17, 2007)

I don't have many answers here. But one thing I do know is, carrying a gun--even being proficient with it--and using it to take the life of another human being, especially in a civilian setting, can be very far apart. Yes, I know a handful of properly set up staff and senior students who were armed might have made a difference. But for that kind of idea to work, the 'training' would have to include preparation to take a life. Easier said than done.

Now, feel free to blast away at me :shock: (no pun intended, but it's not bad, either ).


----------



## OUMoose (Apr 18, 2007)

As much as I'm for carry permits, they would not have STOPPED this tragedy.  They may have slowed it, as the shooter could have been brought down/neutralized/whatever sooner, but someone with the determination to go into a school and start squeezing off rounds is going to do it.  Armed faculty or not.

Also, I'm not sure if someone else mentioned this, but these are college students we're talking about.  When I was in college, there were some people I had classes with that I didn't trust with the pen they were writing with, let alone some sort of firearm.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2007)

How old are college students in America? Here colleges and universities are different things, colleges are usually 16 until 18ish and universities 18+ being academic rather than trade type training.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 18, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> How old are college students in America? Here colleges and universities are different things, colleges are usually 16 until 18ish and universities 18+ being academic rather than trade type training.


usually 18-22* give or take a year or so (depending on when you graduate H.S. and what your major is)

*unless you're a football player in which case it's 18-26...sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2007)

The students then are of an age with a lot of the soldiers I work with. These are trained to react and cope with weapons being fired at them but as any of them will tell you that the first time they are shot at in anger is a very revealing time. They have trained for the situation yet many of them don't react they should, there are those moments of shock, of not thinking etc.That's where the experienced guys take control and the situation is usually resolved and the new guys settle down and behave then as they are trained to. I imagine allowing a lot of people who haven't had the in-depth training of a soldier/police officer, weapons with which to 'prevent' deaths could in fact cause more deaths. 
I think it's grossly unfair to berate dead and live students for not acting in the face of the gunman and stopping him. It's easy to judge sat at home in comfort.


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Apr 18, 2007)

OUMoose said:


> As much as I'm for carry permits, they would not have STOPPED this tragedy. They may have slowed it, as the shooter could have been brought down/neutralized/whatever sooner, but someone with the determination to go into a school and start squeezing off rounds is going to do it. Armed faculty or not.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure if someone else mentioned this, but these are college students we're talking about. When I was in college, there were some people I had classes with that I didn't trust with the pen they were writing with, let alone some sort of firearm.


 

I'm not so sure.  Seems like we're seeing a precident where some of these nuts are targeting areas because they are "Safe Zones".  The guy who killed the Amish kids in the school picked it over other locations because he knew they didn't have the lock down procedures of a public school.  He knew he would have as much time as he wanted there and that the threat of an Amish school would be very small.  

Ted Nugent ( not a huge fan or anything but...)  was on tv last night talking about a few incendents I had not heard of in the NorthWest where students had stopped such mass killings using the legal owned hunting rifles they retrieved from their trucks in the school parking lot.  

A year or two ago there was a kid who walked into a mall out East with a trench coat on and a AK47 underneath.  Being a gun carrier I know what I would have done had I been behind this guy when he started shooting.  

Last year here in Indiana a woman stole her husband gun and their kid and was heading out of town when she got stopped at the scene of an accident.  She got out and opened fire on the mini van behind her.  

I spent a year living in Pheonix and I can say this.  At first I was a little uneasy seeing so many people wearing guns on there hip.  But after a few weeks I started feeling safer when I walked into the gas station and seen three guys in line openly packing.  What idiot would rob this place?!!  

Criminals pick weak targets.


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 18, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I think it's grossly unfair to berate dead and live students for not acting in the face of the gunman and stopping him. It's easy to judge sat at home in comfort.


Agreed!


----------



## LawDog (Apr 18, 2007)

Police Officers are now being trained to respond to any active shooter(s). This new training program takes out many of the saftey stops that Law Enforcement Officers are normally required to use. When there is/are active shooter(s)in a school type building the police are trained not to shout any type of warning. The entry team / officers will shoot any civilian holding a gun.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 18, 2007)

People carrying weapons to protec themself is one thing people carrying guns in case someone goes nut so they could start shooting is even more nutts in my opinion, I believe every single person has the right to carry a gun but it would have not stopped anything but it might have accellerated it a bit more with other people shooting back.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 18, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Police Officers are now being trained to respond to any active shooter(s). This new training program takes out many of the saftey stops that Law Enforcement Officers are normally required to use. When there is/are active shooter(s)in a school type building the police are trained not to shout any type of warning. *The entry team / officers will shoot any civilian holding a gun*.


 
This is an important point for any civilian to understand.


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 18, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Police Officers are now being trained to respond to any active shooter(s). This new training program takes out many of the saftey stops that Law Enforcement Officers are normally required to use. When there is/are active shooter(s)in a school type building the police are trained not to shout any type of warning. The entry team / officers will shoot any civilian holding a gun.


 

Very good point Lawdog


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 18, 2007)

The university/college I had attended eons ago (Gallaudet University, Wash. D.C.) had an armed security force on campus. These were also officers of the Washington Police Dept. or DCPD who worked at the college on a rotation basis, some serving six to eight months and learning sign-language while performing security duties on campus with the authority granted to everyday LEO. They were there as part of the training a DCPD officer gets due to the high number of the hearing impaired population on and off campus in the city. There was an incident where a deaf person was mistaken for a (a&d) suspect and was shot because they were running (trying to catch a bus) and didn't hear the officer's call for HALT! Thus officers on the DCPD are now rotated through the university to gain awareness of the hearing impaired and better avoid the same incident. They learn rudimentary sign-language so to better communicate as the need arises (on/off campus).
Granted that this is a unqiue school, being the only liberal arts college in the country (world)for the deaf and that it is supported (in part) by Federal money (the President of the U.S. signs the graduating diplomas), thus would warrant an armed security force. 

Brigham Young University in Utah, as I saw it had a security force on campus but they were not armed. Or at least the "brown-shirts" weren't. Other security officers were I believe. To my understanding the (armed) security officers were graduates of the state's police academy and likewise were granted arrest powers and work in cooperation with the city's (Provo, UT) PD. 

Not all colleges/universities have this armed security force on campus with full authority of the local police dept. Would it have made a difference at VT? Probably not. 
Would armed teachers and students made a difference? Again probably not. As it was stated earlier in this thread about how much more dangerous it would've been if there were hundreds of students and faculity members all shooting their weapons in panic or in an attempt to get the shooter himself? How many would've tried playing "hero"? It's a crap shoot. How many would have NOT drawn their weapons? Out of terror and shocked to immobility or inaction? 
In my experience *no* *one* *person* knows *exactly* how they'll act in any given situation in any given moment. (yea, even me). Especially if they've never been in that given situation before. More-so if it's an extreme stress situation as in the case of a madman with a gun shooting people at random. 
The military can't even give a full 100% guarantee that every-single-soldier will act as based on their training the first time they come under fire. I do believe they are getting better at it though.  

Absolutely we cannot and should not berate any of the dead, wounded and uninjured for not reacting to the shooter in the manner that would've stopped him. I mean, you're sitting in class and all of the sudden someone comes in and starts shooting and one of the bullets is coming your way. Instinct for self preservation is going to take over and you're gonna hug the floor for the first few seconds. Next thing you know the shooter is gone and there are dead and wounded all around you (screaming in pain and/or terror to add to the mix here). What are you going to do? Ignore the wounded? If you got the (basic) first-aid training you should be helping them increase their chances of survival shouldn't you? 

Nobody could've predicted what Cho was going to do. He was quirky and showed lots of signs of instability but he could've just as well off-ed himself in his own dorm room all by his lonesome could'nt he? Or walked off campus and never be seen or heard from again. 

Though I voted yes I don't think it would've made a difference, the number of the dead/wounded would probably be smaller but the tragedy would still be there.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Apr 18, 2007)

I am not condemning the kids for not doing anything. I am just saying doing something is better than nothing. There is a story of one kid who heard the shots coming down the hall. He put up a barricade of two desks in front of the door preventing the shooter(I will not use his name he is getting far to much press the fame they get is a driving cause for it to happen again) from getting in. Every one in that room lived. To say the kids had no idea what was going on is untrue. Please dont think I am berating them for not reacting it is easy to say what I would do. I have been shot at (war). These kids did not deserve this. I am mad, confused and in disbelief.


----------



## exile (Apr 18, 2007)

INDYFIGHTER said:


> Criminals pick weak targets.



But see, the problem in this case seems to have been&#8212;from the info that's now coming out&#8212;that the shooter wasn't a typical criminal. He appears to have been not just a sociopath, but possibly an out and out psychotic, in the grip of revenge fantasies (his creative writing teachers and classmates had actually been frightened by some of the stuff he'd turned in for class) and probably full-scale delusional at the point when he went up to campus with those 9mms. This wasn't a professional felon who was looking to score a fast holdup, but a walking time-bomb whose mind, in that great phrase of Jim Morrison's, was `squirming like a toad' at the point when he started shooting. With someone like that, there's no such thing as `deterrence'&#8212;he's no longer on the same planet as the rest of us...


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 18, 2007)

This part caught my attention and I highlighted it:



avm247 said:


> Put into that situation, I think that a creating a refuge of saftey would be better than chasing after and trying to find the shooter.  I think that barracading the door and waiting for help to arrive would be the better option...at least that way, if and when the authorities go in, you won't be mistaken for the shooter.  If the opportunity to get away presents itself, then it should be taken.



It is my understanding that most people who are well trained with CCW (at least here in Utah), would not just go chasing after the shooter.  They are not LEOs.  If the shooter is nearby within the area, I can see how some with CCW may want to go check out the situation.

I am pretty sure the majority with permits are taught to leave the area whenever possible.  If leaving is not possible or the lives of people are at stake, the CCW holders will protect themselves and others from where they are located.

However, states do vary with how extensive their training requirements are to obtain the CCW permits.

- Ceicei


----------



## Carol (Apr 18, 2007)

A CCW holder prevented a shooting death at a bar in Manchester, NH last weekend.

http://www.unionleader.com/article....at+bar+leaves+one+wounded,+another+in+custody


----------



## exile (Apr 18, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> This part caught my attention and I highlighted it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent point, Ceiceithe usual position, as I understand it, is that you use your firearm as a `last resort' measure; since there may well be LEOs converging on a critical situation, the last thing you want to do is get in their way, especially in possession of a firearmhow do they know who you are?  And as has been pointed out in prior posts, very few people have the training required for such a situation. 

What's really at issue is what would have happened had some of the trapped students been armed. Grenadier in an earlier post gave the example of Charles Whitman, the `Texas Tower' mass murderer, who was held down by returning fire from people on campus while the police were able to get into a favorable position. The thing is... I can't really answer the poll question with any confidence. I just don't know whether it would have made a difference, and I have no confidence in any guess I would make. You'd _think_ that, given how it played out, any other course of events had to have been better...  but.... ???


----------



## Lisa (Apr 19, 2007)

I was discussing this issue with some of the university students where I work and all of them were very shaken up by the whole issue.

I got me thinking.

Has anyone come forward and said that they wish they would have been able to have a firearm on campus (because they have a concealed permit already) and that they feel they could have stopped him from killing so many if they had been armed?  

Up thread I made the comment that we will never really know if it would have made a difference and I am just curious if anyone has come forward upset by the fact that they weren't armed that day because of the campus rules.


----------



## exile (Apr 19, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I am just curious if anyone has come forward upset by the fact that they weren't armed that day because of the campus rules.



Good question, Lisa. 

What's been bothering me about all this is the fact that this guy underwent major psychiatric examinations a while back, and was pronounced a danger to himselfaffectively abnormal, was the judgment. _How could he have passed a background check in order to obtain firearms?_ The guy who sold him the guns insists that Cho _did_ pass the background check but is a _major_ psychiatric history not a factor in such checks? Just on the clinical record, he sounds like someone you want to keep away from guns the way you want to keep matches and flammable materials out of the hands of a documented pyromaniac... does anyone know what happened here?


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 19, 2007)

exile said:


> Good question, Lisa.
> 
> What's been bothering me about all this is the fact that this guy underwent major psychiatric examinations a while back, and was pronounced a danger to himselfaffectively abnormal, was the judgment. _How could he have passed a background check in order to obtain firearms?_ The guy who sold him the guns insists that Cho _did_ pass the background check but is a _major_ psychiatric history not a factor in such checks? Just on the clinical record, he sounds like someone you want to keep away from guns the way you want to keep matches and flammable materials out of the hands of a documented pyromaniac... does anyone know what happened here?


From what I've heard, he was never committed to a psychiatric institution, therefore (unfortunately) this information was not on his record for the background check to find.  As I understand it, if the information was simply contained in clinical records, it would be covered by doctor-patient privilege (or whatever they call it).  He would have had to have been involuntarily committed by a court for this information to surface.

like I said, just what I heard so take it FWIW.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 19, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> A CCW holder prevented a shooting death at a bar in Manchester, NH last weekend.
> 
> http://www.unionleader.com/article....at+bar+leaves+one+wounded,+another+in+custody


 
My favorite ol' waterin' hole! Ahhh, the memories....


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Apr 19, 2007)

After watching the news last night I think the most important thing for us to do to stop this from happening again would be for NBC and all the other new agencies to stop talking about this guy.  To stop giving him all the attention he knew he would get off this.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 19, 2007)

No, they wont stop. Not until they feel they've pushed their anti-gun agenda far enough.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 19, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> From what I've heard, he was never committed to a psychiatric institution, therefore (unfortunately) this information was not on his record for the background check to find. As I understand it, if the information was simply contained in clinical records, it would be covered by doctor-patient privilege (or whatever they call it). He would have had to have been involuntarily committed by a court for this information to surface.


 
This tidbit from the news:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0419200...la_de_krester__________post_correspondent.htm

http://crime.about.com/b/a/257385.htm



> A Virginia district court found that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was "mentally ill" and was an "imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order.
> 
> Cho "is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as mental illness, or is seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment," reads the order, obtained by FOX News.
> 
> "But after the second complaint, the university obtained a temporary detention order and took Cho away for psychiatric evaluation because an acquaintance reported he might be suicidal, authorities said."


 
That sounds like there was an order for involuntary treatment.  If this is the case, then he was definitely adjudicated as "mentally defective," and the information should have been transferred to the FBI database, and this character should have been disqualified from making a 4473 purchase.

Here's a copy of the 4473 form.  Under 12 f, you can see the question that is relevant. 

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

All in all, the gun shop owner did nothing wrong, followed the laws, and did things by the book.


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 19, 2007)

Lisa said:


> ....got me thinking......Has anyone come forward and said that they wish they would have been able to have a firearm on campus (because they have a concealed permit already) and that they feel they could have stopped him from killing so many if they had been armed?


I saw a group shot on network news of six members of a VA Tech chapter of (can't remember which) either a shooting club or the NRA.  In interviews with them, one of the students mentioned he had a permit, and would have felt safer and felt less a helpless victim if he could have been packing.  This group was upset by the campus rules and thought CCW on campus would be part of the solution.  However, as I think back on that brief interview, nowhere did the interviewee say he could have stopped/thwarted/limited the attack......he seemed more interested in being prepared to save himself.  (Again, not trying to lay blame here, and 60-second sound bites will say whatever the interviewer wants them to say, but I think the difference between self-preservation/'feeling' of safety and the ability/willingness to step in and help others is critical in this context.)




INDYFIGHTER said:


> After watching the news last night I think the most important thing for us to do to stop this from happening again would be for NBC and all the other new agencies to stop talking about this guy. To stop giving him all the attention he knew he would get off this.



Touche'


----------



## exile (Apr 19, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> From what I've heard, he was never committed to a psychiatric institution, therefore (unfortunately) this information was not on his record for the background check to find.  As I understand it, if the information was simply contained in clinical records, it would be covered by doctor-patient privilege (or whatever they call it).  He would have had to have been involuntarily committed by a court for this information to surface.
> 
> like I said, just what I heard so take it FWIW.



Hmmm... you're probably right, KT. Nothing else makes sense.

Thinking about this stuff, and the question that David Grossman's work raises about the willingness of even trained military personnel under serious fire (let alone students who may never have used a firearm except at a firing range)... I get the feeling that someone let the ball drop pretty badly. We would expect and hope that any student who _was_ carrying would have reacted cooly and fired accurately... would have actually been able and willing to pull the trigger. But you don't want to put people in that situation in the first place, because of the kind of thing that DG documents in his book _On Killing_: even under fire, soldiers who haven't gone specific kinds of psychological training can't be counted on to return fire. Easier all round, I think, if someone who's got a clinical diagnosis as a potentially dangerous defective goes on some kind of red-level list that interacts somehow with the background check... you understand, I'm not talking about people who've been in therapy or have other kinds of problems; I mean, someone who has actually warranted the medical diagnosis `dangerous'... aka `inclined to violence'.

The very fact that we have to ask the questions Lisa has posed suggests that a huge number of mistakes were made in connection with this guy in several different places...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 19, 2007)

I can understand the arguments to have/carry guns but what I have a hard time understanding is the emotional attachment that some people arguing for guns have. As I see it a gun is a tool, simliar perhaps to the fire extinguishers I have in my house. I check them regularly to make sure they are in working order and then forget about them until either the next check or heaven forbid, it's time to use them. I can understand gun collectors wanting to collect certain types of weapons the same as I do knives, swords etc but for the life of me I can't understand gun loving as practised by some members of American society, they boast having guns in every room to kill 'perps' that break in, they brandish their guns as if they were family members or children and speak of dying before giving up the right to bear arms. Perhaps the atittude practised by LEOs towards their weapons would be a healthier view? When did  guns become a love affair as opposed to a tool for protection?


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 19, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I can understand the arguments to have/carry guns but what I have a hard time understanding is the emotional attachment that some people arguing for guns have. As I see it a gun is a tool, simliar perhaps to the fire extinguishers I have in my house. I check them regularly to make sure they are in working order and then forget about them until either the next check or heaven forbid, it's time to use them. I can understand gun collectors wanting to collect certain types of weapons the same as I do knives, swords etc but for the life of me *I can't understand gun loving as practised by some members of American society, they boast having guns in every room to kill 'perps' that break in, they brandish their guns as if they were family members or children and speak of dying before giving up the right to bear arms.* Perhaps the atittude practised by LEOs towards their weapons would be a healthier view? When did guns become a love affair as opposed to a tool for protection?


 
I find that view a bit on the line of fantastical, as I have never met a responsible gun owner who does such things. Perceptions of American gun culture shouldn't be taken from Movies, internet, or the nightly news. Between gun enthusiasts, there is certainly talk of the subject, but you just do not see people waving the things around in front of people who don't own them.

I guess I'm asking, where have you seen this?


----------



## Blindside (Apr 19, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> I find that view a bit on the line of fantastical, as I have never met a responsible gun owner who does such things. Perceptions of American gun culture shouldn't be taken from Movies, internet, or the nightly news. Between gun enthusiasts, there is certainly talk of the subject, but you just do not see people waving the things around in front of people who don't own them.
> 
> I guess I'm asking, where have you seen this?


 
I've seen it, check out your average gun forum or to get really wacky try a survivalist forum.  Online discussion forums do not represent the average gun user/martial artist/stamp collector, usually those on them are a bit more obsessive than the average bear.  

As for people who "speak of dying before giving up their right to bear arms," this is an issue about what people view as part of their inalienable rights.  Something that has been codified into our Constitution and something that many people view as quite literally sacred.  

Lamont


----------



## Carol (Apr 19, 2007)

The unnecessary brandishing of a firearm is a felony criminal offense in the US.

Concealed means concealed - no one should know you carry.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 19, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> I find that view a bit on the line of fantastical, as I have never met a responsible gun owner who does such things. Perceptions of American gun culture shouldn't be taken from Movies, internet, or the nightly news. Between gun enthusiasts, there is certainly talk of the subject, but you just do not see people waving the things around in front of people who don't own them.
> 
> I guess I'm asking, where have you seen this?


 
I accept that the media will always pick on the most 'novel' or interesting things to report on but I have seen documentaries (one from Louis Theroux) from reputab;e film makers on the gun culture in America. I rarely see American news coverage not having satellite tv. The sight of Charlton Heston proclaiming that his gun would only be taken from his cold dead hand was pretty melodramatic and points more to a love affair with his guns than lobbying to be able to keep a tool. A reasoned argument would have come across far better .. and understandable to non gun owners.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 19, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I accept that the media will always pick on the most 'novel' or interesting things to report on but I have seen documentaries (one from Louis Theroux) from reputab;e film makers on the gun culture in America. I rarely see American news coverage not having satellite tv. The sight of Charlton Heston proclaiming that his gun would only be taken from his cold dead hand was pretty melodramatic and points more to a love affair with his guns than lobbying to be able to keep a tool. A reasoned argument would have come across far better .. and understandable to non gun owners.


 
Melodramatic, I agree. That little catch phrase has been around a lot longer than Charton was with the NRA. I think it points more to a love affair with freedom than the gun. As for an agruement, he wasn't in a debate environment as far as I recall. So you have to take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 19, 2007)

It was at a speech, for the purpose of rallying those who respect all of the Bill of Rights.  Of course, there's supposed to be drama, or else you simply wouldn't rally people.


----------



## crushing (Apr 19, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I've seen it, check out your average gun forum or to get really wacky try a survivalist forum. Online discussion forums do not represent the average gun user/martial artist/stamp collector, usually those on them are a bit more obsessive than the average bear.
> 
> *As for people who "speak of dying before giving up their right to bear arms," this is an issue about what people view as part of their inalienable rights. Something that has been codified into our Constitution and something that many people view as quite literally sacred.*
> 
> Lamont


 
Definitely!

I wouldn't say that someone that refuses to give up their right to keep and bear arms is in love with their gun anymore than a person that refuses to give up their right to free speech is simply in love with their prose.

But, that won't fit on a bumper sticker.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 19, 2007)

crushing said:


> Definitely!
> 
> I wouldn't say that someone that refuses to give up their right to keep and bear arms is in love with their gun anymore than a person that refuses to give up their right to free speech is simply in love with their prose.
> 
> But, that won't fit on a bumper sticker.


 
Damn shame.  That would make a great bumper sticker!


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 19, 2007)

Grenadier, thanks for the extra info...

according to one of the links you posted:


> "He presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," Magistrate Paul Barrett wrote. Despite that, Barrett eventually sided with a psychologist who called only for outpatient treatment.
> "Alternatives to involuntary hospitalization were investigated and deemed suitable," he ruled. The judge's decision was influenced by counselor Roy Crouse's evaluation of Cho. Crouse said the student had mental problems, but didn't need to be locked up. *There was "sufficient cause to believe that he's mentally ill, but he does not represent an imminent danger to himself or others,"* according to Crouse, who worked at Access, a Blacksburg mental-health clinic.


and...


> Had Cho been involuntarily hospitalized, he wouldn't have been able to legally buy the massacre guns.


 
It looks to me like the judge/courts "dropped the ball" in this case (who would have thought that was possible  ). Otherwise, the information would have shown up when the NICS check was run from the gun-store.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 19, 2007)

Latest Zogby poll over gun control after this horrendous incident.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 19, 2007)

Its not a "love affair". Its a RIGHT protected by our Constitution. A piece of paper a lot of our countrymen have given their lives protecting.

And most "reputable" film makers IMO are rabid gun grabbers with their own agenda. Michael Moore leading the pack.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 19, 2007)

Ain't no such a thing as a "reputable" film maker. At least not THIS side of the pond.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 19, 2007)

exile said:


> What's been bothering me about all this is the fact that this guy underwent major psychiatric examinations a while back, and was pronounced a danger to himselfaffectively abnormal, was the judgment. _How could he have passed a background check in order to obtain firearms?_


 
Ya wanna know why? HIPAA regulations thats why. The laws need some major re-working for screw-up's and screwballs like this.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 19, 2007)

Here is the article with the zogby poll.
http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.aspx?cp-documentid=4732850&gt1=9311


----------



## exile (Apr 19, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ya wanna know why? HIPAA regulations thats why. The laws need some major re-working for screw-up's and screwballs like this.



I agree with this 100%. One thing we've learned (to many people's terrible pain): someone who is a danger to himself may very well _automatically_ be a danger to others. How many murder/suicide incidents do we need to convince ourselves of that? And with Cho, there doesn't seem to have been the slightest disagreement amongst those who examined him that this was one really, _really_ damaged guy (and who knows why? Maybe a screwup in his wiring or chemistry... whatever the reason, there clearly was sufficient reason for it). So putting these two things together, the diagnosis of imminent danger to himself&#8212;and that _has_ to mean, potential for uncontrolled violence&#8212;should have automatically translated into a red card for this guy on any firearms purchases. 

After one of these incidents, you often get people saying, well, he seemed all right, there weren't any signs, it's easy to second-guess, blah blah blah... but here, the guy _didn't_ seem all right, there were signs out to the moon and back, and no `second-guessing' is involved at all. Something badly needs changing in the whacko-alert mechanism for firearms purchase eligibility. Surely this can be done without compromising insurance eligibility or health plan coverage for the population as a whole.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 20, 2007)

Tennessee Makes a Step in the Right Direction
April 19, 2007

NASHVILLE - In a surprise move, a House panel voted Wednesday to
repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property
and buildings owned by state, county and city governments - including
parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster - or catastrophe or nightmare or
whatever you want to call it - has woken up a lot of people to the
need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep.
Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote
reflects."

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/04/tennessee-makes-step-in-right-direction.html


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 20, 2007)

From my sweetie, Ann:



> Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
> 
> And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.
> 
> Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070419/cm_ucac/letsmakeamericaasadfreezone


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Ya wanna know why? HIPAA regulations thats why. The laws need some major re-working for screw-up's and screwballs like this.


It's getting better...

When it first came out, liability concsious, litigation fearing suits had docs and nurses refusing to give information to cops.  We could sometimes sweet talk what we needed out of an ER nurse...but once you got out of the ER, you were SOL.

Things are clearer now; they will give us some info, usually.  You just have to know how to ask.

As to this particular incident...  I've not seen anything beyond a Emergency Mental Health Detention Orders and Temporary DOs on him.  Basically, in VA, an EDO is issued after a cop (typically) or someone else brings a person into an appropriate facility, and an appropriate doc or clinical social worker evaluates the person.  It gives authority to hold the person until a court hearing can be held; usually no more than 72 hours.  That first hearing (often, it takes place within 24 hours) is where the TDO is issued; it simply double checks the evaluation, and can hold the person for a period long enough for more formal testing/evaluation and another hearing can take place.  The "big" hearing is where a person is truly committed for psychiatric care.  I'm not certain, but I don't believe TDOs are entered into any database outside the court, so it's very possible that a gun store wouldn't have access to these records.  Apart from that -- in VA, private individuals can still legally sell a gun among themselves, no record checks.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 20, 2007)

is there a third option?

well-trained, armed security or well-trained, armed students could have _mitigated_ the damage once the shooting started. 

that's a far cry from 'guns would have prevented the shooting', but neither do i think they 'wouldn't have made a difference'.


----------



## MJS (Apr 20, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> is there a third option?
> 
> *well-trained,* armed security or *well-trained,* armed students could have _mitigated_ the damage once the shooting started.
> 
> that's a far cry from 'guns would have prevented the shooting', but neither do i think they 'wouldn't have made a difference'.


 
IMO, those are the key words right there.  Would people armed with guns have stopped this?  Anything is possible, but I would hope that they are going to be able to function under those conditions.

Mike


----------



## exile (Apr 23, 2007)

MJS said:


> IMO, those are the key words right there.  Would people armed with guns have stopped this?  Anything is possible, but I would hope that they are going to be able to function under those conditions.
> 
> Mike



I agree, but we need to be clear on just how much scope the notion of training has in such cases. The crucial point, the thing it all depends on, is the willingess of the defender armed with a gun to actually _use_ it&#8212;to aim it and fire it so that it makes a hole in the attacker. This is't training for safey or training for accuracy&#8212;it's training for the will to use the firearm when life and death are at stake. 

This seems obvious, I know, but it's not trivial in the least. Because we know, as I mentioned in my earlier post, that even people whose job is to kill enemies of their country&#8212;soldiers&#8212;cannot be counted on to do so without special training, even under deadly fire from enemy troops who are _accessible_ targets. People who kill easily and without compunction are usually sociopaths; they work for&#8212;or _are_&#8212;Mike Corleone or Tony Soprano. In people without that pathological disorder, killing another person, even one who represents a deadly threat, is not a foregone conclusion, as David Grossman's extensive research and professional experience as a psychological warfare expert within the armed forces makes clear. 

So if we're going to talk about training in this connection, then we have to talk about training to kill, or more accurately, to shoot to kill. All the safety and accuracy training in the world won't make a difference if defenders just can't quite bring themselves to pull the trigger with lethal intent, and what evidence there is makes it clear that that's what happens most of the time unless there's special conditioning involved. 

So where does that leave us, in terms of the question in the OP/poll?


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 23, 2007)

Good article by Mark Steyn:  Let's be realistic about reality


----------



## BrandiJo (Apr 23, 2007)

I would have to say yes, if more people carried guns on campus they may have been able to prevent it, however that could lead to some trigger happy students as well. I think the the better option would be to have teachers/ profs carring guns, and then the more mature and stable people on campus could have stopped it sooner. 

On a side note about campus police security, we have security on my campus, they are the college students who get paid an 8 dollers an hour instead of 6 because they work over night. They are not trained and while some of our "officers" may think they are tough guys they are no match for a student armed with a gun. ​


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 23, 2007)

exile said:


> .....The crucial point, the thing it all depends on, is the willingess of the defender armed with a gun to actually _use_ it*to aim it and fire it so that it makes a hole in the attacker*. This is't training for safey or training for accuracyit's training for *the will to use the firearm when life and death are at stake*.
> 
> ..........killing another person, even one who represents a deadly threat, is not a foregone conclusion.............


And this is the *crucial *point.

This may seem like a really trivial example, especially in light of the discussion and situation at hand, but please bear with me as I discuss it.  I grew up enjoying shooting for fun and sport.  I practiced with air rifles and pistols since I was old enough to hold one.  I shot .22's in a range while in high school.  When in the military, I qualified as expert on both pistol and M-16, and I narrowly missed placing in a base-wide competition against the lead shooters for the Base Security Police squadron (I flew a desk for the Air Force for 7+ years).  Still, when a group of us off-duty military types got together to shoot *paintball*, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn any time I had to aim at a person.

This was *paintball*, guys, and whether it was something psychological about it or not, I could not hit anything other than inanimate objects.  

I consider myself on the 'hawkish' side of most questions political, and a saber-toothed tiger on defense, when it comes to my kids.  I always assumed that if there was a need, and I had the means, I would do whatever it took to defend my family in the most dire situations.  However, something as simple as a game of paintball has made me pause and think otherwise.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 23, 2007)

Most who look directly into someone's eyes will freeze just like a deer does when it looks into a set of head lights.
Training alone will not give the average person the will power to over come this. The first time for any normal person will always be the hardest.

He who hesitates is lost.


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2007)

exile said:


> I agree, but we need to be clear on just how much scope the notion of training has in such cases. The crucial point, the thing it all depends on, is the willingess of the defender armed with a gun to actually _use_ itto aim it and fire it so that it makes a hole in the attacker. This is't training for safey or training for accuracyit's training for the will to use the firearm when life and death are at stake.
> 
> This seems obvious, I know, but it's not trivial in the least. Because we know, as I mentioned in my earlier post, that even people whose job is to kill enemies of their countrysoldierscannot be counted on to do so without special training, even under deadly fire from enemy troops who are _accessible_ targets. People who kill easily and without compunction are usually sociopaths; they work foror _are_Mike Corleone or Tony Soprano. In people without that pathological disorder, killing another person, even one who represents a deadly threat, is not a foregone conclusion, as David Grossman's extensive research and professional experience as a psychological warfare expert within the armed forces makes clear.
> 
> ...


 


Ninjamom said:


> And this is the *crucial *point.
> 
> This may seem like a really trivial example, especially in light of the discussion and situation at hand, but please bear with me as I discuss it. I grew up enjoying shooting for fun and sport. I practiced with air rifles and pistols since I was old enough to hold one. I shot .22's in a range while in high school. When in the military, I qualified as expert on both pistol and M-16, and I narrowly missed placing in a base-wide competition against the lead shooters for the Base Security Police squadron (I flew a desk for the Air Force for 7+ years). Still, when a group of us off-duty military types got together to shoot *paintball*, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn any time I had to aim at a person.
> 
> ...


 
Great points!!  This is exactly what I was trying to say.  Being able to bring yourself to doing it, rather than just talking about it, is a big issue.  Also, training yourself to in low light, moving targets, etc., is also important, but something that I doubt the average shooter does on a regular basis, if at all.


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2007)

Came across this article in the paper today and wanted to post it here, seeing that its related to the discussion.



> SALT LAKE CITY -- Brent Tenney says he feels pretty safe when he goes to class at the University of Utah, but he takes no chances. He brings a loaded 9mm semiautomatic with him every day.
> 
> "It's not that I run around scared all day long, but if something happens to me, I do want to be prepared," said the 24-year-old business major, who has a concealed-weapons permit and takes the handgun everywhere but church.


----------



## exile (Apr 28, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> And this is the *crucial *point.
> 
> This may seem like a really trivial example, especially in light of the discussion and situation at hand, but please bear with me as I discuss it.  I grew up enjoying shooting for fun and sport.  I practiced with air rifles and pistols since I was old enough to hold one.  I shot .22's in a range while in high school.  When in the military, I qualified as expert on both pistol and M-16, and I narrowly missed placing in a base-wide competition against the lead shooters for the Base Security Police squadron (I flew a desk for the Air Force for 7+ years).  Still, when a group of us off-duty military types got together to shoot *paintball*, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn any time I had to aim at a person.
> 
> ...





LawDog said:


> Most who look directly into someone's eyes will freeze just like a deer does when it looks into a set of head lights.
> Training alone will not give the average person the will power to over come this. The first time for any normal person will always be the hardest.
> 
> He who hesitates is lost.





MJS said:


> Being able to bring yourself to doing it, rather than just talking about it, is a big issue.  Also, training yourself to in low light, moving targets, etc., is also important, but something that I doubt the average shooter does on a regular basis, if at all.



All of these comments speak directly to the point, and Ninjamom's post in particular raises a important related issue. She says that she could not hit the target in paintball when the target was another person. But I gather from what she says that she did _fire_. So there was a `round' fired and it went... somewhere. Translate that into the Va. Tech scenario: someone has a gun, has never actually fired a live round at another person before, but in the face of deadly dangers draws it and fires. Ninjamom wasn't in actual peril, in her paintball game, but it's hard to say in advance if the defender in the Va. Tech situation would have functioned any differently than she did in her paintball game. One possibility is that the same `flinch' response would have kicked in, and so a round gets fired off... where does it go? In a crowded classroom, with people panicking...?

You see where I'm going with this: an armed defender can become another source of danger unless s/he is absolutely committed to firing at the attacker with precision and accuracy and a very, very cool head, motivated by a complete willingness to kill the attacker in the interests of saving innocent life. This is a pretty tall order, involving years of training for LEOs (and many of them will tell you how hard it is for them to have to shoot at a human target). So my main worry about all this is that we may be asking too much of people who picture themselves as armed defenders in that situation, but who, when it comes to the point, may have a hard time doing what needs to be done. If they don't use their weapon, we're back at square one, but if they do, and aren't able to do it properly because of that almost inevitable first-time flinch... then what?


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 28, 2007)

An excellent point, exile (as usual!).  However, to my cowardly credit, I have to tell a little more of the story:

At one point in the paintball match, a friend on my team was pinned down when we all heard the phhhssssshhhhhh sound indicating all the gas had leaked out of his CO2 cartridge (i.e., he could no longer shoot back).  One of several opposing team members in close proximity gave a loud, "Die, @#$@!," and began to charge my friend's position.  He charged, that is, until I stood up and gave my best Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day!" yell, and started firing back.  The fact that I returned fire (even with horrible aim and without hitting anything) stopped the charge, pinned two of the opposing players, and allowed my friend to escape.  Of course, I was toast, but back to the present discussion, I think it makes my point: whether you are a 'Weekend Warrior' or a hardened sociopath, having someone *shoot back *adds a whole new dynamic to the situation.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 28, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> An excellent point, exile (as usual!).  However, to my cowardly credit, I have to tell a little more of the story:
> 
> At one point in the paintball match, a friend on my team was pinned down when we all heard the phhhssssshhhhhh sound indicating all the gas had leaked out of his CO2 cartridge (i.e., he could no longer shoot back).  One of several opposing team members in close proximity gave a loud, "Die, @#$@!," and began to charge my friend's position.  He charged, that is, until I stood up and gave my best Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day!" yell, and started firing back.  The fact that I returned fire (even with horrible aim and without hitting anything) stopped the charge, pinned two of the opposing players, and allowed my friend to escape.  Of course, I was toast, but back to the present discussion, I think it makes my point: whether you are a 'Weekend Warrior' or a hardened sociopath, having someone *shoot back *adds a whole new dynamic to the situation.


It's amazing how different it is the first time you're in a firearms simulator that can shoot back -- or working somewhere with Simunitions...

Lots of things that seemed fine in theory don't quite work the same way!

(There's a catch, though... It's easy to develop an "invincibility" mindset, since the pellets/paintballs/marker rounds don't do much more than sting...  Good trainers can offset that.)


----------



## exile (Apr 28, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> The fact that I returned fire (even with horrible aim and without hitting anything) stopped the charge, pinned two of the opposing players, and allowed my friend to escape.  Of course, I was toast, but back to the present discussion, I think it makes my point: whether you are a 'Weekend Warrior' or a hardened sociopath, having someone *shoot back *adds a whole new dynamic to the situation.





jks9199 said:


> It's easy to develop an "invincibility" mindset, since the pellets/paintballs/marker rounds don't do much more than sting...  Good trainers can offset that.)



So these two very telling posts begin to close in on the heart of the mystery, in a sense: given that you're dealing with a complete, pathological nutter (as in the VaTech situation), what is the likelihood that shooting back would have dampened his enthusiasm for committing mass murder? That's not a rhetorical question!! I have no clue what the answer is, but it's central to the question posed by the thread. What Ninjamom is getting at, I think, is that when someone else's life is at stake, you are willing to step up, even though you may still find it very difficult to actually target the attacker with lethal (or simulated lethal) force; and in doing so, you change the game for the attacker to a certain degree. Is it enough to get them to stop? Hard to say, but as jks points out, simulation can only take you so far...

I have no idea what the answer to the question is. My _guess_ is that since Cho (on the basis of the stuff he had mailed out and apparently expected to be received by school officials after his death) seems to have been suicidal to begin with, he may very well have continued, guns blazing, rather than backed down the way someone concerned with self-preservation would, if there had been return fire. I don't really know. There are so many unknowns, in fact, that the more I think about it the less confidence I have in _any_ particular scenario I can come up with involving an armed defender.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 29, 2007)

exile said:


> So these two very telling posts begin to close in on the heart of the mystery, in a sense: given that you're dealing with a complete, pathological nutter (as in the VaTech situation), what is the likelihood that shooting back would have dampened his enthusiasm for committing mass murder? That's not a rhetorical question!! I have no clue what the answer is, but it's central to the question posed by the thread. What Ninjamom is getting at, I think, is that when someone else's life is at stake, you are willing to step up, even though you may still find it very difficult to actually target the attacker with lethal (or simulated lethal) force; and in doing so, you change the game for the attacker to a certain degree. Is it enough to get them to stop? Hard to say, but as jks points out, simulation can only take you so far...
> 
> I have no idea what the answer to the question is. My _guess_ is that since Cho (on the basis of the stuff he had mailed out and apparently expected to be received by school officials after his death) seems to have been suicidal to begin with, he may very well have continued, guns blazing, rather than backed down the way someone concerned with self-preservation would, if there had been return fire. I don't really know. There are so many unknowns, in fact, that the more I think about it the less confidence I have in _any_ particular scenario I can come up with involving an armed defender.



While I stated earlier I believe that an armed person could have changed the out come, I understand the point exile is making here. While bouncing you realize the ones that are not sane or on drugs and you need help with versus those who might be intimadated or reasoned with. I unfortunately have a couple of encounters with weapons and I was lucky to not get hurt by the firearms. The situations I were in were different. I would have to be there to state what I absolutely would have done. Yet, I know from experience even unarmed I have done things to control and limit the possible damage to others by firearms and other weapons. My expectation is that I would have reacted given the chance. An older story comes to mind of this guy who stopped in the left hand turn entrance the CIA and got of his car and then went down the row just shooting the people in the cars behind him. No one backed their car up and tried to run him over. No one tried to jump out of the car. They just sat their and waited to get shot. Now I as not there, but I have a real hard time understanding this. I wonder if the class targeted was chosen for a reason other than being mad at someone, but from profiling of those who attended the class. 

Peace
:asian:


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 29, 2007)

exile said:


> So these two very telling posts begin to close in on the heart of the mystery, in a sense: given that you're dealing with a complete, pathological nutter (as in the VaTech situation), what is the likelihood that shooting back would have dampened his enthusiasm for committing mass murder? That's not a rhetorical question!!



Well... It's absolutely certain that his "enthusiasm" would have been completely dampened, IF the people shooting back were on target...

Would the possibilty of armed defenders have done anything?  I don't know.  This guy was messed up from way, way back.  Would it deter some people?  Maybe, maybe not.  There are just too many variables.


----------



## Monadnock (Apr 29, 2007)

If responding with guns would not have helped, why do the police arrive with them?


----------



## Ninjamom (Apr 29, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> If responding with guns would not have helped, why do the police arrive with them?


I think no one is doubting that guns and the ability to return fire change the equation.  The major point of the last page-and-a-half of posts, however, is that having a gun *present* is a world of difference from having a gun and *using it* with skill and lethal intent (which would be required for the gun to benefit the safety of anyone else present).


----------



## exile (Apr 29, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> I think no one is doubting that guns and the ability to return fire change the equation.  The major point of the last page-and-a-half of posts, however, is that having a gun *present* is a world of difference from having a gun and *using it* with skill and lethal intent (which would be required for the gun to benefit the safety of anyone else present).



That's it in a nutshell, NJM.

We imagine a best-case scenario: shooter turns up, starts firing; armed defender is present, produces weapon, nails shooter, no collateral damage. But there is a whole pack of a cards here, each of which has an alternative, not-so-best case scenario described on it. Of course, _if_ the best case is the actual one, then the question is answered. But an alternative way of posing the poll question is, what is the likelihood that a non-best case scenario developed instead. 

In view of how horrible the actual situation turned out, it's hard not to think, well, _anything_ had to have been better than what happened. But the question being asked is, `would it have made a significant difference'. And in view of the kinds of considerations that have be taken into account based on Ninjamom's story of her paintball experience, Rich's observations about having to actually _be_ there in order to say what will happen, and similar excellent points made in-thread,along with the Grossman-type results on the predictablility of forceful response in live-fire military combat situationsI can't see any justification at this point for concluding that the best-case I described above is a shoo-in. So going strictly by what the OP is asking for, it's pretty hard to say _anything_ in response that you'd be confident enough about to bet the farm on...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 1, 2007)

While it may seem cold, this piece has some interesting points that I agree with:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

Excerpt: 


> We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom&#8217;s security blanket. Geraldo-like &#8220;protection&#8221; is a delusion: when something goes awry &#8212; whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus &#8212; the state won&#8217;t be there to protect you. You&#8217;ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:
> 
> When we say &#8220;we don&#8217;t know what we&#8217;d do under the same circumstances&#8221;, we make cowardice the default position.
> 
> I&#8217;d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 1, 2007)

Ok, I voted yes, but I feel this poll is far to limited. It only allows for yes or no, there's no option to choose possibly, probably, or probably not. I think there's a distinct possibility that someone who was armed might have been able to influence the sequence of events here, but I don't think it's a sure thing. Is it possible that someone with a weapon could have stopped him? Maybe, but I think that it would require serious resolve. I don't think this would have been resolved the way some school shootings have been in the past where there was armed resistance and the shooter simply surrendered. This guy was there to do a job, and he was well into it. He would have to be taken down. Just pointing a gun at him wouldn't have done the trick. So, the poll in my opinion is misleading. Could an armed student have changed the course of history, maybe, but not merely by virtue of being armed. An unarmed student might have stopped this as well, if he or she had been willing to die and actively aggressed upon the shooter.

-Rob


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 1, 2007)

"A rifle is only a tool. It is the hard heart that kills."-Full Metal Jacket


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 1, 2008)

This is a thread that that is worth bringing up again, in light of the recent shootings the past few months....


----------



## Doc_Jude (Mar 1, 2008)

Appalachian School of Law Shooting


----------

