Would Guns Have Prevented The Shooting?

[Bigshadow]

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]

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]

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]

This just in:



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



Let the finger pointing begin.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

The Roanoke Times
January 31, 2006
By Greg Esposito
381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right
to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the
General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia,
Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the
first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on
behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable
Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat
other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was
defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the
General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students,
faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because
he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other
than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon
entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public
universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from
lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic
events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training
programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a
handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun
owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia
Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy
reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and
prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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

 

[Lisa]

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]

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