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.
Would Guns Have Prevented The Shooting?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Bad question
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Good point! Same thing with an air marshall. Having armed people may not totally solve the problem, but it could be a help.
kidswarrior
Senior Master
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
).
Now, feel free to blast away at me :shock: (no pun intended, but it's not bad, either
).
OUMoose
Trying to find my place
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.
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.
KenpoTex
Senior Master
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
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.
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
Purple Belt
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
2nd Black Belt
Agreed!
LawDog
Master Black Belt
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.
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.
This is an important point for any civilian to understand.
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.
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.
