Would Guns Have Prevented The Shooting?

[Grenadier]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Latest Zogby poll over gun control after this horrendous incident.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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]

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

 

[Blotan Hunka]

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]

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

 

[exile]

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—and that has to mean, potential for uncontrolled violence—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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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—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.

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]

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

 

[BrandiJo]

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]

.....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]

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.