All these topics already covered, especially that there is no evidence showing someone else carrying a gun would have been a positive in the firefight. Too late, old now.

Dune wrote: All these topics already covered, especially that there is no evidence showing someone else carrying a gun would have been a positive in the firefight. Too late, old now.

Anyways, Dune, I dont see why you're so convinced that if a CCW holder had been present it would have either have made no difference or made matters worse. Even if the odds are that a person with a gun would have not been able to prevent some amount of bloodshed(although I still dont see how you're drawing that conclusion) the odds of a CCW holder doing anything about it are exactly zero when nobody can carry. The logic you're using to justify your position just doesn't seem even close to concrete. Think about it, in a situation such as this, if a CCW holder were to engage the shooter early on and fire an entire magazine and every single shot managed to kill an innocent bystander, but he still managed to drop the shooter the death toll would have been lower. Even if the CCW holder got blown away, if he could prolong a firefight long enough for the shooter to dump a few rounds even that might reduce the overall death toll due to the shooter wasting time and ammunition.

I dont see how someone with a CCW engaging a shooter who's trying to maximize casulties by executing unarmed students could make the situation a hell of a lot worse. I mean, anything short of laying face down on the floor waiting for him to come over and shoot you in the back of the head seems like it would improve your chance of survival.

Just because there was one instance of it working does not mean it would be the same. Therefore, being pro-guns on college campuses is just as much idiotic rhetort right now as being anti-gun. Get into a situation like that, then come tell me how you reacted.

Dune wrote: Just because there was one instance of it working does not mean it would be the same. Therefore, being pro-guns on college campuses is just as much idiotic rhetort right now as being anti-gun. Get into a situation like that, then come tell me how you reacted.

Yes, it has been stated many many times now that human instinct will kick in and the person may not act. But just as rednekk said, I still fail to see how an armed person could have made the situation any worse. And the one instance is pretty significant, considering that there have only been a few college shootings, and during one of them an armed person happen to be present and was able to control the situation.

I blame immigration!!!! nah not really

Woooowww...As much as I agree with both sides...I think that things could have gone different if more guns were there...cause lets face it people with guns does not really equal intelligent, if we have one tard who has a gun but is completely ignorant to accuracy and the use of his gun all he has done is be shot and add to the anger of the shoot

The other side of this would be someone who actually is good with a gun and takes him out...but then there are legal things and conspiracy crap and that could would never live down shooting someone else, and that would be a bad situation...so either way nothing good was coming out of that situation...

I think that we just need stricter background checks on people buying guns because do tend to give it to any retard who wants one (given no criminal record or psychotic tendencies)...

Kristofer wrote: my only concern is this. if you are going ninja style and you are carrying a concealed weapon. then someone starts shooting. so you shoot that person. well here in Mass. youre pretty much screwed. you cant use your weapon to defend anything. so unless more states are like new hampshire or something where you are able to use your weapon in defense of yourself or others, i dont see the whole if everyone is packing heat thing crime will stop or slow down because they are afraid of being shot. its just not possible. i'm all for gun rights and what not. but gun rights only go so far when states screw on them.

Of course it will depend on the laws of your jurisdiction... But when all is said and done, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six- and I'm not sure if I could live with some things on my conscience if it was within my ability to stop it and I didn't...

Kristofer wrote: my only concern is this. if you are going ninja style and you are carrying a concealed weapon. then someone starts shooting. so you shoot that person. well here in Mass. youre pretty much screwed. you cant use your weapon to defend anything. so unless more states are like new hampshire or something where you are able to use your weapon in defense of yourself or others, i dont see the whole if everyone is packing heat thing crime will stop or slow down because they are afraid of being shot. its just not possible. i'm all for gun rights and what not. but gun rights only go so far when states screw on them.

Dune, again, we don't know whether or not a CCW holder could have made a difference since there weren't any there. Your assumption that it would not have made any difference is simply that, an assumption. There are too many different variables that we can never know, but I don't think thats a reason to be against CCW. Your preferred policy was in place at the time this occured and I cant see how that made it any better. At least with CCW there is a chance. From what we do know about this case, resistance did work. Several people did manage to keep the shooter out of the classroom and did act under pressure, at least one of these people had already been shot and definatly did not freeze. When a killer is trying to push his way through a door even a can of mace could have disrupted him significantly. Since he was already on a shooting rampage I'm going to make an assumption that it would have been difficult to piss him off more and inflame the situation.

Even where CCW are legal, few people actually carry. CCW hasn't been proven to increase or decrease crime, so why deny people the option?

Again, the assumption that CCW holders would not be able to react under the stress of the situation cant be a blanket statement. There are probably several hundred thousand Iraq and Afgahnistan vets out there who've been in high stress situations and have good training. I'd say there is probably one in half of my classes, and several with purple hearts.

I'll make a deal with you dune. If you dont assume any CCW holder would muck the situation up completely, I won't assume he'd run towards the gunfire and double tap the shooter in the head.

Kristofer wrote: my only concern is this. if you are going ninja style and you are carrying a concealed weapon. then someone starts shooting. so you shoot that person. well here in Mass. youre pretty much screwed. you cant use your weapon to defend anything. so unless more states are like new hampshire or something where you are able to use your weapon in defense of yourself or others, i dont see the whole if everyone is packing heat thing crime will stop or slow down because they are afraid of being shot. its just not possible. i'm all for gun rights and what not. but gun rights only go so far when states screw on them.

rednekk98 wrote: I'd rather tell it to the judge than St. Peter....

/agree

Think of it this way, how would have putting another person who had a firearm, regardless of how trained or experienced he was with it, made the situation worse than it already was?

Sure, it might have made the shooter angrier, but heck, he's allready popping people left and right, you don't get much worse than that.

You could argue that it might give the shooter more ammunition, but the shooter (in this case) already had enough ammunition to start a small war, (which he did), would another 10 rounds made it that much worse?

At best the shooter is incapacitated and less people die, at the worst, one of the people who died, died trying to defend himself rather than cowering on the floor.

Laws dont matter, if your going to go shoot somebody, chances are you dont really care about going into a "Gun-Free Zone". This guy most likely planned on killing himself before capture. So what does putting more restrictions on those of us who own guns and use them lawfully. It doesn't help.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: And as far as the people who cry that they should have shut the campus down after the first one, that much is silly. Campuses for colleges are not meant to be locked down. They are built and designed to be free and open to the public. You cannot just shuffle out that many people at once.

I'll admit, I was in that camp at first, basing my thoughts on the fact that with this day and age, as soon as something like a shooting goes down, institutions usually lock up tighter than first night. Schools practice lockdown drills, emergency evacuation drills, and so on.

But after the initial shock of the whole mess faded away, you're absolutely right. Locking down an entire college campus is something that is damn near impossible to do. I did think that someone, somewhere along the lines boggled something up, but in retrospect, it looks like protocol and SOP were done right along the lines of how they were supposed to......there isn't anyone to blame or at fault here other than the guy who pulled the trigger.  

Actually *securing* a college campus would be a very daunting tactical proposition. You're talking about a LOT of people to maintain even a decent perimeter; never mind search teams and the like.

The best you can do is give those currently 'in charge' of a given room the appropriate key to lock it from the inside.

Really all you can do is enact target hardening measures- make it easier for those inside to lock themselves in and bunker up. Bulletproof windows in doors, etc...

There's no easy way, when all is said and done.

oldsoldier wrote: Isreal, and Switzerland have one of the lowest violent criminal act rates in the world, why, because everyone and every home has a gun and people are trained to use it

Selective data much?

Besides, I have discovered the real reason for the VT shootings:  http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/17/the-inevitable-attack-on-science/ - Teaching evolution in school .

Tae Kwon Do wrote: The rest is nasty swamp.

True ... but it's OUR swamp. ... and it's got two Taco Bell outlets ...

Ever been to Rocky Creek Paintball? It's just south of Gainesville on Archer road.

*glances around*

*ahem*

Anyway ... all this media harping over gun control and VT isn't going to fix the problem ... won't do any good until all the details come to light.

I havn't. Its like a meeting of Florida residents in this thread now... 904 kids.

Oh snap ... you're right ...

*edit*

Hold the phone ... you came up 441 to UF ... most of Gainesville is to the north and west of UF ... you saw the city, but you certainly didn't see all of it.

.Ryan wrote: I'll go with ya here OS, even though you complained about politicizing this like 2 sentences after you did just that. And Whale, I think you've accomplished the impossible. You changed my mind about the whole "shoulda locked it down" thing....

A call came into Va Tech police today threatening the life of their President. It came in due to the amount of criticism on the President's actions during the situation. Yet another scare for a campus and town that does not need it.

Enos Shenk wrote: What the hell does "lock it down" even do? If the shooter is in a building blasting people, and you "lock it down", nobody can escape. Thats a big GG, Houston. What a stupid buzzword... Locking down a building is useful for grade-schools, to prevent the kids from wandering off. If some gun-toting maniac REALLY wants to get into a building to shoot people, dont you think he might just break a window?

Make schools bulletproof?

How is the war on terror, so Iraq can go to school?

Columbine Massacre - The School Schooting of April 20, 1999

How about we fight the war on terror in our own schools?

 

-------------
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

I understand why you think we should allow CCW on campuses and such, but I will continue to believe that making the assumption that someone else on the scene with a firearm would have ended the situation sooner. That puts way too much credibility on one story that was dug up and gives false hopes to something that cannot be proven. It's dangerous to make an assumption like that. However, as a disclaimer I am not saying that just sitting under a desk would have solved the situation either. Some forumers have selective reading and fail to get to those parts. I am saying that there are too many people giving automatic credit to something that is has no ability to be tested now and would be different in every situation. A blanket statement such as this does not account for many possibilities among both the shooter and the person with the CCW.

I also agree with Tae that there is an influx of internet badassery since this situation. Most of it coming from people that have never been in an actual life threatening situation.

Dune wrote: I understand why you think we should allow CCW on campuses and such, but I will continue to believe that making the assumption that someone else on the scene with a firearm would have ended the situation sooner. That puts way too much credibility on one story that was dug up and gives false hopes to something that cannot be proven. It's dangerous to make an assumption like that. However, as a disclaimer I am not saying that just sitting under a desk would have solved the situation either. Some forumers have selective reading and fail to get to those parts. I am saying that there are too many people giving automatic credit to something that is has no ability to be tested now and would be different in every situation. A blanket statement such as this does not account for many possibilities among both the shooter and the person with the CCW. I also agree with Tae that there is an influx of internet badassery since this situation. Most of it coming from people that have never been in an actual life threatening situation.

I'll ask again, since noone seemed to notice the first time.

Had YOU been in one of those classrooms, would you or would you not have preferred to have in your posession a firearm, with the basic knowledge of how to use it. Please just answer that.

Scenario#1  -  Badguy Shooter walks into a restaurant and begins shooting. No CCW or any armed citizens.

• Outcome-1 - People start diving under tables and heading for doors. Some get out. Most don't. Badguy Shooter walks down the isles picking off people in the booths and tables.

Scenario#2  -  Badguy Shooter walks into a restaurant and begins shooting. CCW and/or armed citizens present.

• Outcome-1 - People start diving under tables and heading for doors. Some get out. Most don't. Badguy Shooter walks down the isles picking off people in the booths. You can't guarantee safety with a CCW. Some people are bound to be dead due to Badguy Shooter taking the initiative. The CCW or armed citizen may have been sitting by the door and was first to go... So Outcome-1 remains viable.
• Outcome-2 - CCW or armed citizen returns fire and drops Badguy Shooter.
• Outcome-3 - CCW or armed citizen returns fire and Badguy Shooter flees the area.

Personally I like having the possibility of three different outcomes vs. the one bad one.

brihard wrote: Had YOU been in one of those classrooms, would you or would you not have preferred to have in your posession a firearm, with the basic knowledge of how to use it. Please just answer that.

I'm not Dune, but I'll answer anyway:

Of course I would rather have a firearm - but that is not the correct question to ask.  The purpose of firearm policy is not to make individuals FEEL safer/more powerful/cooler/whatever.

What I would REALLY have liked to have in this circumstance would be an M4/M203 and maybe a flame thrower, but that doesn't mean we should allow those on campus.

My personal desires may not be completely irrelevant, but nor are they particularly informative.

Rock Slide wrote: Scenario#1  -  Badguy Shooter walks into a restaurant and begins shooting. No CCW or any armed citizens. Scenario#2  -  Badguy Shooter walks into a restaurant and begins shooting. CCW and/or armed citizens present.

But you are forgetting Scenario #3 and Scenario #4:

Scenario #3:

Bad guy walks into restaurant and brandishes firearm.  No CCW present.

Outcome:  Bad guy never wanted to shoot anybody.  After a 6-hour standoff, bad guy goes to jail and everybody else goes home safely.

Scenario #4:

Bad guy walks into restaurant and brandishes firearm.  One or more CCW present.

Outcome 1:  CCW people disable/kill bad guy.  Everybody is safe and happy (except bad guy, of course).

Outcome 2:  CCW people pull out weapons.  Bad guy, who wasn't planning on shooting before, now starts shooting like crazy.  Bad guy and multiple innocents are killed.

It can be difficult to tell Scenario 1/2 from Scenario 3/4 until the shooting starts - that's the bad news.  The good news is that Scenario 3/4 is VASTLY more common, at least in the US, than Scenario 1/2.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: It seems that the NRA drones struck first on this one, proclaiming that only if someone had a CCW this would have never happened.

Agreed.

Tactical error by the anti-gun folks to focus on the "hi-cap mags" issue out of the blocks, instead of simply observing that the shooter had "gun anybody can buy".

They shot themselves in the foot on that one.

ShortyBP wrote: Clark Kent wrote: VCDL? http://www.vcdl.org/ - http://www.vcdl.org/

Ah.

Interesting website.  Their list of "unfriendly businesses" made me wonder - has there ever been a study done of gun crimes committed in guns-permitted stores/restaurants vs gun-not-permitted stores/restaurants?

Seems like such a study could avoid many of the usual confounds, since each city/area could be evaluated separately.  I.e., when living in a generally pro-gun area, do criminals seek out gun-free "islands" in which to commit crimes?

I would be interested in such an evaluation.

Hades wrote: There have been numerous police shootings where even those that are given the authority to shoot, make mistakes. Why wouldn't the average Joe, with little or no training be any better at assessing situation, targets, and threats. I dont think the largest issue is hitting the target.

You are very correct, sadly there are many police shootings in which the officer was either in the wrong or did not do what he was trained to do.