I hope no MBers are affected.

If you haven't heard, a campus shooting. 20 confirmed dead, at least 20 injured.

Another tragic example of man's inhamity toward man. Horrible...and for what??? Speculation at this point is gunman was looking for his GF. I pray for those families.

32 dead. 29 injured.

There were 50 cops on campus after the first shooting....2 hours later the shooter killed 31 more...

How could that have happened?

I was on that campus once when I was stationed in VA. If memory serves, it's large and spread out. Fifty cops would have no chance of controlling the entire campus; five hundred might, but it would be iffy. Also, a weapon fired inside one building couldn't possibly heard inside another building on the other side of the campus.

It wouldn't be that hard for the guy to stuff a gun in his jacket and walk calmly out of the first building and saunter to the opposite end of the campus. What draws attention is a person, or persons, running, behaving strangely, etc. Avoid that, and an individual fades into the background.

What truly concerns me are the reports some number of the students kneeled down in a row and the killer walked down the line executing them. What a pity there was no one there to yell, "Let's roll," a la Flight 93.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Just heartbreaking. Honest to God.

This is a nightmare. My DD who is in the Air Force and stationed oversees right now has several close friends who are students there. Also several children from my Church attend school there.

The students at the campus where I work gets very aggressive, rebellious and arrogant from time to time when they experience difficulty in succeeding to force their will and ridiculous requests on management. During such times they start to“toi-toi” and act violent. There has been many incidents in the past during such occasions where they have caused serious damage to the institution’s property; staff’s personal property (vehicles) and has put staff and uninvolved students life in danger and threatened them. I know of at least two incidents on this campus where the staff members were threatened with a pistol or knife and were held hostage in an office or class room. Now, my fear (and the expressed fear of other personnel at this campus) is that the incidents on the campus in Virginia, might encourage or serve as an aggressor for similar behavior at campuses in our country and/or other countries some time.

Just stopping by for a moment. I'm a VT alum. It's a beautiful and tranquil place. Many of my classes were in Norris Hall. This event sends chills down my spine.

Now I'm glad my son chose to attend William & Mary and pursue pre-med rather than engineering at VT. Otherwise, he may have been in Norris Hall yesterday morning. But, I have former classmates with children enrolled there now.

WAT

I know this might not be popular with some...but the presidents of the universities in Virginia helped get the General Assembly to vote down a bill that would have allowed those with concealed carry permits to also carry on campus (Virginia allows concealed carry by permit in most places in Virginia).

I guarantee that if some other folks (the GOOD guys) had been armed when this went down, then there wouldnt be 32 dead. My oldest son is looking towards VT when he graduates (he wants to go into engineering). If he was there (and armed), I guarantee that this guy would have gotten off no more than three rounds before my son would have put him down. I have trained all of my kids on the proper use (and safety) of firearms.

Some folks say "well, these are kids...we cant let them have weapons." Oh, really?? But I regularly handed wepaon, ammo, bombs, tanks, etc to 18-20 year olds all the time in the military. And they do just fine!

Also, it wasnt long ago that kids owned their own firearms and could come home from school and go hunting. Drive to many high schools around Blacksburg, VA (which is where VT is located) and you can see gun racks and guns sitting in the back windows of trucks. These kids go to school, and many times head off into the hills and woods of Virginia to hunt or target practice. And up until the last 30-40 years...there wasnt a problem.

So, either we are raising kids today that dont have the maturity of the kids 100 years ago...or we are babying them.

Anyway, my rant is over now. I just wanted to point out that if the General Assembly had allowed concealed carry of weapons on campus, then this situation could have been avoided. At least, the students and faculty would have had a fighting chance!

MM.. not for nothing... but while they may not have been 32 dead in this circumstance... and that is speculation...over the years there would certainly be (also speculation) a combined total of significantly more than 32 by arming more students.

I can tell you as someone that worked the streets of Philadelphia... murder capital of the world... that more guns is NOT the answer.

Oh.... and there are times MM that your views certainly confuse me. You are obviously very much in favor of what you would consider a strict adherence to the constitution...remember, the document written by slave owners...BUT I thought you answered to a higher power...and I find it inconceivable to think that Christ would suggest that arming students would be the answer to these types of problems.

the answer here is that that school should have been in a total lockdown until they were SURE that there was no more danger. They speculated and the second incident was allowed to happen as a result. But in all reality... this man could have gone on a rampage in his dorm just as easily during a lockdown. It is just a sad situation.

Guns arent the problem in Philadelphia!

I do answer to a higher power. Where in Scripture does it say self-defense isnt authorized? Where does it say that the military isnt authorized?

God even authorized the killing of entire villages by Israel. So, I dont think God is against killing. He is against murder!

Such a horrible si2ation.

I wish that "murder suicide" perpetrators would start with the suicide, instead.

There's no accountability, once the murderer has removed himself.

...or is there? Wrongful death suits against the murderer's surviving family or guardians, perhaps? A deterrent for fu2re such si2ations?

Maybe we all should be required 2 bear arms at all times?

Maybe tactical nukes?

-ol' 2long

Maybe! But, have you ever been to VT. It is a small city. Want to try to shut down a small city in a two hour time frame? Aint gonna happen!

Added to the fact was that this lowlife was a student. He would have easily slipped from the dorm where he killed his girlfriend and RA, back into the university population and then proceeded to his next intended target spot (Norris Hall) before the police even arrived at the dorm. And there, he could wait until he decided to strike again. In the meantime, the students get locked down (which would work out great for him running thru the halls and going into classrooms and shooting people).

I agree that notice should have been given earlier. It would have saved soem students from even arriving at the campus. But that would not have stopped the shootings at Norris Hall.

The only thing that would have stopped those shootings would have been someone putting a few rounds into this guy.

Interesting...and I've got to agree with MM, as another ex-combat vet myself.

I was wondering how he managed to kill even 32 unarmed people. After talking it through with a friend, all I can think of is that the vast majority became so afraid they went into paralysis, like a rabbit or deer does.

It surprises me that he killed that many, even though they were unarmed. A bullet isn't an automatic kill. I've seen people who were shot several times still get up and run, or continue to fight for a considerable time. I was a bit surprised that he killed that many without someone disarming him before succumbing to their wounds.

And I agree with MM...it was exactly for THIS kind of reason the constitution allows for the 'right to bear arms'. Making guns illegal just means that the criminals will continue to use them. A single, trained person at the right place at the right time armed with an appropriate weapon could have ended this nearly before it began.

I'm with 2Long on this. I blame the shooter, and his parents. Kids dont get like this without something going wrong at home. And either they were bad parents...or had a bad kid, which they let out into society! If I thought any of my kids were a danger to society...they would have to worry about me! No way I end up being that parent of a kid that does this.

Ever read the backgrounds on these "winners?" Parents that are never there or are abusive. Parents that arent involved. Drug use and alcohol use. All of these murderers had home lives that werent right.

As a military guy for over twenty years, I can tell you that I saw first hand how parents are failing many of their kids. I had these young men show up and were clueless about many things. I ended up having to teach them things momma and daddy should have done.

As I said, if all the good guys were armed, this wouldnt happen!

And...remember, we all used to carry around weapons all the time before this society got all soft. We think we can count on police to protect us. Wrong. Most often, the police arrive after the fact...after the damage is done.

It is not the universities or the police or the president or the governor or anyone else's responsibility to protect my family.

It is mine.

i agree with MM on this one.

MM... your experience as a combat vet does NOT translate into any expertise on the streets of our country. And YES MM, guns are the problem in Philly... too many of them out there... and it is a VERY easy city to get a permit to carry. Very easy.

You wouldn't have to arm ALL the students...just allow the ones who wanted to carry a gun to carry one.

~ Marsh

Precisely Owl.

LMAO..... yeah and that was a lawful and safe society huh MM? Heck, we used to string up blacks on an oak tree before we got all soft too. Heck, if we had never gotten soft, that Chonese man would not have been in this country top begin with!

I don't know if bearing arms is the answer. I tenk to agree with MEDC on this.

I too grew up in a military family. Used to go to the Rod and Gun club with my dad and shoot skeets, as a little girl. But as I grew up I became scared of guns. My dad gave me one when I was in college and I ended up giving it back to him because it gave me the heebie jeebies.

I became a broker instead of an officer at the border because I would not/could not carry a gun.

My bothers and I got rid of a $30,000. gun collection my dad owned when he died, because we all refuse to have guns in the house.

What's the answer? For people who don't like guns, who are not capable of violence.

My daughter would not be able to carry a gun, nor to use it. She would be laying on the ground in shock with the rest of the dead/hurt students, no doubt.

How horribly, unbelievably wasteful and sad. All those bright young kids, and their loving, proud families...left to live in devastation and grief. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I agree with MM on this too! Even if we could teach our kids that to cower in fear letting some insane person decide our fate is wrong, how do we teach them to evaluate the situation, look for their best way out and take it. Rush the guy? jump out the window? For darn sure pull my own gun and unload it on him. Aim for the body. No guilt there.

Have several coworkers with children there, they all called by cell phone yesterday thank God. Prayers for all those who couldn't and their families.

FTS

My son and I had a talk about this yesterday... I told him I want him to be safe... but to never give in to this type of stuff... that if death is ineveitable for you or others... die a hero. If five people rushed this guy... some would surely die...but I guarantee you that the carnage would not have been as bad. Fear becomes paralyzing to some...even those trained to handle situations. This is all just so sad.

Didnt say it did! I was talking about how these kids show up clueless because parents fail them.


Again, a gun does nothing. I used to hand guns to 18 year olds (some 17 year olds) everyday. And none of them killed anyone!

I used to be asigned by the military to ATF. I was a liason. I helped study the gun problem in Washington, DC. Guess what?/ The guns are NOT the problem! Easy access is NOT the problem. We could get rid of the 2nd Amendment today and the bad guys will still get guns! It just means the good guys get to be lined up and shot execution style because they have no ability to fight back.

We have had guns since this nation began. We didnt have this kind of problem!

Let's try a little experiment. Let's go into Philly, and require every person to wear either a t-shirt that says "I'm armed" or say "I'm unarmed." And also require a poster be put on every house that says "Armed residents inside" or have a poster that says "gun free zone."

Let's do that for a year! Wanna bet the bad guys dont try to enter the house that is packing? Want to bet that the bad guys dont try to take on the guy who is carrying his S&W 357 mag?

The problem in Philly is a societal one...NOT the weapons! it is one parent families...and the poverty brought on by that. it is the lack of religious and moral upbringing. It is extremely bad schools.

But the biggest problem is at home! It is the parents!

As I said, I studied this problem for almost ten years. I have written reports that have gone straight to Congress and the White House.

And I can tell you...guns are NOT the problem!

True, Marshmallow!

Huh?

This reminds me of the shooting at a mall near Salt Lake City around Christmas time. Some nut job opens fire at the mall. No on duty cops around. Well an off duty cop from another town was there having dinner with his wife. Yes he was armed. This one man was able to corner this nut job until more on duty cops showed up. Saved many people IMO. More of us “good” guys need to be able to carry if we wanted, not just the cops.

Very sad Weaver! And as I said above (and Marshmallow stated)...someone that doesnt want to have a gun, shouldnt be required to!

True MEDC!

I don't think people are being fair 2 the victims here.

I've already heard of a couple of acts of heroism on the news.

Try 2 imagine the difficulty of rushing someone with 2 free hands with 2 guns, at the front of a classroom with rows of desks between you and the gunman. Like running an obstacle course under fire?

-ol' 2long

As I said, if my oldest had attended and been allowed to carry, here is what I know would have happened...

Due to the training I have given him in marksmanship, safety and in tactics, my son would have had the kids in the class barricade themselves as best they could. He would then have taken up an overwatch position and laid in wait for this loser to show up. And as soon as that guy would have rounded the corner, he would have assumed room temperature.

My son also couldnt believe that no one rushed this guy. But I can tell you one thing. I like better shooting one round into that guy, instead of charging unarmed at him!

I'd like a tactical nuke.

-ol' 2long

True, 2Long! The only issue I had is when this guy had some of these kids line up. No way I am going to be lined up...I know what is going to happen next. So do my sons and my daughter. If I line up, he has a staionary target. And I'm dead. If I and others rush him, he has a moving target. And the odds are better that most of us will come out alive.

But again...one bullet by a well trained student or faculty member would have ended this!

Not me. Too hard to clean!

I heard this from a coworker yes2rday at lunch. But I've not heard it on the news. Did this really happen? I haven't watched all the news, so I may have missed it.

-ol' 2long

Praise the Lord. And yes, prayers have been said here for those families and for the wounded.

MM,

Most of us civilians aren't trained to respond to situations like this....when it happens, we have a hard time wrapping our minds around the fact that it is really happening. That is why people freeze....I think there is just utter disbelief swirling around in their heads....who can act when you are trying to come to grips with reality, when you haven't been trained for that?

As if that isn't sad enough, I read in the paper this morning that a sweet little kindergarden girl was killed when the school's flagpole fell on her as her class was outside playing during recess.

I just want to cry today.


NOW

Dont know if they have revised this. They said all day yesterday that many were killed "execution style." I guess we will know as more info comes out.

Just like when someone pulls a gun or knife on you in a public parking lot and tells you he will kill you if you don't go with him...

My DD and I have had several conversations regarding this. If he is nuts enough to approach you in public, imagine what he will do when he gets you alone somewhere?

Better to take your chances in the very beginning, because you have NO chance once he gets you alone.

Maybe schools should start having "assault" practices, right along with fire drill practices.

Very true, NOW!! That is why my children not only have been taught marksmanship and safety...but also tactics. I have taught them to react to a given situation. Such as, when they hear an explosion or something like gunfire, they now instinctually get down and seek cover. They dont have to think about it. They have also been taught to seek an egress route. To seek safety if possible.

Then, if cornered, they are taught to shoot to kill.

These are invaluable skills they have learned...because they would be better prepared for these types of things.

Now, I know many parents wont (or cant) teach their kids these skills. So, I really have no problem with them being taught in a class (kinda like drivers ed) all of this stuff before they would be given a carry permit.

But, at the end of the day...it is up to us parents to teach them how to handle these situations. We train them early on when there is a fire in the house or building. And what to do. We should also train them how to react to situations such as these...because they will never go away entirely.

And I refuse to let my children be victims!


Me too!

I'm thinking this would be a good idea....sad that it has to be this way, but schools used to have drills to train kids what to do in case of a nuclear bomb, so why not?

Things aren't gonna get any better, are they?

Exactly right Weaver!!

When Jesus returns! Not before then.

Maybe the military should off training to civilians? I would go!

And I am hoping that is sooner rather than later!

Many vets run services that train civilians in protection and how to react to situations.

Me too!! How about today?!?! That would be nice.

Will he be teaching self-defense classes in BF Goodrich sandals?

-ol' 2long

Nah. Last I heard, He is coming back with a sword in His hand.

Hmmm, I didn't know that!

I guess most people, me included, just always assume someone else will be able to protect them, and when they can't be everywhere at once, the authorities, police, military...whoever....gets blamed. So this has really woken me up to the sad fact, we all have to learn to protect ourselves, somehow!

I really would like to meet you someday, MM. You and I have a lot in common.

I'm another one of those military dads who taught my kids how to deal with whatever comes at them. All of my kids know how to cook, clean, and sew. Boys and girl. They all know how to hunt, fish, and trap. Boys and girl. All of them grew up learning the same kinds of things that you've talked about. Marksmanship, safety, etc... Situational awareness and assessment, single person and small group tactics. Let me tell you something...it's a BLAST to get me and my boys out on the paintball field!! They don't talk or yell. They don't need to. They either know what to do, or how to communicate with each other with just a few signals.

All of them are martial artists as well.

I agree with the comments about what would have happened if several people had rushed this guy at one time. And had any of them been a MA, it would have increased their odds of survival and success. But not to the degree that one person with a weapon and the knowledge and attitude to use it would have.

Someone made a comment earlier about how 'most civilians aren't trained to react like this'. And I agree, and honestly that's one reason why these situations result in such a high death rate. Most people just CANNOT respond in any fashion when faced with this kind of threat...unless they've truly considered it a possibility and were taught to deal with it.

Realize I'm NOT saying anything bad about those poor victims of this whole event, or their families. I grieve for them, and pray for them all. I wish that there HAD been someone there for them that day, that COULD have done something to end the violence before it got as far as it did.

I taught and trained my kids to handle themselves in a like situation...and I pray every day of my life that they'll never once need to use that training.

Just like being a soldier. Most civilians don't think about what it takes to train every day of your life to perfect skills to deal with a situation that you pray with all of your heart that you'll never have to face. I just wish that someone could have been there for these poor kids that day.

I'm never a fan of ignoring or glossing over something true because it does not fit my beliefs.

It's natural to look towards firearms when these kinds of events occur. A gun is a very powerful tool, and the requirements to get one are quite low. For example, when is the last time you read a headline "mad knife wielding student slays 33." Just as you can build a house faster with power tools than hand tools, you can kill more people with a gun.

Arguments that more guns would lower the body count don't seem to be borne out with empirical analysis and the logical arguments go both ways. Will total deaths go down because vigilantes take down the aggressor faster and will those same vigilantes deter violence? Or will the greater availability of guns make it more likely that someone has deadly force available when they get angry or snap?

All that said, the right to bear arms is necessary to protect us from the potential tyranny of our own government.

Sometimes liberty carries a very high price. It sure did yesterday.

It is true you can kill more people with a gun. The issue is, who has the guns? Bad people will always have them! Bad people dont obey gun laws! The only people obeying the gun laws are the good people. And the good people dont kill 32 students at a university.


Actually, empirical evidence shows that guns in the hands of the good actually result in less deaths and vilent crimes. And more bad guys assuming room temperature.


Of course! If someone had shot this guy in the first room he entered, he wouldnt have made it to the other ones!


Nah. Guns are already available to anyone that wants one. Bad guys can get them no matter what the laws are. Anyone remember the woman that took her car and ran over her husband several times with it when she caught him cheating on her? Anyone want to limit the sale of cars, because the availability means that a person who is angry or snaps can use it as a weapon?

How about fertilizer? Or gasoline? Or anything else that can be made into a bomb? Timothy McVey used that stuff and killed a lot of people! We want to ration all of these things because some looney will end up blowing something up?

How many of our freedoms will have to be given up until we feel safe? Personally, I am for taking away the bad guy's freedoms...namely his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Yes it does Mebe!!

Good points Owl! And good to see you showing your kids all of these things. I too hope they never have to use them!!

Sociologist John Lott conducted an exhaustive, 20-year study, and published his findings in the book "More Guns, Less Crime".

The evidence shows that when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns, the amount of gun violence drops. This holds true not only in low-crime suburban areas, but also in higher-crime inner city areas. In fact, the areas which previously had the highest crime rates demonstrate the greatest drop in gun violence rates.

There is no comparable study anywhere showing that gun control actually works.

In fact, gun violence in Britain is increasing at a very rapid pace, despite the fact that handguns are illegal over there.

Just a few empirical points...

All you gun nuts answer me this:

Why won't you apply the same logic to providing sex ed and birth control for your kids? Hmmmm? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Oh, because it'll "promote" sexual promiscuity? Yet teaching them how to use guns won't promote their non-lawful use?

WAT

Here we go again. Now there'll be another media blitz trying to convince everyone that we need more gun control...that it is the evil handgun that did this obscene act. There are already calls for the “assault weapons ban” to be reenacted into law. Never mind that law never did cover 9mm or 22mm pistols. Oh, how about passing a law against “large capacity clips?” That would have saved everyone, they’re saying.

Huh? How ignorant are these people? Making a killer change magazines (they aren't "clips," though a newspaper moron will never understand the difference) more often in his killing spree is the solution? Never mind too that the killer would simply ignore such a law or any numbers of new ones. Killers are, by definition, people who ignore laws! What is it that gun control advocates do not understand about that?

Come on, the guy who did this was the incarnation of pure evil. He hated America just as much as muslim terrorists do. The note this fool left railed against "rich kids" and "the debauchery" of America. He killed his girlfriend and then decided to get even with all those people who had more than he did (and whose girlfriends weren't leaving them behind?).

Face it. This guy was going to kill, and no additional gun control law would change that, but the gun control freaks will surely try to convince us it would. They won’t see that there are already laws against his ultimate act, murder, and the unlawful use of firearms. Is that not correct? This South Korean ignored that law. The Commonwealth of Virginia passed a law against carrying a weapon on campus. Did he comply with that? Come on. Think logically. How in the world can anyone believe another law against carrying a weapon would have had any effect on this deranged idiot whatsoever?

It wouldn’t, but that won’t stop gun control freaks and the media, among others, from trying to take legal weapons from the overwhelming majority of American gun owners who wouldn’t even think of committing a crime. Those law-abiding Americans want only to be able to DETER a crime. That’s why those Americans carry weapons, you know…to protect themselves against those who would commit crimes against them.

Think about it! Had any of those kids who lined up in that classroom (cooperating so nicely in their own murder) instead pulled out a weapon he/she was familiar with, trained to handle and proficient in its use…well, there’d be one more crazy guy dead on the floor waiting for the cops to arrive.

Mark that clearly. There aren’t enough cops in the world to protect every citizen every minute of every day. It isn’t even remotely possible. When there aren’t any police around, citizens must take on that responsibility for themselves. What could be clearer and simpler? The Second Amendment in the finest Constitution in the world was placed there for exactly that reason.

As for me, I’ll keep on carrying my gun with me wherever I go and I’ll use it to protect myself, my family, and others around me if, and when, the opportunity unfortunately comes my way. Like MM, Owl and others, I spent 26 years in uniform to protect this nation from foreign enemies. I can do no less for enemies of the domestic variety. For those who would have me stand meekly in a line waiting my turn to take a bullet in the brain, I have only contempt. That may be all right for them but, frankly, that’s not the American way.

(Edited to correct grammar.)

Huh?? (Mortarman scatches his head in confusion) Owning and firing a firearm is a lawful act in certain circumstances. A firearm is a tool...that is all. Sexual relations to anyone except between a husband and wife is illegal in Virginia. Why would I teach them to break the law?? And who said I wasnt providing my kid sex ed (I do that...not the school!!!). I also believe my kids are smart enough and have enough self respect to abstain from sex. They are not animals.


Teaching my kids how to use guns and when to use them teaches them the safe use of firearms in the right situations. I taught a lot of "kids" in the Army how to kill people and break their stuff. Doesnt mean they came back here and opened fire in the town square!

One more note...I have an analogy for all of those people who want just the police to be armed and for us to allow them to protect us.

What if this idiot had brought gasoline in and set the building on fire? Wanna ban gasoline from kids? Afterall, it is highly combustible!

Or even better...what if the building is on fire, but instead of teaching my kids how to escape or fight the fire, they just sit there balled up under their desks waiting for the firefighters to rescue them?

The first responsibility for safety is the individual person. Never abdicate that responsibility to anyone!

Salutes to MM!!! Agree with you 100% my friend!!!

I also grew up where boys went hunting after school...Had gunracks in their trucks...Heck, some had bumper stickers that read "You'll Have To Pry My Gun From My Cold Dead Fingers"...These kids were TRAINED from a very young age...My brother and all of his friends got BB guns for Christmas around the ages of 7 or 8...I grew up with hunting rifles in our coat closet...All of my friends did...NOBODY ever played with a gun...We RESPECTED guns, rules and laws, because we were TAUGHT to...

Our daughter attended a private preschool where parents scolded little boys for pretending their hands were "guns"...Guns were to be a BIG secret...When they tested our DD to be able to attend this school (at age 3), I'll never forget what transpired...They asked her the question, "What is something that you can shoot", our DD said "a gun"...The administrator giving the test frowned, looked at us and said "OR BASKETS"...OH PUHLEASE!!! GIMME A BREAK...How 'bout we live in REALITY???

Mrs. W

This is disgusting. I can still find no reports that anybody lined up 2 be executed. Rather, a number of people acted heroically. Un42nately, they're dead, and so their stories have yet 2 be told.

Please, lets respect the victims enough 2 refrain from making accusations that they aided their own murderer, when all the facts aren't yet in.
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

You Georgia redneck!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

2Long...all day yesterday, they did state that many were lined up execution style. That was the reports. Today, we are now hearing about some heros, like one of the professors. I am glad to hear that!

YUP...Card Carryin', Dyed in the Wool!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

Well, actually there ARE reports exactly that DID happen, but you have a point that I should wait until the whole story is in. Reporters are universally recognized for getting things wrong, aren’t they?

So, for the students in this event, substitute the people who sat in their booths in the MacDonalds in San Ysidro, California back in the 80s waiting for a crazed gunman to walk down the aisle and kill them. Or, you can substitute the Luby’s restaurant in my parent’s hometown of Killeen, Texas where patrons cowered under their tables waiting for another lunatic to get around to shooting them. Alternately, you can use the lessons of Columbine, in Boulder, Colorado, where it is also well established that people pretended two crazies couldn’t see them under their desks while those two idiots walked up and down the library killing innocent boys and girls.

I used the image of those college students waiting in line to make a point, not to accuse without full knowledge of what went on at Virginia Tech. The point is, if you wait for a killer to get around to killing you, it only makes it easier for the killer and doesn’t benefit those who wait one bit.

Not sure why the link isn't working...

By EMILY SMITH
in Virginia
and ANTHONY FRANCE
and BRIAN FLYNN
April 17, 2007

Anybody care 2 speculate on the efficacy of a sword against a Glock 9mm?

Why didn't God just "poof" the gunman away?

-ol' 2long

Thought I'd let the Founding Fathers weigh in on this mess:












And how about the Bible's view on this??




Seems like the Founding Fathers and God just don't get it! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

If you copy the whole line and paste it, it works.

Interesting. A UK paper.

-ol' 2long

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266421,00.html

I can't believe I'm getting in here but isn't all the "armed hero" talk kind of a romantic fantasy? If it was a factor - and there are plenty of concealed carry laws making it possible - I would think we'd hear about it more often.

I don't think I've ever seen an issue where statistics were used more dishonestly and frivolously by both sides.

John Lott included. My doubts about this man's credibility begin and end with his affiliation: AEI - a refuge for people with stupid ideas.

GC

Question, pertaining 2 something we do know about:

Why did this guy file the serial numbers off his guns? He clearly bought them legally (at least the 9mm, I heard). Did he initially plan 2 survive the attack on his GF? And his plans went awry?

How 'bout the Anti-depressants? I sure know how goofy I got one day when I drank while taking prozac (a s2pid thing 2 have done, but I did some 2pid things back then). Imagine if this guy doped himself up 2 be numb when confronting his GF, and went downhill from there?

Okay. I'm through speculating.

-ol' 2long

I keep a high velocity semi-automatic paintball gun in my truck. Will that help?

I think lots of people carrying guns around is on the whole more dangerous than protective. For example, there have been many cases where the bearer has it taken away and is shot with his/her own gun. Even highly trained police. A lot.

And, it tends to lower the threshold of action over time. This is from a published psychological study. Packing heat slowly drives many people to be more inclined to use it, eventually. I'd hate to be shot because someone, highly trained in how to aim and fire or not, mistakenly thought I deserved killing.

I'd bet this shooter's guns were legal and he used them because he was trained in how to use them, and he had them. Simple as that.

OTOH, I have been trained to use and have used, guns of many kinds since I was nine. (I killed my first cougar at 13. It was stalking me.) I think a properly trained bearer in the right place could indeed have removed this guy in short order.

But so might have a small handful of heroes without guns.

ed: I talked to DS last night about this. What would he do to be safe, protect himself? He reminded me that he is working to become an Eagle Scout. He expected of himself that he would not go down without a fight and he would do what he could to protect others first.

Good enough for me. Now I just have to make sure he does know how to fight smartly.

Back to paintball. It does train.

With prayers, for the victims and their families (and God help me, for the shooter and his family too)

No, it's not a fantasy. Since "right to carry" laws were enacted in Florida, for instance, the murder rate has decreased 52%. That's not a stat that can be used dishonestly...except by ignoring it. Yeah, that's most definitely dishonest.

Also, recall the incident a few years ago when a single armed (off-duty) policeman in a middle school disarmed a kid with a gun who was going to kill everyone he could? Are the children he saved a "fantasy?"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/new...kate_sheehy.htm

Nah! it doesnt happen that often...especially in comparison with the number of times a firearms is legally used to stop a crime!


The facts don't support this! Take a look at the statistics of the number of people with concealed carry permits that used their weapons illegally in a crime. It doesnt support the psychological study!!


They were legal. And he used them because he was a deranged, evil little man. Simple as that!


Maybe!

No, but any mental mas2rbation about an armed s2dent putting a stop 2 this massacre before it started is, because it didn't happen.

-ol' 2long

But they didn't do that either. They just STOOD there, darn it all. Why did they do that? Why would anyone do that?

Here is a concealed carry example...actually two...one where the good guys didnt have gund and one where they did!

The argument here is that it SHOULD have!

Well, I may have not seen the reports of s2dents lining up 2 be shot until they were posted here, but you must have overlooked the reports of people shielding others and barricading doors. Heroic, even though they failed. My hat is off 2 them.

-ol' 2long

More examples:

2L, I'm speculating a different course of action may have saved some or even most of those poor kids. I don't know why you ridicule other people's ideas so crassly. Can you not advance a theory without using that tactic?

Mine too!!!!!!!!!

I saw this quote somewhere not too long ago...

"Blaming guns for deaths is like blaming ink pens for words"...

Mrs. W

I agree wholeheartedly with MM. The only thing is that I know at least in my state you can get a concealed weapons permit, but I believe you still can't carry in certain areas. Schools are one of them.

Cut that out LH.

You've quoted an uncited statistic with a weak suggestion of correllation and absolutely no evidence of causation, then made a veiled accusation of insensitivity to distract attention from the initial weak point.

And I never even suggested taking anybody's guns away. I only suggested a conversation which is clearly not possible.

Lott had his conclusion before he started the book. He and all his "Chicago School" cohort deserve public shame and ridicule for the damage they've done to our nation.

I have no comment on the merits of the book itself. I simply don't trust the author, for good reason.

GC

A great website with a study on Multiple Victim Shootings and Concealed Carry laws. Found it quite interesting!!

web page

GC, first, I won't cut anything out. Why are you wanting to silence me? Is there no possibility you can be wrong?

Look, the statistics are out there; they are facts that can't be ignored, no matter how much some want to. If there is no correlation (sic), please explain the cause of the massive decrease. Don’t try to shut me up. That’s dishonest.

And one last set of stats...from the government...on firearms usage in the U.S.

Say what?

Look folks. Here we are. The massacre happened yes2rday. It's done. We can't change it with "what iffing".

I've been trained in firearms use - needed them for protection in the Arctic - and would consider myself a supporter of the right 2 bear arms. I just don't want one of my own. I like working on old cars and telescopes, not on limited-applicability 2ls like guns. That's just me.

I'd like 2 know how our society can deter murder-suicide in any number? At least in other si2ations, where the murderer remains alive, there can be punishment. How do you deter someone who doesn't believe they'll ever suffer any more if they kill a whole bunch of innocent people before they commit suicide?

That's the issue here. Not gun control.

-ol' 2long

Now we've got our armed hero stories. Okay then, that's something.

The hard part is the next bit: how many of those situations would not even have arisen if we didn't live in a civilization so in love with handguns?

Unanswerable.

I walk around unarmed because I'd prefer it if everybody did. This choice is based on a certain philosophical point of view which is not likely shared by everyone here.

Agreed 2Long!

And my idea of detering a murder-suicide idiot??? Is to help him with the suicide part (shoot him) before he does the murder part.

EXACTLY! You can't! That's why you have to be prepared to defend yourself, your loved ones, and the innocents around you when such crazies come at you. That's why the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to have a weapon to repeal the lunatics.

gc:

You mean you don't carry at AGU? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

LH, nothing in my response suggests I'd like to shut you up. "Cut it out" refers to the questionable use of statistics.

This is one of those conversations which is going nowhere. You don't even know where I stand on these issues. To suggest I'm wrong suggests that you know where I stand.

The only declarative point I've really offered here is to say that Lott's AEI affiliation disqualifies him from influencing my opinion because it indicates to me that he's stupid.

GC

True. And you are welcome to do so, GC!! That is your right.

Others prefer not to be overtaken by reality. And the reality is that there are evil people in the world that will do bad things to us if we do not protect ourselves.

Using your analogy, then we should shut down our poilice departments because we would prefer everyone just behave. Or shut down our military because we prefer that everyone will not want to kill us or blow us up.

The reality is that nations, communities and individuals obtain safety due to the barrel of a gun. Ignoring that reality means that there are other good men and women that must bear the weight of having to protect those that will not.

When Jesus returns, wars and murder will end. Not until then! So, until that day comes, it is inherent on everyone to provide for their own protection. And if they choose not to? Well, then they really have no right to complain when something bad happens to them.

A friend of mine (woman) once said that she thought it unfair that she couldnt walk alone in downtown Washington, DC. That she might be raped or murdered.

I told her "fine. Then just go out there and ignore the bad guys. Tell them you a re a liberated woman, you are equal to them and that you will not succomb to the fear. And then once you have been raped and if you are still alive...then come back to me and talk about what is not fair."

Life is not fair. Those that get that do better with it.

<shrug>

I'll walk around carrying my weapon with me everywhere I legally can, knowing that I won't just be hoping something evil doesn't happen to me and mine...I'll have the tool I need to make the evil far less likely.

MM:

Even better would be the potential risk one puts their own family in by taking other people's lives.

Wrongful death suits "worked" (arguably 2 a pathetic degree, but better than nothing) when O.J. got acquitted for multiple murder.

But it sounds like the gunman's family, if he has one, isn't in the U.S.

-ol' 2long

Maybe I should, 2long. Those people are mental patients.

Would be interesting to try!

Well, here in Texas, the legislature has taken care of that problem. The Governor just signed a law taking away the stupidity of a wrongful death suit in behalf of criminals killed by the home owner when the criminals were in the act of committing a break in, home invasion, etc.

No, I'm pretty sure they are here.

I think I heard it reported that they own a dry cleaning business here.

~ Marsh

If I werent a Virginian, I'd be a Texan!

What happened yesterday is an absolute overwhelming act committed by a young man. We can not change it nor am I here to diplomat to carry a firearm or not *to each is own*, The first thing I thought about was how pittiful my problems are compared to those who lost loved ones or friends. So to them I say bless be, you are in my thoughts to those arguing over something they can not change shame on you, but no shame in trying to make the world a safer place for all of us our children and grandchildren to come.

And we'd welcome you here, MM! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sometimes it pays to look at boundary conditions. There are two obvious extrema here:

1. Everyone always has a loaded gun within arms reach.

2. No one has a gun except police. Maybe, like London’s Bobbies, not even them.

There are comparative data in both cases, although data relative the first case tends to be from a long time ago. Frontier justice kind of data.

If everyone had a gun, I think the incidence of violent crime of all kinds might go down. Maybe a lot. There would still be murder-suicides using guns. But probably few mass killings.

I grew up near Virginia City Mt. where the Vigilantes originated. You know, the term Vigilante justice has gotten an undeserved bad name. These guys banded together because the sheriff and all his cronies were the murdering bad guys. There was no one else to protect the populace but themselves. Not even the federal government could get there in time. They captured the criminals they could and shot the ones who resisted. They hanged the murders they caught and exiled the rest. They all owned their own guns too.

If no one legally had a gun at all, you would in fact still have guns. It is impossible to find them all. And I know how to make one from scratch. Gang members know how to use pipes. It’s easy. So people who specifically want a gun to kill people would in fact still acquire firearms of one kind or another.

Everything else, everything we have right now, is a sort of superposition of these two boundary conditions.

I don’t think there is an optimum social solution. I really don’t.

Well, except we mentally evaluate everyone every six months or so and preventatively lock up anyone even remotely suspicious. Yeah, we might do that. I get to be the evaluator though.

It’s a hard and dangerous world. Always has been and always will be. It’s even harder and more dangerous if you walk around like defenseless prey.


I just read it started with the guy’s girlfriend. There’s the problem. Outlaw girl-friends!


With prayers,

It's not my analogy, MM, it's yours. And it is not a good one.

GC

As well...Texans are good people and are welcome in the Old Dominion anytime! So, you have an open door also!

It's those Yankees we have to keep an eye on!

Huh?? (Mortarman again scratching his head) Maybe I should have not used the term "analogy." Let me try to do this right this time...

Using your way, then we should shut down our poilice departments because we would prefer everyone just behave. Or shut down our military because we prefer that everyone will not want to kill us or blow us up.

Deeply Saddened & Horrified to my core.

Such Great Potential Gone.

Lost forever.

Sympathies & Thoughts with the Survivors, The Families, The Friends, All the Staff, Neighbours & Friends.

Let us hang our heads in common grief.

May They All Rest in Peace.


______________________________________

Re Guns:

Guns are designed for only ONE purpose.

I was taught how to handle weapons & respect LIFE.

I love Life, & respect the Right To Life, so purpose have zero pupose for a gun.

We do not need to kill our food it is readily available in the butchers.

They only time I have considered it reasonable was from a Vetinary's perspective & that was to tranquilise a animal.

The soldiers here used to use 'Rubber Bullets' they'd still maim, take an eye out, whatever they thought at the time 'reasonable force' - they were 'not supposed' to kill.

Our Police Force is UNarmed.

Only the Specials carry weapons.

That is common knowledge.

It is extremely RARE that an officer (1 in 12 years) or civilian is ever shot in the Republic.

My personal opinion is poverty & single parenting do not lead automatically to murderous outcomes.

Low (or exagerated) sense of self
Lack of understanding for the Real value of a life
Ignorance in the Finality for the Individual & the Consequences for the Survivors et al
A mistaken belief in their rights/justice/authority

I think a murderer does not just happen, he or she is groomed by their environment, as is a life giver.

Anyone can get a gun if they really want one.

Unless I encounter a zealot or druggie, I do believe an agressor with any weapon is most likely to be nervous & unsure of their own ability to get whatever it is they seek on initial approach. That is the window to decide if it is likely you will live if you difuse, resist, succumb or run.

What I have experienced is an aggressor when confronted with an other's weapon becomes even more 'commited'.

Soldiering is so different to civilian world, Armies are either fighters or peace keepers.

I accept the military personnel who have spoken are solid in their current belief system.

"You can take a man out of the army but you can not take the army out of the man"
Food for thought:

Giving citizens the right to walk down the street with weapons seems disasterous for no other reason than the very fact they are civilians with weapons designed to kill. Why would anyone in any country want to do that?

Incidently, my father was a weapons instructor for eons, wrote books on the subject, I still did not actually ever see a real gun outside of an army complex until the first time we entered America.

Any see the movie "Bowling for Columbine"

The Dept of Alcohol & Tobacco look after Weapons???? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Back...I could not agree with you more. My heart and prayers have gone out to those that grieve today, and for those that are injured.

My intention in this discussion is to just to talk about solutions so these types of things happen less, and with less severity. What has happeneed...has happened. We cannot go back. But we can learn from it.

Mort Yes that is kinda what I was trying to say,,,,
And of course everyone is entitled to their opinion I would just hope it is done in good taste.
I personally would not want to be a family member and read some of this stuff
could've would've should'ves
I do believe in high gun control, I have never bought a gun but have inherited them and kept them (well hidden). Would I use one I don't think so unless my life or families like depended on it. I worked on an blance for many years and seen too much. If guns are banned bad people will find them, kinda like drugs they are banned but people find them. Shoot what am I talking about better gun control, just rid the world of idiots. ****I'm shutting up now*****:X

MM... and others that think that more guns in the hands of citizens is the answer... frankly, you know not of what you speak. Look at murder rates for countries with extreme control on guns.... then look at the US. Look at a place like Philly that has very easy gun laws...the murder rate is the highest in the country. I have used my hands to stop the bleeding from this warped type of logic.
The answer to criminals carrying guns is to lock them up forever for their crimes.
More crimes of passion would result in death if more people were armed. I have seen it first hand...and have had the blood on my hands.
I say this being a person that carries a gun with me everywhere in the country except for airplanes... where it is checked with my luggage.
The right to bear arms does not stipulate WHICH type of arms we can bear...no matter what the nuts at the NRA would have you believe.

MEDC

I can, at the same time, believe that not carrying a weapon is a legitimate way to contribute to a safer and more peaceful world, and also believe that there is such a thing as the legitimate use of violence. There's no conflict.

GC

I agree. May the Lord comfort them on this day and every day forward.


True.


What if you could save some innocent child's life by using a gun? Or save your own? Guns have a purpose. They actually have two. In self defense, they allow even the weak victim to be powerful enough to fend off an attacker. The second reason...which is the whole intent of this right in the U.S., is to be able to shoot at foreign invaders OR our own government, if need be. Our rights mean nothing, if the people have no way to enforce them!


Okay. But some of us still like to hunt!


Okay. I dont agree, but I can respect your position!


No. I am a former Army first sergeant and I can tell you...when we fire our weapons, we are trying to kill the other guy on the other side of the battlefield. We are supposed to kill...that is our job.


And the bad guys are armed. How sad!


What makes the Specials so special? They shouldnt be allowed to carry either!!


I am sure it is.


Republic of what?


No, not automatically. But they are factors in almost EVERY case!!


Which goes back to the family. The parents. They should have taught this stuff. They were negligent and did not!


Exactly!


You are correct.


They are nervous because they have no idea if you will be able to stop them. You might be packing!


Never seen that before! Believe me, after over twenty years of military and law enforcement experience, this does not happen. Almost always, when an attacker is confronted with overwhelming force, they run. The only time they become "committed" is when they are cornered.


Armies kill people and break their stuff. That is their mission.


Sort of like saying soldiers are mind-numbed robots, huh?


Because it is their right. Because they have the right to protect themselves. Because the government, nor others, have the right to take away an American's Constitutional rights. Rights dont come from the government. The government's "rights" come from the people.


And that is fine. To each his own.


Why would I?


Not sure what that meant???

I have no idea what your points are, Mary, but here are a few notes on your post.

Yes, I saw "Bowling For Columbine." All of what was suggested in that movie has been shown to be bovine scatology. The correct motives of the killers have even been noted (and recently so) in documentaries on TV channels that are usually quite liberal, such as "Arts & Entertainment (A&E)."

Armies exist to break things and kill bad people. They do not exist to keep the peace. That's a function of law enforcement.

For myself, I wasn't in the U.S. Army. My father was, and I honor him for his service in WWII and Korea, wars which returned or kept unknown millions of human beings free of bondage that would have been imposed by dictators. My service to this nation was in the hugely superior United States Air Force. (Sorry, MM...had to take my shot. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force protect the finest nation on the face of the planet from those who would tear it down.

Civilians walking down the street with weapons ensure muslim (or other) terrorists, maniac killers, etc., are not the only ones on that street with weapons.

Please read the U.S government statistics MM quoted above. Criminals are deterred from committing crimes if they believe they may be resisted. They do not become more "committed" unless you are speaking of being committed to prison.

I have no idea where you live. I suspect if your soldiers use "rubber bullets," you're in a republic whose existence is guaranteed by treaties with nations…such as the United States.

Yes, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms does indeed have jurisdiction over the illegal use of firearms. So what?

How would taking away from law-abiding citizens a tool for self-defense somehow prevent non-law abiding citizens to act out, or to acquire the means to do so?

~ Marsh

You cannot count on law abiding citizens to remain so...such as this person that committed this act...or others that would use a gun in the heat of the moment (crime of passion) that might otherwise be settled through other means.

Look... I have lived this stuff....seen it first hand... I won't question MM on his knowledge of war time battles...he is well versed in that. I am equally knowledgable regarding the impact of guns on the streets... we live in a gun culture and the result is too many deaths.

I kinda knew this discussion would happen. My H and I were talking about this after watching CNN for most of the day (I'm home sick and he had the day off). H turned to me and said, you know what's going to be said "more guns are the answer" and he shook his head sadly.

I live in a gun free country. Mr Man in the Street doesn't have guns here, nor do the police. Guns are used for hunting and target shooting and are EXTREMELY hard to obtain. Our murder rate per capita is EXTREMELY low.

Someone (an American now living here) was quoted in our newspaper this morning saying "I need a gun to shoot rabbits on my property. So far I've been interviewed, my wife's been interviewed, my proposed gun cabinet's been inspected and I still haven't got a licence." He was saying that this process was one of the most positive things about this country.

But I know that every other excuse in the book will be found as to why these things happen and not one of them will focus on the candy shop availability of guns.

I work for a university with 33,000 students and 5,000 staff. It is also a large spread out campus. We have surveillance cameras EVERYWHERE but the logistics of reaching that many people by email, website, whatever, in a short time is enormous and I can't see my university having been able to do it under the same circumstances.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18149774/

perhaps it is time to take a look at our place and how we are perceived in the world.

I can’t remember where I read it, but there is a saying that most people are sheep, a few are sheepdogs and some are wolves. Now the wolf and the sheepdog have some things in common... they both exist outside the flock and they both work on instinct, but there is at least one critical distinction between them...how they behave towards the sheep.

Now, in this case, a wolf got into the flock and many of the sheep are dead...

I don't understand the desire to muzzle the sheepdog.

~ Marsh

MEDC, would you please show us statistics on how often guns are used in "crimes of passion." Also, please explain why one group of civilians (such as yourself) who carry guns can be trusted to not commit such crimes, but other people can't. With respect, it sure sounds like you're saying you carry a weapon but you feel other people can't be trusted to be as mature and have the same common sense you do. Why is that? That sounds like elitism to me. I hope I'm wrong.

Please give us some statistics, demographics, on those you've seen using guns inappropriately in other than recognized and premeditated criminal acts such as murder, strong arm robbery, home invasion, etc.

Also, please note the statistics cited by MM above referencing the huge number of crimes where an innocent civilian is able to protect themselves against a criminal. Isn’t that alone reason enough to allow citizens to have weapons?

BTW, since I live in the most fantastic nation on the earth, I don't care how we are perceived in the rest of the world. Why should I? All those other nations are jealous of what we have attained and are continuing to achieve. They're following us, trying to catch up to us and doing their darndest to come up to our standards, not the other way around. It is for they, rather, to see how they are perceived here.

no... a formerly law abiding citizen bought a gun and went nuts with it. the wolf is easy to spot...the danger is always apparent...the sheepdog that turns of you is the real danger.

You don't understand the need to control the access to this stuff because you haven't lived it. I would have fallen on MM and your side of the fence in the past... no longer...I have seen the damage that it causes.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Actually, I do. I am actually considered an expert on this subject...especially when it comes to firearms crimes in the U.S.


Look at a place like the UK which has a higher rate of home break-ins (because the robbers know no one has a gun!!).


My community also has very easy gun laws. Have over 40,000 people in the community. Murder rate is almost non-existent. If the "easy gun laws" were the problem, then why isnt my city littered with bodies???


Couldnt agree more!! But I would add that I want to make sure that BEFORE he does his crime, that I am not a victim of his crime. That way, he is either killed by me...or if he somehow survives (highly unlikely...I am a good shot!), then he goes to jail forever. I dont want me to be dead and him in jail. The best course is me alive and him in jail (or the grave).


Many people use this red herring. The facts say differently!


As I said earlier, many crimes of passion have been done with many instruments.


Awesome!


Actually, it does!!! The Founders, who wrote that Amendment, had a definition in mind when they wrote it. The definition when the Constitution was written was "the instruments of the soldier." They knew the meaning of the word they were using. Also, here are some other thoughts they had on the subject:












Some court decisions:






Some others...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Wow, I'm speechless. And that's a first.

Believe it or not, I think I live in the greatest nation on earth. But there you go.

That's from a treatise written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, Marsh, in a book entitled On Killing.

That's okay, Kiwi. You're entitled to feel the way you do.

I also said to my H, I'm going to add to this discussion and his eyes nearly rolled right out of his head.

He said "good luck to you". <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I carry a weapon as I was trained to use it for the police department. The government recognizes the difference in training for a law enforcement officer than a military person... therefore we have been granted the right ... even after retirement to carry them anywhere in the country. All other license to carry are specific to a state or even a county.

As far as your request for me to supply stats... no need to... watch the news... its on there every single day.

And while I agree that this is the greatest nation on earth... we certainly can still learn to do a lot of things better than we do.... abortion and gun control come to mind.

MEDC said the "A" word.

KATIE BAR THE DOOR

You can believe that.

Shoulda listened to my H. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

MM, I am equally dismissive of your dismissiveness.

by whom?

Okay, MEDC. No stats, all we have to do is watch the news, right? We can trust the media???

Sorry, MEDC, but with all due respect, I've also gone through law enforcement training and it's no better than the required courses here in Texas in order to obtain a concealed weapon carry. I see you want to believe retired cops are a cut above normal civilians, but unless you can support your conclusions, it remains an unproven theory.

If you someday find yourself willing to support your theory with facts, please feel free to email me with that because I'd love to see the information.

Thanks, LH. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mortarman said:

I read there are now knife control laws in the UK.

And speaking of break-ins in the UK...



http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1699.asp

~ Marsh

Just a comment about the discussion (my opinions are stated quite a few pages back at this point.) Gun control discussions are very often fruitless. This is one of them. There are a couple of reasons for that.

The first is that this is one of those issues where people have made up their minds and are looking for evidence to support their position rather than actually searching for the truth. No bit of research or evidence that might possibly contract to one's position can be ignored. The second is that this is one of those issues where people need to be "right" rather than be "heard." Perhaps that's because so many people seem to know the answer.

You can often identify such discussions by incredibly long point by point dissection other other posts, by repetition of "known facts" without citation of the actual source. Of course that's because people are just looking for ammunition (so to speak) rather than the truth.

Finally, I will repeat myself -- which I try not to do on these kinds of threads unless I feel that my point was not heard or understood. In this case, there is so much volume I think it may have been lost. The issue is not whether or not we would be safer with more liberal or more conservative gun laws. The issue is protection against governmental tyranny. The kind of event that happened at Virginia Tech is the tragic price we pay for that protection.

Meanwhile there are 32 families who will never be the same again.

I deal with students all day every day. They are sweet, they are funny, they are young, they are hopeful, they are infuriating, they are bright, they give you hope for the world.

It's just an awful, awful senseless tragedy.

So, we must treat every American as a criminal? We cant be trusted? Who gets to decide who is trusted? The government? why do they get the trust and the people dont? You have this backwards, MEDC. The Founders knew what many today have forgotten...it is not the people that need to be mistrusted...it is the government.


The guns arent the problem, MEDC. I have been involved for almost 10 years in this. As I said before, I was assigned for almost 10 years to the BATF. I was responsible for gathering all of the intel on weapons crimes. And the information does not support your ascertain. Guns are tools...nothing else. The issue is bad people! If there is a high murder rate in an area, it isnt because there are alot of guns there. It is because there are a lot of bad people there!! If it were because there were a lot of guns there, then communities where there are a lot of guns would have a high murder rate, etc. And that doesnt happen!!! You are trying to find causality where it doesnt exist. The cause is bad people who live in the same area...thus the high murder rate!

We have always had guns. And we havent had this problem. The problem isnt the guns...it is the people. It is good people who do nothing. It is parents who bring bad people into this world by their lack of parenting.

These are the facts. I could go into the statistics and all of what has gone on in the U.S. over the last 15 years and show you that what you are saying just doesnt bear up.

Okay, Mebe. So you'd rather discuss who Dallas should draft in the first round? Get to it, then.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

really... there is 6 months of training for a concealed weapon? wow!

Who cares what the world thinks?? Most of the world today goes to bed in relative safety because of the sweat, blood and tears of the American soldier. I could care less how they do things in France, or Australia, or Britain or anywhere else. We didnt become the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet by copying the world!!

Jen,

Can I come live in your beautiful, peaceful country? It's scary over here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Brilliant! We need more sheep dogs!!

Kiwi, with respect, I don't think this was a "tragedy." I understand your meaning, but...to me...a tragedy is what happens when a typhoon destroys a village on the coast. In my mind, tragedies are things that can't be avoided. What happened yesterday was an act of pure evil committed on innocents who had no part in his hatred of this country and the people in it. (Perhaps you haven't yet heard he left a suicide note?)

I viewed this thread off and on all day. I would ask you all to look at one fact and then apply it to other circumstances and see what you come up with.

It's estimated that there are millions of guns in the U.S., yet only a small fraction are ever used in a crime. Why should we punish the vast majority of firearms owners for the misuse by the few? We're not talking about several percentage of folks misuing them we're talking about fractions of a percent are being misued.

Prior to the approval of the concealed carry laws in Florida, car jackings were quite common. Once concealed carry became legal, the number dropped dramatically.

We don't want to be like the Europeans, look how many world wars they've had. Our right to bear arms is only one of may reasons that hasn't happened here.

My handle might give you some clue to my interests.

xring

Granted the right??? Granted the right!!!! I cant believe I even bothered serving in the Army to protect a society where people think the government grants rights to us. Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. Governments dont grant rights...except to slaves! I am not a slave...I am an American. My government is given rights by me...not the other way around.


Let's not bring abortion into this!! That is an entirely different subject (and thread).

By the United States government.

MEDC, please show me the police academy curriculum where firearms training lasts six months. I know MB doesn't like URLs to outside agencies shown in posts, so please feel free to send that info to the email address shown in my profile.

Thank God that aint here!! Because there is no way anyone is breaking down my door! Not without being shot!

No, I hadn't heard that. I meant "tragedy" as you understood my meaning as in well, tragic. I do agree - pure evil.

As 2long said, why don't they do the suicide part first?

If they did, they wouldn't be evil, just deluded. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

MM:

I was going 2 stay off...

but then:


followed, only one post later, by:


So, you named yourself expert? [edit]

End of discussion...

-ol' 2long

firearms training occured throughout the 6 months of the academy cuuriculum... am I here to prove myself to you??? I don't think so... please show me where I actually give a rats butt if you believe me or not.

medc.

Well, I am rescinding my invitation to you, LH, to come to Virginia...as you appear to be a Dallas Cowboys' fan. Them kinda people just arent allowed in Redskin country.

Yeah Weaver. We will continue to keep it sweet and peaceful for them! Signed...the American soldier

LH -


You know, I'm beginning to like Texas more and more...if they apply this kind of common sense to everything, I might have to petition to move there. (Assuming they'd accept an unrepetant Yankee who doesn't own a single pair of boots or a cowboy hat <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />).

That's correct 2L...by way of the Constitution of The United States. And, do you remember that little phrase, “We, the people…?”

And, btw, the discussion isn't terminated just because you say so. How can you be so arrogant as to say it's ended when you say it is?

MM, I'm holding it in, I'm holding it in.

Did you even READ my post? Can you even fathom a country where guns are not part of the culture?

People say when they arrive here. This place is so SAFE.

Who said we're safe because of American soldiers? Tell that to my late father who served in the Navy during WWII, tell it to my late FIL who served in the Army during WWII. Tell that to AW who's Aussie H is serving in Iraq right now. Sheesh.

thank you Kiwi for the perspective.

Ok, I can't say anymore without being horribly impolite so I'll butt out now.

Okay, MEDC. Take refuge in invective in lieu of actual facts, if that's what pleases you. That's so sad.

But, Kiwi, if I might mention something that at first blush seems disrespectful...doesn't your nation, as it exists at this moment do so because the United States, (with enormous assistance from Australia and Great Britain) used great and very violent military force to defeat the empire of Japan a few years back, right? With total respect to you and your country, could your nation have resisted that empire on your own? If you don't think so, don't you think a little honor is due the nation who sacrificed the lives of a large number of young men so you don't have to speak Japanese?

lmao.

Kiwi, I thought Aussie was in Afghanistan. Is he in Iraq now? If so... that fella gets around.

GC

Meanwhile, 2day, just like 30 years ago:

"The telex machine is kept so clean
As it types to a waiting world.
And mother feels so shocked,
Father's world is rocked,
And their thoughts turn to
Their own little girl.
Sweet 16 ain't so peachy keen,
No, it ain't so neat to admit defeat.
They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?"

-Boomtown Rats, "I don't like Mondays"

End of discussion (<that was for LH <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

-ol 2long

Healingbird, feel free to come on down to "God's Country," as we like to call it here, anytime you feel like it. We embrace all (legal) immigrants. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

MM, we shall have to meet at a Redskin/Cowboy football game some time. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I hear what you're saying LH and of course we owe the Americans a debt because yes, the Japanese were almost here. My father was in the Pacific Islands in the Navy fighting the Japanese and, gosh, he wasn't American.

New Zealanders have given their lives in many wars.

Anyway, I really am getting too heated up about this. I really do need to butt out.

GC, it could well be Afghanistan. I probably got it wrong. AW could tell you.

Those who have facts and figures use them to buttress legitimate arguments. Those who don’t resort to fanciful poetry? That's very sad.

Kiwi, no one suggested New Zealand men didn't, or are not still, defending your nation with their lives. They are to be honored, period. They have my full respect and always will. But, Kiwi, who carried the huge bulk of the load back then, and still does? I can see your point, but can't you see mine too?

Boy, you lost my a$$ on that one, LH.

End of Discussion,
-ol' 2long

I did Kiwi. Please dont get upset with me!! I understand what you are saying. And I understand what your culture believes. But in the U.S., we came from Founders who understood that without the instruments of the soldier in the hands of the citizens, then governments could do anything they like. Some, for a time, might be benevolent. But, in the history of mankind, that has never lasted. Eventually, citizens that are disarmed end up not being able to defend their rights.

We also believe that rights come from God. That governments are instituted by the citizens for their use. That governments cannot grant rights...not to free people. They only grant rights to slaves. And free people only remain free if they defend those rights. From foreign invaders...and from those within that would do them harm.


Same with most of the U.S.


This is where I want to apologize to you. I have served beside Aussies and Kiwis and they have been some of the finest soldiers I have ever served with. I am not denigrating their service or ablities!!

But let's get real here. Australia, New Zealand and the UK dont beat Hitler. Without the might of the U.S., Hitler wins! Same goes for Japan.

Same goes for the Cold War. Who was going to stand up to the USSR? Canada? While I have many friends in the Canadian military and I highly respect them...they never have had the capability to defend themselves against the Soviets. Canada has been protected by the United States. So has Australia. So has the UK. So has New Zealand. So has Europe. So has Kuwait. So has China. So has South Korea. And on and on.

I am not talking about the quality of the soldiers. As I said...my Kiwi military friends are some of the best there are!

But people in the world need to understand a simple fact. And that is that the United States of America today is the most powerful nation economically and militarily in the history of mankind. There are no equals on the planet today. And as such, it should be recognized that with that power, we could have attempted to take over the world. We could have annexed Japan as the 51st state. We could just take over Iraq and keep the oil for ourselves. We could own most of Europe (to include the UK, Italy, most of Germany, France and the rest). We could have even jsut bombed the heck out of the USSR when we were the only ones with nukes after WWII and taken it over.

But did we do that? Are we doing that? We could have been the greatest imperial power to ever exist...and we didnt do it.

Why?

Why havent we just invaded Cuba and done away with Castro (we could do it in about a day!). Why havent we done all of these things?

We have had the power. We still do.

Too many people in the world curse the United States. But we havent done all of these things when we could have. We have been the most generous nation on the planet (supplying more humanitarian aid than any country on the planet...ever). We saved France's hiney twice...and we get ridiculed by them.

I am tired of the crying by the world. I say, if these countries dont like us...then let's pull back our protection of them, pull back our aid...and letthem fend for themselves.

And dont come crying to us for help when the wolf comes knocking at the door!

I am not denigrating great countries such as New Zealand and others. But I am sick and tired of people around the world telling Americans how we should live. I dont tell Kiwis how to live. Throw all of your guns into the ocean...I dont care!

But it is about time the world start saying 'thank you" to the American people. Because, if the American people were any other society in the hostory of the world...things would be very bad indeed!

Well said, MM.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thanks MM and thanks LH as well. It's a touchy subject, feelings run high, but you've both been gracious and have listened to me without denigrating my perspective, for which I'm grateful.

I do try to understand your culture and I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to say something about my culture.

Who was the only country in the world to be able to feed and water the hungry tsunami victims in Thailand? America by means of the US Navy. I didn't ask who was the only one to help. I asked who was the only ABLE to help. That my friend costs lots of $$$. Money that I too am growing old of paying for only to be blamed for the worlds problems.

Yeah, we're the great satin of the world.

Thanks. And one of the trips I have always wanted to (and will) make is to New Zealand! It is on the plan for my wife and I to go to. Of course, it will be a few years before we can, since we have the new addition coming in September!

Me too, Maybe!

I tire of losing my buddies for people that later on will not appreciate what you have done...and will actively curse you. I tire of dumping tons of my hard earned money that I could use on my own kids, to help people that will turn and stab us in the back.

If we are the great satan to the world, then so be it! I say let them try to get along without us for awhile. Let's just sit back, do nothing, grab some popcorn and watch the show for about twenty years!

Maybe then, some of these people will wake up and realize they are denigrating their friends...ones that would spend their treasure and blood of their children for them.

The last thirty years, we have taken up arms and lost many great Americans to defend Muslims. In Kuwait. In Bosnia. In Kosovo. In Iraq. In Afghanistan. We have taken over NONE of those countries. We have almost entirely pulled out of Bosnia. We will soon in Kosovo.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to defend people that want to destroy us. Or at the very least, dont want to help in their own defense. Who want to take our flag and burn it and stomp on it. Who call us the great satan!

The American people are growing tired of the world.

MM, I agree. I think the USA ought to withdraw from the world, and the United Nations.

We should seal our borders and let them all do whatever they want.

But we also need to be able to wipe all and any enemies off the planet when we need to.

The USA is very under appreciated. And always has been. I say to the rest of the world, solve your own problems. Deal with Korea and Iran and Kosovo and whoever by yourselves.

I don't care any about any of these places any more.

I really don't.

We don't need any other countries, and they don't need us.

We should Plan B the rest of the planet. The sooner the better.

Seriously.

Never mind. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

We don't. We won't.

Huh?

I've always wanted 2 see New Zealand.

The southern hemisphere has the coolest night sky. Magellanic Clouds, Crux, Rigil Kentaurus (Alpha Centauri), and Mars is at perihelion in the southern sky, so oppositions that coincide with Mars' perihelion are the closest.

-ol' 2long

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

Sorry, MEDC, a political action committee's website doesn't constitute evidence of anything except there is freedom of speech in this nation.

Again, here is information from the Department of Justice.

Quote:

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) -

The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000). Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17 states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times annually.

By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed annually with firearms of all types. Seventy percent of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving their full time behind bars.

Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

Unquote

(Emphasis added)

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second

LH... 15 year old stats?

and BTW, this sites stats come from much more recent numbers from the FBI (some as recent as 2004).

Sorry again, but the information presented there is not raw data. Find the information at the DOJ and review it. What appears at that PAC has been "interpreted" in order to present a scewed picture of the truth. Additionally, the information on the Second Amendment is so much bovine scatology. It's premise is based on the word "militia" and assumes it means the same thing in 1777 that it does today. It doesn't.

If I were you, I'd avoid politically activist websites. They never give you decent information.

If you're truly interested in learning, re-read MM's posts today which indicate the founding father's intentions and motives. If you have the time, go through the whole of the collected documents that are collectively called "The Federalist Papers." You'll be amazed.

I have asked Justuss to lock this thread.

I started this thread because I was shocked, horrified and upset by the loss of so many young and not so young lives and I just wanted to talk to people about it. I guess part of it is working in a similar sized university myself. Universities, even largish ones, are tight knit communities, almost like little cities. They have their own jargon and in-jokes and abbreviations. Students in a lecture hall are sitting ducks. It just makes me so upset.

I know I've added to the political to-ing and fro-ing but the original purpose of MY thread was to register my horror at the events at VA Tech and it just makes me so sad that now we're sniping at each other.

Okay, Kiwi. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

LH... I am not here to debate with you... you obviously have your misinformation firmly engrained in your mind... it is not for me to dispute it. Bovine scatology..... isn't that what the NRA nuts have based their entire existance on???
I will provide information as I see fit for people that wish to become more aware of the facts of these issues. You can continue to cite your interpretations of the slave owning founding fathers (and some of them would be committed to an institution if they were alive today... Ben Franklin, genius yes..nut job... yep!) that couldn't forsee the type of fire power that would be available today.

MEDC, I think you may have missed my previous post on the page before this one. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

i did....
saw it after i typed.

Ok <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

So, resorting to invective and insults again when you can't support your claims, eh, MEDC? Typical.

So, Kiwi, what shall we discuss? Global "warming?" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have a long bookshelf of books on climatology and I’d love to debate it with anyone at all. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

lol. funny man you are.

Seriously, Kiwi, your heart's in the right place. Each of those deaths yesterday was a horrible example of how many times the evil of Satan enters our world. While I cannot praise the kids who did not resist that evil act, I surely wouldn't wish this evil upon them or anyone else in the world. I have the utmost sympathy for their families and pray God will comfort them in their time of grief.

LOL, LH, I wondered if I was going to be able to reply in time to stop you two having one last go at each other but no, I wasn't. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Global warming? Hmmm, let's see.....

Ah no, I don't think we'll go there. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And thank you, I pray for them too.

<sniff> What a pity. I really do have all sorts of scientific books, studies, films, etc. If you won't let me discuss them, it'll all go to waste. Pretty please?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Only if you agree with my view on it.

Something tells me that's not going to happen. LMAO. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> j/k Well, not kidding that I bet we disagree, but kidding that you're only allowed to talk about it if you agree with me.

There must be something discussable that's not going to get fur flying. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, let's see...hmmm...I KNOW...Mr. W is gonna be 40 tomorrow!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> I can't believe it!!! Dang we are gettin' "long in the tooth" 'round here! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

LOL, Mr W's over the hill, Mr W's over the hiiiiillll.

Sung to the tune of nyany, nyany, nyah, nyah.

Ha! Tell him it's all downhill from here.

Kidding aside, tell him Happy Birthday and it's not that bad.

Big deal, Mrs. W. But tell Junior I said many happy returns anyway. I'll be 59 on Friday and have kids his age...literally. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Kiwi: My goodness, the essence of discourse is to convince someone else to change their mind based on logical exchanges with charts and data and scientific studies and stuff like that. You're actually going to pass up this opportunity?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And then the NRA nuts call the Brady-bunch "idiots." Name calling doesnt advance anything!


Oh, dear God! Now even the Founding Fathers were nuts.


They didnt need to. They knew history. They new human nature. The Roman empire couldnt have forseen the firepower that the colonists had. The Founding Fathers knew this. They knew that things would change.

But many things would remain the same. Always.

We try to think we are so much smarter than them. We ignore history and say we are different...unique.

They knew better. They would be very disappointed in us today...because they would know exactly where we are headed. And it aint good!

To tell you the truth, LH, I haven't gone into it in enough depth to be able to have an informed discussion/debate. My H, however, has. You just said charts and data and scientific studies and my mind just glazed over.

Y'know my H and I are completely in agreement on all the things that really matter to us. Just throwing that in there cos it's nice. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Okay, Kiwi. I gave it my best shot. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

That is nice, Jen!

This is just the saddest thing I've heard of in a long time. It doesn't matter, right now, what shoulda/coulda been done differently yesterday. What matters is that there are so many grieving affected people. So many people that live in a different world today than they did on Sunday - friends and family gone in the blink of an eye.

Folks,

I have been reading this thread all day, but could not respond. I have watched the turns it took and was very sad for it.

Cinderella, Kiwi, and actually all of the rest DO agree on one thing...what a tragic loss of innocent life and potential. I cannot imagine how the parents are going to deal with this.

What saddens me more, is that there will be lots of finger pointing, lot's of "what if's", lots of the people at the University should have known's. Missing the really important part, those children are gone, to heaven I hope.

Most normal people really cannot conceive of the actions of a nut, yet they happen.

The police were there on campus after the first shooting, but they could not defend those other kids. And the kids themselves were defensless. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> I am on the side of MM and LH with respect the right to bear arms. However, I watch people drive, and the thought of most of these people packing is pretty scary.

I think kids should NOT have to carry weapons to school, but if most of them knew how inaccurate a pistol can be, I would bet they would not have stood still. If they knew how to defend themselves and use anything around them I would bet they would not have stood still. If, if, if.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

If they knew what I know they would have had a better chance and it saddens me that the didn't and yet we do our best to rear our children to be "good" kids. We did our best to get rid of the draft and other experiences that would have given them a better chance so that they would have a better world.

I am sorry folks, this isn't about who can or should be armed. It is about a nut, a man with no sense or need to survive, taking as many as he can with him. If he hadn't had a gun, he could have made explosives. I knew how to take your garden variety chemistry set, that assured parents there nothing was explosive, and made things go boom from the age of 11. If he was set on taking lives, he could have done it many ways and even more efficient ways than a pistol.

It is just sooooo sad.

God Bless those kids,

JL

JL, thank you as always.

I think it all happened so fast and was so unexpected that even if you were trained it wouldn't have made much difference. As I said before, I just can't imagine the logistics of letting that many people know in such a short time. I noticed during the news conference that someone asked the President why he didn't just walk around telling people. I looked at Rob and said, that would be like the Vice Chancellor (our President) taking a walk around our very large campus and saying, "everyone move along and go home."

I know what rabbit warrens universities are. Hundreds of rooms in many, many buildings. People coming and going en masse and not like high school where it's orderly and controlled. Well, it was in my day anyway. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

This has really affected me and I KNOW it's because I work at a university. Well, that's not all it is. I just hate it.

Kiwi

I wanted to thank you for starting this post. I know it hasn't gone exactly the direction you wanted it to, however it has stopped to make me think. For that I thank you.

It has stopped and made me think as to how I have equipped or not equipped my own children to handle this type of situation. How vulnerable they really are when we haven't given them the tools to try to protect themselves. Yes we teach them to not go with strangers and how to avoid being taken, not to wander off in stores. But what do we tell our kids about being in school, a teen almost to graduation going off to college herself.

I don't have the expertize that MM or LH have to give to my children. I wish I did or that my spouse did. It has made me stop and discuss this with my oldest teens, and to talk about situations in which maybe you should fight back and not just do what is asked. I also know that responses to things need to be practiced so they come easily and automatically. However how do you do that when you personally are not trained? We live in a very small town and our schools have had several lock downs it is sad. The kids talk about the fear they have felt and the other kids have felt. Doesn't matter if they are teens or elementary. However what good does it do to lock down a school when they have a gun? What protection comes from hiding in a classroom when the assailant has a gun. I think there was a school in Texas that was teaching some tactics to kids on how to handle a situation and fight back. However there was an uproar as to why do that.

Would people continue going into schools if they knew that people would fight back. If they knew it wasn't going to be that easy. I don't know. However I do know I need to take another look at how I am teaching my kids.

Thanks again everyone for giving me much to think about.

Another finger some people will point is, "his parents must have been horrible parents". Well, that's not necessarily true. Some people do everything right and something just goes wrong.....

I read something interesting in "Cure for the Common Life" by Max Lucado. He said, 'Train up a child in the way he should go and, when he is old, he will not depart from it' doesn't mean 'teach the right stuff to your child and the child will turn out to be a great adult'. His perspective is that it may mean, 'train your child, focus on their gifts, point them in the path (skills) that are right for them and they will be more productive adults'.

Malevolent influences abound and you can not control the fact that your child may not have the same values as you. You can only be as good as you can be. Perfection is not possible. We are all flawed people.

How would you let thousands of people know to stay put....don't go outside. Lock the doors of the rooms NOW!!! Don't come on campus. ???????????????????????????? How could anyone do that?

Thanks bjs. I don't know if fighting back would have done anything. Look at 9/11. Those on the plane (over Washington?) made the attempt, they didn't succeed. The four who escaped at VA Tech played dead, they also fought back by trying to block the door. The others who survived jumped out the window.

I remember reading somewhere that to survive you have to put yourself first. You have to be prepared to walk on dead bodies.

I don't know. This has just thrown me.

I can understand. However I think that talking about it, debating it and bringing some of these things to the attention of others is a good thing.

If it weren't for infidelity we wouldn't have to have this board. However we have a place that we can come and get other opinions on how to deal with certain situations. Some of them work sometimes, others work other times. However without the debate, suggestions some of us would never know what to try or how to handle a situation.

Not one answer will work in every situation, however it gives us options, and I think to a degree gives us strength in these situations.

Great posts by all! JL said it very succinctly...in the end, this was a tragedy done to innocent people by a nut job. I think what many here are focusing now on, as the memorial services end and the task of figuring out what to do is taken on, is to find out a better way of dealing with these things. Until Jesus Himself returns, evil will always be with us. There will be more school shootings...more 9/11s...more Oklahoma Citys. There is evil in the world folks.

I loved the post by BJS here and thought I would respond. Because these really are the questions we need to be asking. Sure, maybe the university could have notified people quicker. Maybe they could have some sort of communication system installed, or have practice drills on campus (like fire drills). I am all for using technology to help prevent these things or lessen their blow.

But it reminds me after the 1st Gulf War, when everyone said that it was the end of needing standing armies. That air power was enough. But in reality, as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, war is still fought by the infantry soldier...up close and personal.

And personal safety will never be fully accomplished by cameras, alarm systems, police officers, etc. It will be accomplished by training the individual to protect themselves and giving them the tools to do so. With that, let me get to BJS here...


As do I Kiwi. Even though the attention has been diverted...JL was right above. All of us agree about the sadness and our hearts go out to those families. There is no need for us to post or discuss that fact...because all of us are in agreement. But thank you for starting this because this is a discussion that needs to happen in our society. What is safety...and how do we get it? And at what cost?


Exactly! Our kids are ill prepared for the most part...for the real world when they leave home. We want our kids to be good kids, so we decide that we try to protect them from even seeing or knowing about bad stuff. And then they walk into the reality of the real world, and have no clue how to handle it. My wife the other day sat my daughter down and read a story in the news paper about a girl who was on the Internet and this guy she was blogging (she thought he was a girl), found out where she lived and came, took her away and raped her continuously for days. He would have killed her if she hadnt of escaped...the police are sure of that.

Now, many parents would say "I cant believe you read that to her. That you exposed that to her. That us inappropriate. You will scare her to death."

My answer to that? GOOD!! She should be scared. She should be so scared that she will listen when we tell her not to talk to strangers, not to give out personal info on the Internet, etc. She should understand the reality.

My kids are scheduled here at the end of the school year to visit Walter Reed Army Hospital. We made a decision to go there and have the kids visit for two reasons. First for them (and us) to thank my fellow soldiers for what they have done and the sacrifice they have made. And second, for my kids to see firsthand what the costs of war are. They arent a video game...or a movie. There are real lives at stake. Real pain. Real suffering. And I WANT them to see it. I want them to fully comprehend what it all means!


Great questions. First off, there are self defense services out there that will teach you hand-to-hand and even weapons training and tactics. Your kids CAN get the training to protect themselves! Second, your kids dont have to live in fear. Mine dont. First off, they have a relationship with Jesus and they know that nothing will happen to them today that Jesus didnt allow. So, if it is their time to go...they will go. They also are confident with the training I have given them (and continue to give) that in a situation, they will have the tools to survive. And yes, BJS. You are right. It is about repetition. That is how soldiers, who are scared to death...still get out of foxholes and fight. It is because their bodies are on auto-pilot...reacting to the training they have received in the past.


Great post! Funny thing is...my wife thought the way many do early on in our marriage. When my oldest was 11...he would go to the bus stop and this kid that was younger than him would throw rocks at him and my daughter. My son would stand in the way and protect his sister...but would not fight back for fear of getting in trouble at school. My wife let the school know and the bus driver know...and no one did anything about it. Finally, one day...I went to see his parents. And they had nothing to say except "boys will be boys." So, I told them "fine. Then understand that my son is now being given permission by me to respond to the next time your son does something like this." My wife was angry at me for doing that...because she thought I was teaching our son to be violent.

Well, two days later, it happened again. My son didnt flinch this time. He hauled off and punched this kid square in the face...knocking him down...and knocking him out. The police were called, so was the school. We had meetings. And at the end of the day, because we had done everythign we could have and no one stopped it...the school and police authorities determined that my son had acted correctly.

Now, anyone want to venture how many more times that kid threw rocks at my son or his sister??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> And my wife came around and finally said "You know, Mortarman...you were right."

We must teach our children how and when to respond. Whether that be to fight back, use a weapon, escape, etc.

This is all a good discussion. And I hope we all learn something from this tragedy...something real. Something that will make a difference next time.

My heart warmed when I heard more details about the professor/Holocaust survivor who held the doors so his s2dents could escape out the windows, before being fatally shot.

He did what he could with what he knew and what he had.

-ol' 2long

A big Army Hooah to that guy! Heros dont always wear a uniform!

I think there is a new awareness running through the posts this morning. Trying to put it simply, it is that this is not a safe world and won't be for a long, long time—if ever. I could argue it never has been.

For hundreds of years, it was the pioneer having to take precautions every time one of the family walked out from the doorway of their log cabin or dirt dugout to make sure marauding Indians weren’t about…okay, and Indians checking to see if other Indians or whites were about to attack. Danger still exists today and Virginia Tech massacre brings that reality into clear focus. If one assumes the threat does not exist, that very rejection sets one up to be a victim. Regretfully, the illusion of safety is just that.

Whether it's gang violence in Los Angeles or muslim terrorists ready to kill thousands in New York (or anywhere else in this country), the possibility of a violent act being committed against someone is always there. It’s one of the tradeoffs we accept in an open society. If you think you’re safe in the interior of the country, consider the crack addict ready to kill to get his next fix or the petty criminal who wants your TV set to sell so he won’t have to work for a living. All of them are sociopathic to one degree or another, and none of them care one whit about you or your loved ones.

It behooves us to take a moment for discussion after such things as Virginia Tech happen, simply because it’s the only way we can take anything of value from such terrible events. If our discussion convinces just one individual to fight instead of submitting and allowing himself to be lined up for execution, then it has been worth it. If one such hostage fights, I have enough faith in my fellow man to believe others will follow their lead.

Sometimes such a leader doesn’t survive, as in the case of the professor who held the killer back to give his students time to flee. It is heartrending he didn’t live through the event…but at the same time, there are qualities of dying. The holocaust survivor died an honorable death, and I fervently feel a good death is preferable to a meaningless one. The professor’s last act was to save others, thus giving meaning to his life even if none existed before…and I don’t assume none did. By contrast, a drunk stumbling from a bar and wrapping his or her car around a telephone pole, doesn’t die well at all.

I think it’s appropriate to mark well the life experiences of that holocaust survivor who gave his life up that the ones in his care might live. That professor knew first hand what it means for men and women, and whole societies, to give in to the most expedient solution…to not resist evil however and whenever one can.

I will keep this holocaust survivor and the heroes on Flight 93 alive in my mind, and honor them all the while. In differing circumstances (which actually have no difference in the final analysis), these ordinary people gave the “last full measure of devotion” so others would live and I’m not sure a man or woman can aspire to any greater end.

anyone here listen to Dennis Prager on the radio? He's saying the same thing -- nut job, evil, etc. And notice how no one is calling him a "murderer." No, he's a "shooter."

Good stuff, LH!

Here is a quote I got off the web today:


Ban them! Ban them! Ban them!!

Sheesh!

Let's try illustrating the absurd by being absurd!! Here are quotes of the arguments in the last few days...but instead of using the tool used in this massacre (guns) I am going to use the tools used in the bigger ones!


Or maybe we should ban immigration:

KiwiJ,

I thought I would respond to you specifically and others as well. You said I think you are absolutely right about the university. Of all of the people ill-prepared to respond to this it is university staff. Yet, give the size of the campus and the nature of university campus' it would be almost impossible. The only hope those kids had was escape, as some did when that brave professor held the door, or fight which they did not know how to do. And even then there would be loss of life, just not a large.


Here is where I disagree. My first reaction so seeing someone coming into a room with a gun is to get moving, away if there is an avenue of escape, and toward them if there is not. Here is something for you and others to think about. Pistols are not accurate, and especially so in the case of someone not well trained. Hitting a moving target is difficult and it is more difficult if someone is throwing something at you. But, what most do not understand is that the closer you come, the more the person with the gun has to move the gun to target you, and the more they more the less likely they are to hit you, coupled with the fact that once you have your hands on them, YOU have a chance. At best most people have any gun training are trained on stationary targets dead ahead of them.

Now, KiwiJ you might not appreciate this, but MM, and MEDC and LH will. This whole topic was the subject of a long discussion I had at lunch yesterday, which is why I could not post, I was consulting at a government institution, not military. However, my companions at lunch happened to be an Army Ranger, and exNavy Seal, and several of us who have been in the military. ALL agreed the problem was that the kids were defenseless. And since the Ranger has young kids we discussed what they might need to know, short of carrying a gun.

The consensus was pretty much what I have told you...MOVE and attack if you cannot escape. It is like snow skiing most peoples basic instincts is to lean into a hill on a steep slope, but what you should do is lean away from the hill to set your edges and control your skis.

I look at my kids and I realize that they have some ideas, but they never had the experiences I had growing up, training and being in the military, growing up in the military, the many fights I was in as a kid. They are young adults now but we are going to have a conversation in the next few weeks. All of the boys have had firearm training via summer camp with the Boy Scouts and I know the older one has been in a few fights <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> having played college football and such.

But, this does and should serve to do as many have stated, remind us that safety is in being prepared and even that is NOT SAFE.

KiwiJ, you should be thankful you live in the country you do. You all do have a much safer environment.

Must go and Jen thanks for starting this thread.

God Bless,

JL

JL is exactly right! Many will not train their kids on this stuff because they believe it will scar them...or they will live in fear. My kids are neither scarred nor fearful because of the training I have given them.

What many fear (scarring or scaring them) is onpar with saying that the flight attendants arent going to give the briefing at the beginning of the flight about what to do in an emergency because it will just frighten the passengers!

Instead, my kids are outfitted with the skills that will give them a fighting chance to come out of something like this alive. Guarantees? Nope! But the odds are a whole lot better if you escape, attack or shoot...than to sit behind a desk and wait for the executioner to come around!

I don't KNOW, for sure, what I would do in a moment of terror, such as that in Virginia, but I have been trained to fight, so I would think my natural instinct would be to ACT.

I don't own a weapon, but I do know how to use some. I also know how to fight, and disable people with my body, my tools. I hope to teach my son the same, and lead him in how and when to use these tools.

I still am bewildered at lining up for your own execution. I think of Flight 93, and people on board staging a coup WITHOUT weapons, they saved the lives of countless MANY.

This brings back memories of when people my age were in grade school, and had 2 practice the duck and cover routines in the event of a nuclear attack. Talk about ineffective!

But we did the exercises every week. We were also really afraid that something was going 2 happen - and it might have. Even though I was only 9 at the time, I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and my folks somber looks when we'd ask what was going 2 happen.

I agree that if someone in that school had been armed and trained in handling a firearm, the death toll might have been greatly reduced. But that isn't what happened.

Still, it wouldn't be a big deal for this country's schools 2 add basic self-defense training 2 the required courses. Heck, when I was in college we still had 2 take Phys Ed until I was 21, I think. If kids up 2 that age were taught basic defense skills, that would be a better deterrent 2 a nutball going on a rampage than nothing at all. Maybe a helluva lot better. A chair on a ballistic trajectory 2 a gunman's head is something he'd have 2 deal with immediately. A bullet isn't going 2 stop it. Even some of the textbooks I had in college would be significant weapons in their own right.

But here we are, and what happened is what happened. I only hope that the fu2re focus is on things like self-defense training and less on things like second-guessing, hindsight, and restricting our liberties with more legislation. Can we outlaw nutjobs?

-ol' 2long

My advice to DS has been two-fold: First learn when to fight, then learn how to fight.

A not all that inappropriate comparison to knowing when to fight are these stupid affair situations we read about here. Some BS roll over or cower in fear. Some learn to fight back, for themselves and for their family.

DS knows firearms from Scouts and from our hunting trips. And rather useful is his enjoyment of paintballing. As JL notes, the closer you get and the more you move the less likely you will get hit. Even from a semiautomatic paintball marker. DS already knows how to attack while under fire.

One more thing – as in noted in my earlier post, DS is learning in Scouts about bravery and honor and not to be afraid to put himself in harms way for his friends and even for strangers. He’s making me proud already, and he’s a teenager.

With prayers,

When I was in college, on my own, I took a self defense course for situations like attempted rape or carjacking or a hold up type situation. The course also dealt with the law of said situations. The reason I took the course? I was going to school in the evenings some nights and knew of many rapes/attempted rapes and robberies of people walking across campus. I was proactive.

I was also in the military, so that helps, too, but for those who are not, basic self-defense is always good. Many people would sign their children up for CPR classes, why not teach them about saving a life with defenses.

When I was in the second grade we had one of those duck and covers. Linda whatwashername and I were so rattled when the alarm went off we dove under the same desk and knocked our heads together so hard we both received concussions.

We laughed about it all the way through high school.

Man...I loved the mental image of this!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


I wish we could. But if we outlawed nut jobs, where would Nancy Pelosi live? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

editted to say: I'm sorry for offending nut jobs by putting Nancy Pelosi in their ranks. I take back what I said.

Hooah, Aph! Thank God the Scouts still havent succumbed to the libs!

2L,

"Even some of the textbooks I had in college would be significant weapons in their own right."

Yeah, but I read this was a language class. Unless they were carrying War And Peace...

However I also read it was in the Engineering building. Now, Fundamentals of Gravitation, Elementary Quantum Electrodynamics, The CRC Handbook, or perhaps even the Steam Tables can do a lot of damage just falling off a shelf, not to mention at the terminus of a parabolic decent.

How about laptops? particularly some PCs I've seen...

-ol' 2long

2L and others,

Now you are getting the idea. It is a little late when something like this comes up for kids or even adults to think of what they could use or how they would use it. But, if one has already thought of these things before hand, then there are many things one could put into parabolic orbit and fast. It also doesn't hurt to have a clue how many rounds a typical pistol carries these days, and the number is 10 for the Glock, if memory serves me.

Oh, MM I will tell you that the guys that taught shot gun shooting as well as rifle and such at my son's Boy Scout troop were...Marines. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> Sorry MM. However, they both went to National Jamboree in VA, and they did get a full dose of the Army. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Must go.

JL

I was once involved in a similar situation. Nut job gunman gunning people down for no good reason. Here are some things about what it was like.

1) I am ex military and am familiar with guns, gunfire, the noise and the smell. But I was AMAZED looking back at how long it took me to identify that it was actually gunfire I was hearing. It was at the workplace, and I did not expect to encounter that. When you are deployed, you are at the ready, so you don't have that delay. I even grew up in a rough city and had been around 3 shootings before I was 18 and "sort of" expected it because of where I had chosen to go. Now, I worked in a factory and there were lots of loud noises similar to gunfire, but all in all I lost lots of precious seconds coming to grips with what I was witnessing.

2) If I were armed, I would have stopped they guy. No question in my mind. I had a perfect opportunity to stop him. I took more time to assess the situation and look for a weapon. There was plenty of heavy stuff around - but it was too heavy to lift. Gunman was too far away. Opted to alert fellow workers and clear a section of the factory.

3) There really wasn't fear until after. It was shock until the realization of what was happening dawned, then adrenaline got me moving.

Having experienced it, it is not surprising to me that even on the same floor, people would not necessarily flee in panic as soon as the first shots were fired. This kind of thing doesn't happen "here" in the US, so the brain can dismiss it with a sentence of "Can't be gunshots, not here, let's get back to the lesson...." If the guy was only reasonably quick on his feet, it would be easy to kill as many as he did. You know the old adage that a running man can slit 1000 throats in one night? It implies "sleeping" but can also mean "complacency." Ask anyone who has been in a defensive position for a long time. Weeks and weeks of nothing happening, and the guard drops.

All in all - it was much harder to come to grips with as an experience than Pick-a-stan. It was just too surreal, too "wrong." At some level, one can understand war. And the military gives you training, you talk about it, simulate it, so you are kind of prepared.

Not this, though.

Glock 9mm holds 17+1 unless you get the special clip, then it is 19+1.

Just read the latest online news about the package the gunman mailed 2 NBC.

Man, that guy was bark staving ronkers!

Where did the notion he was being "hurt" ever come from? Maybe it's in the package somewhere.

-ol' 2long

Of course there is going to be debate over the should of, would of, could of aspect of this heinous act. And, the sorrow and sadness is astronomical. Yet...this discussion is necessary for the knowledge gained to assist in deflecting another massacre of this magnitude...so help us, God!

I'd like to add that I wholeheartedly agree with our posters with military backgrounds!

Just up the road from VT...a few years ago...they handled a similar situation correctly!!


And the difference at VT...

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction here:

I think it will eventually come out that this guy was sexually molested and maybe even tortured as a child. I believe the news kept saying he was raised by a stepfather - no word on where the bio-dad is/was. It could have been the stepfather who molested him or just that the stepfather failed to protect him from the molester.

There was also an interview with a great-aunt still living in Korea who says that boy was never right, that he never spoke, that they all know something was seriously wrong with him but either didn't know what to do about it or simply tried to ignore it.

The great-aunt said that once the family moved to the USA when the boy was 8, they were told he was autistic, but whether he ever got treatment for autism or anything else I have not heard.

Seems to me that a child this cold and withdrawn, who is known never to speak, might make the perfect target for a predator - kind of like Tommy and Uncle Ernie.

I think that the "you" he keeps referring to in his taped diatribe is the molester and/or the stepfather, and I'll bet the "spoiled rich kids" he talks about are not the other students but his older siblings whom he may have felt were favored and treated much better than he was. He has at least one older sister who went to or is going to Princeton, a very very expensive school. I don't know if this sister is a full sister or is the stepfather's child from an earlier relationship. Either way, something could have made him feel that they were favored and he was not.

Edited to add: For whatever reason - cultural, personal, whatever - he did not feel he could strike back at his own family, so he took it out on his "extended family" - the university students. He didn't go to a shopping mall, or to some other school, or stand by the side of a highway shooting total strangers. This was done in his own house, so to speak, to people who in a sense were his brothers and sisters and even parents (professors and instructors were also killed and injured).

I'd sure like to know why he zeroed in on that girl in the dormitory the very first thing. Did she remind him of his sister somehow?

I could be wrong, of course, but that sure it how it all strikes me. Your mileage may vary.

I hope that if nothing else, the laws can be changed so that someone who is not just "a little weird" but clearly has a whole list of abnormal behaviours going on can get the help they need and the rest of us can be protected from their madness, no matter what its cause.
Mulan

I am posting again here ONLY because I am a Va. Tech alum and, as a result, the events of this week strike very close to home. I spent many, many, many hours in Norris Hall.

It's a narrow minded view that permitting concealed weapons throughout society will have an overall net benefit, IMHO. Sure, it's an easy conclusion that had an armed student of faculty menmber been present in any of the Norris Hall classrooms that the carnage very well would have been lessened. But at what expense all the rest of the time that these weapons would have been readily available? And don't give me that sophomoric logic that if we ban handguns we'll also have to ban diesel fuel and fertilizer because of Ok. City.

Consistent with the logic to permit unrestricted gun toting, here's my solution for decreasing haghway fatalities:

Eliminate all speed limits.

This way, drivers can drive as fast as they want and arrive at their destinations sooner. Thus, their time on the road is decreased and their "exposure time" for being involved in an accident is less.

Same logic, huh?

Until we remove easy access to guns in our society, we will remain less civilized than we could be.

JMHO

WAT

Some of the numbers out there on the causes of homicide are interesting.

There are about 10000 homicides using guns in the USA each year.

About half occur during "arguments" as judged by the U.S. Dep't. of Justice, though I'd have to get the actual data to know for sure about this number.

GC

In my neck of the woods, guns are almost considered as common as pickup trucks...and we have had several children accidently killed, by either playing with their own gun or playing with their parents guns.

We have also had teenage suicides by guns...I wonder if no easy access to gun...

We have also had young people killed at parties during heated arguments.

And spouse's killed during heated arguments.

I personally hate guns, and so am very glad to see that not everyone on this board is pro gun.

It may behoove all to study what makes a country like New Zealand so safe, instead of studying how we can become even more violent to keep ourselves safe. That makes no sense to me.

However, I do agree with the concept of teaching kids (and ourselves) how to react in the face of violent assault and reduce their risks of getting killed.

Anyone here old enough or crazy enough to have read Robert Heinlein's "Red Planet"?

If so, does anyone remember the FIRST step that was taken to end the colonist's freedoms?

Just a thought, if anyone out there had read it and might have seem some parallels. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I just wanted to say that all Virginians are taking today to mourn the losses at VT. Including myself.


Why is the opposite position "narrow minded" but when it raises problems usingthe same logic with your position, then those onjections are "sophomoric?"

I know you were stating that this was "IMHO" Wat...and I have no problem with that. The problem I have is that those have taken the opposite position have proven that the fears you have expressed here are almost entirely without merit...while the use of guns for good has prevailed in most instances...just like the Appalachian State U. example above.

Now...at what expense will allowing law abiding adult citizens to carry weapons that are their right by the Constituion? Well, the expense, as noted by researchers and government statistics, is that there will be less violent crime, less severity in the crimes (such as the ASU example). That actually isnt the cost...that is the benefit!!

This guy was a nutjob. Everyone knew it! And it had nothing to do with gun control. We needed to control the nutjob!! One way to do it was to lock his butt up when they noticed he was a nutjob. The second is to be prepared to put a few full metal jackets in him to help him assume room temperature.

All of the statistics show that allowing citizens to carry guns (and when is it the government's right to ALLOW me to have my rights? I am the one (and a few hundred million others) who allows the government to do what it does...it doesnt ALLOW me to do anything!) will actually lessen crime and instances such as VT. These are facts.

Some fear "well, these are 18-19 year olds...we cant trust them. Afterall, they are all getting drunk, etc. And then they might do something stupid." Oh really??? So what about all of those 18-19 year olds serving in the military? I guess I need to confiscate their weapons before they get drunk and do something stupid!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />


Actually, that is not consistent with the logic at all! Using highway fatalities, then to decrease them...these people would want a 5 day waiting period before buying cars!!


Nope. Not the same! You need to look at it again. And while you do, let me give you some logic that is the same as the arguments being presented here:

Suggesting that mass murder is a "gun problem" ignores the real problem---murderous pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell
Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School.)

If guns cause homicides, then one may, by logical extension, draw the following conclusions about causal factors for the top U.S. mortality groups: golden arches cause heart disease, cigarette lighters cause cancer, sex causes abortions, steering wheels cause car accidents, toxic-warning labels cause poisonings, ladders cause falls and bottles cause deaths associated with alcohol abuse.

Of course, by way of this liberal blameshifting logic, one may also conclude that commercial jets and truck bombs cause buildings to collapse, 90210 causes 9/11 conspiracy theories, freedom causes tyranny, beards cause terrorism, SUVs cause global warming, White House interns cause infidelity, saying "no" causes rape, chains cause slavery, matches cause arson, cameras cause pornography, sporks cause obesity, marriage causes divorce, crowbars cause burglary, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, 24-hour news-cycle talkingheads cause ignorance, ad nauseam...

I respect your opinion. Just saying that the studies, statistics, etc of our nationa...and history...dont bear out your argument!

My rights and yours, and our liberties are all protected...not by the Constitution...but by the barrel of a gun. A government that does not fear its citizens, can do whatever it wants!! What is to stop it??

We in the country think we are special...unique. We think that all of history made mistakes with their nations...but we wont here. That tyranny cannot happen here. That our nation cannot be taken over by dictators.

That is the height of arrogance...and is plain wrong! YOU are responsible for protecting your own rights. And the first right you have is life! It is your responsibility to protect it. Not the police. Not the VT president. Not the military. YOU are responsible for protecting all of your rights!

Now...how you gonna do that against an attacker with a gun? How you gonna do that against a government that forgets its moorings and becomes tyranical...and has millions of weapons...when you dont have a gun?

Our Founding Fathers were proud British subjects. But the government began to become tyrannical. And as our Declaration states..."when in the course of human events...", sometimes it is time to step up. If those guys didnt have their own arms...they would have had no ability to do so!!

WAT, it is too shortsighted to just blame guns. Actually, if you take out all of the deaths where gangbangers and druggies are shooting each other...the homicide rate is about the same in the U.S. as it is in "civilized" western Europe.

The reason our murder rate is so high is not firearms...it is bad people. We should be concentrating why they are bad, how to fix it...and how to get rid of these evil people...rather than blame the tools used by them. Because at the end of the day, the tool is used overwhelmingly more times for good in the U.S. than it is for bad.

Hey, that's a coinkdinky, I think I just saw a quote from there.

I work at a border where we have at least 50 armed officers on at most times, and I have worked here for 20 years. They are trained constantly in defense, and even have a weopons room that would knock your socks off...

and do you know that not once has a shot been fired here. Not once. Except for that time when an officer shot his wife in the gut with a shot gun and then shot himself in the head with the gun he carries for work.

My point is, that these guys are trained to NOT use their guns and then if they have to, how to use them as effectively and safely as possible. And guns belong in the hands of those trained, trained and then trained some more in keeping the peace.

Please do...I would be interested in seeing it.

Well, they belong in the hand of law abiding Americans. Tha tis what the Constittution states.

But yo uare right about one thing...they dont try to use their weapons to kill. Only if they have to. Which is PRECISELY what almost all gun owners do in the United States. And which is EXACTLy what those two students did at Appalachian State University did when they ran to their cars, got their weapons, confronted and disarmed the nutjob. They didnt shoot him up. They didnt spray bullets, killing innocent bystanders. They simply put this guy into a position to make a decision...to drop my weapon or to be filled with holes. And then he chose life...dropped his weapons...and then the guys jumped him and held him until police arrive (which is when they usually are on the scene of the crime...after it is over!).

By all accounts that some want today, those two students broke the law and university policy by carrying their guns into a "gun-free zone." They shouldnt have been labeled "heros"...they should have been prosecuted for weapons charges!

Afterall, if some people in our society had their way...they wouldnt have even had those weapons in their cars!

I may get the data and improve the precision a little. I forgot to mention that murders judged to be gang-related are not included in the "argument" category.

I'm not interested in arguing any position using those data. I just want a clearer picture myself of what's happening out there. The "argument" category piqued my interest, since it gets to a million other questions.

I will only share the number of justifiable homicides that occur each year privately! It would probably be inflammatory.

GC

And who have had psychological testing before getting one.

A quote from a great American:

MM, do you agree that a much longer waiting period, more training and psychological testing should go along with the right to bear arms?

Do you at least agree that it is too easy to get a permit for a concealed weapon?

Anyone want to guess what the largest school massacre was in the United States (since all of the press is reporting that this weeks tragedy at VT is the largest)?

Second question...what weapon did the murderer use to do the crime?

I will post my response to this one in a second.

No. It is not easy to get a concealed carry permit. some say it is easy to get a gun. But try to get a CC permit. Go see what you have to get in order to have one of those!

Then...look at how many people that have CC permits that are involved in illegal uses of their weapons.

The statistics may shock you!

How can we make it harder for people to get guns?

How about if there was mandatory communication between the different mental agencies and the police dept and the stores that sell guns.

I mean red flags so the sick, deranged people can not get guns so easily... and give up their rights to privacy if they want to obtain a gun.

There is clearly no easy answer, but there must be a better way.

First off...no. The Consitution does not qualify any of our rights under the Bill of Rights. Do we say that you must be educated in order to be able to use your First Amendment rights? How about religion? Does the person who is preaching have to have an education from some religious school or university before being allowed to preach?

No. Our rights are our rights. If we can ignore or limit them...then we really have no rights...because we can just change them on a whim for whatever reason. The Consitution states that I have Freedom of Speech. And as long as my freedom does not take away another's...then government has no right or responsibility to touch my right. My rights stop where my neighbors start.

Would it be beneficial for people who have fireams to have training? Sure! I would recommend it. But, no matter how we look at it...it is illegal to mandate it. Most of the firearms laws we have on the books today are unConstitutional. You cannot pass laws that circumvent the Constitution. When there is a discrepency between a law and the Constitution, then the Consitution wins everytime. If we dont like the Constitution...then there is a process to change it.

That is a different argument.

But right now...thank God...there is a 2nd Amendment.

People say "well, cars are dangeour machines and we require drivers license and testing." I say "so what?" Sure...as I said before...it would be beneficial for someone to have firearms training. But a car is not a RIGHT. A firearm is a RIGHT. And rights can only be taken away thru due process. Because I have chosen to give them up (ie by committing a crime).

On mentally ill or criminals...yes, we can limit them. And I am all for the background checks. I am for strengthening them so that nut jobs are on a list also...and are banned from owning a firearm as long as they are a nutjob.

But, my argument centers on our rights. When we play loose with those rights in order to get some kind of perceived "safety"...as one of our Founders stated...we deserve neither safety nor freedom!

Dont want to make it harder for people to get guns. How about we change your question a little? How about we ask...how can we make it harder for criminals and nutjobs to get guns? Now...I am all for that!!!!!!!


Now you are talking Weaver!! These are the solutions to the problems posed by the VT events!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


Now yo uare on the right track!!!!

to get a concealed weapon permit in Philly is ridiculously easy .... as it is in Virginia based on everything I have read.

Since no one chimed in...here is the answer: The Bath School Disaster, 1927. Bath Township, Michigan. Killed: 45, injured: 58.


Answer: Hundreds of pounds of dynamite and pyrotol

Okay MEDC...what are the requirements??

MM... I'll take a guess at your question... Jonestown...

See above!

http://www.ppdonline.org/hq_gunpermit.php

I thought Jim Jones ran a school at his compound... I know over 250 kids were included in the 900 plus dead. A lot of them were murdered.

Wow... that Bath School stuff is horrible... the guy was certainly an evil person the way he planned that and had bombs go off after the recue workers would have arrived.

Virginia

Requirements:
* Take a class, NRA, military, security guard, police training, etc.
* Go to the Circuit court of your residence. Ask the Clerk of the Court for a "Concealed Weapon Permit Application." Fill out the application form and bring driver's license, DD-214 (if prior military). While the speed that each jurisdiction processes the permit application differs, by state law the permit must be issued or denied within 45 days of application.

Documents required:
* Application Form.
* Proof of training.
* Photo ID (driver's license) DD-214.
* Fingerprinting of concealed handgun permit applicants is a local option; some jurisdictions require it, some do not.

________________

Oaky...so what else needs to be required? As I said, CCWs permits have never been a problem and those with them are rarely involved in firearms crimes. So, what other limitations should there be? And second question...why are we limiting the folks that arent using the weapons to commit crimes?

The position people take on this is partly based on philosophy, and arguing about such matters picks at people's core values - a sensitive and tenacious area, like a wart.

There isn't anything unethical about owning a gun and as a liberal I don't generally believe in banning things.

As for the current system/s for managing gun ownership in the USA, it could use improvement. If the VT killer was declared mentally unsound by a judge, his ability to easily purchase a gun was a system failure that needs to be addressed, absolutely. States' rights are not so precious that efficient information sharing violates them.

Knee-jerk legislation is usually a mistake. Knee-jerk refusal to allow something on the table is too, though I understand the impulse when it's a pet cause.

GC

Yep. All generations have had their share of nutjobs!

Have no problem with this GC. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Actually, I was on the right track when I said this -



<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

But I read somewhere that a great mind is one where two opposing thoughts could be held simultaneously...so I gave it a whirl. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

What about his "rights" 2 be a nutjob? At what point in nutjobbedness does someone cross over in2 infringing on others' rights with their nutjobedness? At what point should the nutjob's right 2 bear arms have been rescinded?

I still don't think that gun control is the issue IN THIS CASE. And since we're now focused on how 2 best prevent similar occurrences in fu2re (how many copycat threats were there yes2rday alone?), I think we need 2 focus first on how 2 prevent them in the CURRENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENT. The arguments over gun control will continue for years, decades, even cen2ries. Rightly and/or wrongly.

A little self-defense training might go a long way in the short term.

-ol' 2long

"Walking the street in her naked feet.
So full of rhythm, but I can't find the beat.
Snapping her heels, clicking her toes.
Everybody knows just where she goes.

Fear, Fear, she's the Mother of Violence,
Making me tense to watch the way she breed.
Fear, she's the Mother of Violence,
You know self-defense is all you need.

It's getting hard to breathe.
It's getting so hard to believe.
To believe in anything at all.

Mouth all dry, eyes bloodshot,
Data stored in microdot.
Kicking the clouds with my moccasin shoes.
TV dinner, TV news.

Ah ah, cause Fear, Fear, she's the Mother of Violence.
Don't make any sense to watch the way she breed.
Fear, she's the Mother of Violence,
Making me tense to watch the way she feed.

Only way you know she's there,
Is the subtle flavor in the air.
Getting hard to breathe,
Hard to believe in anything at all

...But Fear."

-Peter Gabriel, "Mother Of Violence"

2L, asked how do we prevent this with regard to a "nut job" crossing over, and the sad but true answer is one does not. At least and retain the many freedoms and options we have come to love and expect.

The only real issue in my mind is there a way to minimize the damage? And even that is difficult.

Oklahoma City proved that one can creat massive destruction with no guns. The terrorists in Japan were using Saran (sp) gas in the subways. And so it goes.

One should not become accepting of this stuff, but the reality is that most people are NOT of "nut job" status.

Just thoughts.

JL

I'm coming in on this late and I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I go over stuff you guys have already talked about, but my impression is that this thread is a discussion about gun control....

In all this talk, you are all villifying the shooter (naturally) - (and his parents, in some cases) - lots of names being called here - nutjobber is a horrible name...

As the sister of a paranoid schizophrenic brother (now dead), I'd like to say my perspective on this tragic event is a little different. Having seen the videos of this guy on the news, it's clear to me the boy was mentally ill...

It is also clear that his teachers felt so strongly that he was a danger to his fellow classmates that they desperately tried to get him treatment....it is significant when people notice a person's behaviour so much that they actually try to do something about it...most people let things go because they don't want to make waves....this guy was so disturbed and disturbing that a LOT of people tried to say and do something about it....

But what happened? He didn't get treated, even though the mental health unit where he was assessed stated that they thought he was a danger to himself and others....

Under Virginia's gun laws, he was allowed to buy a gun....go figure....this was a tragedy waiting to happen...

Why?

First, because people villify the mentally ill, and they throw them away, treat them like rubbish...worse, don't take their illness seriously....

Second, because the gun laws are too lax....

I believe people should have the right to bear arms, and yes, maybe someone could have "taken him out" if someone on campus had had a concealed weapon....but I think in all practicality that was a long shot....in other words, not likely....

The real issue here is how you treat the mentally ill. Mental health services are under-funded the world over. I remember a bumper sticker in California in the 1980's - "California's Mental Health Service - You're Walking Around In It!". People who are mentally ill, and the families of the mentally ill are treated like dirt. And whenever a mentally ill person does something terrible, they blame the parents, and the family. The statistics are that the people most in danger from the mentally ill are his own family - they kill their own parents more often than anyone else.

The truly tragic thing is that a paranoid schizophrenic is a person, not a monster, and often a kind and gentle person. My brother was such a person. I can't explain evil. I can tell you that I have heard and seen it in action. I sat in the front seat of a car with my brother in the back seat one night, realizing the journey was going to be a rough ride, and that my brother was dangerous, and I heard two voices coming from the back seat, alternating one after the other. First, the raging voice, spewing venom, expletives, rage, calling us every name in the book and blaming us for everything. Then quiet. Then the voice of the brother I knew coming out quietly and saying "You know I don't mean that, you know I really love you. You know I don't know why I'm saying that. You know I really love you." Then rage again, like an engine revving up, spewing rage. They went back and forth, the two voices, alternating, for the whole of the journey. It was an unearthly experience. My mother, who was driving, and I could only sit and listen in awe. Fear and trembling is not the word. But my heart broke for my brother that night, and I lost all the resentment and anger I had against him. I realized that he was in the grip of a terrible and all-powerful disease, and that he was not in control of it, or himself. He desperately needed treatment, which we were trying to get for him. I realized that if he were to harm anyone, he would not be culpable because he would not be capable of stopping himself. But inside, my brother, the brother who loved, still existed, and was remorseful. That person was like a person buried alive inside himself.

Whenever I hear of a crazy person killing someone, and I'm talking here about a schizophrenic, not a psychopath - psychopaths are different - but a person who is mentally ill - my heart breaks for the victim, but also for the perpetrator and his family. Many schizophrenics who kill do so when they are off their medication, and are extremely remorseful afterwards.

So think about what you are saying here on this thread when you are talking so freely about "nutcases".

It is not clear yet, but it is very possible, this boy was not a psychopath, but he WAS mentally ill. His parents are not necessarily monsters (although they could be)....they could be very decent people who are totally bewildered by their son. So you should all stop pointing fingers and calling names until the facts are known.

My brother is dead now - died five years ago, aged 43. Our family thank God he died without ever having harmed anyone, although he did spend 3 years on a locked ward at one point. My brother also, in the course of his life, saved three lives....

And I'd just like to say one more thing - Our Lord came to heal. And who did he heal more often in the Gospel? The mentally ill - the people posessed by an evil spirit. Many of the people brought to Jesus for healing by their families were people suffering mental disorders. Jesus saw their suffering and wept with pity.

So all you who call yourselves Christians, think about how far your Christian charity extends....

I am not trying to minimize the suffering of the victims of this terrible tragedy. I am saying that if the shooter were mentally ill, you all need to think about how you treat the mentally ill....and people HAVE to start taking mental illness seriously and start supporting funding of treatment for the mentally ill. It is possible that this tragedy could have been averted if this person could have been treated.

I'm just adding a postscript. I've just read the news online and I know a lot of you in the US are going to be waking up to the news that Cho's family has finally spoken out. What they say validates everything I have said in my post.

Also, I remember the Amish people who lost their children to the gunman extended their charity to the wife and children of the man who murdered their children....when asked, they said that they recognized that the gunman's family were victims, too...

I hope people will now realize that Cho was also a victim of his illness, and Cho's family have to live not only with losing their son, but with the guilt over what he did...that's a terrible thing.

thanks for the perspective and I agree with the vast majority of what you have said.

MEDC

From Penalty Kill

Friend4life, thank you for your post. Your perspective as someone who has watched a family member struggle with mental illness is very valuable.

My son is thisclose to his Eagle Scout award. He and his father handle firearms for hunting and target shooting. He has passed hunter safety courses and is quite a good shot. Nevertheless, I cannot see how arming more people is the solution to violent crimes such as this. It seems illogical. I would prefer that guns were more difficult to obtain.

I have spoken to my children about how the days of cooperating with armed and desperate individuals and hoping for the best are over; after all, no one cooperates with hijackers anymore - we all know better after 9/11.

This story hits close to home. I know people with children at VT. We had three obituaries in the paper yesterday from the shooting, all outstanding young men and women. My daughter goes to college in Virginia, very close to VT, at a school named for two famed US generals. (As an aside, one of them stated that his greatest regret was taking a military education.)

When my daughter was a baby, a young man in my in-laws neighborhood went on a rampage. He was armed with a knife. He was an Ivy League student of Asian descent who was suffering from a mental disorder. He stabbed his mother, brother and a neighbor who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The neighbor's daughter witnessed her father's murder; she was five at the time.

If he had a gun, I'm sure that the body count would have been much higher.

Just my thoughts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9706123

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9750908

These perpetrators are not necessarily bad people. They are sick people.

Cho's parents are victims, too. Just imagine the pain and stigma they feel. Not only have they lost their son, they have to live with what he did and how they and others failed him.

Having read this entire thread (more like a small novel), I had decided to stay out of this discussion. But friend4life has raised the issue of “what would Jesus do” and has argued from the perspective that he would have healed the mentally ill and not shot him to protect others (assuming he was “packing”). She has argued that the “answer” is not “carry guns” but is one of more mental health treatment.

Since everyone is created in the image of God, no matter how good or bad, sane or insane, healthy or sick, I do concur that the issue is “what to do with aberrant behavior individuals.” I also think that God will heal everyone and banish sickness and death, because that is His will and that is what He has revealed to us is the “state” that is awaiting believers in the new heaven and the new Earth that He will create to replace this current one. Until then, however, the “ruler” of this Earth is Satan, and it and everyone in it is corrupted by sin.

So the issue, from a Christian perspective, seems to be first of all the fundamental one of “good and evil,” “saved and unsaved.” When Jesus walked this Earth he walked it with a God-given purpose. Jesus did NOT go around healing all the sickness and demon possessed. He DID do some of that, but it was for the purpose of showing His power so that what He was saying and doing FOR all of humanity could be “validated” by His miracles. With one word, Jesus, the creator of all, COULD have banished all sickness and mental illness, but He did not. Why not? That would seem to be the question.

The answer is that was not “what He was here for.” He was here to suffer and die for us to provide redemption for our souls, not to usher in the “Second Earth.” We who are believers are, as a result of what Jesus did for us, “in the world but not of the world.” We are still subject to the “problems” that this fallen world and that fallen people cause in our lives. We still get sick, have accidents, contract fatal diseases, etc. It is NOT how others treat us that is the “point.” It is our own individual relationship with Christ that is the “point.” So how WOULD Jesus, if He were here, “handle” sinful situations, and how, but extension, should we handle things “as if” we were doing Christ’s work here on Earth?

I don’t know that anyone has the definitive answer or can “speak for God” on this issue. All that we can do is to look to the Word of God to see how it might apply, how it might guide us should we faced with a life or death situation.

Peter, we know, carried a sword since he used it to attempt to defend Jesus from arrest by “evil people” intend on killing Him. Jesus did NOT stop Peter because it was “wrong” for Peter to be armed and to act to protect someone else. Jesus stopped Peter for two primary reasons. First, He stopped him because “to die” is WHY Jesus came here in the first place. Second, He stopped him because He was fulfilling Scripture that the Messiah would lose none of His followers, except for the son of perdition who was never a “true believer,” Judas Iscariot.

God has several times “intervened” against sin and fallen man. He wiped out everyone except for Noah and his family because there was “evil continuously in the world.” God told Abraham that He would spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah IF there were but TEN “good people.” There were not, so God told Lot and his family to flee the city because He was going to “treat them” with destruction, ending their ability to hurt others.
God passed judgment on Nineveh and set Jonah to tell them how God was going to treat them. THEY responded by submitting to God (at least for a while) and God withheld His judgment. But the message was clear…sin must be confronted because it is an affront to God.

We tend to “humanize” the conditions, be they mental illness or harm to others as in the case of adultery. But the primary issue remains the individual’s relationship, or lack of relationship, with God, in Christ. We are told, in the case of adultery, that the Wayward Spouse is “mentally ill,” “mentally abducted by an alien (Satan?),” etc., and that we can “kill the marriage” as a proper response or we can forgive and attempt to rebuild a new marriage. Without Christ, we attempt to rebuild under our own power only. With Christ, we have the resurrection power of Jesus to help us, because we HAVE been hurt and WILL continue to be hurt. We are told to “expose” the affair to all who need to know about it. Why? To put additional “pressure” on the WS to realize their sin and to repent of their sin of adultery (expressly forbidden by God). But NO ONE can “force” a WS to repent and return to the dying marriage.

Even a forgiving Betrayed Spouse has the right to “execute” the marriage, even though God hates all divorce, in order to protect the BS from the evil that has already been DONE and it’s long lasting harmful effects on the BS and their own “mental and spiritual health.” God gave that “right” to the BS, to USE or NOT USE as the BS sees it needed for their self protection.

In biblical times there were even “Leper Colonies” for people infected with a highly contagious disease. They were “separated” from the “healthy,” rather than killed outright, but I’m willing to “bet” that if one of the lepers decided to not stay in the place provided for them and wanted to spread his disease to others that some of the “others” would “take action” and kill that Leper in order to protect others from suffering at his hands and his “right” to be sick and still be allowed to be “in general society.”

Our compassion SHOULD be for the diagnosis and treatment of serious mental problems. People who are a danger to themselves and to others should be committed for treatment before they cause harm. But our society severely limits what should be done because of many reasons, not the least of which is the “stigma” that treatment for mental illness carries. Thus, instead of doing what should be done, people find “excuses” to ignore the problem. Instead of needed treatment, mentally ill people are left to “fend for themselves” or left with their “voluntary” choice to seek help for what is wrong with them. In the case of this shooter, there were many significant warning signs that should have resulted in mandatory treatment. Had that occurred, there would have been a record of it and the guns he purchased would have been “flagged” and he would not have been able to purchase them. He may have been able to obtain guns some other way, but he would have risen to the “awareness” level of law enforcement for just attempting to purchase the guns.

So what is the general population supposed to do to protect themselves not only from the evils of an individual, but also from the “touchy-feely” society that likes to deny the reality of real threats and evil intent?

In the context of friend4life’s question and apparent admonishment of believers who have supported the carrying and use of firearms for protection, Jesus has said: “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive much gain. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Luke 6:27-36 KJV)

In all these things Jesus was speaking about our material goods and their “place” in the Christian’s life. He was speaking out those who SPEAK or USE people for their own gain or profit. He was speaking of our witness to those around us that God is our Lord and that the “things” of this world are unimportant compared to knowing Christ.

There is also for consideration, the Ten Commandments. Among them is the 6th Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20: 13, KJV) The word “kill” used here is one that speaks to premeditation, to motivation for evil.

The Lord spoke further to Moses about this issue of killing:

“He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God delivered him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with a guile; Thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.” (Exodus 21:12-14, KJV)

“Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.” (Exodus 12:12-14, NIV)

The command against “killing” is because we are all created in the image of God. God does not “outlaw” the taking of a life, he “outlaws” the evil premeditation of MURDER.

The “evildoer” is to be killed. We don’t “like” that judgment of God and we don’t “like” to perhaps have to be the instrument of that judgment against evil ourselves. In part, we have given that authority to the courts, to the State, to execute judgment, to determine “murder” versus “accidental death” versus “justifiable homicide.” But where “justifiable homicide” comes in is in the exercise of our own understanding of God’s commands for us PERSONALLY. We cannot impose our own belief on someone else, nor can we deny God’s judgment of the premeditated murderer. Each of us must decide if we are being obedient to God in NOT defending the innocent, preferring to let “someone else be the instrument of God’s judgment” rather than standing in defense, putting our own life on the line for others, to resist evil and to kill the perpetrator in order to resist a malignant evil. When the “officials” who are supposed to “stand” for the innocent are not available, are we to deny our own individual responsibility to do all that we can to protect the innocent from the murderous intent of an evil person?

We each need to choose. We need to determine the “severity of any resistance” by WHAT is being taken and whether or not we ourselves are, at that moment, the “last line of defense” against evil. Take all my goods. Take all my money. Take all my credit cards. Take the keys to my car. But please don’t take the life of my girl or my man or my child or anyone else’s life.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They (the Founders) lived under such oppression and “whim” of the powerful. They chose to establish the Second Amendment to protect all Americans from the abuses of the powerful. The “problem” is not the gun. It never has been. It has always been the intent of the wielder of the weapon.

I choose to defend life from evil-minded people. I resist when it is forced upon me. I allow the government to “stand in for me,” to seek out evil and confront it when it has manifested itself and it’s intent to do evil BEFORE it breaks down the door of MY home. I support those who put themselves in harms way for us, both in the military and in law enforcement, so that I don’t have to “take up arms” myself unless absolutely necessary.
I will not stand meekly and passively by while someone is raped, nor will I stand meekly and passively by when a murderer is attempting to kill innocent people. If I have a weapon, I will use it to stop the murderer. If I don’t I will give my life if needed (as did the heroic teacher) so that others may live, in an attempt to stop the murderer. I KNOW where I am going after this life. And I also know that evil must be resisted because it profanes God.

To “carry” or “not to carry” is an individual choice and is a RIGHT granted to all good citizens of the USA. It is NOT to be “infringed upon.” This is what the “liberal” thinkers have been trying to do for a long time. It is little different than their focusing on “separation of Church and State” issues (which is NOT in the Constitution) while conveniently IGNORING that the Constitution prohibits the State from passing ANY law that prohibits the FREE exercise of religion anywhere in the Country. The result they are looking for is to take away freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and to consolidate power in the hands of the governmental “elites,” who love to make “double standard” rules, one for the people and a different one for the “elites.” As MM has so eloquently stated, America elects people to SERVE the people, not so the people can serve the people in power.

What should be done then, in a case such a Virginia Tech? Mandatory treatment of the mentally ill, in my humble opinion. If the Commonwealth of Virginia is looking for a law to pass, let them start with that one.

How about requiring that all teachers/professors be trained in firearms and required to keep a gun in their desk? They are supposed to be responsible for the students and the school is supposed to be providing a safe environment for the students. Since it seems that more and more schools are being “targeted,” perhaps the message that “if you show up here and try to shoot someone, the “teacher posse/militia” will be ready and able to oppose you…with force, not merely with words. Think of it like “sentry duty” in the military. They are required to be “under arms” while on duty. “Advance and be recognized” or be ready for deadly force to be applied if needed.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer any more than taking cars away from law abiding citizens would be the answer to drunk drivers or reckless drivers who don’t care who they might hurt. Even taking the license and driving privileges away from someone who has been convicted of DUI isn’t “THE” answer because so many of them drive without a license anyway, just like a disturbed or evil person could get a gun if they wanted one. And one thing is certain. Far more people are hurt and killed by drunk and reckless drivers (ask Teddy for example) than by guns but no one is suggesting that we ban cars.

No easy answer to the unbalanced, mentally ill, problem that some people suffer with. But neither can they be allowed to “roam free” if they are potentially harmful to themselves and/or others. Treatment, mandatory treatment, would seem to be the most “loving” way to try to get them some help, as well as protecting the innocent from violent behavior.

Just to respond a little to what's been said since I posted - to ForeverHers - my post was not to raise the issue "what would Jesus do", and I wasn't arguing against carrying guns, either.

I am speaking up for the mentally ill, who are unable to speak for themselves, and asking people who judge them to consider them as human beings and have compassion, not only for their victims, but for them, and their families.

Like was said above - ill people sometimes do evil things - that doesn't mean the person was "evil" or his family were "evil".

I was simply saying that - in this case - my opinion is that this is a case of serious mental illness going untreated, and people should try to understand that Cho may very well not have done what he did if he had received treatment.

As to locking people up even if they haven't committed any crime - that is extremely difficult, as the two links posted above show....sometimes I think I would be in favour of that...but with the proviso that the person's case is reviewed regularly...you can't lock people up indefinitely when they haven't done anything...and yet....sick people do kill....very near my town, a mother and daughter were hammered to death by a man who was a recognized danger to the public, but the law didn't allow for him to be hospitalized....they are still trying to change the law, but...it's a civil rights issue...it's just not that simple....

I do firmly believe that gun laws should be radically overhauled. I see no need for anyone to own an assault rifle or semi-automatic weapons. And I think all guns should be sold only if thorough background checks are made...that might make some difference. But more probably, if you want to get ahold of a gun to use it for violent purposes, the truth is that even in a country with strict gun laws, you can still get ahold of one. I live in the UK now, and the gun laws here are strict - after Dunblane, which in case you haven't heard of that, a crazed gunman went into a primary school in Scotland, barricaded himself in the school gym with the kindergarten class and hunted down and shot something like 16 tiny kids and their teacher - that guy was a member of the gun club and all his guns were licensed. The UK was so horrified they outlawed handgun ownership. No person except the police can own or carry a handgun in the UK now. Even so, we still have gun crime, and knife crime is a huge problem - if people don't use guns, they use knives - lots of stabbings, lots of throats cut. Occasionally someone runs amok with a samurai sword or a machete. My point is that these kinds of tragedies happen, whether they use guns or not - but guns in the hands of someone running amok probably kill more people than knives.

My main point is that people should have compassion for the mentally ill and try not to make snap judgements about the people who commit these terrible crimes. I have to say that the crimes that truly trouble me are the Ted Bundys of this world. To me, that is true evil.

Mental Illness is a terrible fate...You'll hear no argument from this daughter of someone with Bipolar Disorder on that...HOWEVER, mental illness does NOT remove culpablity for heinous acts...Cho clearly was able to attend college and make it to his senior year which means that he DEFINITELY had more than just moments of lucidity and sanity...It is in those times that his culpablity lies...He had a CHOICE to go and get HELP...It is NOT society's responsible to force help upon these individuals all of the time, though I am for simpler involuntary commitment requirements...

While Cho's mental health may EXPLAIN his behavior it in no way EXCUSES it...

Mrs. W

I'm not excusing his actions, Mrs. W., I'm simply pointing out that people on this thread were showing the usual prejudices against people they perceive as mentally ill.

However, I would have to disagree with you about his culpability. Just because he was "lucid" and "sane" enough to continue with his class schedule does not mean he was in a normal frame of mind where he was capable of "choosing to go get help". It is for just such cases as Cho's POSSIBLY was, that there is the legal defense of "not guilty for reasons of diminished responsiblity" - which usually results in a long-term stay in hospital for the criminally insane....

I believe that what Cho did was evil. What I am saying is that it is possible he was extremely ill and should have received better treatment....

Also, in the case of schizophrenia, as I understand it, there are several "danger windows" when a schizophrenic breakdown usually occurs, in a person's life - these are: at puberty, then around the age of 19-23, and in the late 30's - I don't think anyone knows why that is, but they are periods in life when the body goes through hormonal changes and life stresses. It is conceivable that Cho fits into that second "danger window" period. He had obviously been having trouble for several years before this happened.

Friend4Life...

Here are some definitions of the word culpable as copy/pasted from dictionary.com...If Cho isn't to "blame" then who is?


Mrs. W

The question is not whether he is guilty of having committed a terrible crime. Obviously no one MADE him do it. The fact that he feels that "you" i.e. everyone else in the world besides him, made him do it, as he says on the video, is a sign of his illness - he is totally paranoid - in his mind, there is only himself against the world. He doesn't take any responsiblity for his crimes and sees himself in grand terms. These are classic signs of schizophrenia.

The issue is whether or not he was mentally ill, and if he was mentally ill, could or should he be considered responsible for his actions.

Are you saying, Mrs. Wondering, that even if a person is mentally ill, they should be tried as if they were a sane person, put in jail, or face the death penalty? Because that's what it amounts to - if someone like Cho had not committed suicide and stood trial for what he did, his mental state at the time of the crime would have to be assessed. He would first be assessed as to whether or not he was "fit to stand trial". And that, IMO, would be humane and proper. If this did not take place, then you risk making the court a venue for vengeance and not a place for justice. Justice encompasses all parties. It is a barbaric practice to try and condemn the mentally ill without taking into account their mental state at the time of the crime.

Whether or not you realize it, our jails are full of the mentally ill. Mentally ill people need help and treatment, not cruelty.

And so I still, respectfully say that there is a legal defense of diminished responsibility. Is that not so? That is a valid defense.

However, none of us has the facts on this case, so we cannot make a judgement ourselves on whether or not Cho was totally and completely responsible for his actions.

My point was that if he was mentally ill, he and his family deserve compassion. I know that is a difficult thing to say at this time.

I have deep sympathy for the victims. I was once threatened by my brother and had to look straight into his eyes while he was threatening me. It was a terrifying experience because I got it deep down inside myself in an instant that someday I might be forced to kill my own brother in self-defence. He also nearly strangled my mother once, and there was a period when my father said it was better that he didn't know where I lived. I have never been more frightened of anyone than I was of my own brother. But I knew who he REALLY was. And that's why I say that if he had ever done anything terrible, he would not have been to blame. He was not himself. He was ill.

So I am saying that it looks like Cho was ill. He did not get treatment.

By contrast, its the Ted Bundys of this world who are truly frightening. They fully and consciously choose evil. I saw an interview with Ted Bundy before he was executed. He took full responsiblity for what he did and admitted that he did what he did because he chose to, willingly - it was what he enjoyed and what he wanted to do. He also wanted to be stopped, but wouldn't stop himself. He committed his last murder in Florida because he knew he would get the death penalty. And he says he found God while in prison. I suspect that Ted Bundy was grandstanding for an audience in that interview, and I seriously doubt that he had "found God". I don't believe that Bundy was mentally ill. The law makes a distinction between mental illness and psychopaths. I am extremely troubled by the idea of trying to forgive someone like Ted Bundy, so I give that up to God. I know that it is God who will be able to pass judgement on whether or not his "repentance" was genuine. In his case, I think the death penalty was deserved. He had forfeited his life by willfully taking the lives of others, moreover, he had proved (deliberately, by escaping from prison to kill again) that he could not be stopped by anything except death. He consciously refused to stop himself. He was an extreme danger to society and there was no other way to stop him.

That is a whole different thing.

From a legal standpoint, this person would most likely NOT be classified or found to be incompetent to stand trial. The standard is that he KNEW his actions were wrong and some of the steps he took would indicate he was able to distinquish the difference. I am not saying the man does not have a mental illness... just that he would be found competent to stand trial.



His family SHOULD have sought out help for their child earlier in life... from what I have read, not nearly enough was done to help him. They do not deserve our scorn though as they could not have forseen what was to happen. I feel bad for the whole lot of them and pray that even Cho has found peace and understanding in God. He obviously had mental problems that, while they would not excuse his actions in our legal system, drove him to this horrible outcome.

Perhaps at this point, emotions are too raw to be having a discussion that speaks to compassion for the murderer. I understand where you are coming from and agree with much of what you have to say. I had neighbors that suffered a terrible tragedy in their life... on a much smaller scale (although not for this family).. and I got to see first hand how the mental problems of one could so violently tear the lives of an entire family to shreads. As it was with this family, it will be up to the ones that have lost loved ones to find forgiveness (much as the Amish have done in our community after the Nickel Mines shootings) for the hurt inflicted by Cho. We as a community are stirred by these horrible events. I always hope that some good comes from these things....but right now...for many, for most... it's just too soon.

MEDC

It may very well be that Cho, had he not chosen suicide, would have been found fit to stand trial. That would be for the experts to decide.

I am not going to add anything more to this discussion, as I feel I have made my point. It is not my intention to come into a forum for the sake of being contentious.

My contribution to this thread was to take issue with the labelling of the mentally ill as "nutjobbers", and to point out that it was POSSIBLE that Cho was actually extremely mentally ill, and his actions were not necessarily the actions of someone who was "evil", or that his family were "evil".

Since I first posted, I think news reports have contributed more weight to the points I have made here.

And you can criticize the family all you like for not paying enough attention "sooner", MEDC, but I think if you had ever experienced serious mental illness in the family, you would know that the mental health services in most areas of both the US and the UK are totally inadequate to cope with the needs of the mentally ill and their families. You speak of watching a family close to you crumble under the weight of the problems they were grappling with, so you have some idea of how great the impact mental illness can have on a family. It is often extremely difficult to tell just how "ill" a person really is - they can appear largely normal, or eccentric, or attention-seeking, or whatever...then they snap. I've seen someone snap - someone I know extremely well. I also know someone who killed. I didn't know that person well - he was someone at work, a technician for our department. His crime horrified our whole town and he is now in prison doing life for murder. In his case, no-one EVER thought he was capable of that - he really did seem to be a nice person.

So until all the facts are known I think people should try to refrain from judging Cho and his family.

That's all I really have to say on this issue, so I am now bowing out of this thread, as I feel I have made my point.

We don't KNOW that Cho had a mental illness...Speculation about it is really pointless...Pandering pity for a MURDERER is distasteful to me...Right now it is the VICTIMS of Cho's crime that should be getting sympathy...We judge by ACTIONS and in this case I believe the actions speak quite clearly...

Mrs. W

I was going to leave this thread, but what you have said, Mrs. W., is actually deeply deeply offensive to me....

In all my posts, I have stated that we do not know the FACTS about the Cho case, but quite frankly, it is MORE than speculation to suggest that Cho might had a mental illness....

"Pandering pity to a murderer is distasteful to me" - that is NOT what I was suggesting - I am sorry you have chosen to interpret my posts as that. Asking people to consider the possiblity that Cho was extremely mentally ill and to have compassion for his family is NOT "pandering pity". I am very sorry that you choose to see it that way.

I have never tried to minimize the suffering of his victims or their families. Ever.

Friend4Life...

I'm sorry that you are offended by how I choose to FEEL about this particular case...I believe that my feelings are grounded in reality and the facts of the case thus far...My feelings, btw, are just as valid as yours...You are welcome to feel as you like, but so are others here and YES, I do believe that you are using emotional tactics (citing your own PERSONAL experiences with DIAGNOSED mental illness) to try and pander pity for the UNDIAGNOSED perp here...That's just the way I see it...*shrug*

No Worries...

Mrs. W

Of course your feelings are valid. No-one ever said they weren't.

I don't believe it was wrong to raise this issue or to dare to suggest that the shooter was possibly mentally ill.

I'm sorry that you believe that my sharing of my personal experiences, and the feelings I have which have developed as a consequence of those experiences amounts to "using emotional tactics". You make it sound as if my sharing of personal experiences is a cynical calculated tactic (to pander sympathy for a murderer) - it was not.

I'm certainly capable of living with having offended someone...if I was afraid of offending someone, I wouldn't have posted.

You obviously have a problem with what I have said. I can live with that.

COOL...

Mrs. W

Camille Paglia and others had an interesting piece about the possible whys..

~ Marsh

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1686784.ece

Didn't know this.

Thanks, Mortarman.

~ Marsh

Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of one of the Columbine Shooting Victims.


http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darrellscott.htm

Up until the last two pages (as of my posting) we have not truly been looking closely at the core causes of this tragedy. Not until page 19...

I told my husband when the news first broke that immediately the press was going to skew the spin toward the need for more gun control, just like they did February 13th with the Trolley Square shooting.

The root causes of mass killings is not guns. We can come off with all sorts of little slogans and snippits for and against guns...

But as the shooters in both incidents brought to my mind a song written by Bernie Taupin and Elton John in 1974, the chanting in the mentally ill person's head has more to do with what went on in the child's home than on the way to the gun shop.


There is something we all can do in our own homes tonight. Pray to God for personal divine answers to the actions we take. Then leave the television off - especially the violent shows that dull our sensitivities (and those of our children) to crime and the pain it causes. Turn the television off, leave the movie theater alone except for movies that promise no graphic portrayal of violence, no matter how much it gets talked up at the office. Unplug the XBOX or Wii - especially the more violent games like Halo...

How can we ask God to stop the violence when we give it our attention - our earnings, our "affection" so to speak, when we get so offended that the entertainment industry had anything to do with Cho's portrayal in his suicide video...

It's really sickening when life imitates "art". And we deny art's influence.

Bavo, Kayla! Thank you.

But on the other hand.... Here's a report from our local paper today...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-credited-as-lifesavers/2007/04/22/1177180487704.html

Wanted to add something before looking at all of the posts from this past weekend.

Last Friday, which was all of the memorial services for the VT tragedy, I was amazed at how many people got involved. When my oldest son and I went out to get something to eat on Friday evening, I counted over 90% of the people at the restaurant wearing VT clothing, or their colors or ribbons. Every store, bank, etc I went into has people wearing ribbons or VT apparel. When I was at my son's high school baseball game earlier in the day, I counted two people in the whole ballpark that wasnt wearing VT colors.

I am not a VT gaduate (I am from a rival Virginia school). But it was amazing to see all of the burgundy and orange out there!

Friend4Life,

While many have responded to what you posted...let me address your basic post. I do believe that those that have a mental illness should be taken care of. I believe this should happen BEFORE stuff like this happens. We are hearing from family and others what went on for years with him.

I can promise you this...if one of my kids was exhibiting these problems, I would take care of it. I would get help for him/her. And if the law didnt allow me to get them mandatory treatment/confinement, then I would do what I have to...even if it might not be legal. Why? Because to do nothing, knowing my son or daughter is a ticking time bomb...is morally wrong.

That being said, I know many are not like me. And it may well be that Cho's family did try to do something. And he just fell thru the cracks. And if so, then I truly do feel for them and what they are going thru...and have gone thru.

My use of the word "nutjob" was just a slang word used so I didnt have to write out "metally ill or evil" everytime I wanted to refer to people that do such as Cho did, or McVeigh did...or the kids at Collumbine did. It is not said to be insensitive to those suffering mental illness. It was just slang.

The reason I used it is I wanted to focus, not on Cho's family or even on Cho per se...but to look at what can be done to stop or lessen the impact in the future.

In the Army, it matters not who might be trying to come inside the wire. It could be enemy troops attacking. Or a suicide bomber. In both those cases, we shoot without even thinking about it. But what about the young child they strap a bomb to and tell him to run towards us? What do we do then.

Well, we shoot him. Of course it isnt the child's fault. But we have to shoot him anyway before he kills others. Same would go if they strapped a bomb on the back of someone mentally ill.

In discussing prevention, it matters not to me if Cho was "evil" or "mentally ill" except in the fact of were there things we could have done before. What also matters to me is that if we cant prevent some of these incidents, then we had better also be in a position to respond appropriately to stop the threat.

Virginia Tech was not prepared...even with police there...even with all the policies they had. It did not stop Cho.

Cho wouldnt have been stopped, except if he had been hospitalized. Sure, if the gun shop owner who sold him the guns had known he was mentally ill (see, I didnt say nutjob that time!), he wouldnt have sold the guns to him. But Cho would have gotten weapons. They are easy to get in illegal ways. Theft, black market, etc.

So, what I was trying to get to is that to stop what happened at VT, we needed to stop Cho (before or during the event)...rather than concentrating on the tools.

Again, I do have compassion for all involved. But the reality of the fact is that Cho should have been locked up...the gun shop owner should have been able to find out Cho wasnt quite right in the head...and at the end, the students and faculty should have been able to put Cho down early in the event before he got to so many people.