@superbattleshipyamato Agreed, I knew of his damaged arm. I didn’t know he lost a kidney.
Another School Tragedy
-
I can see a need to start loading my own if rounds cost $500 a piece.
There is nothing magic about loading your own rounds.
I would prefer the “everyone carry” law approach myself. If every student on that campus was carrying a handgun, the casualty count would not have gotten anywhere near 10.
When everyone carries a gun, mass shootings are very unlikely.
-
So charge $499.70 for the shell casings and leave the rest of the prices alone. Now you hit self loaders.
And it’s good to know that NY Senators and Chris Rock agree with my idea. :P I don’t care if I came up with it well after they said it (allegedly, I’m waiting for 3 sources for each and 3 sources for each source proving the sources are not biased themselves. Just jumping the gun a little.)
-
I can see a need to start loading my own if rounds cost $500 a piece.
There is nothing magic about loading your own rounds.
Don’t own a gun, but didn’t figure it was that complicated…
- You might want to keep a low profile for a few days, or avoid key “alarm” words or disclosing the location of your rogue gun workshop. :wink:
- That’s a joke, but I’ve seen before where the Feds have an interest in forum posters that say a bit too much. Just a word of caution.
I would prefer the “everyone carry” law approach myself. If every student on that campus was carrying a handgun, the casualty count would not have gotten anywhere near 10.
When everyone carries a gun, mass shootings are very unlikely.
I can understand the logic here. But think about it a little more. It’s easy to say “if everyone was packing, this guy would never have fired and would have dropped in a hail of bullets” after the fact. But do you consider the increased prevalence of guns as a potential deterrent to an event like this, or an increased potential in gun-related crimes, gun-related accidents, etc.?
I can’t call it either way - I personally don’t have a major desire to own a gun (that could be my mistake?). But an increase in guns to me says an increase in crime, no matter how many events are avoided. -
The everyone carry point Jermo is making seems inconsequential. Maybe I am missing what he is saying.
The best issue against an everyone carry law is that the same number, if not more students probably would have died due to accidental firearm discharges. Of course, that could be minimized with proper firearm training in grammer and secondary schools.
-
I can see a need to start loading my own if rounds cost $500 a piece.
There is nothing magic about loading your own rounds.
Don’t own a gun, but didn’t figure it was that complicated…
- You might want to keep a low profile for a few days, or avoid key “alarm” words or disclosing the location of your rogue gun workshop. :wink:
- That’s a joke, but I’ve seen before where the Feds have an interest in forum posters that say a bit too much. Just a word of caution.
They’ll take my underground secret gun smithy away from me when I build it!!!
or something like that. Â :-D Â
I would prefer the “everyone carry” law approach myself. If every student on that campus was carrying a handgun, the casualty count would not have gotten anywhere near 10.
When everyone carries a gun, mass shootings are very unlikely.
I can understand the logic here. But think about it a little more. It’s easy to say “if everyone was packing, this guy would never have fired and would have dropped in a hail of bullets” after the fact. But do you consider the increased prevalence of guns as a potential deterrent to an event like this, or an increased potential in gun-related crimes, gun-related accidents, etc.?
I can’t call it either way - I personally don’t have a major desire to own a gun (that could be my mistake?). But an increase in guns to me says an increase in crime, no matter how many events are avoided.My experiences with all armed populations was everyone was very polite and crime did not happen.  Of course it could have been the quality of the people.  Maybe there is something to that saying “it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people who kill people”.
Guns just change the range and repeatability.
-
I think that School/College employees should be given the option to carry concealed. This guy decided to go out with a bang and knew an easy place to do it, where there was no chance of opposition. If a guy came into my office with a .22 and a 9mm he’d be dead before the door closed.
Btw I carry a handgun with me every day and miraculously in the 15 years I have done so I have managed to avoid an “accidental discharge” or any accident period for that mater.
-
The everyone carry point Jermo is making seems inconsequential. Maybe I am missing what he is saying.
I think you are.
The best issue against an everyone carry law is that the same number, if not more students probably would have died due to accidental firearm discharges. Of course, that could be minimized with proper firearm training in grammer and secondary schools.
That was one point of my “argument.”
My experiences with all armed populations was everyone was very polite and crime did not happen. Of course it could have been the quality of the people. Maybe there is something to that saying “it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people who kill people”.
Guns just change the range and repeatability.
Of course the quality of the people matter. Someone who respects guns and justice is not likely to abuse the weapon. Someone who wants to commit a crime will find it much more efficacious to wield a gun than a knife - but it is their intent to commit the crime that causes them to use something that adds leverage.
I think that School/College employees should be given the option to carry concealed. This guy decided to go out with a bang and knew an easy place to do it, where there was no chance of opposition. If a guy came into my office with a .22 and a 9mm he’d be dead before the door closed.
Btw I carry a handgun with me every day and miraculously in the 15 years I have done so I have managed to avoid an “accidental discharge” or any accident period for that mater.
Are guns what we want to introduce into schools because of an event like this? It seems to me that young adults, who are very emotional, might not be the ideal people to grant guns to. I could be wrong.
Good job on handling your weapon. But it’s not necessarily you whom I’m worried about. It could be your kids. It could be the event that someone uses an excessive amount of force to deal with a matter. Among other things.
-
… This guy decided to go out with a bang and knew an easy place to do it, where there was no chance of opposition…
The shooter figured on some eventual opposition or the hall doors would not have been chain locked.
I think VT also has ROTC, but obviously not on alert.
No-resistance Amish country is a long ways away from Blacksburg. I no longer want my future offspring to attend school in Amish country where first responders are almost a whole day away.
-
i throw my support that many of the populace should be armed. after thourough background checks, and other tests for state of mind and what not.
i mean, you can only protect yourself. no one else is going to. cops dont protect you at all, they just try to find, try of course to find, and then try to convict, try again, the person in court. they dont protect shit, just try to catch the person that killed you. if people were able to have guns, they could have protected themselves.
-
Frankly, amd with the greatest of respect, you people are insane. You think that by arming everyone, you are protecting everyone. In fact, all you are doing is creating an arms race. If everyone is allowed to carry handguns, then the next shooter will walk in carrying assault rifles and grenades and wearing body armor. If you think being heavily armed makes you safe, why do US soldiers and marines die everyday in Iraq. They are among the most heavily armed individuals in the world.
By advocating a society where everyone carries a gun, you are promoting a culture of violence that suggests that the best solution to everything is a hail of gunfire. It is not surprising, considering the actions of your governments (whether led by Democrats or Republicans) have been a consistent resort to violence as a means to virtually any ends. Not surprising, perhaps, but sad and tragic for the entire world.
SS
-
If one person had had a weapon on them, they could have stopped him.
-
@M36:
If one person had had a weapon on them, they could have stopped him.
They could have stopped him 12 months ago. Have you seen the stuff this guy wrote?? He should not have been at this school in the first place. The TEACHERS were afraid of him. There was obviously cause to dismiss him from school (and get him som mental help) a long time ago.
Squirecam
-
OK, so some people want a mandatory carry law…
If everyone has a gun, the theory goes, less violent death will occur because people will be armed and able to defend themselves.
The problems with this:
Armed robbery: when someone robs someone currently at gunpoint, there is a very slim chance the person being robbed is armed, so the robber can usually get away with this without using the gun (if he even had one, and wasn’t just pretending)
if there were a mandatory carry law, the robber would have to assume the target was armed. if he still wanted to rob them, he would have to shoot first and then rob.
but wait, you say! shooting someone adds an additional charge of such magnitude, that most robbers will be deterred from committing the crime.
even if this is true, there are still those robbers who are willing to shoot someone. these can be people who think they are good enough to get away with it, desperately need the money and are willing to do anything, or people who are just plain sadistic/sociopathic, and have zero qualms about shooting/killing someone. these people exist now. theres a good chance though, that at least some of them still dont shoot people now, knowing the consequences, and also knowing that due to the extreme unlikelihood of a target being armed, they dont need to shoot. but if there were mandatory carry laws, these people would need to shoot. i think that a mandatory carry law, in addition to accidental discharges, drunken fights that go to far, heated exchanges that get out of hand, etc. would increase the number of violent deaths/injuries associated with armed robberies.
basically, it may deter some thugs, but the hardened criminals, the psychos, and the desperate would shoot/kill more people, so you are eliminating the mid-range crimes and increasing the extreme crimes.
-
The everyone can carry idea does have SOME merit.
After all, only the VICTIM can prevent the crime. The police can investigate the crime, arrest the criminal, compile the evidence to get the criminal convicted and guard the criminal once convicted, but none of that is preventing the original crime.
I just think have too many untrained civilians with deadly firepower at their fingertips just isn’t the solution. If we had mandatory firearm safety and marksmanship training I might be more readily convinced to change my mind.
-
The everyone can carry idea does have SOME merit.
After all, only the VICTIM can prevent the crime. The police can investigate the crime, arrest the criminal, compile the evidence to get the criminal convicted and guard the criminal once convicted, but none of that is preventing the original crime.
What makes you think the victim has any control over the situation? That’s ludicrous. That’s like blaming everyone in the planes that died for 9/11 because they couldn’t stop the plot.
I just think have too many untrained civilians with deadly firepower at their fingertips just isn’t the solution. If we had mandatory firearm safety and marksmanship training I might be more readily convinced to change my mind.
So basically, you want everyone to be in the military - hence your use of the word “civilians.”
-
Wow are YOU reaching for reasons to discount what I am saying.
Only the victim can PREVENT the crime. I’m not saying victims always have the ability (physically or mentally) to do so. But I am saying teh police cannot arrest a person becaues the Minority Report says that on 3:17 PM CST they will rape a girl named Jane Doe. Thus, they cannot PREVENT the crime.
Now, do you REALLY want to go on the record as arguing against this? (Yes, I’m giving you a chance to retract your current attack plan on me, because I don’t think you’ve through through what I said, you’ve just assumed that because I said it, it must be wrong.)
And again, another chance to retract yourself from a stupid attack on me, did I ever once say that “untrained civilians” means everyone should be trained militia? No. I said that the civilian population is not trained in the proper use of firearms and thus, maybe the best solution is not to arm them to the teeth. Of course, if you REALLY want to go on the record that you want all civilians to be issued side arms, go for it. But I think you might want to retract the insanity spewing from your fingertips before rational people start to point out your insanity.
-
Only the victim can PREVENT the crime. I’m not saying victims always have the ability (physically or mentally) to do so. But I am saying teh police cannot arrest a person becaues the Minority Report says that on 3:17 PM CST they will rape a girl named Jane Doe. Thus, they cannot PREVENT the crime.
It’s entirely untrue. Sometimes the victim can’t prevent anything. Sometimes a stranger or an officer may intervene. It all depends on circumstances.
However, you could indicate that the police have no obligation to prevent crime. That would be a better argument.Now, do you REALLY want to go on the record as arguing against this? (Yes, I’m giving you a chance to retract your current attack plan on me, because I don’t think you’ve through through what I said, you’ve just assumed that because I said it, it must be wrong.)
And again, another chance to retract yourself from a stupid attack on me, did I ever once say that “untrained civilians” means everyone should be trained militia? No. I said that the civilian population is not trained in the proper use of firearms and thus, maybe the best solution is not to arm them to the teeth. Of course, if you REALLY want to go on the record that you want all civilians to be issued side arms, go for it. But I think you might want to retract the insanity spewing from your fingertips before rational people start to point out your insanity.
Please, define attack. I doubt this qualifies.
-
The only time a victim is unable to prevent the crime is when the choices the victim has made physically, or mentally, prevent him from preventing teh crime.
For instance, if you are robbed in an alleyway you have made a number of bad choices up to that point.
1) You went into an alleyway. You never watched Batman???
2) You did not bring protective equipment.
3) You did not get rudimentary training in hand to hand combat
4) You decided the most prudent course of action was to allow the crime to take place because the contents of your wallet do not equal or exceed the value of your life.However, the policeman walking and see’s the crime does not prevent the crime. The crime has already been committed. He can chase down the criminal, arrest him or her and take him or her to jail, but that is just prosecuting the criminal, not preventing the crime.
-
A criminal is about to rob someone in an alley, when they see a policeman walk by. The criminal changes his mind and runs off.
A criminal hears on the news that in the past month there were 9 muggings in his city, and the perpetrator was caught on all 9 occasions. The criminal thinks better of mugging someone.
Are these not examples of police preventing crime?
-
obviously not all crime is deterred or prevented by police, they are largely a reactionary force, and de facto emergency preparedness force for whatever municipality they serve…but the existence of police deters those who would commit crimes but don’t because they consider the risk-to-benefit ratio the crime offers with the presence of police, and decide not to chance it. i don’t know that there is any way of quantifying this factor, but I’m sure many many many crimes do not occur SIMPLY because there are cops, and the risk of the crime and getting caught is just not worth the pay-off.
I personally would sooner trust in the police than in arming the populace. I personally am also not going to rely solely on police, and when I have a home of my own, will probably have some kind of firearm for when the situation arises that I must protect myself and mine, but I also know that with the proper education, I could responsibly own and operate a firearm. the same can not be said of all people.
Suggested Topics
