At least 30 dead in Virginia Tech shooting, CNN calls monumental tragedy

  • Thread starter Delirious
  • 174 comments
  • 6,645 views
Actually I don't think you are allowed to carry a weapon, even if you have a permit, on school grounds. But if they would have been allowed the outcome could have been different.

I know if I had a concealed weapons permit I would carry as often as I could and I would practice, practice, practice my shooting so I knew what to do if I ever needed to use it. Guns in the hands of stupid people are bad, but in the hands of competent people you are fine. They just need to make it so you have to go through extensive training in order to get your CCW permit.

And in the UK don't you guys just get murders with knives instead?
 
...and I just wonder what would have happened if someone had had a concealed weapons permit.

They'd probably be singled out as a target and get shot in the face before they had chance to fire off a single round.

And in the UK don't you guys just get murders with knives instead?

A nutter with a knife is never going to be able to do the same amount of damage as a nutter with a gun are they?
 
The problem is that making it easy to legally aquire firearms makes it easy for stupid people and evil people to get them. Even if they force you to take extensive training, who's to say that that guy taking the training isn't going to use that training on some innocent civillians, you can't say if the guy taking the training will or will not use the gun on someone. As for the last point, no higher than the US rates. Persoanlly I'm much happier knowing that it's illegal to carry guns than I would be knowing the types of people who could have easy access to them.
 
I would hate guns to be illegal in the US, I own 3 hunting rifles and 2 handguns which I go sport shooting with at a local range. I hunt everything I can (legally of course) and sport shooting is just fun and it improves hand eye coordination as well as reaction time. Also our Constitution says Americans have the right to own weapons, to make a law prohibiting that is going against our founding values and there would be a huge up roar, it would be political suicide.

I still say if you give people the training, gun related deaths will go down. There isn't any mandatory training that I'm aware of currently in Michigan, I know you should take a hunters safety course but I don't think it's mandatory (I took it and it was waste).

But really taking guns away doesn't solve the problem, there are so many firearms in the US right now that if they were made illegal there would be a huge influx on the black market and only the "bad" people would be in control of the weapons. Not something I really want.

Also banning guns would not have stopped what happened yesterday, if you want to kill someone bad enough you can get your hands on a gun for a price.
 
Oh ofcourse, you can't make a U-turn like that, especially in a situation like the US is in. It's a hell of a lot more complicated. And I can't talk on behalf of America or Americans about what's best over there, it's just in my opinion and as things are over here I'm grateful that it is illegal to carry firearms. Ofcourse, gun crime is still a problem, just not so much so as it probably would be otherwise.
 
Okay, people carrying guns on campus with or without a permit, aside from cops, is NOT something that would make me feel safe.

No kidding if someone had been carrying a gun the outcome would have probably been different. If someone had been carrying a concealed weapon on one of the hijacked planes during 9/11, I guess that would have been different too. Does that still make it a good idea?
 
You know what... I bet if the media didn't splash these kind of stories all over the place (Columbine etc.)and make these retarded people famous, there would be far less of these big school shootings.
 
This is prime gun-control debate territory. The gun control folks will have a field day with this because of it's very nature. The guns were purchased legally by a guy who just went nuts - no history of crime. It's exactly the kind of thing that gun control freaks are happy to tell you that gun control laws will help prevent.

The reality of the situation is, of course, that these kinds of shootings represent few of the gun-related deaths. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are suicides. Homicides are well below suicide, and are dominated by criminal-on-criminal violence. Gun's are used in just over half of the homicides in this country - a large percentage of which involve illegally obtained firearms.

Yes, stuff like this happens and it sucks. But it's important not to over react.

The media has lots of fun with this stuff. Accidental shootings are statistically insignificant. Deer kill three times more people each year than accidental shootings. But you'd better believe if some kid shoots himself or his friend with daddy's gun it's gonna make the front page and anti-gun folks will use the opportunity to claim that everyone would be better off if people couldn't legally own guns. Ironically they'd probably save more lives with a law that prevented the feeding of deer.

Nevermind the literally millions of times every year guns are used in self-defense.
 
If he had been arrested, how long do you think it would take for the death sentence be executed upon him?

I would NOT want my tax dollars feeding/taking care of him.
 
The problem is that making it easy to legally aquire firearms makes it easy for stupid people and evil people to get them. Even if they force you to take extensive training, who's to say that that guy taking the training isn't going to use that training on some innocent civillians, you can't say if the guy taking the training will or will not use the gun on someone. As for the last point, no higher than the US rates. Persoanlly I'm much happier knowing that it's illegal to carry guns than I would be knowing the types of people who could have easy access to them.

Yes, and you could also bring up how you don't know what people are going to do with a car when they have. Its not exactly difficult to just decide you want to kill people with a car and swerve up onto a side walk, etc. Your argument that they don't know what they are going to do with it is somewhat... invalid, in part do to the info danoff provided. And I believe crimes are generally committed with illegally obtained weapons any how, so a gang member or such is generally not going to care if fire arms are made illegal.

The big difference between here and the UK, most of Europe, and Asia, is how many people already have firearms and how many are in the country. You guys (refering to the UK'ers that have failed understand the CWP idea) simply do not have as many guns in the country. My family owns a dozen guns, though only one is a hand gun. My dad slept with a shot gun within arms reach for along time. Why? Because we live a good ways from a police station, 15 miles from a hospital, and so on. Any sort of emergency response would arrive to late to be of use.

People already have fairly easy access to fire arms here, changing concealed weapon laws would not change that. I would not have a problem with obtaining a fire arm being harder, but getting a concealed weapon permit perhaps easier, and allowed in all 50 states. Concealed weapons are legal in the state I am in (washington), and the adjacent state of Idaho. Drove my friend nuts when he went to California and he could not carry his weapon.

@Zrow - Yes, it does make it a good idea. Accidental deaths and such are minor from guns, and yet the lives they can save would be amazing in this sorts of situations.

And about the guy with a Concealed weapon getting picked out and shot immediately, its concealed. You do not realize someone has a concealed weapon till they decide to show you generally. All it would take is one guy with one to realize the situation and drop the shooting; aiming at those distances found in class rooms is generally not difficult. If this someone with a concealed weapon had been in the initial area, could have saved a couple dozen lives, who knows?

But claiming guns are evil and should be illegal is the quick and friendly sounding way out of the situation. Its hardly that simple. And thinking the Police and Security can control this stuff effectively... yeah right. They can't enforce drug laws, drinking laws, driving laws, how on earth would they manage to keep fire arms out of the hands of criminals? And I think someone suggested preventing the weapon from getting on campus - how would you do that? Put chain link fence up around the entire place, metal detectors, dogs, and random security checks? Do what the FAA did with airplane security? Its easy to say things, but hard to follow through on them...

In other news, VTGT is alive, but I haven't hada conversation with him about anything regarding it yet. (he responded while I was asleep)
 
Glad to hear that both VTGT and Omar duo17 are both alive.

I will also note that when Charles Whitman went off his nut and started popping people from up in the University of Texas clock tower in 1966, weapon-carrying citizens played a solid role in stopping him. At least half a dozen private citizens showed up with long guns and were able to return fire from the ground, keeping him pinned down and limiting his sniping opportunities until he could be taken out by a direct assault from inside. The two policemen who finally killed him were backed up by a site-deputized private citizen who covered them as they went out onto the deck behind Whitman, cornering him and killing him.
 
I will also note that when Charles Whitman went off his nut and started popping people from up in the University of Texas clock tower in 1966, weapon-carrying citizens played a solid role in stopping him.

He should have known better than to pull that stunt in Texas. :)
 
Yes, and you could also bring up how you don't know what people are going to do with a car when they have. Its not exactly difficult to just decide you want to kill people with a car and swerve up onto a side walk, etc.
Except cars are made to be driven, not to shoot stuff.
 
One last thing about enacting additional legislation on firearms: Since when does someone willing to harm another really care about the law? You can write your congressman all you like, but enacting feel-good legislation is a waste of time and money, and does nothing to solve psychological problems.
 
Yes, that is true FatAssBR. Which means alot of the time people can get off on manslaughter with them. Guns are meant to shoot stuff, but they do not kill people, people kill people. Take a car through a congested cross walk on a campus, and you'll injure at least a dozen people.

My dad was on the campus when Charles Whitman opened fire, in eye sight of the tower. I don't believe he had a fire arm then, but I'll get the story from him again on the whole issue.

And I don't mean to stereotype, but I am noticing this huge polarity between US citizens and those that are not. Most notably the UK... I just find it curious.
 
One last thing about enacting additional legislation on firearms: Since when does someone willing to harm another really care about the law? You can write your congressman all you like, but enacting feel-good legislation is a waste of time and money, and does nothing to solve psychological problems.

I think the idea is that it would make guns much harder to access, and decrease the amount of "heat of passion" shootings. Or something.
 
Possibly they share my sentiments, that if guns were legal over here that gun related crimes would sky rocket.

And...? Does that mean that cars are NOT dangerous?
No, but it does make the comparison invalid. Gun's are weapons, cars are transport. A kitchen knife can be used to kill someone very effectively, but a kitchen knife's purpose is entirely different. You hands can be used to kill someone very effectively, pretty much anything around you can be used in some way or another to kill someone. The difference between thoes things and a gun is what they were designed to do.
 
No, but it does make the comparison invalid. Gun's are weapons, cars are transport. A kitchen knife can be used to kill someone very effectively, but a kitchen knife's purpose is entirely different. You hands can be used to kill someone very effectively, pretty much anything around you can be used in some way or another to kill someone. The difference between thoes things and a gun is what they were designed to do.

That's right, a gun is designed to save your life while cars are merely conveniences. The comparison is valid. None of the above are designed to commit murder, all can be used to do so.
 
I think the idea is that it would make guns much harder to access, and decrease the amount of "heat of passion" shootings. Or something.
I don't think there's anyway to prove that it works. The potential perp will just find another, easier-to-acquire method of destruction.
 
A gun isn't designed to save life, they are meerely marketed as such in places where it is legal to puchase them, but that is not their design. Guns are designed to kill. You have that the wrong way round, wheras cars are designed as a form of transport but can be used to kill, guns are designed to kill but can be used as a deterrent or to save your life. How right or wrong it is for guns to be legal in the US is of no concern to me, I don't live there, I don't know American pollitics, I don't really want to know them and I am not questioning that aspect of the debate. Any comments that may indicate such are as I stated earlier, only related to the UK. But you cannot compare a gun to a car, and say you can use both to kill so in terms of legality they should be considered equal or some bull like that. Guns are designed as weapons, there is a big difference.
 
I'm reminded of a comedy act I think from Chris Rock was it? right about now... Make a bullet $900 dollars. "if I had $900 ur ass would be dead", "wait til next week when I get paid so I can get that $900 bullet".

And... with that. I shut up because it's probably not even close. :dunce:
 
That's right, a gun is designed to save your life while cars are merely conveniences. The comparison is valid. None of the above are designed to commit murder, all can be used to do so.
Shields are designed to save your life, bullet proof vests are designed to save your life. Guns are designed to kill.
 
Like driving his car like a mad man on campus?

I've got a dozen things sitting on my desk that could kill someone. They aren't meant for it, but they easily can suffice in a pinch. Guns are not made to kill people, but to shoot things. People decided to make guns to kill people. And the knife thing? Fact is the development of modern metals, especially in knifes and such, was to make sharper better weapons.

The "idea" behind something argument is weak. I can go get store bought supplies and make a bomb, which would likely cause much more damage than me unloading a 9mm into a class room. Same idiocy happens on plane security - I can't take my 3 inch blade swiss army knife, but I can take my heavy metal writing pen. I can stab someone just as easy, if not more easy, with a pen than my small knife.

People just want something to blame, rather than acknowledge the crapiness of these sorts of things. And thats how we get idiotic legislation often, which ultimately is pointless and ineffective.
 
Shields are designed to save your life, bullet proof vests are designed to save your life. Guns are designed to kill.

Yes, but a bullet proof vest in certainly no guarantee. The best way to protect yourself form a threat is to remove it. A gun maybe a weapon, but a weapon is not designed for murder, slaughter, etc. The "Idea" behind something is only valid to a point.

And what about people that hunt? Its generally a pretty good deal to go hunt a deer for the meat, at the cost of a bullet and hunting license. I know several people that actually count on hunting for food, and they would be quite screwed.

On the car issue, its completely vaild. I can take my car, drive onto a side walk, kill 3 people, then claim I fell asleep at the wheel and get manslaughter. Or I could go on campus, kill one person with a gun, and get charged with murder.

Something just seems wrong about that if you ask me.
 
Like someone else stated, guns were not designed to kill people, because a simple mildly heavy rock can kill a person instantly. Guns are chosen to kill people because of their power and convenience.
 
Shouldn't we be discussing the tragedy that occurred yesterday, instead of arguing our opinions on gun control? We're obviously not going to agree with each other, but the debate should be taken elsewhere.
 
I don't think there's anyway to prove that it works. The potential perp will just find another, easier-to-acquire method of destruction.

Maybe, but punching a guy's lights out is better than shooting him because you've got a gun. Anyway I'm not saying that it works, I just think that's the point of it. This is also to say nothing of people having nothing to defend themselves with against someone with a gun.
 
I think the better thing to say would be that guns are designed to eliminate a threat. They kill and save at the same time, unless they are not being used for their purpose.

The good people should have guns. The framers of the Constitution weren't stupid. The right to bear arms is in there for good reason.
 
Back