At Least 21 Killed at V. Tech

[quote]hedo wrote:
Contach wrote:
AdamC wrote:
JD430 wrote:

All I can say is try to be safe. If you are fortunate to live in a state that allows you to carry a firearm and you can handle the responsibility, please do so.
You may save many lives one day. Stay in shape. Be vigilant. Think about violent incidents like this from time to time and try to resolve yourself to acting if you are ever thrust in the middle of one.

There is nothing more that any of us can do.

Good post

WTF is this? “Be Vigilant.” is your advice? Fight fire with fire? Some random person has a gun and holds within himself the possibility of shooting another and this gives you justification to be able to carry a gun? So now if everyone around you is carrying a gun, does this give you justification to carry a bazooka? Because, you know, what happens when 2 of them possibly turn on the world and start firing: one gun will not help you…

You’re right. "There is nothing more that any (ONE) of us can do. " But, there are plenty of things that collectively, you people as citizens of the U.S.A. CAN do. Passive attitudes and increasing violence will not do anything, but social movements will: if not for you, atleast god will have mercy on your children.

The advice was be vigilant instead of oblivious to your surroundings. Be prepared to fight and live…then to die.

One man taking action, who know’s what he is doing, and is prepared to act…ends situations like this. No time for a “social movement” when someone is trying to kill you.

Hope your never in that position to test your theory. Many people have taken advice like JD gave and lived.

[/quote]

Then ignore my advice if you want, Contach. Your abstract ramblings don’t mean anything to the individual faced with evil.

Im all for trying to ferret out the cause of such madness. Good luck is all I can say.

Your first post, which almost reads as sympathy for this maniac, concerns me.
I have sat with many troubled people and consoled them as best I could. I have heeded Plato’s advice where possible.

However, there is indeed a tipping point in human behavior, where reason and understanding won’t save your life or the lives of others. Then, only two actions will carry you through, flight or violence.

In my mind, it is care for my fellow man that has me walking armed everywhere I go. I would rather have seen this troubled kid dead, than answer to 32 other innocent families. I only pray that I would have the courage.

You not understanding this shows a lack of experience.

Hedo understood it because of where he has been in his life.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What pisses me off is that these motherfuckers always off themselves and avoid punishment.

That cocksucker deserved to be tortured for a couple years… but instead he gets to off himself.

I HATE that.[/quote]

You don’t torture them for years, since that wastes resources. You shoot them in the back of the head with a 22. Costs a penny a round at Walmart.

They don’t deserve more than that.

[quote]david dunne wrote:
Contach wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Contach wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Boston closes down an entire city because someone posts images of Aqua Teen Hunger Force on buildings but a school can’t close the fuck down when a shooting occurs and two people are dead with the gunman on the loose?

yeah, my point exactly. In our eyes we see it as a ridiculous decision for Boston to have closed down because of that, and at the time its very hard to make the judgment. And for this reason I don’t think its fair to criticize the decisions of the people in this dialectical position. If something had blown up in Boston I bet you would have taken another example to use.

Also, what if the 7:00am shootings at Virginia Tech were not followed by the 9:30 shootings and it had closed down after the 7:00ams. Then once again criticism would run wild. Its a lose-lose situation for decision-makers. With this in mind, I think we shouldn’t attack them.

Good post.
I agree with the logic. It’s easy (and very popular with some) to second guess the hell out of a situation AFTER it has played out.

Another difference I see is that Boston had these weird blinking signs all over the city so it would be rational to think that IF there is a threat it could involve the whole city.

The first shooting involved a female student and a male student who apparently tried to intervene. No shots fired at anyone else, no running into another campus building, no shots fired randomly in the building or at the campus either. He shot those two individuals and fled the scene.

Only the second guessing champions out here could “KNOW” this was going to turn into the worst mass murder in US history.[/quote]

This is crazy!!!
If Virginia Tech would have shut down after the first two shootings, I seriuosly doubt there would have been any worthy critisism.

Are you saying parents would have called the school to complain, “I heard my son wasn’t allowed to go to class after 2 people were shot”?

or better yet.
(the media)
“Can you believe Virginia Tech made these students go to class?”

On top of that, people aren’t complaining about the fact that the school didn’t shut down as much as the school should have alerted it’s students.

We used to get alerts about girls getting flashed all the time, we would laugh but pretty much the whole school knew within 30 minutes after the girl reported it.

At the very least, the school should have sent out a mass email advising students to stay in secure areas.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
…This is crazy!!!
If Virginia Tech would have shut down after the first two shootings, I seriuosly doubt there would have been any worthy critisism.

Are you saying parents would have called the school to complain, “I heard my son wasn’t allowed to go to class after 2 people were shot”?

or better yet.
(the media)
“Can you believe Virginia Tech made these students go to class?”

… [/quote]

Imagine if they locked down the campus, made kids stay in the dorms and the shooter shot up a dorm.

What would you say then?

An op-ed piece from the Manchester Union Leader, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire:

Guns on campus: One is one too few

[i]BLACKSBURG, VA., IS a college town surrounded by countryside full of good ole boys who grew up shooting and hunting. Virginia Tech undoubtedly has a good number of experienced marksmen on campus as students, staff members and faculty. If just one of them had been able to retrieve his weapon quickly, there might be only three dead – the first two victims and the shooter – instead of 32.

Crazy? Hardly.

Consider the Saturday shooting at the Uptown Tavern in Manchester. Two men, one a Golden Glove boxer, were being tossed from the bar at 12:45 in the morning when the boxer allegedly punched a bouncer in the face. The other man pulled a handgun and started firing at the bouncers and assistant manager.

The gunman fired six shots into the crowded bar before a customer who had come over to help the bouncers whipped out his own handgun and fired back. He hit the shooter twice, disabling him and instantly ending the shooting spree. The only reason that same scenario could not have played out on the Virginia Tech campus is that firearms are banned there.

Predictably, where guns are banned, only those willing to disobey the ban have guns. Law-abiding, rational citizens who might be able to stop a mentally ill or simply cold-blooded killer are left defenseless in the face of a murderer.

“All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen – a potential victim – had a gun,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said after the Virginia Tech shooting.

Those that did not end abruptly? No armed citizen was there to stop the massacres.

You can say that one gun on campus is one too many. But it is and always will be impossible to prevent a determined person with ill intent from smuggling one (or more) onto campus. The best defense against such people is to increase the number of armed good guys so that there is always someone nearby able to respond. [/i]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What pisses me off is that these motherfuckers always off themselves and avoid punishment.

That cocksucker deserved to be tortured for a couple years… but instead he gets to off himself.

I HATE that.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
You don’t torture them for years, since that wastes resources. You shoot them in the back of the head with a 22. Costs a penny a round at Walmart.
[/quote]

Since this thread has divided itself into so many sub-topics, here’s mine. Don’t shop at Wal-Mart.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
…This is crazy!!!
If Virginia Tech would have shut down after the first two shootings, I seriuosly doubt there would have been any worthy critisism.

Are you saying parents would have called the school to complain, “I heard my son wasn’t allowed to go to class after 2 people were shot”?

or better yet.
(the media)
“Can you believe Virginia Tech made these students go to class?”

Imagine if they locked down the campus, made kids stay in the dorms and the shooter shot up a dorm.

What would you say then?[/quote]

He would start triple guessing instead of just double.

There have already been students on CNN who stated they got the email about the first shooting and were heading to class anyway. There have been posters in this thread who stated they would have viewed it the same way.

Apparently it’s just more fun for some to simply yell that it could have all been prevented somehow.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

At the very least, the school should have sent out a mass email advising students to stay in secure areas. [/quote]

When the school got word someone was shooting up the campus thats exactly what they did-sent a mass email to stay away from windows…a gunman is loose etc.

But the initial shooting scene gave zero indication of what was coming 2 hours later. The fact someone was shot in a dorm room doesn’t automatically mean the entire campus is at risk of being attacked.

If he had initially shot up that dorm or fled into some campus buildings…sure.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< I still don’t understand the relation some were making to illegal immigrants. What fucking difference would this incident make if he was illegally here? How does that topic fit in with the shooting AT ALL? >>>
[/quote]

If you came home to find members of your family murdered (God Forbid) would it matter to you if it was another family member or friend over an intruder? There would be no difference it it was someone who lived there or was invited over someone who broke in?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< This guy was obviously a little off. His teachers were so skeptical of his behavior that he was sent for counseling. His roommate states that he hardly ever spoke and that he would often walk in on him sitting at his own desk (the desk of the roommate) just staring at an empty table with nothing in front of him. He had no friends and one incident by one of his classmates involved a situation where during the first day of class, the professor went around the room asking everyone their name and where they were from and he wouldn’t say a word when it came to his turn. The professor looks at the roll sheet and he had signed a question mark where his name should go. When asked by the professor, “is your name ‘question mark’”, he remained silent. I guess people were just waiting for him to finally snap.

The largest topic of discussion should actually be what leads to this and how can warning signs be evident to enough people to prevent it from happening again.

[/quote]

Pretty much agreed.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Being quiet and a loner should NOT be the defining characteristic. That would lead to skapegoating and harassment of any student who keeps to themselves at all. What should have stood out, however, was his writing and his actions in class. More people should have been aware that something was off. >>>[/quote]

Generally agree here as well. On the other hand this opens the whole can of worms about who determines how weird or in what way someone has to be weird before serious action is taken. What if they’re wrong? Here come the free speech/discrimination lawsuits.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< The rest of the problem is the lack of communication on that campus (and all campuses for that matter) when a tragedy occurs. Hopefully, this will lead to changes nationwide.[/quote]

I stand pretty much by what I said earlier about this. I don’t know that this situation was handled very well at all. I also don’t know what exactly that means. Are campuses to enact “mad homicidal gunmen drills” just in case?

What if they inform everybody outright of what in the vast majority of cases is an isolated incident and someone is hurt or killed in the potential panic that follows? I don’t know what they should’ve done, but I’m not ready to condemn anybody either. I just don’t know.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
<<< Imagine if they locked down the campus, made kids stay in the dorms and the shooter shot up a dorm. >>>[/quote]

Or worse yet corralled everybody into “secure areas” before anybody even knew who it was. These “secure areas”, areas that the gunman would meet the criteria for entrance to, could provide him with a concentrated, trapped shooting gallery ready made for even more carnage than we saw.

Don’t you see. There is no good way to handle something like this and there is just no way to prevent a seemingly intelligent individual who is hellbent on a rampage like this from carrying it out. Not even a dictatorial police state would work when someone has already decided they don’t want to survive.

I don’t wanna sound trite, but this is the harsh reality of the human race and it’s no different than all the atrocities that have been committed throughout history.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< I still don’t understand the relation some were making to illegal immigrants. What fucking difference would this incident make if he was illegally here? How does that topic fit in with the shooting AT ALL? >>>

If you came home to find members of your family murdered (God Forbid) would it matter to you if it was another family member or friend over an intruder? There would be no difference it it was someone who lived there or was invited over someone who broke in?[/quote]

Did you honestly just try to draw an analogy between STRANGERS WHO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME and STRANGERS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME?

If someone were to do that, what country they came from, how far down the street they lived or how removed from my immediate family they were would be the last thing on my mind. I’ll leave it at that.

Why is this even a topic of discussion when this man WAS AN AMERICAN? The news seems to be stressing what country he came from…when the truth is, he wouldn’t even fit in if he lived in South Korea. He was raised here most of his life so why is ANYONE discussing illegal immigrants in relation to this shooting?

[quote]malonetd wrote:
tom63 wrote:
You don’t torture them for years, since that wastes resources. You shoot them in the back of the head with a 22. Costs a penny a round at Walmart.

Since this thread has divided itself into so many sub-topics, here’s mine. Don’t shop at Wal-Mart.[/quote]

Normally I agree with this, but I forgot 22 cartridges and Walmart was on the way. But 5.50 for 550 rounds was a great deal.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Did you honestly just try to draw an analogy between STRANGERS WHO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME and STRANGERS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME?

If someone were to do that, what country they came from, how far down the street they lived or how removed from my immediate family they were would be the last thing on my mind. I’ll leave it at that. >>>
[/quote]

How bout the fact that if they wouldn’t have been allowed to enter this country your loved ones would be alive. What if you were lax in your home security and better locks or other measures could’ve prevented it, but in your quest to be “fair” you didn’t want to assume the worst of folks and decided against it.

There is a valid, however imperfect analogy here. In this case it has no bearing, but this part of the discussion started before we knew that and I’m simply answering your question of how it ever came up.

Sound immigration policy = no illegals. No illegals = no murderous illegals. No murderous illegals = less murder victims. The FBI stats are replete with the stories of dead people who would be alive if we enforced sovereignty upon our borders.

Therefore I was interested to know, since everyone was looking for preventative measures, if this could have been prevented by denying access at the border to someone who’s first act in our midst would be to break our laws anyway.

It turns out not to be the case, but the question was valid and will be valid next time I ask it. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL OR EVEN MOST ILLEGALS ARE MURDERERS, BUT BY DEFINITION THEY ARE CRIMINALS NONETHELESS.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Did you honestly just try to draw an analogy between STRANGERS WHO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME and STRANGERS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME?

If someone were to do that, what country they came from, how far down the street they lived or how removed from my immediate family they were would be the last thing on my mind. I’ll leave it at that. >>>

How bout the fact that if they wouldn’t have been allowed to enter this country your loved ones would be alive. What if you were lax in your home security and better locks or other measures could’ve prevented it, but in your quest to be “fair” you didn’t want to assume the worst of folks and decided against it.

There is a valid, however imperfect analogy here. In this case it has no bearing, but this part of the discussion started before we knew that and I’m simply answering your question of how it ever came up.

Sound immigration policy = no illegals. No illegals = no murderous illegals. No murderous illegals = less murder victims. The FBI stats are replete with the stories of dead people who would be alive if we enforced sovereignty upon our borders.

Therefore I was interested to know, since everyone was looking for preventative measures, if this could have been prevented by denying access at the border to someone who’s first act in our midst would be to break our laws anyway.

It turns out not to be the case, but the question was valid and will be valid next time I ask it. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL OR EVEN MOST ILLEGALS ARE MURDERERS, BUT BY DEFINITION THEY ARE CRIMINALS NONETHELESS.[/quote]

Wasn’t he legel though?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
An excellent op-ed in the WSJ on “gun-free zones” by Dave Kopel.

It occurs to me that “gun-free zones” that aren’t security compounds like airports or federal courthouses are the worst possible idea in a society in which it’s relatively easy for a person to obtain a gun, legally or illegally.

Here’s the op-ed:

[i]‘Gun-Free Zones’
By DAVID B. KOPEL
April 18, 2007; Page A17

The bucolic campus of Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Va., would seem to have little in common with the Trolley Square shopping mall in Salt Lake City. Yet both share an important characteristic, common to the site of almost every other notorious mass murder in recent years: They are “gun-free zones.”

Forty American states now have “shall issue” or similar laws, by which officials issue a pistol carry permit upon request to any adult who passes a background check and (in most states) a safety class. Research by Carlisle Moody of the College of William and Mary, and others, suggests that these laws provide law-abiding citizens some protection against violent crime.

But in many states there are certain places, especially schools, set aside as off-limits for guns. In Virginia, universities aren’t “gun-free zones” by statute, but college officials are allowed to impose anti-gun rules. The result is that mass murderers know where they can commit their crimes.

Private property owners also have the right to prohibit lawful gun possession. And some shopping malls have adopted anti-gun rules. Trolley Square was one, as announced by an unequivocal sign, “No weapons allowed on Trolley Square property.”

In February of this year a young man walked past the sign prohibiting him from carrying a gun on the premises and began shooting people who moments earlier were leisurely shopping at Trolley Square. He killed five.

Fortunately, someone else – off-duty Ogden, Utah, police officer Kenneth Hammond – also did not comply with the mall’s rules. After hearing “popping” sounds, Mr. Hammond investigated and immediately opened fire on the gunman. With his aggressive response, Mr. Hammond prevented other innocent bystanders from getting hurt.

He bought time for the local police to respond, while stopping the gunman from hunting down other victims.

At Virginia Tech’s sprawling campus in southwestern Va., the local police arrived at the engineering building a few minutes after the start of the murder spree, and after a few critical minutes, broke through the doors that Cho Seung-Hui had apparently chained shut.

From what we know now, Cho committed suicide when he realized he’d soon be confronted by the police. But by then, 30 people had been murdered.

But let’s take a step back in time. Last year the Virginia legislature defeated a bill that would have ended the “gun-free zones” in Virginia’s public universities. At the time, a Virginia Tech associate vice president praised the General Assembly’s action “because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” In an August 2006 editorial for the Roanoke Times, he declared: “Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.”

Actually, Virginia Tech’s policy only made the killer safer, for it was only the law-abiding victims, and not the criminal, who were prevented from having guns. Virginia Tech’s policy bans all guns on campus (except for police and the university’s own security guards); even faculty members are prohibited from keeping guns in their cars.

Virginia Tech thus went out of its way to prevent what happened at a Pearl, Miss., high school in 1997, where assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a school shooter.

Or what happened at Appalachian Law School, in Grundy, Va., in 2002, when a mass murder was stopped by two students with law-enforcement experience, one of whom retrieved his own gun from his vehicle. Or in Edinboro, Pa., a few days after the Pearl event, when a school attack ended after a nearby merchant used a shotgun to force the attacker to desist.

Law-abiding citizens routinely defend themselves with firearms. Annually, Americans drive-off home invaders a half-million times, according to a 1997 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Utah, there is no “gun-free schools” exception to the licensed carry law. In K-12 schools and in universities, teachers and other adults can and do legally carry concealed guns. In Utah, there has never been a Columbine-style attack on a school.

Nor has there been any of the incidents predicted by self-defense opponents – such as a teacher drawing a gun on a disrespectful student, or a student stealing a teacher’s gun.

Israel uses armed teachers as part of a successful program to deter terrorist attacks on schools. Buddhist teachers in southern Thailand are following the Israeli example, because of Islamist terrorism.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., long-time gun control advocates, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), agreed that making airplane cockpits into “gun-free zones” had made airplanes much more dangerous for everyone except hijackers.

Corrective legislation, supported by large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, allowed pilots to carry firearms, while imposing rigorous gun-safety training on pilots who want to carry.

In many states, “gun-free schools” legislation was enacted hastily in the late 1980s or early 1990s due to concerns about juvenile crime. Aimed at juvenile gangsters, the poorly written and overbroad statutes had the disastrous consequence of rendering teachers unable to protect their students.

Reasonable advocates of gun control can still press for a wide variety of items on their agenda, while helping to reform the “gun-free zones” that have become attractive havens for mass killers. If legislators or administrators want to require extensive additional training for armed faculty and other adults, that’s fine. Better that some victims be armed than none at all.

The founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, understood the harms resulting from the type of policy created at Virginia Tech. In his “Commonplace Book,” Jefferson copied a passage from Cesare Beccaria, the founder of criminology, which was as true on Monday as it always has been:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Mr. Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo., and co-author of the law school textbook, “Gun Control and Gun Rights” (NYU Press).[/i][/quote]

Excellent post , Maricopa County Arizona?s community colleges security is not even allowed to carry guns. That is a big invitation. And Hippies smell good:)

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What pisses me off is that these motherfuckers always off themselves and avoid punishment.

That cocksucker deserved to be tortured for a couple years… but instead he gets to off himself.

I HATE that.

Agreed.

[/quote]

I agree as well. This bastard should have been tortured for years. It wouldn’t cost that much. Chain the SOB to a table in a shed in the middle of nowhere and everyday find another way of making him suffer. He got off easy by killing himself while parents, friends, and relatives have to suffer for the rest of their lives wondering why some wacko douchebag shot their loved ones.

Has anybody seen the videos he sent to the news stations? It sounds like this guy just did it for attention and for some sort of sick/twisted poetic justice. He says that the people he killed had a million chances to save themselves for what he was going to do to them. Yet everyone who was interviewed by the news (ie the killers suite mate) said that the killer kept to himself and when ppl tried to say “hello” to him he wouldn’t even speak. Why is it that these fuckups always blame everyone else for their own inability to socially cope?

And for those who want to blame school officials, I just don’t think you can. They thought this was an isolated incident. As someone earlier pointed out, when there is a shooting in a city or town they don’t shut down the 10-20 blocks surrounding that area. Plus, you can’t have an emergency action plan for psycho’s like this. He could have easily positioned himself in an area and waited for everyone to come out of classrooms and buildings and then just started firing, maybe even having the oppurtunity of killing more people.
Just my opinion.

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< Did you honestly just try to draw an analogy between STRANGERS WHO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME and STRANGERS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY WHO KILL SOMEONE CLOSE TO ME?

If someone were to do that, what country they came from, how far down the street they lived or how removed from my immediate family they were would be the last thing on my mind. I’ll leave it at that. >>>

How bout the fact that if they wouldn’t have been allowed to enter this country your loved ones would be alive. What if you were lax in your home security and better locks or other measures could’ve prevented it, but in your quest to be “fair” you didn’t want to assume the worst of folks and decided against it.

There is a valid, however imperfect analogy here. In this case it has no bearing, but this part of the discussion started before we knew that and I’m simply answering your question of how it ever came up.

Sound immigration policy = no illegals. No illegals = no murderous illegals. No murderous illegals = less murder victims. The FBI stats are replete with the stories of dead people who would be alive if we enforced sovereignty upon our borders.

Therefore I was interested to know, since everyone was looking for preventative measures, if this could have been prevented by denying access at the border to someone who’s first act in our midst would be to break our laws anyway.

It turns out not to be the case, but the question was valid and will be valid next time I ask it. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL OR EVEN MOST ILLEGALS ARE MURDERERS, BUT BY DEFINITION THEY ARE CRIMINALS NONETHELESS.

Wasn’t he legel though?
[/quote]

Yes, he was a legal immigrant. He used his green card, driver’s liscence, and check book as forms of ID to purchase the guns.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_245

Has anyone seen this yet? What a piece of shit. Grow the fuck up.

[quote]obatiger11 wrote:
<<< Yes, he was a legal immigrant. He used his green card, driver’s liscence, and check book as forms of ID to purchase the guns.

[/quote]

I’ll let you find the part where I acknowledged that and clarified that the discussion started before we knew.