Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Would Guns have stopped VT?  (Read 6761 times)

watso059

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2007, 07:24:23 PM »
Tag
Yay (In): Samford, Stetson, Mercer, Miami, LSU$, South Texas$$, Jones$$, Barry$$, Cooley$$$
Boo (Dings): Tulane, UGA

Considering: Jones$, Cumberland, Mercer
Withdrawn: Barry, STCL, Cooley, LSU, FL Coastal, Miami, Stetson

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=watso059

«ě»

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2007, 07:26:28 PM »
It seems that noone considers the option that if guns weren't widely available, this guy would probably not have been able to arm himself for this raid. I know, history can't be changed and all of that, but the way I see it, there's only two things that can explain this kind of outrageous violence taking place in the US, but rarely if ever anywhere else. Option 1), it's because guns are floating all over the US, and anyone can get hold of it or Option 2) Americans are innately more psycho than the rest of the world. I chose to believe option 2 not to be true...

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2007, 07:31:21 PM »
Imagine the chaos that would've occurred had five students stood up to confront the gunman in the classroom. They start shooting, students mistake other students for the gunman, shoot each other, the police storm in, mistake the students with guns for the suspect, shoot them, etc. There's a reason police wear uniforms and there's a reason they're allowed to carry guns. They're trained to be able to do so, and it's their responsibility to protect citizens.

I don't need to be surrounded by a bunch of untrained, questionably competent, vigilante heroes.


Didn't happen in 2002...

Appropriate cliché: hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to say that after the magnitude of an event like this past weeks that it, perhaps, would have been preferable to have an armed individual present in the room to confront the gunman. However, lets say a mistake did occur, and such an armed individual was involved in the accidental shooting of an innocent in the room. Who's responsible? Why are we letting that person interpet the intentions of a gunman and assume they make an informed choice about the cost/benefit of shooting him/her? That's what police officers are for, they're trained and entrusted to make decesions like that. I feel like events like this past weeks happen with less frequency than the number of times that accidents would occur if more people carried guns.

ok, so I give you example of where it worked and you tell me hingsight isn't 20/20? And "I feel?" come on man.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

«ě»

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2007, 07:32:46 PM »
Have you really though? I just read the news in the first post, and it sounds a lot like a different story... They approached him with guns, he put down his gun and surrendered. I somehow doubt that would work with a guy that first shot 32 people and them himself. That doesn't seem like a person that has any intention of surrendering.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2007, 07:34:33 PM »
It seems that noone considers the option that if guns weren't widely available, this guy would probably not have been able to arm himself for this raid. I know, history can't be changed and all of that, but the way I see it, there's only two things that can explain this kind of outrageous violence taking place in the US, but rarely if ever anywhere else. Option 1), it's because guns are floating all over the US, and anyone can get hold of it or Option 2) Americans are innately more psycho than the rest of the world. I chose to believe option 2 not to be true...

Only 2 reasons? Yep, sure only 2 reasons because you say so. But guns are widely available all over the world. And guess the cheapest way to get one? Yep, illegally.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

«ě»

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2007, 07:41:04 PM »
Well, what other explanations do you have for these things pretty much always happening in the US?

Guns are available all over the world, but within the civilized/"western" world, nowhere as easily accessible and widespread as in America, you know this. I live in Norway, the country in Europe with most guns, and naturally where it is easiest to get them legally as well. But these are all hunting weapons and similar, where as the weapons floating in America are weapons with one purpose; killing people. Nobody buys a 9mm handgun with hollowpoint ammunition to go hunting.

And you say illegal, but yet again your logic fails. Sure, these guys are often illegal by the time they get to the criminal (although in the case of the VT massacre, the guns were obtained completely legally), but they entered the private/civilian market as legal guns. Bought by a man or woman to keep in the nightstand, glovecompartment of the car or whatever. Then they got stolen, pawned or traded away and ended up in the illegal criminal market.

The problem is that this turns into an Arms race, a small-scale cold war if you like. The more civilians pack guns, the more the criminals will. The more common it gets for civilians to shoot at criminals, the sooner the criminals will start shooting when attacking someone. Just like the Cold War, nobody's going to win - everyone's going to lose.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2007, 07:43:14 PM »
Depends if they know gun safety, only those that do have any business owning a gun.

In this society, I would like to have a gun handy - even unloaded it deters violence.

It really doesn't, point a gun at a criminal (assuming you want it for self defence) just makes it more likely that you will get shot (unless you shoot first, but quite a lot of people tend to freeze up in situations like that).

I guess one unsupported comment deserves another.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2007, 07:49:24 PM »
Well, what other explanations do you have for these things pretty much always happening in the US?

Guns are available all over the world, but within the civilized/"western" world, nowhere as easily accessible and widespread as in America, you know this. I live in Norway, the country in Europe with most guns, and naturally where it is easiest to get them legally as well. But these are all hunting weapons and similar, where as the weapons floating in America are weapons with one purpose; killing people. Nobody buys a 9mm handgun with hollowpoint ammunition to go hunting.

And you say illegal, but yet again your logic fails. Sure, these guys are often illegal by the time they get to the criminal (although in the case of the VT massacre, the guns were obtained completely legally), but they entered the private/civilian market as legal guns. Bought by a man or woman to keep in the nightstand, glovecompartment of the car or whatever. Then they got stolen, pawned or traded away and ended up in the illegal criminal market.

The problem is that this turns into an Arms race, a small-scale cold war if you like. The more civilians pack guns, the more the criminals will. The more common it gets for civilians to shoot at criminals, the sooner the criminals will start shooting when attacking someone. Just like the Cold War, nobody's going to win - everyone's going to lose.

Well actually we won the Cold war and you question my logic? And from what I understand the VT guns had their serial numbers filed off...

I like how you'll seem to believe their are only two sides to something. Either hunting or killing ...every heard of target shooting? It's just a rush to shoot a gun. Just like driving a fast car. Why don't you compare sports car accidents to gun deaths? What's next nobody can own a car with a v8?

Quote
Have you really though? I just read the news in the first post, and it sounds a lot like a different story... They approached him with guns, he put down his gun and surrendered. I somehow doubt that would work with a guy that first shot 32 people and them himself. That doesn't seem like a person that has any intention of surrendering.

Ya a total surrender, he hit the guy who approached him and the students had to tackle him. I'm surprised, that's the only part the media got right.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

«ě»

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2007, 08:10:59 PM »
Really? Please enlighten me, what exactly did you win in the Cold war?

Quote
And from what I understand the VT guns had their serial numbers filed off...
The guns have been traced, checked and confirmed that he bought them completely legal, in compliance with all gun laws including the 'max one gun per month' rule.

Quote
I like how you'll seem to believe their are only two sides to something. Either hunting or killing ...every heard of target shooting? It's just a rush to shoot a gun. Just like driving a fast car. Why don't you compare sports car accidents to gun deaths? What's next nobody can own a car with a v8?
I'm former military, yes I've heard of target shooting. If it's a rush to shoot a gun, I'd argue that there's something borderline wrong with you. Your analogy with cars is so ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother replying to it.

Quote
Ya a total surrender, he hit the guy who approached him

Lets see.... a 33 people death toll murder-suicide, versus putting down the gun and hitting someone. Yeah, difficult one, that.

Anyway, it's pretty easy to sum up this conversation. In some situations armed people will stop an incident, no question about it. In others, things will go wrong, and additional bystanders will get shot and killed. These things can go both ways, there's no arguing against that.

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Would Guns have stopped VT?
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2007, 08:18:46 PM »
Really? Please enlighten me, what exactly did you win in the Cold war?

Quote
And from what I understand the VT guns had their serial numbers filed off...
The guns have been traced, checked and confirmed that he bought them completely legal, in compliance with all gun laws including the 'max one gun per month' rule.

Quote
I like how you'll seem to believe their are only two sides to something. Either hunting or killing ...every heard of target shooting? It's just a rush to shoot a gun. Just like driving a fast car. Why don't you compare sports car accidents to gun deaths? What's next nobody can own a car with a v8?
I'm former military, yes I've heard of target shooting. If it's a rush to shoot a gun, I'd argue that there's something borderline wrong with you. Your analogy with cars is so ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother replying to it.

Quote
Ya a total surrender, he hit the guy who approached him

Lets see.... a 33 people death toll murder-suicide, versus putting down the gun and hitting someone. Yeah, difficult one, that.

Anyway, it's pretty easy to sum up this conversation. In some situations armed people will stop an incident, no question about it. In others, things will go wrong, and additional bystanders will get shot and killed. These things can go both ways, there's no arguing against that.

We survived and now have the wealthies nation in the world. Ya we won.

Something wrong w/me and not race car drivers or stunt men? Come on.

But you're right we'll never know; sometimes it'll work and sometimes it won't. I gave you an example when it did. It's hard to believe you haven't even tried to give me a contrary example. (where armed civilians tried to stop somebody and killed innocent bystanders). But jsyk, if an innocent bystander gets hurt when a civilian tries to stop a felony, the felon gets nailed with that death too. Because it's the felon's fault.

Edit: He did buy the guns legally, so I'll drop that
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.