Virginia Tech Student Shooting

Al the DLOE · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject:

ok i tried to read this through and only made a few pages in before4 i felt the need to respond...

1. the second amendment exists to allow us to not only own arms but the militia part is there to allow us in legal terms to rise up against tyranny just like the civilian militias we now call the founding fathers.

2. the main issue in this whole thing is that the guy was a nut and earth is better with him dead. he now is being useful as a contributor to the carbon cycle as fertilizer.

3. 2 of the victims were CCW licence holder and also were ranking competitive shooters. they disarmed to follow the rules and were unable to respond. once again a gun free zone makes us safer....

EDIT: 4. in the end of all of this, it doesnt matter what you do for security if someone is dead set on doing a murder or 31. if they are willing to do anything @ the cost of their own life in the end, only reaction can save you. i can personally say that if this happened at SPSU near the MET dept, he would have been dropped by any one of us with whatever we could do with tools, steel pieces, or knives.

EDIT:5. the day after the shooting a search warrant that was slowed by beurocracy to investigte his room was approved. he was a suspect in the bomb threats earlier this year and they were looking for bomb parts and/or manuals as well any tools of terror he might have

EDIT: 6. the door was chained due to him bringing a chain and lock to keep people from escaping. one room he hit was a theater style room with pull up desk tops, perfect for trapping/slowing escape even without the chain and it made the people congest into a setup like a firing line with many police style targets lined up.

EDIT:7. i heard one person mention reinstituting a ban on High-cap magazines. like 10 rounds versus 13-15 per mag isgoing tomake a difference since Cho had a vest with many loaded magazines to allow him to keep shooting. all the dead had multiple GSW's (gun shot wound) proving he intended this to be as bloody as possible.

i prolly have crushed several toes here and i am trying to not do any attacks. as such i am going to withdraw to lurker here and try to read more. i just felt this needed to be said first

Edit: just an update all those killed are getting degrees post huminously so their efforts before the nut are being honored. also here is a string of good comics on this issue:
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2007/04/18/6
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2007/04/18/2
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2007/04/18

ok now my edits and ranting on facts that really are moot due to the fucker being worm food are over...back to the mech shop for me

Sciler · Mistress Age: 46 Gender: Joined: 15 Sep 2002

well, i only mentioned the second amendment because I knew it would be brought up somewhere. I personally, am not a fan of guns. I would rather not have any around me, honestly. I dont feel we should be allowed to have them, but thats just my personal opinion, I know plenty who do have them, friends adn family, and I dont fault them for it, I'm just not comfortable with it.

but I admit, I hated government/economics/history classes, so I didnt pay much attn, I paid enough attn to get me by, but I didnt retain much. Maybe sad, but Im a numbers nerd, the political stuff, I could really care less, its all so f'ed up anyways lol.

feign · Senior Otaku Gender: Joined: 31 Jan 2007

If a person with enough ambition, patience, time, and luck sets out to do something, no law will stop them. This wasn't an error in security or a flaw in the current laws that allowed this to happen. This was an unthinkable situation that could not have been prevented by laws any more than a tornado or an earthquake.

The further we strive for absolute protection from violence, the further flawed the system becomes. Not because a lack of violence is flawed, but because those who strive for it are.

FawkesFyre · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject:

Al the DLOE · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject:

hey try this article on for size....now this is a huge laugh http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070418/us_nm/usa_crime_shooting_town_dc_2

Doot · Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject:

I really do feel that unless you've been in a situation where you have been held at gunpoint or shot at that you truly will not know how you "would have" reacted.

It'll be sad to see all the blow hards that will be out there trying to put their finger on the pulse of what made him snap.

His timely-mailed video shows that regardless of whether or not people made fun of him, were stuck up snobs, or outright cruel, he was consumably self-absorbed with no regard to anyone in this world but himself. It's the "poor me" syndrome. Now far more lives are ruined and no amount of therapy will fix the emptiness of those lives he took.

ScrumYummy · bunnyhunches of scrums Gender: Joined: 29 Jun 2005

Graillik Tur · Renaissancetaku Gender: Joined: 09 Jul 2004

1. your wrong on point one. The point was not because of a National milita to put in the 2nd Amendment. It was not put in place to keep a national army from being all powerful. As it reads the 2nd amendment which was not put in place until 1791 :

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.

As it reads in context a well regulated militia is the Army or military of the designated area, as with the orginal idea that most states would be self governing for the most part, not federally governed as we have come to know. Also you see that it says 'the right of the people' which includes everyone protected under the constitutional amendments. This is in reference to people being able to defend themselves from those that would cause harm to them, their families, property, or possessions. As this amendment was written 'arms' was defined as any instrument that would have been used in a 'martial' capacity, guns, swords, spears, pole arms, maces, any thing that would have been labelled a 'weapon' by todays standard. Not to be confused with a wheat or hand scythe, skinning or butchering utensils or other household items that can be used as a weapon in stressful situations. Trust me on this one, you are both wrong on that one, but with common misconceptions.

Point 3.

You are right, it is slightly egotistical to think we would be able to do more than the students did, but it may be true. What is also egotistical is thinking that simply the more guns would cause more violence and death. It's also conjecture on your part. There is no way for you to know or for us to know. But I do know that in 1940 when the Bell Tower sniper tried his bit a Professor went and got his deer rifle and shot back, making the sniper duck and stay hidden tell officials could surround the tower and evacuate civilians to a safe distance. Honestly for you to say that more guns would cause escalation is against all previous occurances like this one that have had responces by locals having weapons.

feign brings a good point. The gunman would have at the very least gotten the first and maybe second victim but he would not have repeatedly gone from class to class and killed the last 28 victims. Also going back to his speed at which he assaulted the buildings, had 1-3 individuals gotten up and tried to subdue him, they most likely would have succeeded.

You finally bring up biological factors. This is known as the 'fight/flight' response and is very real. This is also believing that you would not 'freeze up' under the heavy pressure of the situation. Having been trained to go toward the aggressor I believe someone would have the same response. But again it is a flight or fight response. It is more of a sociological response now. We have been brought up to believe that the best response is to turn and run. Luckily I was brought up that if someone threatens you and they have the express intent to harm you, you must return force to a point they either are unwilling to fight, or can't. Also the only one to respond to the gunman with the fight response was an elder man that had survived the holocaust. I believe he responded this way because he was brought up in a way that it is natural to fight rather than to run. But again, speculation.

I do know this for a fact having been shot at. Each situation is different. In a wide open space, I would drop to the ground and attempt to distance myself from the shooter, hide, get behind something. If I am armed at short distance I would try to position myself and return fire. Then move to an advantageous position and continue to fire.

Also if i was not wounded when he left the classroom I would position myself to the side of the door in case he returned and attempt to disarm him.

What I'm getting at is the best response is not always to do what we have been told is best, comply with the aggressor. Sometimes you have to stand up and fight.

Just a thought.

Dueces.