32 Dead
At least 32 people have died at Virginia Tech. This situation almost begs for sarcasm about how more gun laws would have saved these people, but it's just too serious of a situation to be sarcastic.
There are two reasons that this many people died. First, someone wanted to kill people. Second, there were no good guys with guns to stop him. I hear that Virginia law does not restrict guns on campus (not 100% sure), but the campuses are allowed to restrict guns. I don't know if V Tech does, but I'd will willing to bet it does.
Let's assume that guns are restricted. Did these restrictions stop the killer from bringing a gun on campus? How on earth would more laws and more restrictions help this situation? Let's assume they are not restricted. Why did no one have a gun? Because it's a school and guns have no place there? Can you honestly say that now? If any single person had a firearm in that classroom other than the gunman himself, we would be dealing with perhaps dozens fewer dead. DOZENS. I personally would bet my life on that, because had I been there with my gun, I would have stopped him.
It's not a lack of restrictions that causes death like this. It's people who want to kill, and it is the presence of restrictions on those who would stop the killer if they were allowed. Once again, those in charge have bowed to the politically correct, and now have the blood of 32 innocent people on their hands. And if V Tech does allow weapons on campus, which I doubt, then fault should be placed, at least partially (the real blame is reserved for the gunman himself), on those who were too afraid to carry a gun. Which was apparently everyone.
Buy a gun, get a permit, and carry it everywhere that's legal. Everywhere. And fight to remove these stupid laws that allow murderers to reign free in "weapons-free zones" where they know no one will be able to stop them. Educate every business owner that the common man with a gun will stop murders like this, and the murderer will bring a gun regardless of the restriction. Guns in the hands of good citizens save lives. And there are a lot more good citizens than there are murderers. This could have been stopped. Why wasn't it?
Here is a link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/16/113556.shtml
EDIT:
I just found out that I was right, no weapons allowed on campus per V.T. rules. Again I ask how this rule did anything to stop this? I guess they can arrest him now for bringing a weapon onto campus. Here is a link directly to V.T.'s campus rules involving weapons:
http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf
There are two reasons that this many people died. First, someone wanted to kill people. Second, there were no good guys with guns to stop him. I hear that Virginia law does not restrict guns on campus (not 100% sure), but the campuses are allowed to restrict guns. I don't know if V Tech does, but I'd will willing to bet it does.
Let's assume that guns are restricted. Did these restrictions stop the killer from bringing a gun on campus? How on earth would more laws and more restrictions help this situation? Let's assume they are not restricted. Why did no one have a gun? Because it's a school and guns have no place there? Can you honestly say that now? If any single person had a firearm in that classroom other than the gunman himself, we would be dealing with perhaps dozens fewer dead. DOZENS. I personally would bet my life on that, because had I been there with my gun, I would have stopped him.
It's not a lack of restrictions that causes death like this. It's people who want to kill, and it is the presence of restrictions on those who would stop the killer if they were allowed. Once again, those in charge have bowed to the politically correct, and now have the blood of 32 innocent people on their hands. And if V Tech does allow weapons on campus, which I doubt, then fault should be placed, at least partially (the real blame is reserved for the gunman himself), on those who were too afraid to carry a gun. Which was apparently everyone.
Buy a gun, get a permit, and carry it everywhere that's legal. Everywhere. And fight to remove these stupid laws that allow murderers to reign free in "weapons-free zones" where they know no one will be able to stop them. Educate every business owner that the common man with a gun will stop murders like this, and the murderer will bring a gun regardless of the restriction. Guns in the hands of good citizens save lives. And there are a lot more good citizens than there are murderers. This could have been stopped. Why wasn't it?
Here is a link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/16/113556.shtml
EDIT:
I just found out that I was right, no weapons allowed on campus per V.T. rules. Again I ask how this rule did anything to stop this? I guess they can arrest him now for bringing a weapon onto campus. Here is a link directly to V.T.'s campus rules involving weapons:
http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf
posted by Calan at 14:33
4 Comments:
your argument may sound good, but actually poses more threat than safety. Suppose a man A decides to take a walk across campus shooting people... So man B is carrying a gun, sees this, and decides he should put a stop to it... so he draws his gun and starts shooting at man A. it quickly becomes a domino effect with a bunch of gun toting wahoos all joining in to kill eachother... Then law enforcement shows up and sort all of this crap out.
You seem very confident that you would have put a stop to it... Are you certain that you can make a fast decision and decide conclusively who the bad guy is? are you that positive that you are a better aim and faster shot than the bad guy? There is a chance you might die finding out... or.. that you might kill a good guy trying to be a hero.
Did the campus restrictions help? they certainly did. They made it very easy to tell who the bad guy was... in fact these restrictions probably saved lives because many possible victims were able to conclusively identify the bad guy, and escape. Yes, it was unfortunate that so many people died and if law enforcement was able to respond sooner many less would have had problems... Unfortunately, arming the public in the interest of vigilante justice is no way to cure the inadequacy of law enforcement.
The truth is that the odds of becoming a victim of a random act of violence(such as the VT killings) are about the same as getting struck by lightning. The idea of carrying a firearm for an occasion like this is insane. Most robberies, muggings.. whatever.. the bad guy only has the gun for intimidation and has no intention of using it. The one way to guarantee he will use it is to pull out your own gun. Thinking that you are always going to be better than the bad guy is sucidial. Drawing your weapon to begin a gunfight in a place where there are other innocent people is reckless. Killing a person is murder..
What this all comes down to is that the average gun owner is nowhere near qualified to make decisions on public safety... nor are they experienced enough with a firearm to do anything more than elevate a potentially dangerous situation into a dangerous situation. The only thing that carrying a gun does is make it available to be more easily stolen.. and put into the hands of the bad guy. If you want to be a responsible citizen, Keep your firearms at home. When you are not home with your guns, keep them in a safe so that the bad guy can't get to them.
Chris,
The real issue with your comments here is the simply misconception that you believe you have thought this out more than people who actually do carry guns. If you believe for one moment that I would simply draw, shoot, and hope I hit a bad guy... I just don't know how to respond to that type of thinking. And I would bet my own life, and the lives of others, on the fact --and the statistics that back up the fact-- that people who carry guns for protection think before they shoot. Domino effects -don't- happen because people -don't- assume the one with the gun is the bad guy, because they themselves are a good guy with a gun. When shots are fired, police are at least ten times more likely to shoot an innocent person than is a private citizen who is carrying a gun. Your misconception that only the proper authorities should have means of self defense deprives humans of that basic human right, to responsibly defend themselves and stop someone from murdering another individual. Besides, if the situation calls for it, I -always- have the decision available to me -not- to draw, and -not- to shoot. Not carrying a gun doesn't offer me as many alternatives. In fact, estimates of how many muggings and other violent crimes are -stopped- by the simple display of a firearm by a victim without a shot ever being fired by either side outnumber the cases where shots are fired a thousand to one. Yes, that's one thousand to one.
On the subject of murder: Killing a person does not equal murder. Killing a person equals homicide. Homicide, both morally and under the law, fits into two categories. Murder, and justifiable homicide. The latter, my killing the man who was about to rape and kill my wife and kill my kids and then myself (theoretical example), is absolutely undeniably not murder. In fact, -not- doing absolutely everything within my power, which includes killing the lowlife would-be rapist murderer if needs be, would be far, far more murderous of me.
Chris, you also have a horrible misconception of the reason for carrying a gun. This is not a video game and there are not medals handed out. There are not TV shows made or face time on the news for people who shoot in self-defense. In fact, there's usually court time. These are people's lives. These are cherished sons and daughters, these are loved husbands and wives, these are the parents of children that need their mommy and daddy. I do not know how else to put it, but to say that your implication that I would shoot to stop a murder only to be a "hero" is nothing short of absolutely insulting. I wish I could be more civil than putting it that way, but that's the hard truth. The fact that you would even imply that I would shoot someone for some sick vigilante-type justice because they deserved it is equally insulting. I am not a judge, I am not an executioner, I am a human that would rather see the would-be murderer die than his innocent victim, if he/she pushes the situation to that end. And if not, I'd see him/her in court and prison where they belong. The implication that I would draw, gun blazing, into a crowded area just so I can hit the bad guy completely ignoring the innocent life in the surrounding area is also equally insulting. Your assumption that those who have decided to exercise their right to carry a a tool to save lives when others decide to take them think nothing of the individuals that the -criminals- have put in danger, also, is insulting.
32 lives were lost. It could have been stopped after only a few or any at all, but thank goodness, the police could tell who the bad guy was because VT was a place where only bad guys and police had guns. I'm sorry, I'd rather keep the 32 people alive and have the situation be over with a dead bad guy on the floor when the police arrive. In most places, especially Virginia and where I live in Arizona where the police are honorable human beings, the police agree with me. It's still pretty easy to tell who the dead bad guy used to be, and you should seriously reevaluate your beliefs if you believe that 32 lives are worth the police knowing who the bad guy is.
I -have- been struck by lightning, actually. It was a weak hit, but it happened. Also, I stopped a mugging, where my wife was about to have a knife put to her throat, because I was armed. I only had to let him see it and he left without further incident. Didn't even have to take it out, he just saw it. Also, I saw a man with a gun that I believed to be about to rob a convenience store I was in. Couldn't prove it in court, but I don't have to. I was open carrying anyway, so I simply put myself in his view without being in any way threatening, and continued preparing my coffee. He saw me armed and put his twinkie down and left, no incident. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. A simple display of armed resistance or the ability to resist by the victim ends the situation without violence a thousand times to one. 1000:1.
You also seem to be under the misconception that I would think twice about dying to save the lives of others. If I'm going to die, there is no better reason for my wife and children to have to be told that their husband and father died, than to be told I did it to save the lives of innocent people. Do I want it? Absolutely not. My wife deserves a husband, and my children deserve a father. But you better believe I'd die willingly to save the lives of innocent victims, and when I look back on it from heaven, I will have no regrets.
Your issue, to be blunt, is that you think the government is willing and able to save you. You think that it's “higher ground” so submit to an attacker. Here's the fact: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Call 911 and die. Police are law enforcement. They don't stop crimes, they solve them. The courts don't stop crimes, they deal out justice for crimes committed. Given the choice, I -choose- to not be a victim in the first place. I -choose- to stop the crime. I -choose- to protect myself, and those around me. And I -choose- to carry the means to do it. I -choose- to be a good guy, and I fully intend to be as powerful or more powerful than the scum that would choose to make me or those around me a murder victim. If I have a choice, I -choose- for the good guy to win.
Chris, you can choose to continue being the sheep if you like. You can choose to trust that the idiot waving the gun in your face isn't actually going to pull the trigger. He is, after all, a violent mentally unstable criminal waving a gun in your face, what's not to trust? You can choose to take the “higher ground” and be the pacifist and leave the criminal madman in control of your life and the lives of those around you, hoping and trusting that he won't actually kill, even though we both know that's not reality. You can choose to decide in advance of that situation to leave your gun (if you own one) locked up at home just in case you might actually want change your mind when it actually happens to you, just in case you might actually decide you want to try to stop the murder. Wouldn't want that to happen. And even though innocent people may die at the hands of a murderer while you helplessly watch, even though you may die at the hands of a murderer, at least the police will know who the bad guy is because only bad guys have guns, and you wouldn't be accused of trying to be a hero.
Calan,
Ok... I am sorry if what I said was disrespectful to you. What I meant to do was show you the alternative view. I have known you for some time and I figured we would be able to bounce this around as friends... good fodder. So here it goes again... This time I will try to explain the same thing again being careful to not be disrespectful.
My argument is that the odds of becoming the victim of a random act of violence are almost nil.. and being a position to do anything about it are even smaller. Your attacker will always have 1 advantage over you. That is the element of surprise. This element makes your firearm almost completely useless.
Your examples only support my comment. If the person holding a knife to your wifes throat had intentions of killing her, you would be a widower right now. He wanted money, not her life. If the person in the store was there to commit murder, your wife would be a widow right now. he would have shot both you and the clerk. When somebody has the intention of killing someone, they don't threaten, they don't pause... They don't wave knives and guns around... they just do it... and they don't let anything stop them. VT is a perfect example. That guy didn't go around waving a gun in peoples face saying "gimme your money!". He just killed them. This person is mentally unstable and the odds of running into this person are little to none. They might use a knife, They might use a gun, they might use a bomb, they might use a car, they might use a plane, they might use anthrax... They might even be tough enough to use their bare hands... but you carrying a gun does nothing to stop them. Most people who run into one die before they can reach for a gun. Displaying your gun to this person is going to do nothing.
The people you used as examples are not homocidal. They are desperate. Desperation is a social disorder, not a psychological one. Some of these people are drug addicts... Some are hungry, some are down on their luck... some honestly are looking for a reason to go back to jail where its warm and there is free food. there are many many social problems that can bring a person to this desperation. but in any event they are in it for the money. The problem is that if a person is scared enough, this desperation can cause rash decisions. Lets go back to the examples you cited and make some changes. Lets say your wifes robber had a gun rather than a knife. The playing field is now his... why? because you both have guns and his is already drawn. if you make a sudden move he might get nervous... putting both you and your wife in jeopardy. If you give him your wallet he will most likely just walk away. you quoted "A simple display of armed resistance or the ability to resist by the victim ends the situation without violence a thousand times to one. 1000:1.". I'd be willing to bet that giving your robber what he wants ends the situation without death over 10,000,000:1. Displaying or pulling your gun actually reduces your chances of living.
Lets look at a third case... muggers. These people hit you in the back of the head with a 2x4 or brick... whatever it takes to knock you unconscious and take your money... You do not have time to defend yourself... and if you were carrying a gun, they will run off with your wallet AND gun. This is an act of desperation and cowardice... not violence... Again.. if they wanted to kill you they would kill you BEFORE they went through your pockets... and again... there is absolutely nothing you can do to defend yourself
There is a huge difference between an act of desperation, and an act of violence. How do you identify the difference? its pretty easy. If a guy kills you before you have time to respond, its an act of violence... otherwise, if you give him your wallet he will go away. Do I wanna give up my wallet? NO! but there is nothing in there that I can not repalce in a day or 2.
Is carrying a gun really providing you with some barrier of protection? Is it really giving you an upper hand? If you believe so then perhaps you should also carry a snake bite kit. You do live in the desert so getting bit by a rattlesnake is WAY more likely than a random act of violence. You should also carry a parachute because plane crashes are just about as common as random acts of violence... for that matter, in 2001 more people probably died from falling buildings.... I bet a parachute could help you in a situation like that also... Getting hit by a drunk driver is more likely than being a victim of a random act of violence. Maybe a D9 CAT would be a safe alternative to a motorcycle? A bomb proof suit might be helpful in case the Timothy McVey fan club ever takes off. There have been threats lately of a dirty nuke so maybe a radiation suit and Geiger counter would be handy too? do they make a shoulder holster for a Geiger counter? So why is it that instead of wearing a radiation suit, a bomb proof suit, and a parachute while carrying your Geiger counter, snake byte kit and driving your D9.. you prefer to carry a gun? Seriously... There is a 1 in 10 million chance that a gun will save your life so you are going to carry one. What you don't seem to rationalize, is that the odds of that same gun being taken from you and used in a crime of desperation are probably on the order of one in 10 thousand. Live life Calan, don't fear it.... but hey... if you do decide to get a D9 PLEASE invite me to the first stunting event.. that would be way cool.
Do you really want to help save lives? then pick up the wounded and carry them to safety. Help direct the innocent to safety. Become a leader in an emergency. Call the police and paramedics and give an accurate description as possible of the situation. Take medical, EMT, and CPR classes so that you can SAVE A LIFE. Any police who encourages you to kill a person is a complete irresponsible moron... especially if there are people dying who you might be able to help. and I would be happy to tell him that personally. You pulling a gun at someplace like VT is only going to result in additional deaths and injuries. How can I be so sure of this? because bullets are not designed to save lives. If you have bullets that were designed to save lives then I sure would like some... they are magical bullets!!
I do own firearms. I enjoy going to he range. I keep one out in the evening when I am home. Otherwise they stay in a safe. a safe that is WAY to big to carry away. I used to keep them hidden but in accessible locations around the house... then my house was robbed and now ALL of the guns I had are in the hands of the bad guy. That was pretty eye opening. I'm not pissed because my guns got stolen, I feel like a jerk for LETTING my firearms get into the hands of the criminals. Now I know better. Firearms belong locked up when not within my immediate reach. Some people will say that if the criminal wants a gun he's gonna get it... that might be true but there is no sense making it easy for him.
The entire premise of your response here is to tell me how responsible CCW holders are and how they are more likely to do the right thing... and how you are insulted that I would think otherwise. You back all of this up by telling me over and over again how a responsible gun owner behaves and how being responsible will be a benefit to society. You totally invalidated this all with a statement in your original post. "I personally would bet my life on that, because had I been there with my gun, I would have stopped him.". This is the exact statement that invoked my response. You have no clue what the situation was so how can you be so confident about this? what if your only shots put innocent people in harms way? This leaves only one possibility. You would have been ready to fire disregarding the safety of others... but hey... the important part is that you would have killed the bad guy, right? And the police love to find a dead bad guy, right? And hey... You can personally guarantee me that you were a better, faster shot than the killer... and you would definitely NOT hit any innocent people in the process, right? how else can you be so sure you would have stopped him? Gun nuts love to romanticize these situations and tell how they would have won... and how their trusty 'ol colt peacemaker would have put a stop to it... good luck!
here is an interesting piece of information I just learned. For whatever reason, illegal posession of a firearm is considered a violent crime in many jurisdictions(sure doesn't seem very violent to me... guns are not voilent.. people are). gun rights advocates like to advertise that in many places where carrying open or concealed is made legal, the number of violent crimes committed decreases... hmmmm... there is a pretty obvious correlation here and it has absolutely nothing to do with increased safety.
Post a Comment
<< Home