Do gun control laws help or hurt school shootings?

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Most states allow law abiding citizens to carry a handgun (after taking some easy tests, a background check, and then given a license) but not on school campuses. Are all of these mass murders taking place at schools because they are easy targets and the students have no way of defending themselves?

[Marklar MM]

Its because schools have large numbers of people in small areas.

[smeagol]

Ahh guns . . . you gotta love them.

[Medvedenko]

Cue....Michael Moore....He was a prophet...

[Yonivore]

Ahh guns . . . you gotta love them.
January 2006, Virginia Tech administrators proudly proclaimed (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658) how safe their school would be when honest citizens were banned from posessing legally-permitted guns.


A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn’t get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill’s defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
I wonder how that “safe feeling” is working out for you today, Larry?


Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. […] In June, Tech’s governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.
Great. Because we all know criminals will abide by such policies. Meanwhile, someone who could’ve taken the perpetrator out before he ran his score up to 32+ was prevented from doing so because some administrators wanted to give the tuition-paying customer base a false sense of security.

No, smeagol, I don't love my gun. I love my family and have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms as one of the tools I can employ to protect them.

[George Gervin's Afro]

January 2006, Virginia Tech administrators proudly proclaimed (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658) how safe their school would be when honest citizens were banned from posessing legally-permitted guns.


I wonder how that “safe feeling” is working out for you today, Larry?


Great. Because we all know criminals will abide by such policies. Meanwhile, someone who could’ve taken the perpetrator out before he ran his score up to 32+ was prevented from doing so because some administrators wanted to give the tuition-paying customer base a false sense of security.

No, smeagol, I don't love my gun. I love my family and have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms as one of the tools I can employ to protect them.

So having guns in dorms and classrooms would have done the trick? Right Yoni... That's what we need to do..arm 18 and 19 yr olds on college campuses.. that would be a responsible thing to do!!

[Yonivore]

So having guns in dorms and classrooms would have done the trick? Right Yoni...
No way to know but, had at least one of the students been armed, the death toll may not have reached 32 before the sick bastard was taken out.

What we do know is that making them illegal didn't prevent his rampage, did it?

[Yonivore]

So having guns in dorms and classrooms would have done the trick? Right Yoni... That's what we need to do..arm 18 and 19 yr olds on college campuses.. that would be a responsible thing to do!!
Ah, you added more.

We need to allow people to carry weapons if they choose and if they receive the proper training and all the other requirements that go with responsible gun ownership.

Yep.

Hey, we arm 18 and 19 year old Marines in the military. Are you saying College students are less responsible?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ah, you added more.

We need to allow people to carry weapons if they choose and if they receive the proper training and all the other requirements that go with responsible gun ownership.

Yep.

Hey, we arm 18 and 19 year old Marines in the military. Are you saying College students are less responsible?


Let's put it this way I won't feel all warm fuzzy on the inside if my son lived ina dorm hall that allowed for firearms to be present. You trust an awful lot of teenagers away from home for the first time to act responsibly. Throw in all of the irresponsible drinking, the fights that occur, and the emotional immaturity that alot of teens exhibit with guns and you have a recipe for disaster. Let's say your kid starts to see Suzy blow job and her ex shows up drunk with his gun. I guess your ok with a shoot out with other innocent dormies caught in the corssfire? I won't won't question the right to bear arms but allowing what your proposing is ludicrous even for you.

[smeagol]

Ah, you added more.

We need to allow people to carry weapons if they choose and if they receive the proper training and all the other requirements that go with responsible gun ownership.

Yep.

Hey, we arm 18 and 19 year old Marines in the military. Are you saying College students are less responsible?
You are crazier than what I thought

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, we arm 18 and 19 year old Marines in the military. Are you saying College students are less responsible?Less responsible than Marines trained for combat?

Yes.

[nkdlunch]

this country would never give up the "right to own a gun".

I also think places like downtowns or malls would be great targets for psychos. in truth, guns make it much easier for an average deranged to kill dozens of ppl in minutes.

the right to bear arms will always have this drawback. we just need to accept it and deal w/it.

[Yonivore]

Let's put it this way I won't feel all warm fuzzy on the inside if my son lived ina dorm hall that allowed for firearms to be present.
Well, if he were behind door number 32 and #31 had concealed carry permit, you might feel a bit warmer and fuzzier today.


You trust an awful lot of teenagers away from home for the first time to act responsibly. Throw in all of the irresponsible drinking, the fights that occur, and the emotional immaturity that alot of teens exhibit with guns and you have a recipe for disaster.
You assume all college students are going to get concealed carry permits. In fact, the irresponsible ones probably won't take the time or spend the money necessary to acquire one. It would have only taken one who was legally carrying to end this rampage.


Let's say your kid starts to see Suzy blow job and her ex shows up drunk with his gun. I guess your ok with a shoot out with other innocent dormies caught in the corssfire? I won't won't question the right to bear arms but allowing what your proposing is ludicrous even for you.
1) Your premise assumes Suzy's homicidal ex is going to worry about the law when he shows up at her dorm in a murderous rage and, 2) I'd like for my kid to have a concealed carry permit so he's stand a chance when Suzy's homicidal ex shows up with a gun in a murderous rage.

[Yonivore]

this country would never give up the "right to own a gun".

I also think places like downtowns or malls would be great targets for psychos. in truth, guns make it much easier for an average deranged to kill dozens of ppl in minutes.
The right to carry makes it much easier to stop such a deranged individual before he can reach his full potential.


the right to bear arms will always have this drawback. we just need to accept it and deal w/it.
I don't see it as a drawback. I don't know if this guy in Virginia had a concealed-carry permit but, I doubt it. So, given that assumption, their gun control law had zero affect on today's events.

If there had been a concealed-carry law there is at least the possibility he would have been stopped before he had killed so many.

[nkdlunch]

The right to carry makes it much easier to stop such a deranged individual before he can reach his full potential.

yeah. because we all carry our guns to our class, church, mall, park :rolleyes



I don't see it as a drawback. I don't know if this guy in Virginia had a concealed-carry permit but, I doubt it. So, given that assumption, their gun control law had zero affect on today's events.

If there had been a concealed-carry law there is at least the possibility he would have been stopped before he had killed so many.

It is easier to acquire a gun legally than to do it illegally. I am guessing this guy got his gun legally, but who knows.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Criminals and mass murders will always be able to get their hands on guns if they want them no matter what gun laws are passed. If students and faculty had carry permints and those permits allowed them to carry into classes and dorms the death toll would not have reached 32.

[Yonivore]

yeah. because we all carry our guns to our class, church, mall, park :rolleyes
I do -- if the premises and state law allow.


It is easier to acquire a gun legally than to do it illegally. I am guessing this guy got his gun legally, but who knows.
There's a difference between owning a gun and carrying one legally.

[Yonivore]

Criminals and mass murders will always be able to get their hands on guns if they want them no matter what gun laws are passed. If students and faculty had carry permints and those permits allowed them to carry into classes and dorms the death toll would not have reached 32.
That's a fact, Jack.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not a fact at all. Exactly how many concealed carry permits would you expect to see in a student body of 28,000?

[ChumpDumper]

For the record, I'm fine with carry permits -- I just don't think the numbers and situation would be much different since very few students and faculty would actually get the permit AND carry the gun if allowed.

[boutons_]

How many students have been killed on that campus in the last 10 years?

Say 1000 out of 26000, only 4%, on the VT campus carried concealed weapons. That should be enough to have concealed weapon in, or very close to, about every student grouping.

How long would it take for those 1000 handguns, accidentially, intentionally, to kill 32 students and injure 30 more?

[sabar]

560 women are killed each year by their partner from impulsive domestic violence from a handgun.

Yeah, that's worth the possibility of saving a fraction of 32 college kids lives.

The right to own guns is an artifact from a different society 230 years back.

[TDMVPDPOY]

gun problem is a national issue, but even with gun laws and shit in the place, you still get cheap imitations from across the border sneakn in

[mikejones99]

shut the fuck up with the 560 women die blah blah blah, women need to shut the fuck up and quit causing bad shit to happen

[mookie2001]

560 women are killed each year by their partner from impulsive domestic violence from a handgun.

Yeah, that's worth the possibility of saving a fraction of 32 college kids lives.

The right to own guns is an artifact from a different society 230 years back.that is the dumbest shit ive ever heard,

[The_Worlds_finest]

We should ban cars because people kill in drunk driving accidents.
We should ban rope because people hang themselves with it.
We should ban fire because people commit arson.
We should ban anything that people can cause harm.

The guy that did that was and will be for as long as history stands walking breathing shit...and I dont think that name lives up to him...but no never ever ever should people be banned from access to arm themselves...

[sabar]

George Hennard got his guns legally, look at all the good that did.

If it weren't for gun control on aircraft, 9/11 could have been prevented, am I right?


that is the dumbest shit ive ever heard,
Nothing useful to add as always?

[mookie2001]

you don't understand what this country was founded on, how important our constitution is and whats happening to it right now

[sabar]

you don't understand what this country was founded on, how important our constitution is and whats happening to it right nowI know exactly what is was founded on and why the right to bear arms exists -- it's in the declaration of independence and refers to a form of government upheaval that will never be used in this country again.

The right to overthrow a corrupt government is hardly on gun-nuts list of fundamental values anyways, they never cite it as it is archaic.

[mookie2001]

wow

the only reason the increasingly tyrannical government would think twice about martial law, or TAKING PEOPLES GUNS AWAY is because they know they have some hardcore gun owners who would die before they give up their guns or constitutional rights, the government should be afraid of its own people, not the other way around

[mookie2001]

and of course, i'll stand by one of the best bumperstickers ever, in which my dad had on the inside of my toychest when i was a baby "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

[sabar]

Spurs on, going to argue this later http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smismokin.gif
I'm personally happy as long as assault rifles and light machine guns are outlawed regardless of circumstance, at least these guys are 99% of the time stuck with pistols, though the Luby massacre happened with only 2 semi auto pistols.

[efrem1]

560 women are killed each year by their partner from impulsive domestic violence from a handgun.

Yeah, that's worth the possibility of saving a fraction of 32 college kids lives.

The right to own guns is an artifact from a different society 230 years back.


Easy to say for you who sits in a comfy chair watching American Idol. That "artifact" would have save many lives in trouble spots in Africa and Asia and South America where opressive governments leave people defenseless. I have the right to defend my family.

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." New Hampshire Constitution

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Texas Constitution

"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Alabam Constitution

[Pavlov's Dog]

560 women are killed each year by their partner from impulsive domestic violence from a handgun.

Yeah, that's worth the possibility of saving a fraction of 32 college kids lives.

The right to own guns is an artifact from a different society 230 years back.

How many of those murders were committed by someone with a concealed handgun license?

Until you can produce that stat, stfu.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Spurs on, going to argue this later http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smismokin.gif
I'm personally happy as long as assault rifles and light machine guns are outlawed regardless of circumstance, at least these guys are 99% of the time stuck with pistols, though the Luby massacre happened with only 2 semi auto pistols.

And, just like with today's incident, if just one person present would have been carrying concealed, the death toll would have been lower.

[boutons_]

"carrying concealed"

no guarantee. The person would have to have the balls and skills to kill the shooter, who seemed to know a hell of a lot about shooting.

[Pavlov's Dog]

"carrying concealed"

no guarantee. The person would have to have the balls and skills to kill the shooter, who seemed to know a hell of a lot about shooting.

You do realize that a large part of the CHL class is competency with your weapon, right?

As for the 'balls to do what is right', you'd be surprised what people are capable of when the alternative is death.

[whottt]

Most states allow law abiding citizens to carry a handgun (after taking some easy tests, a background check, and then given a license) but not on school campuses. Are all of these mass murders taking place at schools because they are easy targets and the students have no way of defending themselves?



I'd argue that even if the students could, most would not. Of course...all it would have taken today was one skilled student with a gun and many lives might have been saved. Then again...that same student carrying the gun illegally could have saved just as many.


Anyway...I think sometimes stuff just happens and the only blame that can be placed is on a lack of foresight...but if there is any to go around here, it goes not on the gun laws, but on the campus police and brass who took a lot for granted with regards to the safety of the students.


I personally never assume the police or, anyone, is going to be around to protect me...best to take that bit of responsibility on yourself...and learn how to defend yourself.

[Guru of Nothing]

560 women are killed each year by their partner from impulsive domestic violence from a handgun.

Yeah, that's worth the possibility of saving a fraction of 32 college kids lives.

The right to own guns is an artifact from a different society 230 years back.

He hates these cans!

[whottt]

Mookie's kicking ass in this thread...except about that increasingly tyrannical govt stuff...but the rest of his take was excellent...

At last political common ground.


Sabar...way off, naive.

[whottt]

good take whott. fucking campus police should have taken severe action and gotten everyone off campus right after the first murders occured.

Agree :tu 100%.

[whottt]

Murder was a booming business before the first gun was invented...


If the kid had chained the doors and lit the building on fire, should we be outlawing fire?

[scott]

I wonder how many people die each year via gun shot in the UK.

[scott]

i'd like to see homicides per capita

Time to move to Qatar? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[scott]

http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/cri_mur_percap/cri_mur_wit_fir/flag

[scott]

62 murders via firearm in the UK from 1998-2000 (0.00102579 per 1,000 people)... 8,259 for the US (0.0279271 per 1,000 people)... I wonder if there is some kind of correlation with something...

[leemajors]

62 murders via firearm in the UK from 1998-2000 (0.00102579 per 1,000 people)... 8,259 for the US (0.0279271 per 1,000 people)... I wonder if there is some kind of correlation with something...
brits are much better mannered in general?

[whottt]

i'd like to see homicides per capita


And then the seminal point was completely dodged...


Observe:


Time to move to Qatar? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[whottt]

brits are much better mannered in general?



Their soldiers get taken hostage easier and are more willing propagandists than boutons and Nbadan...

[boutons_]

"Their soldiers get taken hostage easier"

... because there aren't enough murderers in the UK to satisfy Whott's bloodlust.

Go fuck yourself, Whott, you dickless sicko.

[sabar]

Well the guy had a vest on, so I doubt armed students would have done much, hitting a human moving head is a lot harder than it seems.

Even if campus police were there I bet it would have been the north hollywood shootout #2. They really should carry larger calibre rounds on person without having to get the shottie from the patrol car or call in SWAT.

[whottt]

Tight Gun Control Laws don't seem to be doing much good in Mexico.

[sabar]

Murder was a booming business before the first gun was invented...


If the kid had chained the doors and lit the building on fire, should we be outlawing fire?Well fire, ropes, ect are used for a lot of things, guns are used only for killing. And maybe turning off appliances from a distance.

[sabar]

Tight Gun Control Laws don't seem to be doing much good in Mexico.Yeah, big problem when looking at this is statistical conclusivness to causation is an invalid arguement since the murder rate is dependant on more than gun availability.

The widely cited source is the UK vs Switzerland. UK has ultra strict rules, the other allows fully automatic rifles. The UK murder rate is much higher, but then they are two totally different places, the Switzerland rate would be lower with or without laws.

The gov't is also very bad at tracking gun stats, it's almost all third party stats based on extrapolation.

[whottt]

Well fire, ropes, ect are used for a lot of things, guns are used only for killing. And maybe turning off appliances from a distance.


No...guns are you used for defending yourself, not killing, defending yourself, that is why they are in The Constitution. And feeding yourself...like a fishing rod, or a supermarket.

The majority of American Gun Owners, don't kill anyone with them...

You would punish them and take away their right to defend themselves, because criminals abuse them...what don't criminals abuse?

There's no logic...


Guns allow a smaller person to defend themselves against a larger person. Like a woman, against a rapist, or a man, against a gang of muggers.

[whottt]

I know they made a lot of drugs illegal...

That sure did solve our drug problem.

[whottt]

Cars kill more people than guns, and they pollute...we should make them illegal, make every one get on a bus.

[sabar]

Yearly in the United States

Guns used in self defense: 64,615
Assaulter shot 29% of the time by the victim

Guns used for homocide: 46,319
Guns used nonfatally in crime (intimidation, ect): 2,628,532

53% of suicides used a handgun last year.

Interesting study showed that criminals will still commit a robbery, but with less lethal weapons in the absence of guns. In areas of a city with easier access to guns versus areas with difficult access, robbery rates were the same, with criminals unable to afford or obtain a guns opting to rob with fake guns or knives. Stabbing attacks are fatal 30% of the time to the heart while gunshots from small calibre rounds are fatal 83% of the time to the same area.

And the second amendment isn't for self-defense, it is there so that the federal gov't can't disarm the people when it fears revolution, as confirmed by United States v. Cruikshank and dozens of state laws on gun control.

By the way I'm for gun control not gun banning. Total disarmament is unrealistic, the goal is restrictions so that the sociopath killers can't walk into Wal-Mart and get what they want. And yes, more restrictions do help, these homocidal maniacs are just as lazy as you and me, many of them aren't going to go looking for black markets because they are ultra-determined. Same reason the sheer outlawing of drugs is a restriction. Yes, the determined will still get what they want, but the determined make up the minority of people.

I'm out for now, night.

[whottt]

Sorry but I don't agree with that very narrow definition of the right to bear arms...

But the point you made is good enough to prove mine...you take the guns away and it's something the GOVT has that the people do not...the framers were trying to avoid that situation. A GOVT more powerful and by that definition better than it's people.


And it's not like Governments are going to be free from corruption just because the people don't have guns.

[efrem1]

Stick this in your pipe and smoke it Sabar:

From the United Human Rights Council:

"Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day."

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm

We have not had that amount of killing in the West because of the remnants of Christian Civilization that holds us together. As men become more savage you will see the stuff going on in Africa going on here. Maybe not now, but in another 50 years or earlier.

I want to defend myself Sabar. Thank you very much!!

[whottt]

All you'd do is create a blackmarket for guns that dwarves what exists now...

Taking away freedoms and rights, doesn't stop anything...it just creates corruption.

[whottt]

And yes, more restrictions do help, these homocidal maniacs are just as lazy as you and me, many of them aren't going to go looking for black markets because they are ultra-determined.


Hmmm...you think this guy got his guns via the black market?

[sabar]

Back.

Playing devil's advocate on gun control is a pain, so much contradictory statistics and evidence. :depressed

If the guy had a clean record before he'd have no reason to use a black market, but I don't know what kinda deals you can get on it. Plus a risk of a sting.

[SRJ]

Why does murder seem worse (to some) when committed by gun? Is a murder victim made any more dead when killed with a bullet?

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Isn't it obvious. Murder is worse by number. Guns make it a lot easier for psychos to act out their 'revenge on world' plan.

This guy couldn't have carried out his massacre on students with a knife. Firearms, explosives. DO make murder more tragic.

[MannyIsGod]

Obviously the solution here is to ban murder. Banning something is apparently what makes it go away - so my vote goes to banning murder.

[xrayzebra]

I wonder how many people die each year via gun shot in the UK.

I don't know, but I do know people do pretty good with
bombs over there. And as far as I know they are banned
by law.

Of course Ireland had a problem with guns, but they blamed
America for that and still do. But they were also banned
there, they just forgot to tell the IRA and Protestants about
the little law.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know, but I do know people do pretty good with
bombs over there. And as far as I know they are banned
by law.

Of course Ireland had a problem with guns, but they blamed
America for that and still do. But they were also banned
there, they just forgot to tell the IRA and Protestants about
the little law.There in lies the problem with firearm prohibition. Somehow the criminals never get the memo.

[DarkReign]

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that is outdated. Not then, not now, not ever. Period.

Those amendments were written with an eye toward all future generations. They can be molded, they can be adapted, but they cannot, will not be terminated.

They are inalienable rights. Rights given to any and all born in this country. This is not a debate, its a standard.

Arguing otherwise opens doors for the other 9 amendments to be terminated.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly. And to say that we will never need another revolution in this country is beyond ridiculous. Who's to say what tomorrow holds?

[whottt]

Hitler and Stalin were anti-gun.

[01Snake]

News is saying they found shooters gun receipt.

[TDMVPDPOY]

australia had a gun buyback scheme in the 90s, and it did pretty well minimizing the amount in society.....

wat you gotto do is stop ppl from getting access to one....but in america its very difficult since ur borders are not protected.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Hitler and Stalin were anti-gun.


wait......democrats are anti-gun. that must mean that dems are like Stalin and Hitler. OMGZZZ, I'm voting Republican 4evaz

[whottt]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18148802/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070417/070417_cho_vmed_830a7.widec.jpg

Authorities ID gunman in Va. Tech rampage
Student’s writings raised red flags; 33 killed, 12 stable in hospitals

Virginia Tech
Cho Seung-Hui, who immigrated to the United States at age 8 in 1992, lived in Centreville, Va., a suburb of Washington.
View related photos

MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 4 minutes ago
BLACKSBURG, Va. - A 23-year-old senior from South Korea whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school’s counseling service was behind the massacre of 30 people locked inside a university classroom building in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, the university said Tuesday.

Ballistics tests also found that one of the guns used in that attack was also used in a shooting two hours earlier at a dormitory that left two people dead at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia State Police said.

Police identified the shooter as Cho Seung-Hui (pronounced Choh Suhng-whee), of Centreville, Va., who was a senior in the English Department at Virginia Tech. Cho, a resident alien who immigrated to the United States from South Korea in 1992, lived on campus in Harper Residence Hall.

The bloodbath ended with Cho’s suicide, bringing the death toll from two separate shootings — first at the dormitory, then in a classroom building — to 33 and stamping the campus in the picturesque Blue Ridge Mountains with unspeakable tragedy.

Note listed gunman’s grievances
Professor Carolyn Rude, chairwoman of the university’s English department, said she did not personally know the gunman. But she said she spoke with Lucinda Roy, the department’s director of creative writing, who had Cho in one of her classes and described him as “troubled.”

“There was some concern about him,” Rude told The Associated Press. “Sometimes, in creative writing, people reveal things and you never know if it’s creative or if they’re describing things, if they’re imagining things or just how real it might be. But we’re all alert to not ignore things ike this.”

She said Cho was referred to the counseling service, but she said she did not know when or what the outcome was. Rude refused to release any of his writings or his grades, citing privacy laws.

NBC News’ Pete Williams reported that police had found a note in which Cho listed “random grievances,” but few other details were immediately available. That seemed in keeping for a young man who apparently left little impression in the Virginia Tech community.

Cho’s fellow residents of Harper Hall said few people knew the gunman, who kept to himself.

“He can’t have been an outgoing kind of person,” Meredith Daly, 19, of Danville, Va., told MSNBC.com’s Bill Dedman.

Stephen Scott, a freshman engineering student from Marlton, N.J., said police and FBI agents went through the dorm Monday night showing a picture of Cho and trying to find anybody who recognized or knew him. He did not know whether they were successful.

‘Very quiet, always by himself’
In Centreville, a suburb of Washington where Cho’s family lived in an off-white, two-story townhouse, people who knew Cho concurred that he kept to himself.

“He was very quiet, always by himself,” said Abdul Shash, a neighbor. Shash said Cho spent a lot of his free time playing basketball and would not respond if someone greeted him. He described the family as quiet.

Rod Wells, a postal worker, said that characterization of Cho did not fit the man’s parents, who, he described as “always polite, always kind to me, very quiet, always smiling. Just sweet, sweet people.”

“I talk to particularly everybody here,” Wells told NBC News. “So I guess nobody had any intimation that he was like that. I don’t think the parents did, because they were quite the opposite.”


Click for related content
Previous deadly campus shootings
Were you there? If so, let us know
Share your condolences
MSNBC.com message board: Message for society?



Cho graduated in 2003 from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., said Jack Dale, superintendent of the Fairfax County schools.

“I want to express the devastation that we in Fairfax County Public Schools all feel about the news from Blacksburg,” Dale said in a statement. “... This is a time for families and friends to grieve.”

Dale said the school system had called in psychologists and social workers to work with students and employees who may have been affected by “these terrible events.”

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry expressed its condolences, saying that there was no known motive for the shootings and that South Korea hoped the tragedy would not “stir up racial prejudice or confrontation.”


Ballistics evidence points to student
Col. Steve Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, said it was reasonable to assume that Cho was the shooter in both attacks but that the link was not yet definitive.

“There’s no evidence of any accomplice at either event, but we’re exploring the possibility,” he said.

Two law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been officially announced, said Cho’s fingerprints were found on the two guns used in the shootings. The serial numbers had been filed off, the officials said.

Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for the purchase of a Glock 9mm pistol in March. As a permanent legal resident, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges.

Cho renewed his green card in late 2003 and would have undergone a background check at that time, immigration officials told NBC affiliate WSLS-TV of Roanoke. If a criminal record had shown up then, officials would have denied the renewal, they said.

At least 26 people were taken to hospitals after the second attack, some of them seriously injured. Twelve students remained in hospitals in stable condition Tuesday, and most were expected to be released soon, NBC News’ Michelle Kosinski reported from Montgomery Regional Medical Center.

After the shootings, all campus entrances were closed, and classes were canceled for the rest of the week. The university set up a spot for families to reunite with their children.

President Bush planned to attend a memorial service Tuesday afternoon at the university’s football stadium, the White House said, and Gov. Timothy Kaine was flying back to Virginia from Tokyo for the 2 p.m. convocation.

‘He didn’t say a single word’
Wielding two handguns and carrying multiple clips of ammunition, Cho opened fire about 7:15 a.m. on the fourth floor of West Ambler Johnston, a high-rise coeducational dorm, then stormed Norris Hall, a classroom building a half-mile away on the other side of the 2,600-acre campus. Some of the doors at Norris Hall were found chained from the inside, apparently by the gunman.

Two people died in a dorm room, and 31 others were killed in Norris Hall, including Cho, who put a bullet in his head.

Students jumped from windows in panic.

Trey Perkins, who was sitting in a German class in Norris Hall, told MSNBC-TV on Monday that the gunman barged into the room about 9:50 a.m. and opened fire for about a minute and a half, squeezing off 20 to 30 shots.

The gunman first shot the professor in the head and then fired on the students, Perkins said, who added: “He didn’t say a single word the whole time.”

“He didn’t say, ‘Get down.’ He didn’t say anything. He just started shooting,” said Perkins, 20, of Yorktown, Va., a sophomore studying mechanical engineering. “I got on the ground, and I was just thinking, like, there’s no way I’m going to survive this. All I could keep thinking of was my mom.”

CONTINUED: Students angry at university’s response

Students angry at university’s response
Students said there were no public-address announcements after the first shots. Many said they learned of the first shooting in an e-mail message that arrived shortly before the gunman struck again.

University President Charles Steger defended the university’s conduct, saying authorities believed that the shooting at the dorm was a domestic dispute and mistakenly thought the gunman had fled the campus.

Steger emphasized that the university closed off the dorm after the first attack and decided to rely on e-mail and other electronic means to spread the word, but he said that with 11,000 people driving onto campus first thing in the morning, it was difficult to get the word out.

He said that before the e-mail went out, the university began telephoning resident advisers in the dorms and sent people to knock on doors. Students were warned to stay inside and away from the windows.

“We can only make decisions based on the information you had at the time. You don’t have hours to reflect on it,” Steger said.

Previous rampages
Until Monday, the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history was in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, when George Hennard drove his pickup truck into a Luby’s Cafeteria and shot 23 people to death, then himself.

The massacre Monday took place four days before the eighth anniversary of the Columbine High School bloodbath near Littleton, Colo. On April 20, 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.

Previously, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a rampage in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower and opened fire. He killed 16 people before police shot him to death.

Police said that there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks but that they had not determined a link to the shootings.

It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a shooting.

In August, the opening day of classes was canceled when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff’s deputy was killed just off campus. The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder charges.

At a hastily arranged service Monday night at Blacksburg Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Susan Verbrugge gazed out at about 150 bowed heads.

“Death has come trundling into our life, a sudden and savage entity laying waste to our hearts and making desolate our minds,” Verbrugge said during a prayer. “We need now the consolation only you can give.”

[whottt]

Why didn't anyone try to make peace with him?


Fuckers...if they had just been nice to him and maybe begged for their lives or appeased him by doing as he asked...none of this would have happened.


Peace is always the way.

[smeagol]

I love my gun. I kiss it every night before I go to bed.

[whottt]

Maybe they should have pretended he didn't exist...

[smeagol]

Maybe they should have pretended he didn't exist...
Oh, but Yoni's theory of armed students killing the guy has lots of credibility :rolleyes

[whottt]

Well...

If that guy had believed there were 15000 armed students in that building...I am pretty sure he would have picked a different target...

My guess is that's probably why he went for a place where guns were banned, as opposed to the local police station.


Is this shit really that hard to understand?

Is it really so hard to understand why the right to bear arms was the second freaking amendment?

[Yonivore]

Oh, but Yoni's theory of armed students killing the guy has lots of credibility :rolleyes
Google "Vice Principal Joel Myrick," He aborted a massacre in progress. And that was after he ran to his truck and retrieved his Colt .45 (parked off campus so he could keep the gun in the vehicle without violating the gun free zone around his school). Just think if he had had it in his office or, better yet, in a shoulder holster?

And, if you stop and think about this massacre; I don't know at what point during the rampage that Jewish Professor (a holocaust survivor no less) attempted to bar entry to his classroom by holding the door but, just think of how much time that would have bought for a student who was carrying a concealed weapon to position himself to take the guy out as soon as he busted through the door.

Instead, the professor gave his life so that some students could jump through windows two stories up; others cowered behind furniture until the madman killed the professor and then wandered around the classroom putting bullets in their heads.

Nobody is suggesting you hand out guns to every student on campus. But, just allow those who choose to properly apply for a permit and carry their weapons wherever they go.

[smeagol]

So the fact that in America it's very easy to buy a gun versus many countries in Europe has nothing to do with the fact there is so much more gun-related violence in the US than in those European countries?

And you guys want even more people with guns?

Great.

[Yonivore]

So the fact that in America it's very easy to buy a gun versus many countries in Europe has nothing to do with the fact there is so much more gun-related violence in the US than in those European countries?

And you guys want even more people with guns?

Great.
It would beat what we have now. All the guns are in the hands of criminals and cops -- and rarely are both at same place when the bulletts are flying.

[ChumpDumper]

Well...

If that guy had believed there were 15000 armed students in that building...I am pretty sure he would have picked a different target...

My guess is that's probably why he went for a place where guns were banned, as opposed to the local police station.Mass killers rarely give a shit about surviving their rampage.

[whottt]

So the fact that in America it's very easy to buy a gun versus many countries in Europe has nothing to do with the fact there is so much more gun-related violence in the US than in those European countries?

And you guys want even more people with guns?

Great.

Yeah...if this guy hadn't been able to buy a gun...maybe he wouldn't have been a homicidal maniac.




IF you Argies spent 1/10th of the time trying to figure out what's wrong with your own country instead of bashing mine...

[whottt]

Mass killers rarely give a shit about surviving their rampage.


Mass killers, do however, like to be able to mass kill..


I'm sorry you're missing that chromosome. Truly I am.

[ChumpDumper]

So whottt, tell me how many carry permits you would expect to see in a student body of 28,000 mostly teens and early 20-year olds.

Then tell me how many wouljd actually be in class at the time of the shooting.

Then tell me how many would be in the actual vicinity of the shootings.

Then tell me how many would actively seek out to use their guns on the shooter.

Then tell me that a mass killer who wanted to die anyway would grossly overestimate your own gross overestimate and actually be scurred to go through with his plan.

[whottt]

Sorry Chump...I'm not going to walk down stupid lane with you just because you didn't understand the point I was making...

Just say my bad...


And yes, I know you understand it now.

[ChumpDumper]

So, you're saying he just would've gone somewhere that he thought would have fewer folks with guns.

An elementary school, perhaps?

Day care center?

Hospital?

I do want to understand the ultimate point here.

[1369]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Sincerely,
Robert A. Heinlein

[whottt]

So, you're saying he just would've gone somewhere that he thought would have fewer folks with guns.

An elementary school, perhaps?

Day care center?

Hospital?

I do want to understand the ultimate point here.


Without knowing more about him...and based on what has been reported, that exactly what I would say...

I am saying that you never seem to hear about homicidal gunmen attacking police stations, and there is probably a good reason for that...In large part due, IMO, to the prevalanece of guns at them...

I never said the guy was afraid of dying...that would be a stupid conclusion since...um, he killed himself.

[ChumpDumper]

Without knowing more about him...and based on what has been reported, that exactly what I would say...So you'd prefer his killing defenseless children.

[whottt]

So you'd prefer his killing defenseless children.


No...I'd prefer he killed you...stupid fuck.

Take your stupid little inference and stick it up your ass.

[ChumpDumper]

Aw, whottt's angry.

[whottt]

So you'd prefer his killing defenseless children.


How in the fuck did you infer this, you crack brained douche?


That's the furthest leap of stupidity I've ever seen you take...and I'm offended.

Congrats...I've never been offended on this board before, but saying I would have prefered he kill defenseless children did it...you fucking idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

Look whottt, I understand you weren't smart enough to see where your argument was heading -- but there's no going back now.

You can be angry, that's ok.

[whottt]

Aw, whottt's angry.


Yes I am...

[whottt]

Look whottt, I understand you weren't smart enough to see where your argument was heading -- but there's no going back now.

You can be angry, that's ok.

No idiot... the only statement made about preferring who was killed was you, and you clearly preferred that he kill, the older kids...


You think it's better than he went in and killed a bunch of college kids than elementary ones...

I don't...in fact I don't see much difference at all.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, my point from the start was that any specific law wasn't going to make a ton of difference here.

Yours was that it would, and you had a specific preference for which law, and you posted what you thought would be the consequences for the law you preferred.

Then you got angry when you realized just how stupid you were.

It's ok.

[whottt]

No...you just said you're glad he killed a bunch of college kids instead of elementary school ones.

[Ya Vez]

An armed swat police officer in every building after the first shooting might have saved about 31 kids.. there was something like a 2 hour lapse between shootings..

[ChumpDumper]

No...you just said you're glad he killed a bunch of college kids instead of elementary school ones.Nah, I let you lead yourself to the conclusion that you preferred the kids died. That didn't mean that I had any preference, since I didn't think a specific law would have done much either way. Now you are trying to save face. It's ok.
An armed swat police officer in every building after the first shooting might have saved about 31 kids.. there was something like a 2 hour lapse between shootings.Possible. Is there even a SWAT team in the area with that kind of force? I like your thinking though -- it's better than whottt's preference for having children killed.

[MannyIsGod]

Chump - honestly that is one of the dumbest leaps you've ever made.

[Ya Vez]

there was sure enough law enforcement there after the second set of shootings started... and in within 1 hour I am sure you could have had enough law enforcement on campus to secure it... but this is just arm chair quarterbacking after the fact.. thing is there are people on the fringe like this all over the place I am pretty sure of that....

[ChumpDumper]

It's true. From what I've heard the first responders may have thought they had a suspect in custody shortly after they arrived at the dorm. That may have been a big factor. I don't think they went in thinking another 30 or 40 people were going to be shot.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump - honestly that is one of the dumbest leaps you've ever made.Absolutely not. It was made to show how stupid knee-jerk, quick-fix solutions are when one really considers the ramifications. Before the bodies were even counted, folks came out of the woodwork saying more guns or fewer guns would have solved everything. In the course of this very thread, bith sides have proven themselves extremely short-sighted and simple-minded. This is a very tough problem whose ultimate solution -- if it exists -- could be quite troubling in its costs, monetarily and otherwise.

[whottt]

Absolutely not. It was made to show how stupid knee-jerk, quick-fix solutions are when one really considers the ramifications. Before the bodies were even counted, folks came out of the woodwork saying more guns or fewer guns would have solved everything. In the course of this very thread, bith sides have proven themselves extremely short-sighted and simple-minded. This is a very tough problem whose ultimate solution -- if it exists -- could be quite troubling in its costs, monetarily and otherwise.



Bullshit...

You did your typical Chump bullshit dodge by making an outrageous statement and attritubing it to me...weak lame and transparent attempt to try and put me on the defensive...the same shit you always do, and every one you argue with knows you do it...

The difference is that this time...geez....wow...

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I did what I did. You put yourself on the defensive by following through and kicking yourself in the ass.

My point is made. Getting you to lose your shit was a bonus.

[whottt]

Nah, I did what I did. You put yourself on the defensive by following through and kicking yourself in the ass.


Yawn...keep telling yourself that.




My point is made. Getting you to lose your shit was a bonus.

Actually...now that I think about it...the fact that you reached that far pretty much means you were feeling owned as never before.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah...keep telling yourself that.

It's good that you've calmed down a bit though.

[whottt]

And it's good to see that you're still an idiot...

[ChumpDumper]

[This message is hidden because whottt is on your ignore list.]

:lol

[whottt]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

[gtownspur]

Just leave ClevelandSteamer alone.

He loves the attetion.

[efrem1]

Here is a portion of an article for you all that just got done watching American Idol. Maybe it will wake you up out of your anti-gun hysteria. The full article is found at http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/firepower_faith.htm

"Sometime ago, while I was engaged in a mission trip to Sudan, I was taking the picture of 4 pastors, each in their clerical collars, and each holding an AK-47 assault rifle. I requested them to put their rifles to one side for the picture. They laughed. "Christians in the West will not understand pastors carrying firearms" I explained to them. They laughed even more. I put my camera down and explained: "pastors in the West do not carry rifles."

The response of one was: "Why not?"

Why not indeed? The present paranoia against firearms has not been shared throughout most of Church history. Christians have always maintained that evil comes from within, from the heart, mind and soul of individuals. A bad workman blames his tools. We cannot blame a cold, metal, inanimate object for the evil that men choose to do. While many men have misused firearms, many others have used firearms to protect the innocent and to prevent evil doers from having their way.

During a slide presentation in a Church in America, the pastor objected to the Christians in Sudan taking up arms against the Sudan government. I asked him what Americans celebrate on the 4thJuly? He seemed somewhat confused, so I reminded him that their founding fathers had unilaterally declared independence from Great Britain on 4 July 1776. The British called it a rebellion.

The American colonists took up arms against the crown because the British had failed to rule the Americans in accordance with the Magna Carta of 1215, and the Declaration of Rights of 1689. King George had violated his Coronation Oath. The American Founding Fathers maintained that the British government was no longer an authority to be submitted to, but a tyrannical power to be resisted. How then could Americans object to Christians in Sudan doing what they had done in 1776?"

:ihit

[GhostBusters2PCGame]

Do proton packs count as firearms?

[SPARKY]

Fuck politics right now. Yeah, there needs to be a discussion after something of this magnitude...later. Sure enough, every freak with an agenda, left, right, middle, up, whatever...is hopping on this right now. Fuck you.

[ChumpDumper]

Amen.

[efrem1]

Fuck politics right now. Yeah, there needs to be a discussion after something of this magnitude...later. Sure enough, every freak with an agenda, left, right, middle, up, whatever...is hopping on this right now. Fuck you.

Wake up and smell the coffee!! :bang

In South Africa, someone was heroric enough to return fire during the St. James massacre in 1993:

"After the grenades exploded, one of our workers, Charl van Wyk, returned fire with his revolver. One bullet wounded the gunman who was firing into the congregation. The shooting stopped and the attackers withdrew. Charl then pursued the terrorists into the parking lot and fired at their getaway car as it sped off into 3rd Avenue. When the police later recovered the terrorists' getaway car the bloodstained seats indicated that at least one of the gunmen was seriously wounded.

If one compares the St. James massacre with similar atrocities in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola and Sudan - it becomes apparent that many more people would have died had Charl not fired back.

WHY?

In numerous reports on the St. James massacre the questions have been asked: Who could possibly want to attack a congregation of Christians worshipping in a church? And what could anyone hope to accomplish through such senseless slaughter? To these questions Christians have added another: How should we as believers respond?

When I saw the shocking carnage at St. James Church it immediately brought similar bloody scenes flooding back into my mind. Over the last 11 years of missionary work I have personally come across dozens of similar atrocities, especially in Angola and Mozambique.
In August 1983 Frelimo troops killed 5 pastors and burnt down all 5 churches in Maskito village, Zambezia province, Mozambique. In September 1983 Frelimo troops killed over 50 Christians and burnt a church down in Pasura village. At Chilleso Evangelical Church, in Angola, Cuban troops shot 150 Christians during a church service. At New Adams farm in Zimbabwe, 16 missionaries and their children were murdered in November 1987.

Muslim mobs have burnt down hundreds of churches and killed hundreds of Christians in Nigeria. In the Sudan more than a hundred Christians were crucified earlier this year. Many hundreds of churches have been attacked in Ethiopia over the last 20 years. And there are no more churches in Somalia - the last church was burnt down and the last minister murdered late last year. And one could continue to recount literally hundreds of similar atrocities."

Gun control, yea right.

[ChumpDumper]

....Yes, you want armed clergymen patrolling college campuses. We read it.

[Mr. Peabody]

wait......democrats are anti-gun. that must mean that dems are like Stalin and Hitler.

Wow, I guess I never thought of it that way. Well, I certainly don't want to be like Stalin and Hitler.

Rudy in '08!

[Mr. Peabody]

Do proton packs count as firearms?

Only if you cross the streams....

[Mr. Peabody]

No...guns are you used for defending yourself, not killing, defending yourself, that is why they are in The Constitution. And feeding yourself...like a fishing rod, or a supermarket.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there would have been as many fatalities at Va Tech had Cho shown up with a fishing rod.


The majority of American Gun Owners, don't kill anyone with them...

The majority of drunk drivers don't kill anyone either, so let's repeal our DWI laws.


There's no logic...


Exactly.


Guns allow a smaller person to defend themselves against a larger person. Like a woman, against a rapist, or a man, against a gang of muggers.

Right. In the year 2007, guns are the only means by which a person can defend themselves from attack by a larger assailant.

Of course, if there were other means of defending yourself, your point would have no merit, correct?

[Mr. Peabody]

and of course, i'll stand by one of the best bumperstickers ever, in which my dad had on the inside of my toychest when i was a baby "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

That's a tautology, not an argument.

[Yonivore]

So, exactly what gun control law would have prevented Cho from committing this massacre on Monday?

Note that I'm not asking what controls would have prohibited him from doing something. Murder law, and for that matter the gun control law that banned firearms from campus, already prohibited him from committing mass murder. That didn't seem to help. I'm curious what "stronger controls" would likely have stopped a would-be mass murderer from killing, or at least killing as many.

Maybe that law, allowing concealed-carry on college campuses, the VT Administration successfully fought so hard to defeat would have helped...

In 2002, a Nigerian student distraught over his grades, killed three people at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia. The attacker was subdued by two fellow students with their own personal handguns. there are lots of similarities between these two events, tragically, this time it was much worse...

[xrayzebra]

There is no law, no where, that could have stop this guy or anyone
else from doing what he did.

Everyone knew he was a nut and no one did anything to stop him.
A nut is a nut.

[George Gervin's Afro]

YES! Guns, guns, and more guns..that's the answer!! let's arm everybody and we can just settke things in the middle of the street..

[Mr. Peabody]

YES! Guns, guns, and more guns..that's the answer!! let's arm everybody and we can just settke things in the middle of the street..

You mock, but when the British Royal Crown returns to reclaim this land, how will you defend yourself?

[Yonivore]

There is no law, no where, that could have stop this guy or anyone else from doing what he did.
Wrong. If there had been a student or professor legally carrying in their stupid "gun free zone," closer than the police were at the time the shooting started -- say, on the second floor of Norris Hall for instance -- I doubt there'd be 32 dead students.

That would have stopped him.


Everyone knew he was a nut and no one did anything to stop him. A nut is a nut.
Oh yeah, there's that aspect as well. Political correctness gone amok refuses to allow society to stigmatize anyone for any reason. They coddle and counsel and release back on society these sick fucks.

32 innocent people paid the price so that VT could have a gun free zone and so that Cho could be assimilated with other students and so that noone's feelings or self-esteem would be damaged by being labeled unstable or weird or sick or whatever.

Congratulations Liberals.

[Bandit2981]

The problem wasn't that this guy was able to buy a gun, he was a textbook psychopath that was intent on killing people regardless. If he had not been able to purchase a gun, he probably would have made a bomb or found some other deranged way of carrying out the murders.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That would have stopped him.

You don't know whether a concealed-carry law would have prevented some deaths, or even added to the death toll.



Oh yeah, there's that aspect as well. Political correctness gone amok refuses to allow society to stigmatize anyone for any reason. They coddle and counsel and release back on society these sick fucks.

32 innocent people paid the price so that VT could have a gun free zone and so that Cho could be assimilated with other students and so that noone's feelings or self-esteem would be damaged by being labeled unstable or weird or sick or whatever.

Congratulations Liberals.

actually, congratulations living in a free society where your freedom can't be taken without due process.

[Bandit2981]

32 innocent people paid the price so that VT could have a gun free zone and so that Cho could be assimilated with other students and so that noone's feelings or self-esteem would be damaged by being labeled unstable or weird or sick or whatever.
I don't know about all that, from all accounts I've seen so far, many of the students DID label him "weird" and the professor referred him to counseling out of similar fears for what he might do. You can't force someone to go to counseling, and he refused to go. It's not like people just ignored him and didn't try to seek help for him.

[Yonivore]

I don't know about all that, from all accounts I've seen so far, many of the students DID label him "weird" and the professor referred him to counseling out of similar fears for what he might do. You can't force someone to go to counseling, and he refused to go. It's not like people just ignored him and didn't try to seek help for him.
You can kick his crazy ass out of school and then notify the authorities to be on the lookout for him.

If he had teachers and other students that were afraid of him -- to the point they avoided any conflict with him -- then someone at VT wasn't doing their job or there was a policy in place or a fear of litigation that prevented them from doing the appropriate thing like refunding his tuition and showing him the door.

[Yonivore]

You don't know whether a concealed-carry law would have prevented some deaths, or even added to the death toll.

actually, congratulations living in a free society where your freedom can't be taken without due process.
Crazy people shouldn't have such freedom. And, by all accounts, people knew this guy was crazy.

[Bandit2981]

Maybe people should have to submit a signed doctors note saying they are in good mental health before a gun purchase...so much is made about looking for felons and past criminal history, but it seems like its not the felons or criminals who kill hoardes of innocent people on these rampages we hear about, its the mentally ill types.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Crazy people shouldn't have such freedom. And, by all accounts, people knew this guy was crazy.

Crazy people need to be commited by the government, not universities or fellow students.

[Mr. Peabody]

You don't know whether a concealed-carry law would have prevented some deaths, or even added to the death toll.


Of course it would have prevented some deaths. Haven't you been reading the stories on the board about massacres that were avoided thanks to a well-armed citizenry. That's like scientific eveidence. As soon as Cho started his rampage, everyone would have pulled out their guns and smoked his ass. That's a fact.

You see, I've cited to evidence and facts. What do you have?

If only that goddam school didn't have gun-free zones. Damn them, what were they thinking?

[Yonivore]

Maybe people should have to submit a signed doctors note saying they are in good mental health before a gun purchase...
Or maybe, they should have pursued a more aggressive approach during the several times this nut job exhibited craziness.


...so much is made about looking for felons and past criminal history, but it seems like its not the felons or criminals who kill hoardes of innocent people on these rampages we hear about, its the mentally ill types.
Well, you're going to have a fight with the privacy crowd if you want to include a mental health background on gun purchases. There's the big nasty HIPA (Health Information Protection Act) to stand in your way...and, believe me, the medical community is scared to death of violating that law.

I'm all for it, though. If a guy gets some kind of mental health diagnosis that would preclude them from owning a gun or could, in the opinion of a competent psychiatrist, manifest itself in an unpredictable bloody massacre, I say red flag 'em.

Unfortunately, I doubt HIPA will even allow us to find out what came of that psyche referral this nutjob was given a while back.

[ggoose25]

Crazy people need to be commited by the government, not universities or fellow students.

exactly. there are lots of people that are a little bit weird or off. but does that make them crazy? tons of creative people are eccentric and loners, but that doesnt give us the right to put them in a psych hospital.

That said, Cho was seriously disturbed and needed help. It is a failure of the university police and his parents, both of which had ample warning signs, that this happened. Stricter gun laws would do nothing, and neither would arming the student body.

[Yonivore]

Of course it would have prevented some deaths. Haven't you been reading the stories on the board about massacres that were avoided thanks to a well-armed citizenry. That's like scientific eveidence. As soon as Cho started his rampage, everyone would have pulled out their guns and smoked his ass. That's a fact.
Well, we know that this nut continued shooting until he decided to take his own life.

In at least two examples cited on this forum, armed students and an armed principal were able to stop a rampage before the gunmen were finished.

Can you name a massacre where the actor stopped of his own accord and laid down his weapon in a place where everyone else was unarmed?


If only that goddam school didn't have gun-free zones. Damn them, what were they thinking?
I guess they were thinking that Mr. Cho would abide by their stupid gun-free zone. Pretty stupid thinking, if you ask me.

[ggoose25]

Unfortunately, I doubt HIPA will even allow us to find out what came of that psyche referral this nutjob was given a while back.

HIPPA is a bitch, but I dont see it standing in the way of law enforcement or psychiatrists trying to learn the truth... but whether the public will find out is another matter.

[Yonivore]

You don't know whether a concealed-carry law would have prevented some deaths, or even added to the death toll.
I know the absence of another armed person on the second floor of that building all but eliminated the possibility of Cho being stopped before police arrived or he decided on his own to stop shooting innocent people.

That's what I know.

Ever wonder how many legally armed people you pass in the street every day? Well, they're there; hundreds, possibly thousands, of them. Unless, of course, you happen to limit yourself to "gun-free zones," wherein, only criminals are packing.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I know the absence of another armed person on the second floor of that building all but eliminated the possibility of Cho being stopped before police arrived or he decided on his own to stop shooting innocent people.

And it's possible that even with a concealed-carry law in effect, none of the students who chose to carry (if any would have) would have been in a position to help the situation.

[Yonivore]

And it's possible that even with a concealed-carry law in effect, none of the students who chose to carry (if any would have) would have been in a position to help the situation.
You're right. But, tell me. Is it more likely there would have been an armed student or faculty in a position to do something with or without the "gun-free zone" and with or without a concealed-carry permit?

Yes, much more likely without the "gun-free zone" and with a concealed-carry permit.

But, with a gun-free zone and a prohibition against those would would be able to legally carry a concealed weapon, it was virtually guaranteed that Cho wouldn't encounter any armed resistance -- at least from law-abiding students and faculty.

Maybe we should hope for two deranged individuals to show up at the same place on the same day and encounter one another before they have an opportunity to kill any innocents. Then, they could take each other out.

[Mr. Peabody]

Can you name a massacre where the actor stopped of his own accord and laid down his weapon in a place where everyone else was unarmed?


Well, I would think that the very definition of the term "massacre" would make naming such an instance almost impossible. However, I am willing to concede that there may be rare occasions where someone will not stop killing until they are incapacitated. Even conceding that point, I am not sure that arming everyone with a gun would entirely prevent these acts from occurring. I think that at best you might lessen the severity of such acts when they do occur, but at what cost? I mean, is it worth the potential harmful consequences of everyone carrying a deadly weapon on their person? I don't think it is. I think you may avoid the thirty-three victim rampage, in exchange for the ten, fifteen, or twenty victim rampage and an increased amount of gun-related violence.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're right. But, tell me. Is it more likely there would have been an armed student or faculty in a position to do something with or without the "gun-free zone" and with or without a concealed-carry permit?

Yes, much more likely without the "gun-free zone" and with a concealed-carry permit.

really? how much more likely? 25%? 35%? 50%


But, with a gun-free zone and a prohibition against those would would be able to legally carry a concealed weapon

a group which would have included Cho

[Yonivore]

really? how much more likely? 25%? 35%? 50%
What? More likely isn't good enough for you?

Are you actually arguing that had there been an armed person -- other than Cho -- on the scene, things would have turned out exactly as they did?


a group which would have included Cho
Well, gee Oh Gee!!, Cho still brought his gun to school, didn't he?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, gee Oh Gee!!, Cho still brought his gun to school, didn't he?

and how many more like him would bring their guns to school if allowed by law to do so?

[Yonivore]

Well, I would think that the very definition of the term "massacre" would make naming such an instance almost impossible. However, I am willing to concede that there may be rare occasions where someone will not stop killing until they are incapacitated. Even conceding that point, I am not sure that arming everyone with a gun would entirely prevent these acts from occurring. I think that at best you might lessen the severity of such acts when they do occur, but at what cost? I mean, is it worth the potential harmful consequences of everyone carrying a deadly weapon on their person? I don't think it is. I think you may avoid the thirty-three victim rampage, in exchange for the ten, fifteen, or twenty victim rampage and an increased amount of gun-related violence.
The flaw in your premise is that I'm advocating "arming everyone."

That's not the case. I'm only in favor of allowing those who decide to apply for a conceal-carry permit, and receive one (along with the training), to carry their legally permitted weapons.

I doubt even a majority of VTech students even own a weapon; much less, would bother to jump through all the hoops required to carry one legally.

Would applications for permits jump after an incident such as this? Sure. Would there have been such an incident if VTech hadn't made such a big deal about banning guns from campus in the first place? Who knows.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What? More likely isn't good enough for you?

Are you actually arguing that had there been an armed person -- other than Cho -- on the scene, things would have turned out exactly as they did?

No, that armed person could have been killed by Cho, or could have killed other innocent civilians himself trying to kill Cho. Point is--you don't know what would have happened.

[Yonivore]

and how many more like him would bring their guns to school if allowed by law to do so?
The law doesn't deter people like him.

So, I guess the answer to your question is that as many as would have brought their guns to school even if they weren't allowed.

[Yonivore]

No, that armed person could have been killed by Cho, or could have killed other innocent civilians himself trying to kill Cho. Point is--you don't know what would have happened.
I admitted as much already.

But, we know what didn't happen...the opportunity never happened because the law and school policy precluded the possibility of a responsible gun owner having that opportunity.

The law isn't going to preclude irresponsibility or illegality.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The law doesn't deter people like him.

So, I guess the answer to your question is that as many as would have brought their guns to school even if they weren't allowed.

Maybe, if we could assume that every person who wanted to carry a weapon would do so even if it violated the law.

[Yonivore]

Maybe, if we could assume that every person who wanted to carry a weapon would do so even if it violated the law.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that every person who wanted to carry a weapon and do what Cho did would do so even if it violated the law.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I admitted as much already.

But, we know what didn't happen...the opportunity never happened because the law and school policy precluded the possibility of a responsible gun owner having that opportunity.

The law isn't going to preclude irresponsibility or illegality.


And we also know that state law didn't preclude someone like Cho from legally buying a weapon, so allowing concealed weapons on school means that you could have many Cho's on campus with access to weapons.

[Yonivore]

And we also know that state law didn't preclude someone like Cho from legally buying a weapon, so allowing concealed weapons on school means that you could have many Cho's on campus with access to weapons.
Your logic is flawed.

If there are many Cho's on campus, the "gun-free zone" policy and concealed-carry law isn't going to reduce the number of armed ones.

Now, addressing the state law that permits him to buy one at all is a good start. But, the flaw isn't with the process but with what gun sellers have access to.

Even if Cho had been diagnosed with some psychosis that would have normally precluded a person from having a gun, unless he committed some crime that would have flagged him on the background, the result would have been the same.

Sounds like your beef is with HIPA. Unless you're suggesting that guns be banned altogether and that's a whole 'nother argument.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think it's pretty safe to assume that every person who wanted to carry a weapon and do what Cho did would do so even if it violated the law.

you're talking about one extreme of the spectrum. I'm saying I don't think having 5 or 6 unstable students carrying weapons on campus lawfully is a great idea.

[Yonivore]

you're talking about one extreme of the spectrum. I'm saying I don't think having 5 or 6 unstable students carrying weapons on campus lawfully is a great idea.
You presume an unstable student would worry about the legality carrying the weapon at all.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If there are many Cho's on campus, the "gun-free zone" policy and concealed-carry law isn't going to reduce the number of armed ones.

so, instead we encourage and allow them to carry weapons? that makes sense.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You presume an unstable student would worry about the legality carrying the weapon at all.


some might

[Yonivore]

some might
Those like Cho wouldn't

[Oh, Gee!!]

Now, addressing the state law that permits him to buy one at all is a good start. But, the flaw isn't with the process but with what gun sellers have access to.

Even if Cho had been diagnosed with some psychosis that would have normally precluded a person from having a gun, unless he committed some crime that would have flagged him on the background, the result would have been the same.

Sounds like your beef is with HIPA. Unless you're suggesting that guns be banned altogether and that's a whole 'nother argument.

Was Cho ever diagnosed? If not, the HIPAA argument has no bearing as it conceivable that some people can go their entire lives without being diagnosed even though they do suffer from some form of mental illness.

I'm not for banning guns, but I don't see how having a an armed student body is a safe alternative, especially when people like Cho can legally buy guns, and probably be eligible to carry them under the concealed weapons law.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Those like Cho wouldn't


maybe not all of them. maybe some of them would carry only if allowed by law to do so.

[Yonivore]

Was Cho ever diagnosed? If not, the HIPAA argument has no bearing as it conceivable that some people can go their entire lives without being diagnosed even though they do suffer from some form of mental illness.
We know he was referred awhile back due to the content of his writings but, due to HIPA, that's privileged information.


I'm not for banning guns, but I don't see how having a an armed student body is a safe alternative, especially when people like Cho can legally buy guns, and probably be eligible to carry them under the concealed weapons law.
Well, if you're not for banning guns then your argument really doesn't make sense. Particularly when you consider that people like Cho won't care about the law when they decide go Cho on the student body.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If we're going to take away the risks of death on campus because of this, why stop with guns?

* Ban all alcohol within a 20 mile radius, because kids die of alcohol poisoning every year

* Ban all ponds and fountains on campuses, because kids drown accidentally.

* Don't build buildings with balconies, because kids fall from balconies and die.

[Mr. Peabody]

If we're going to take away the risks of death on campus because of this, why stop with guns?

* Ban all alcohol within a 20 mile radius, because kids die of alcohol poisoning every year

* Ban all ponds and fountains on campuses, because kids drown accidentally.

* Don't build buildings with balconies, because kids fall from balconies and die.

Wait, wait. I've got a few. If we are going to allow guns on campus so that we can kill murderers, why not swords?

*Swords can kill people. Have you ever seen 300?

Why not snakes?

*Snakes can kill people. Have you ever seen Snakes On A Plane?

Why not tanks?

*Tanks can kill people. Have you ever seen ...uh.....Tank?

You can't question such flawless logic.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I wasn't trying to be serious, sorry I appear to have a hit a nerve. If that logic was too flawless for you, I'll drop the sarcasm and boil it down to a simple argument.

(note: I consider myself pro-gun, but I don't think people should have a right to .50 cals, uzis, AK-47s, etc.).

Anyway, here's my point:

Ban people and the guns will live in peace. Ban guns and the people will find another way to kill each other.

Guns aren't the problem. People are. There's no magical fix for this, there's just a lot of stupid shit going on in society.

Banning guns would not have solved a damn thing Monday. He would have found another way. He would have chained all the doors to the building and set it on fire, or just gotten in his car and plowed through campus until he ran out of gas, ran into something, or police showed up and shot his sorry ass.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

banning guns is retarded. Then you have guys like cho trying to get bombs and shit in order to do whatever it is they plan on doing. Than we have a timothy McVay. Seriously, it isn't that hard to make a bomb--or so I've heard--and anyone who is crazy enough to kill thirty people is likely to go out of his way to get/find a way to make a bomb.

I know that's one of the dumber reasons for why guns shouldn't be banned...but wth

[smeagol]

IF you Argies spent 1/10th of the time trying to figure out what's wrong with your own country instead of bashing mine...

Can I bash "my" country when I become a US citizen?

Oh, by the way, you keep bashing my country . . . what's your excuse?

[smeagol]

I might be going on a limb here and I have no data to prove this but it seems to me that if all students in all the schools in the US were allowed to carry guns simply to prevent these deaths by crazy lunatics such as Cho or the Columbine kids, you would have many more gun-related deaths in schools (sort of what Mr P said).

Can you imagine only 0.1% of all the millions of students (ages 18-22) carrying guns in places such as a school campus, where there is plenty of alcohol, drugs, partying, etc?

And I'm not talking about assasination. I'm simply talking about accidents. I'm talking about guns going of due to drunkness, highness, or plain stupidity.

Yoni, your solution is extremely risky, IMO.

[ggoose25]

accidents with guns happen. a friend of our family recently accidently shot himself while at Baylor with a gun and died. this kid had grown up around them his whole life, but obviously didnt respect it enough.

allowing more guns on a campus is just going to increase the number of gun related accidents disproportionately to the amount of times its going to stave off a massacre.

that said, like many others have said, no new gun laws could have prevented Cho from following through with this plan. He was straight up crazy.

We should be focusing on making policies that protect our students from others with mental illness instead of giving them a glock strapped to their hip. this isn't the wild west, there's a good reason that shit stopped 100+ years ago.

[xrayzebra]

Well one thing is obvious to the most casual observer.

Banning guns from the VT campus really didn't work either, did it?

I saw in the paper this morning that there are 250,000 legal
holder of guns permits in Texas. As far as I know there hasn't
been any shootouts between these people. Nor has a one of
them committed a mass murder. I am sure it will happen
some where down the road and God help us when it does, the
gun control people will be in streets shouting: "We told you
so". But saying it doesn't make it so.

[DarkReign]

There is no answer to what happened.

No amount of security will prevent similar incidents. Arming other students is obviously not the answer, either.

The sad truth is 3 in every 1 million people born in America are sociopathic (totally fabricated statistic). Whether the sociopath does anything violent or not is completely unpredictable. And near unstoppable.

The "soft targets" will always be schools, libraries and other places of daily public congregation. Unless of course we are all willing to pass thru metal detectors, pay the armed guard at every entrance exit, basically locking down any public place to the extent that airports are all in the HOPE, in the TRUST that these measures would prevent the next massacre.

I do not have that same confidence. I am not willing to do those things. Paranoia is a nasty burden reserved for those who are unwilling to admit that some people are just fucking bat-shit crazy and that your odds of actually encountering one are almost nil.

If prevention were so easy and unobtrusive, I am all for it. Unfortunately prevention is a complex mess of rules, regulations and inconvenience.

Stop being so fucking scared. If anyone here is ever in a similar situation, have some fucking balls and sacrifice yourself to get to the shooter/hijacker/terrorist. He was one guy with 2 guns. In a room of 30 people, he cant possibly have his gun on you ALL the time. Make your move. This aint fucking Hollywood, being shot by a 9mm does not knock you off your feet, or drop you to your knees. With enough adrenaline and determination, unless its a head or heart shot, you can conitinue forward and get your hands on him (or whatever impromptu weapn you can find, like a desk chair leg). I carry a 3 inch pocket knife. Stick it in his fucking temple. Hopefully you recruited some fucking help.

What I dont understand is why the fuck did 30 people LISTEN to this son-of-a-bitch. Some gun-wielding nutjob walks into your room and says "Lineup along the wall". These people COMPLIED!!! Thats a travesty in and of itself.

Me, Id make for the nearest window (like some people did). Unless this guy is dead-eye dick whilst dual-wielding handguns, I am going to live.

Better yet, RUSH THE MOTHERFUCKER! Youre the shooter. You have 2 guns, 1 in each hand. Each has 9-12 shots. Unlike in the movies, one shot does not kill people unless to the head or heart. 30 unarmed (or melee weapon wielding) people turn on you simutaneously. Your odds of survival. BELOW FUCKING ZERO. You may take 3 of them with you. 5 if youre ULTRA lucky. But you arent making it out alive.

Thats what I dont understand.

[smeagol]

you're absolutely right. we need to protect people against themselves. you're going to ace that citizenship test, and fit right in with the rest of the sheeple
So you agree with Yoni's solution?

[Yonivore]

Wait, wait. I've got a few. If we are going to allow guns on campus so that we can kill murderers, why not swords?

*Swords can kill people. Have you ever seen 300?

Why not snakes?

*Snakes can kill people. Have you ever seen Snakes On A Plane?

Why not tanks?

*Tanks can kill people. Have you ever seen ...uh.....Tank?

You can't question such flawless logic.
Uh, because guns are more efficient and effective than any of those.

[Yonivore]

I might be going on a limb here and I have no data to prove this but it seems to me that if all students in all the schools in the US were allowed to carry guns simply to prevent these deaths by crazy lunatics such as Cho or the Columbine kids, you would have many more gun-related deaths in schools (sort of what Mr P said).
Yeah, you are going out on a limb. First of all, wherever concealed licenses are available, you're not going to even approach 100% of the population applying. I don't even think it approaches .1% (as suggested in your next point)


Can you imagine only 0.1% of all the millions of students (ages 18-22) carrying guns in places such as a school campus, where there is plenty of alcohol, drugs, partying, etc?
If I'm not mistaken, where available, you have to be 21 to even buy a gun or apply for a conceal-carry permit. So, .1% of all students over 21 is an even smaller universe but, perhaps, large enough to have thwarted Cho on Monday.


And I'm not talking about assasination. I'm simply talking about accidents. I'm talking about guns going of due to drunkness, highness, or plain stupidity.
I don't think you'd even approach the number of accidental deaths due to excessive drinking, car accidents, and falls now experienced. Plus, we have concealed carry permits in Austin and I've yet to hear of an accidental shooting on 6th street (where most of the college kids do their partying).

The training associated with receiving a concealed permit is fairly thorough -- particularly where your liability is concerned. A reasonable person -- and, considering the relatively low incident of accidental shootings by existing permit holders -- this training is taken to heart.


Yoni, your solution is extremely risky, IMO.
Well, the solution pursued by VTech was more than risky, it encouraged Cho while prohibiting a potential resolution.

[rascal]

That's a fact, Jack.
Then answer why in other countries with strict gun control laws there is far less crime with guns then the United States with more lenient gun laws?

[Yonivore]

There is no answer to what happened.
Charging Cho with a crime when he was stalking those female students would have prevented him from legally purchasing a gun.

Expelling him instead of giving him a private tutor when he began weirding out in class would have eliminated him from campus way before his tea kettle started whistling.

There were answers.


No amount of security will prevent similar incidents. Arming other students is obviously not the answer, either.
No one is advocating arming students but allowing those, who wish to, arm themselves -- within the provisions allowed by law.

Why is having a unarmed student body so obvious to you?


The sad truth is 3 in every 1 million people born in America are sociopathic (totally fabricated statistic). Whether the sociopath does anything violent or not is completely unpredictable. And near unstoppable.
I agree it is impossible to predict the breaking point and probably even difficult to stop the initiation of a violent act but, if just one other person had been armed on the second floor of Norris Hall, it is at least a good possibility he would have been stopped before 30 more people lay dead.

Also, considering all that is coming out, this atrocity was very preventable -- had it not been for the politically correct manner in which the school chose to handle his mental illness.


The "soft targets" will always be schools, libraries and other places of daily public congregation. Unless of course we are all willing to pass thru metal detectors, pay the armed guard at every entrance exit, basically locking down any public place to the extent that airports are all in the HOPE, in the TRUST that these measures would prevent the next massacre.
The fact remains that students and faculty have thwarted rampages on at least two occassions, at other schools (one in Virginia), by retreiving guns from their vehicles.


I do not have that same confidence. I am not willing to do those things. Paranoia is a nasty burden reserved for those who are unwilling to admit that some people are just fucking bat-shit crazy and that your odds of actually encountering one are almost nil.

If prevention were so easy and unobtrusive, I am all for it. Unfortunately prevention is a complex mess of rules, regulations and inconvenience.
Or as simple as doing away with "Gun-Free Zones" which only deter the lawful.


Stop being so fucking scared. If anyone here is ever in a similar situation, have some fucking balls and sacrifice yourself to get to the shooter/hijacker/terrorist. He was one guy with 2 guns. In a room of 30 people, he cant possibly have his gun on you ALL the time. Make your move. This aint fucking Hollywood, being shot by a 9mm does not knock you off your feet, or drop you to your knees. With enough adrenaline and determination, unless its a head or heart shot, you can conitinue forward and get your hands on him (or whatever impromptu weapn you can find, like a desk chair leg). I carry a 3 inch pocket knife. Stick it in his fucking temple. Hopefully you recruited some fucking help.

What I dont understand is why the fuck did 30 people LISTEN to this son-of-a-bitch. Some gun-wielding nutjob walks into your room and says "Lineup along the wall". These people COMPLIED!!! Thats a travesty in and of itself.

Me, Id make for the nearest window (like some people did). Unless this guy is dead-eye dick whilst dual-wielding handguns, I am going to live.

Better yet, RUSH THE MOTHERFUCKER! Youre the shooter. You have 2 guns, 1 in each hand. Each has 9-12 shots. Unlike in the movies, one shot does not kill people unless to the head or heart. 30 unarmed (or melee weapon wielding) people turn on you simutaneously. Your odds of survival. BELOW FUCKING ZERO. You may take 3 of them with you. 5 if youre ULTRA lucky. But you arent making it out alive.

Thats what I dont understand.
I think you find your answer somewhere in here...

A Culture of Passivity (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY)

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Argentina must have it all figured out.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133823,00.html

Four Killed in Argentina School Shooting
Tuesday, September 28, 2004

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — A 15-year-old student drew a handgun and opened fire in a school classroom in southern Argentina (search) on Tuesday, killing four classmates and wounding five, authorities said.

Police said the shooting came minutes before the start of classes in the Islas Malvinas public school in Carmen de Patagones (search), a city some 600 miles south of Buenos Aires.

Mario Oporto, education minister for the vast Buenos Aires province where the shooting occurred, said two teenage girls and a boy were killed instantly and a fourth student died soon after at a hospital. At least three of the dead were aged 14-16.

Four of the wounded were treated immediately on the scene and a fifth student was hospitalized in serious condition, authorities said.

Police detained a teenage suspect and were questioning him but said they had no known motive and only sketchy details of what happened. Authorities were planning to transfer the suspect to a juvenile court in Bahia Blanca (search), another city in southern Buenos Aires province.

Police on the scene said students told them the shooter entered the room without saying a word and began firing a 9-millimeter handgun, aiming first at the walls as students cowered beneath desks.

Students who were outside the classroom at the time told local television they thought they heard firecrackers going off, then saw bloodied students screaming as they fled the classroom. They said the shooting began around 7:30 a.m., before the teacher had shown up.

One teenage boy said he was in an adjacent classroom when he heard intermittent shots.

"We heard gunfire and a lot of screaming and then everyone coming out into the hallway," said the boy, who did not identify himself. "We saw three bodies on the ground with bullet wounds."

Outside the school, a crowd gathered along with ambulances, police squad cars and a fire truck. Police removed the bodies while forensic experts remained behind for hours.

The episode touched off a debate on national television about rising violence in public schools in Argentina, home to 36 million people and long considered one of the safest countries in South America.

Stabbings and beatings of students and teachers have been reported in recent weeks, raising public concern about the nation's schools. Surging school violence has also come on the heels of a crime wave in Argentina marked by ransom kidnappings, street shootings and carjackings.

Before traveling to the scene, Oporto told local radio Argentines were grieving over the tragedy.

"This is a case of violence that has exceeded all bounds," Oporto said.

[Yonivore]

...concealed carry policies on college campuses.

The minimum age to purchase a handgun is 21 years old in most states. By definition, this would limit concealed carry to mostly juniors, seniors and graduate students, non-traditional (older) underclassmen, faculty, and staff.

Limit concealed carry to students housed off-campus, and to faculty and staff members. Firearms would not be allowed in the dormitories. This is both a practical and legal consideration. In-dorm firearms could not be secured properly and uniformly, and should not be allowed.

Those students, faculty and staff must prove that they have secure storage for their firearms in their off-campus dwellings.

They must register the firearm they wish to carry on campus with the university police, and qualify with that firearm to show proficiency and safety at least once per calendar year. These requirements are already served by the current CCW licensing process in some states, and actually exceed the CCW licensing of others, who may only require a one-time qualifying performance. It is also comparable to the qualifying guidelines of most police departments.

In addition to these state guidelines, those faculty, staff and off-campus students who qualify under state CCW guidelines should also take a university-prescribed course detailing any additional campus restrictions, and then require them to pass a written test showing these understand both state CCW laws and campus restrictions.

Universities should adopt guidelines for acceptable firearms and ammunition for those who wish to carry on campus, using the following as a general outline:

All university-approved CCW firearms shall be of modern design and sound mechanical shape, as shall holsters and spare magazine carriers;
All firearms shall be of standard self-defense calibers, and these calibers are designated as follows: .380 ACP, .38 Special, 9mm Parabellum, .357 SIG, 40 S&W, .44 Special, and .45 ACP or comparable cartridges;
All firearms using lower-powered cartridges (below .380 ACP) shall not be allowed;
All firearms using higher-power cartridges (.357, .41, 44 Magnums, and above) shall not be allowed;
All firearms using bottlenecked ammunition ( exception: .357 SIG) shall not be allowed;
Only commercially-loaded frangible ammunition shall be allowed.
Pistol magazines shall be of "standard length" (not exceeding the butt of the firearm but more than 1 inch, including any "bump" pads). The number of magazines would be restricted to one in the firearm and one spare magazine in an approved spare magazine carrier.

The guidelines above are very practical in nature. Certain calibers are simply better than others for CCW purposes, and the calibers cited above encompass the overwhelming majority of those in which defensive handguns are chambered. The frangible ammunition mandate may be new to some that are more familiar with full metal-jacketed (FMJ) and hollowpoint ammunition, and so may need to be explained.

Frangible ammunition is designed to fragment or disintegrate upon or shortly after contact. This significantly reduces the dangers associated with overpenetration, by transferring most or all of the projectile's energy into the target as the bullet fragments. While typically being more lethal to the target, frangible ammunition is not as likely to penetrate structural components (walls, floors, doors). Glaser and MagSafe are two of the most common examples.

As for carrying and storage guidelines, all students would be required to carry their firearms and magazines on their persons at all times while on campus (not in a desk, satchel, purse, or bookbag), and all faculty and staff would be expected to follow these same guidelines, with the additional provision that firearms can be kept in individual locked offices in university-approved, bolted-down gun storage safes for faculty and staff.

The requirements and restrictions outlines above are only a rough roadmap of reasonable outlines for a campus concealed carry program.

A similarly-implemented plan would create an atmosphere where the faculty, staff, and students can be confident that those who are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus are perhaps better trained than their CCW-licensed counterparts in the rest of society, and are arguably as well trained as some municipal police officers.

Your thoughts?

Stolen from here (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/).

[whottt]

TheOneAndOnly is a credit to the MookieCrew.


Stabbings and beatings of students and teachers have been reported in recent weeks, raising public concern about the nation's schools. Surging school violence has also come on the heels of a crime wave in Argentina marked by ransom kidnappings, street shootings and carjackings.


Show us how it's done smeag...

[whottt]

See you still get all the violence...but at least we'll be armed here if we get a Galtieri...or a Chavez.


Framers of the constitution>>>>>Mr.Peabody, GGA, and smeagol.

[smeagol]

So?

[whottt]

Reason#10102039458 why you should be listening to us instead of viceversa....


Too much of a Euro influence is Argie's problem.

[sabar]

Uh, because guns are more efficient and effective than any of those.
I dispute the point that a tank is less efficient than a handgun.

[Yonivore]

I dispute the point that a tank is less efficient than a handgun.
You do?

So, an M1 Abrams would be more efficient on the second floor of Norris Hall than my 9mm Glock?

Look up the word efficient.

[DarkReign]

You do?

So, an M1 Abrams would be more efficient on the second floor of Norris Hall than my 9mm Glock?

Look up the word efficient.

I wish forums had the smilie for "sarcasm" or better yet a "right over your head".

[The Captain]

Look at the facts.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/gunfacts.shtml
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm


As of 2000, Florida ranked #4 in population but ranked #21 in suicides. Since the right-to-carry law was enacted in Florida the following changes occured. The homicide rate dropped 36%, firearm homicides dropped 37%, and handgun homicides dropped 41%. In the ten states that adopted right-to-carry laws the results were:

* "no change in the suicide rate
* a 0.5% rise in accidental firearm deaths
* 5% decline in rapes
* 7% decline in aggravated assaults
* 8% decline in murder and
* 845 fewer multiple victim public shootings.."


"Approximatey 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals at the rate of about 760,000 times a year." "There are also two million defensive gun uses per year."

"After Washington DC enacted their hand gun ban their homicide rate rose 200% while the overall U.S. rate only rose 12%." "Of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault only 8% involved firearms."

"For decades the U.S. Dept of Justice's Crime Victimization Survey has shown that resistance with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal. The probability of serious injury from a criminal confrontation is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than resisting with a gun."




* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."20

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."21

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."22


* Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.

* Objection: Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.

* Answer: Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:


Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.15

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.


Nationwide. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;12 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.


Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.3

* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).4 And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."5

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.


. England and Canada's murder rates were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. 114

2. The murder rates in England, Canada and Japan have risen tremendously since passing their gun control laws.115 And most crime rates in England have now surpassed the rates in the U.S.:

* In 1998, a study conducted by a British professor and a U.S. statistician found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study that was published by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."116

* The murder rate in the United States is higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."117

3. United States: Take away the guns, and there is still more murder. United States' NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan.118 In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns -- such as with knives, fists and feet.

* It is absurd to claim that the U.S. has more murders because it has more guns. If one were to "magically" make every gun disappear in the U.S., the hard fact is that Americans would still kill each other-without guns-more often than the citizens of England, Canada or Japan kill each other will ALL types of weapons.

* The problem is not the type of weapons used, but rather, the failure in America to keep violent criminals off the street. (See point 2 under Myth #2 above.)

Also, there are probably over 200 million guns in the US. There are an average of 29,000 deaths where a gun was used. Take out suicides and self-defense deaths and you're most likely left with maybe about 15,000 deaths if that. Divide 15,000 by 200 million and you get less than 1% of all guns are used in homicide. Is that point whatever percent of guns used wrongly worth it to take them away from the responsible owners?

[rascal]

What the world thinks about gun laws in the US.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-17-virginia-tech

This link is not opening up. But I agree with the world view.

[Mr. Peabody]

snakes won't stay in your pocket.

That truth has brought down many great men.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Bill_Clinton.jpg/300px-Bill_Clinton.jpg

[rascal]

Look at the facts.













Also, there are probably over 200 million guns in the US. There are an average of 29,000 deaths where a gun was used. Take out suicides and self-defense deaths and you're most likely left with maybe about 15,000 deaths if that. Divide 15,000 by 200 million and you get less than 1% of all guns are used in homicide.

Of course a small % of total guns are used in homicides.
The question is what percentage are guns used in homicides?

[sabar]

You do?

So, an M1 Abrams would be more efficient on the second floor of Norris Hall than my 9mm Glock?

Look up the word efficient.The second floor of Norris Hall wouldn't exist if Cho had an M1A2.

Want to argue efficiency? The M1 has a 95% hit ratio with it's main gun, no one will get close to that with a pistol.

In conclusion, I'll make sure to add sarcasm tags to my posts.

[/sarcasm]

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/04/22/tt070422.gif


http://www.uclick.com/feature/07/04/19/po070419.gif

[Blake]

Massachusetts getting after it

"....The new law, which was approved in July and was supposed to be implemented later this month, cracks down on privately made, unserialized firearms called "ghost guns" and criminalizes the possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks, which increase the firing rate of guns.

Besides regulating firearms, the legislation places more responsibility on gun owners by requiring applicants for a gun license to complete live-fire training and it also expands the state's so-called "red flag" law to allow police as well as health care and school officials to alert courts if they believe someone with access to guns poses a risk. The courts can then determine whether to, at least temporarily, take away the guns..."

https://www.newsweek.com/massachusetts-governor-maura-healey-immediately-implements-gun-law-1962995

[Millennial_Messiah]

Tim Walz is friends with school shooters, so I dunno, ask him? His friends should have the answers.


Massachusetts getting after it

"....The new law, which was approved in July and was supposed to be implemented later this month, cracks down on privately made, unserialized firearms called "ghost guns" and criminalizes the possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks, which increase the firing rate of guns.

Besides regulating firearms, the legislation places more responsibility on gun owners by requiring applicants for a gun license to complete live-fire training and it also expands the state's so-called "red flag" law to allow police as well as health care and school officials to alert courts if they believe someone with access to guns poses a risk. The courts can then determine whether to, at least temporarily, take away the guns..."

https://www.newsweek.com/massachusetts-governor-maura-healey-immediately-implements-gun-law-1962995
Communist anti-2A legislation for sure, that's why it was stupid of Trump to ego-out Charlie Baker who at least provided a check on this kind of thing and nominate a MAGA candidate in a deep blue college educated state and obviously let a very far leftist like Maura Healey win. Dolores Umbridge vibes... shudder.

Letting far-leftist courts such as MA subjectively enforce already unconstitutional red flag laws is very, very dangerous. On the slippery slope to totalitarian government control. Without a doubt, straight white men will be disproportionately unfairly misadjudicated-against as they have been nationally in the past couple decades at least. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to comprehend that straight white men are under attack and subversion throughout the West. The Soros and Rothschilds of the world, the Goldman Sachs and Barclays and Buffetts and BlackRocks and Blackstones and Vanguards are laughing.

[Blake]

Tim Walz is friends with school shooters, so I dunno, ask him? His friends should have the answers.


Communist anti-2A legislation for sure, that's why it was stupid of Trump to ego-out Charlie Baker who at least provided a check on this kind of thing and nominate a MAGA candidate in a deep blue college educated state and obviously let a very far leftist like Maura Healey win. Dolores Umbridge vibes... shudder.

Letting far-leftist courts such as MA subjectively enforce already unconstitutional red flag laws is very, very dangerous. On the slippery slope to totalitarian government control. Without a doubt, straight white men will be disproportionately unfairly misadjudicated-against as they have been nationally in the past couple decades at least. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to comprehend that straight white men are under attack and subversion throughout the West. The Soros and Rothschilds of the world, the Goldman Sachs and Barclays and Buffetts and BlackRocks and Blackstones and Vanguards are laughing.

Do you really believe he is friends with school shooters?

[Millennial_Messiah]

Do you really believe he is friends with school shooters?
I mean, you take a man for his word until he's proven to be a liar, no?

[Blake]

I mean, you take a man for his word until he's proven to be a liar, no?

Huh?

[Ef-man]

I mean, you take a man for his word until he's proven to be a liar, no?

Like being unanimously convicted of 34 felony counts for fraud?

Or not being inaugurated President of the United States because he lost the 2020 election?