Reply With Quote
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..
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.
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?
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.
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 s.
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.
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.
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.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 s.
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.
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.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.
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.
Crazy people shouldn't have such freedom. And, by all accounts, people knew this guy was crazy.
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.
Crazy people need to be commited by the government, not universities or fellow students.
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?
Or maybe, they should have pursued a more aggressive approach during the several times this nut job exhibited craziness.
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.
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.
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?
I guess they were thinking that Mr. Cho would abide by their stupid gun-free zone. Pretty stupid thinking, if you ask me.
HIPPA is a , 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.
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.
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.
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.
really? how much more likely? 25%? 35%? 50%
a group which would have included ChoBut, with a gun-free zone and a prohibition against those would would be able to legally carry a concealed weapon
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?
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?
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
