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..
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.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.
Chump - honestly that is one of the dumbest leaps you've ever made.
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....
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.
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.
Bull ...
You did your typical Chump bull 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 you always do, and every one you argue with knows you do it...
The difference is that this time...geez....wow...
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 was a bonus.
Yawn...keep telling yourself that.
Actually...now that I think about it...the fact that you reached that far pretty much means you were feeling owned as never before.My point is made. Getting you to lose your was a bonus.
Yeah...keep telling yourself that.
It's good that you've calmed down a bit though.
And it's good to see that you're still an idiot...
[This message is hidden because whottt is on your ignore list.]
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Just leave ClevelandSteamer alone.
He loves the attetion.
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...ower_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?"
Do proton packs count as firearms?
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. you.
Amen.
Wake up and smell the coffee!!
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.
Yes, you want armed clergymen patrolling college campuses. We read it.
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!
Only if you cross the streams....
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 drunk drivers don't kill anyone either, so let's repeal our DWI laws.
Exactly.
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?
That's a tautology, not an argument.
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...
Last edited by Yonivore; 04-18-2007 at 11:06 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
