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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
so, instead we encourage and allow them to carry weapons? that makes sense.
some might
Those like Cho wouldn't
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.
maybe not all of them. maybe some of them would carry only if allowed by law to do so.
We know he was referred awhile back due to the content of his writings but, due to HIPA, that's privileged information.
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.
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.
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 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.
banning guns is re ed. Then you have guys like cho trying to get bombs and 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
Last edited by Ronaldo McDonald; 04-19-2007 at 02:06 AM.
Can I bash "my" country when I become a US citizen?
Oh, by the way, you keep bashing my country . . . what's your excuse?
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.
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 stopped 100+ years ago.
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.
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 ing bat- 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 ing scared. If anyone here is ever in a similar situation, have some ing 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 ing 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 ing temple. Hopefully you recruited some ing help.
What I dont understand is why the did 30 people LISTEN to this son-of-a- . 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 whilst dual-wielding handguns, I am going to live.
Better yet, RUSH THE MOTHER ER! 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 ING 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.
So you agree with Yoni's solution?
Uh, because guns are more efficient and effective than any of those.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote