Asysin2leads Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Look, if someone wants my wallet, they can have it. If they still come at me then, its on. I'm not saying that if escape is unavoidable not to give it a shot, but if you can get out, do it. Rushing a gunman with a fire extinguisher is a good way to commit suicide, IMHO. And yes, Dust I agree with you. The problem wasn't the firearm, it was the person, but if he hadn't been able to get his hands on a semi-auto, the body count would have been much lower. I think that if he hadn't been able to get his hands on a gun it would have been a knife or a gas or a club, but if hadn't been a semi-auto, there wouldn't be so many dead. I don't blame gun owners for the tragedy, but I do blame the standards for the sale of firearms that do not prevent people with documented histories of mental illness from swiping their Visa and going on a rampage. This guy wasn't just a little kooky. He had been, in the past, declared a danger to himself and ordered for psychological counseling. But guess what? Because of gaps in the reporting laws, Virginia never bothered to report that to the federal government agencies that are supposed to stop these sorts of buys from happening. I don't blame the students or the school for this tragedy occurring anymore than I blame the victims of 9/11 for not stopping the airliner from hitting them. It wasn't their fault. It was the fault of a government who despite its size and bureaucracy, still can't prevent a person who was declared a danger by a court from buying not one, but two firearms. That's who I blame.
JPINFV Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 This guy wasn't just a little kooky. He had been, in the past, declared a danger to himself and ordered for psychological counseling. [s:02c33732cc]But guess what? Because of gaps in the reporting laws, Virginia never bothered to report that to the federal government agencies that are supposed to stop these sorts of buys from happening. [/s:02c33732cc] I don't blame the students or the school for this tragedy occurring anymore than I blame the victims of 9/11 for not stopping the airliner from hitting them. It wasn't their fault. It was the fault of a government who despite its size and bureaucracy, still can't prevent a person who was declared a danger by a court from buying not one, but two firearms. That's who I blame. No, it's because of the stupidity of requiring a court order for initial assessment and treatment of patients with acute psychiatric disorders. If a person is considered an imminent threat you detain first and worry about the courts until you have a handle on what you are dealing with. Maybe psych holds are one thing that Kalifornia does right (initial hold is 72 hours and doesn't require a judge. This automatically forfeits a patient's right to own a gun for the next 5 years with a single appeal to appease due process).
Dustdevil Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 It was the fault of a government who despite its size and bureaucracy, still can't prevent a person who was declared a danger by a court from buying not one, but two firearms. That's who I blame. How could they stop him from buying a firearm? They have completely outlawed and demonised drugs, but still anybody can buy them in less than an hour. I feel your frustration, but the solution is not as simple as adding another level of bureaucracy.
spenac Posted April 17, 2008 Author Posted April 17, 2008 If only the government had done its job and said no to the sale he would have gone down to the street and bought a gun. OH well if the government had been stricter in the first place there would not have been guns on the street for him to buy. Wrong. For your reading pleasure I present Mexico. Basically average joe blow (sorry jose soplo ) citizen can not buy a gun. A friend owns a large ranch in Mexico, he had heck getting a permit to buy a 22 to shoot animals that were attacking his livestock. Well guess what in Mexico if you so choose in 5-10 minutes on a busy day you can get pretty much any kind of gun you want right off the street. I can walk around and within minutes get whatever I want. And Mexico is very serious about gun control. You go to prison for an empty shell casing found in your car. So government control does not stop a criminal from doing whatever he wants to do. As to the question I posed at the beginning, I would prefer to at least have a fighting chance if I were cornered by a crazy hell bent on killing everyone. Odds are still many would have died had students and teachers had guns, but if it even ended with one fewer dead it would have been worth it. So IMHO if students and teachers complete a concealed weapons course they should be allowed to carry. But it is your right to disagree, please lets keep this from an ugly pro gun vs anti gun fight. Thanks.
firespec35 Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 This is a complicated topic with many factors. I am a proponent of CCW even for colleges but, I also deal with college students on a regular basis who have the maturity level of Bart Simpson. I think state law should prevail on this one whatever the law is should be what is followed. I know part of the MI CCW statute prohibits even bringing your weapon into a place that does it's primary business from alcohol sales and prohibits you from consuming any alcohol when armed. If they break the law they can pay. I know some Law enforcements views are changing on the whole "active shooter" phenomenon whether it be schools, offices or bars. Instead of waiting for SWAT (Columbine). First arriving officers are entering the building to handle the situation (Bar in Ohio where Dimebag Darrell was shot). If you look at the ohio situation you still had to deal with PD's response time, but the officer arrived on scene armed himself with a patrol shotgun and ended the threat alone. Just imagine the bodycount if they waited for SWAT to arrive. I know certian places are teaching kids as young as elementary school not to hide and wait to die, but to swarm the attacker and fight back with anything at hand. Books, pencils, staplers ect... I see college student CCW as an extension of this. Like was said earlier The anti gunners are going to scream they're right and the pro gunners are going to scream they're right. I'm just on one side of it.
jsadin Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I look at defensive firearms the same way I look at my fire extinguisher: I hope I never have to use it, but I'd hate to need it and not have it.
matt202 Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Now I know I'm not going to be popular with this response, but in the UK there have been two incidents of this type in the last 25 years. Michael Ryan in Hungerford and Thomas Hamilton in Dunblain. The UK government banned handguns and made it very difficult to obtain any other type of firearm legally. Since then there have been no other incidents of this type. I think that in the US you have to accept that if you make firearms available to the general public, eventually, this type of scenario will occur.
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 An old lady was walking back to her car. she sees 4 men getting in her car and without hesitation she walks up, pulls a handgun and yells "I have a gun and I know how to use it, now get out of my car" The guys do not hesitate and they run like scared rabbits. She then proceeds to get in the car, put her key in the ignition and she can't for the life of her start the car. She then notices that there not only are her groceries in the car but a 12 pack of beer, a football and a frisbee are in the front seat. DOH!!! She gets out walks a few cars down and finds her own car and proceeds to drive to the police station and explain what she had done. After the desk sergeant stops laughing he points to 4 young men white as ghosts who are there to report a car jacking by a little old white haired lady carrying a grocery bag of food and a huge black handgun. See she had a concealed permit and she stopped that crime in it's track. oh by the way, she actually drove the 4 guys back to their car at the grocery store.
IUemt Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 Now I know I'm not going to be popular with this response, but in the UK there have been two incidents of this type in the last 25 years. Michael Ryan in Hungerford and Thomas Hamilton in Dunblain. The UK government banned handguns and made it very difficult to obtain any other type of firearm legally. Since then there have been no other incidents of this type. I think that in the US you have to accept that if you make firearms available to the general public, eventually, this type of scenario will occur. If guns cause violence, women cause prostitution.
paramedicmike Posted April 17, 2008 Posted April 17, 2008 I'm not sure that response fits entirely with the point Matt is making. If you limit access to the weapons, then, by Britain's example, it could be argued people generally won't act out on whatever it is that drives people to partake in such acts. So, it's not the guns themselves that are causing the violence. It's the position of the gun as a tool in the hands of the person creating the violence. The sentiment of the actor in these situations doesn't change. Further, I don't believe that responses to stress are that vastly different in other countries as they are here. So one may react with rage towards a particular incident but may not be able to act upon that rage in the same way if a firearm is unavailable (as opposed to having one available). It's true. Guns don't cause violence. However, their role as a tool in such violent acts can't be ignored. Would some of these events still have happened if guns were that much more difficult, or near impossible, to obtain? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think any of us do. But I don't see reports of mass stabbings (or other acts of violence with the use of tools other than a firearm) by deranged lunatics nearly as often as mass shootings. -be safe
Recommended Posts