JPINFV Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 Will it end a rampage sooner? Possibly. But what happens when it doesn't? Then the cops arrive and instead of one nut job walking around with a gun there's one nut job and 20 law abiding citizens legally carrying. How's the cop supposed to determine who's the nut job and who isn't? And then what? Now there's a nut job with a gun out there and a few innocent, law abiding citizens who are dead because the cops couldn't tell who was who and shot the wrong guy. Then suddenly the cops are the bad guys. Or, the attention of the cops is diverted to those who are legally carrying and away from the nut job who's the real threat. There's not an easy answer. The pro-gun side will yell and scream that they're right. The anti-gun lobby will yell and scream that they're right. Everyone has statistics that supports their side. Nobody wins. Do we really have to go down this road again? -be safe The same way every incident with multiple people is handled. Every one gets detained until the stories can be worked out. Police can't just shoot someone because they have a gun (albeit it makes it more likely), so if you have someone who may be a gunman, he gets a pair of matching metal bracelets until the immediate situation is contained.
spenac Posted April 16, 2008 Author Posted April 16, 2008 This discussion just shows that no matter which side of the issue you are on there is no easy solution. Should we or shouldn't we? Who knows? My preference is not important. What is important is the opinion of those that have lost loved ones. What do they say? Do they feel that had their chid had a gun at least they would have had a fighting chance? Do they feel if their kid had a gun it would have made it worse for all? Their opinions are what are important not mine. Is this issue easy to solve? No as shown by the various comments today.
JPINFV Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 well yeah if you take into account the two distinct crime scenes. The one in the dorm and then the one in the class. by my recollection the classroom shooting if I remember right, took less than a minute to go from start to finish. He came out , started shooting and then ended in a short time The class room shooting was the one that took ~10 minutes per Wikipedia. I don't think he was a good enough of a shot to kill 30 people (33-2 from the dorm - himself) in 60 seconds. These were class rooms, not lecture halls. The time between the dorm room and the class room shootings was several hours.
JPINFV Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 This discussion just shows that no matter which side of the issue you are on there is no easy solution. Should we or shouldn't we? Who knows? My preference is not important. What is important is the opinion of those that have lost loved ones. What do they say? Do they feel that had their chid had a gun at least they would have had a fighting chance? Do they feel if their kid had a gun it would have made it worse for all? Their opinions are what are important not mine. Is this issue easy to solve? No as shown by the various comments today. So victims should be able to set state and national policy now? They're opinions are important, but so are the opinions of every other stake holder in this discussion, including gun owners.
IUemt Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 The class room shooting was the one that took ~10 minutes per Wikipedia. I don't think he was a good enough of a shot to kill 30 people (33-2 from the dorm - himself) in 60 seconds. These were class rooms, not lecture halls. The time between the dorm room and the class room shootings was several hours. According to wiki, Columbine lasted nearly an hour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
paramedicmike Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 People carry concealed weapons on a daily basis in the general public. I haven't heard of too many instances of this happening. :wink: True. But how many shootings like the VT shooting happen on a daily basis? While this is anecdotal at best, I do know of several instances with the local PD where their attention is diverted away from the real "threat" (reports of person with a gun) because law abiding citizens who were licensed to carry (not the person the cops were looking for) had their weapon out in anticipation self defense. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Just that it's not as simple as people on either side of the argument would like to make it seem. But you're right - lobbyists ultimately decide the fate of this decision, and unfortunately I don't see this changing any time soon. After VA Tech last year, I read this article about University of Utah students being allowed to carry their personal concealed on campus now after the supreme court struck down the ban in 2006. I just don't understand someone's logic who says, "I'm terrified the student next to me may have a gun!" http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html I read the same article. Utah is a unique state, though. Another poster mentioned mixing of alcohol and weapons on a college campus. I think this is a valid concern. However, it's probably not something that is going to be a problem on many campuses in Utah given their strict alcohol laws and the anti-alcohol component of the predominant religion. And no, I don't understand why people are freaked out simply by someone next to him/her having a gun. A feeling of powerlessness perhaps? -be safe
JPINFV Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 According to wiki, Columbine lasted nearly an hour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre The biggest difference is that one is a high school and one is a college. While I support teachers who choose to have a gun (provided it's in a locked case and the students are unaware of it's presence), I can't really support high school students in this day and age carrying fire arms to school. There was a time in the near past (my father has stories) when that was acceptable, but it isn't really today.
IUemt Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 True. But how many shootings like the VT shooting happen on a daily basis? While this is anecdotal at best, I do know of several instances with the local PD where their attention is diverted away from the real "threat" (reports of person with a gun) because law abiding citizens who were licensed to carry (not the person the cops were looking for) had their weapon out in anticipation self defense. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Just that it's not as simple as people on either side of the argument would like to make it seem. And understandably so. The police should take all individuals involved into custody until the situation can be worked out. If a citizen with a gun is approached at gun point by the police, they're going to drop their weapon and comply immediately. If the shooter is approached by the police, it's likely they will fire upon themselves or the officers. But you're right - lobbyists ultimately decide the fate of this decision, and unfortunately I don't see this changing any time soon. After VA Tech last year, I read this article about University of Utah students being allowed to carry their personal concealed on campus now after the supreme court struck down the ban in 2006. I just don't understand someone's logic who says, "I'm terrified the student next to me may have a gun!" http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html I read the same article. Utah is a unique state, though. Another poster mentioned mixing of alcohol and weapons on a college campus. I think this is a valid concern.
IUemt Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 The biggest difference is that one is a high school and one is a college. While I support teachers who choose to have a gun (provided it's in a locked case and the students are unaware of it's presence), I can't really support high school students in this day and age carrying fire arms to school. There was a time in the near past (my father has stories) when that was acceptable, but it isn't really today. Absolutely agree, I don't and wouldn't advocate high school students being armed - age and maturity play too much a factor in high school. I wasn't advocating for that, I was just adding to the duration of the situation discussion. 8)
paramedicmike Posted April 16, 2008 Posted April 16, 2008 The same way every incident with multiple people is handled. Every one gets detained until the stories can be worked out. Police can't just shoot someone because they have a gun (albeit it makes it more likely), so if you have someone who may be a gunman, he gets a pair of matching metal bracelets until the immediate situation is contained. I agree. However, your parenthetical statement of "albeit more likely" is the key. And this further supports the point that attention is diverted from the real problem at hand because now the cops have to handcuff this guy and either leave the scene personally or have someone take the individual off scene diverting attention to the problem at hand. Despite how it may sound, I'm not arguing one way or another. My personal views aren't all that important here. I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's interesting to see discussions like this evolve before the degrade into lame-arse shouting matches. -be safe
Recommended Posts