Forums » Off-Topic
BBC Reports "A US shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university has left 33 people, including a suspected gunman, dead."
A full two hours after the first shots were fired and two students killed, the gunman entered the Engineering building and killed 30 more people, and wounded 29 others. No motive is of yet known for the incident, and the gunman remains unidentified.
This shooting incident occured only a little over a year after the General Assembly shot down legislation that would prevent Virginia Tech from infringing on the second amendment rights of students and faculty posessing concealed carry permits. http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658 To which Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker responded "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Great going, Larry. Talk about having to eat your words....
A full two hours after the first shots were fired and two students killed, the gunman entered the Engineering building and killed 30 more people, and wounded 29 others. No motive is of yet known for the incident, and the gunman remains unidentified.
This shooting incident occured only a little over a year after the General Assembly shot down legislation that would prevent Virginia Tech from infringing on the second amendment rights of students and faculty posessing concealed carry permits. http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658 To which Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker responded "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Great going, Larry. Talk about having to eat your words....
Did the shooter have a concealed weapons permit? Banning guns doesn't keep them out of the hands of people who do this.
This is the most comprehensive collection of accounts I've seen:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nwzchik/index?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/17/national/a094055D47.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nwzchik/index?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/04/17/national/a094055D47.DTL
He bought the weapons used in March (9mm) and April (.22 cal.); unlikely that he had a CCH. He'd have had to (1) applied, (2) passed training, and (3) heard back which takes up to the full 45 days allowed for a decision. I can probably hop on Lexis or Westlaw and do a quick VA records search to see if he's licensed; my money is on him not being.
No concealed weapons permit for the shooter. Some of the other students had them, but were barred from bringing weapons on the campus anyway (incredibly stupid idea). Banning guns only restricts honest people, not killers. They created a defenseless victim zone at VTech, and then they paid for it. The sad part, is this is already being used by morons to push an anti-gun agenda with the intent of creating MORE defenseless victim zones and opportunities for violent crime and killings.
Just goes to show that common sense apparently isn't so common.
Just goes to show that common sense apparently isn't so common.
Cunjo, isn't it also true that with a ban on guns he could not have gotten one?
Just a different spin on the same subject.
What I want to know is why countries such as Autralia and Canada can ban or severely limit gun purchases and have a gun murder rate to the toll of TWO to every hundred thousand people or less, yet America cannot? Don't say Constituitional right, speak logically. Or morality wise.
Just a different spin on the same subject.
What I want to know is why countries such as Autralia and Canada can ban or severely limit gun purchases and have a gun murder rate to the toll of TWO to every hundred thousand people or less, yet America cannot? Don't say Constituitional right, speak logically. Or morality wise.
Speak for yourself.
We effectively have 'defenseless victim zones' almost everywhere, and we do not fare as badly, but this is just a side-note. I'm not strictly against weapons being carried by civilians, I just want it to be strictly controlled, and not just once, when the weapon is bought, or the licence acquired. Just like I think that people should have to take driver's exams periodically (I won't go into this here), if people own firearms (they being exclusively made to harm, or at least dissuade by threatening to seriously harm others), they should be required to prove their ability to maintain, store and use their weapon correctly.
Maintenance and storage go almost hand in hand. Ammunition should be locked away in a secure place, such as a safe, preferrably together with the receiver. The weapon should be stored in a dry place, with little or no dust allowed to intrude on it (preferrably in a sealable plastic bag or container, right after cleaning and lubricating it).
To examine whether a person can actually use her or his firearm, live firing under the supervision of a trained instructor should take place regularly, ideally twice a year at least, including training on weapon maintenance and storage, things like how to handle a jammed weapon and such.
And never, ever, wear a weapon 'cocked&locked'... if you don't have time to get the weapon ready (<2s), you don't have time to use it effectively.
I wouldn't want people to be able to buy a semi-automatic firearm without them knowing what possessing such a thing means.
We effectively have 'defenseless victim zones' almost everywhere, and we do not fare as badly, but this is just a side-note. I'm not strictly against weapons being carried by civilians, I just want it to be strictly controlled, and not just once, when the weapon is bought, or the licence acquired. Just like I think that people should have to take driver's exams periodically (I won't go into this here), if people own firearms (they being exclusively made to harm, or at least dissuade by threatening to seriously harm others), they should be required to prove their ability to maintain, store and use their weapon correctly.
Maintenance and storage go almost hand in hand. Ammunition should be locked away in a secure place, such as a safe, preferrably together with the receiver. The weapon should be stored in a dry place, with little or no dust allowed to intrude on it (preferrably in a sealable plastic bag or container, right after cleaning and lubricating it).
To examine whether a person can actually use her or his firearm, live firing under the supervision of a trained instructor should take place regularly, ideally twice a year at least, including training on weapon maintenance and storage, things like how to handle a jammed weapon and such.
And never, ever, wear a weapon 'cocked&locked'... if you don't have time to get the weapon ready (<2s), you don't have time to use it effectively.
I wouldn't want people to be able to buy a semi-automatic firearm without them knowing what possessing such a thing means.
Gun control is going to be a big issue and will change in the US because of this. It is sad, but stricter gun laws would not have prevented this psycho from carrying out his mission. It was researched and premeditated and meant to exploit any weaknesses in emergency protocol. If laws and reactions were different, he would have done it a different way. Sometimes it's just a sad world we live in.
Some facts :
(a) The guns were legally bought for $571, with a credit card. Total credit available to the consumer, on average, is $19000.
http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/AverageStats.aspx
(b) The shooter underwent, and passed, both background and MENTAL HEALTH checks.
(c) Assault-class weapons like the AR-15 were banned in most states, though not small calibre pistols like the two guns the shooter used. The reason : they thought that a nut-head with an AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a Glock-19.
(a) The guns were legally bought for $571, with a credit card. Total credit available to the consumer, on average, is $19000.
http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/AverageStats.aspx
(b) The shooter underwent, and passed, both background and MENTAL HEALTH checks.
(c) Assault-class weapons like the AR-15 were banned in most states, though not small calibre pistols like the two guns the shooter used. The reason : they thought that a nut-head with an AR-15 can do a lot more damage than a Glock-19.
(c) They're right. A shooter armed with an AR-15 in an enclosed environment is going to (assuming proficiency with the weapon) be able to kill a lot more people than he will with a Glock 9mm. Which is not to say that a handgun isn't capable of shooting fish in a barrel; a rifle just makes it easier and does more damage (all else being equal). Of course, it's a lot harder to get a big, M-16 looking thing into your classroom without attracting a lot of attention, I'd imagine.
Sorry, passing more laws is not the answer.
Nothing can stop this. A loner who discusses his plans with no-one, buys the handguns and calmly proceeds to murder random individuals without much rhyme or reason.
No gun control plan in the world would have stopped this. If he hadn't had a firearm, perhaps he would have killed with a katana, or a baseball bat, or a box cutter.
Deranged, evil manic a-holes don't bother obeying laws. If he could not have purchased the weapon legally, he would have just bought one illegally.
It's nothing but a tragic story, and I can't think of a way that it could have been prevented.
Nothing can stop this. A loner who discusses his plans with no-one, buys the handguns and calmly proceeds to murder random individuals without much rhyme or reason.
No gun control plan in the world would have stopped this. If he hadn't had a firearm, perhaps he would have killed with a katana, or a baseball bat, or a box cutter.
Deranged, evil manic a-holes don't bother obeying laws. If he could not have purchased the weapon legally, he would have just bought one illegally.
It's nothing but a tragic story, and I can't think of a way that it could have been prevented.
Lecter (c) : you are totally missing the point. But not surprising at all.
I like what toshiro said. I think that Americans should actually be encouraged to own guns, but only if they can use them safely and effectively. There should be a rigorous test to get a license that proves your proficiency and that you can be safe with them, and you should have to renew the license every few years. If you have a license, there should be no reason you can't go to a store and buy a gun and take it straight home like anything else. The only restrictions to licenses should be if for felons, or any disabilities that would interfere with safe handling of a firearm. This country was founded by civilians with guns.
No, softy, I was just working with what you made explicit. To reach the conclusion you think I missed, there's a couple of implicit steps that you're assuming we all just take for granted.
Hunting and owning guns have been part of my family's traditions for generations. I got my first when I was 10. There were times when, when certain people (mostly city kinfolk with lots of kids) came to the house, we locked up the guns. We didn't want the irresponsible kiddies getting hurt.
Well, there's not another country with a scholastic body count anywhere vaguely near what it is in the US. And, to me, it looks like we have a country overran with irresponsible kiddies.
I think it's time we, as a country, lock up the guns.
Well, there's not another country with a scholastic body count anywhere vaguely near what it is in the US. And, to me, it looks like we have a country overran with irresponsible kiddies.
I think it's time we, as a country, lock up the guns.
Lock em up, Hell yeah. But they need to be there. Just in case.
Actually, Lecter, the point is that people seems to understand the idea of putting firepower in one hand can do lots of damage, as evidenced by their ban on assault weapons. However, they failed to appreciate that a simple handgun *is* massive firepower, as you noted that glock 9mm is capable of shooting fish in the barrel. Basically, those people who allow handguns but banned assault weapons are guilty of putting a price on how much we are ready to pay to put guns in the hands of the public. I would argue that 32 dead innocent students is a pretty high price, and anyone who argue that "gun control" is not a possible solution disagrees with me.
Gun control laws only affect the law-abiding non-criminals.
Criminals will go to great lengths to own guns, because, well, they usually aren't too keen on following laws anyway. How many guns used in crimes in the United States were purchased from legal sources? Care to take a guess? Only around 20%. Most were purchased illegally or from "friends/family". ( source ) Therefore, at best, gun-control laws only affect 20% of the populace.
All gun control laws do is make sure that criminals have unarmed targets.
The fact that the U.S. Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear firearms means that we won't be banning personal weapons in this country anytime soon.
Criminals will go to great lengths to own guns, because, well, they usually aren't too keen on following laws anyway. How many guns used in crimes in the United States were purchased from legal sources? Care to take a guess? Only around 20%. Most were purchased illegally or from "friends/family". ( source ) Therefore, at best, gun-control laws only affect 20% of the populace.
All gun control laws do is make sure that criminals have unarmed targets.
The fact that the U.S. Constitution guarantees our right to keep and bear firearms means that we won't be banning personal weapons in this country anytime soon.
I love when people from other countries can tell us what's wrong with out gun laws. Yet, the politicians in the US can't figure it out. Federal laws/bans bounce back and forth, and state laws vary so much you might as well move from 1 country to another traveling through the states.
I live in Massachusetts. The toughest state in the US on gun control. In order to own a gun, one needs a permit, pass the safety exams every few years, have a perfect record, on occasion one has to pass a psyche eval, and be very friendly with the local police chief. The police chief has complete say over who gets what for gun permits. For a good number communities in Mass the police chiefs blatantly say they will not issue class A (for all lawful purposes) permits. Instead they issue hunting and target only permits, especial with renewals. Such as: Lawrence and Methuen. However, it does nothing to stop the hundreds gang bangers in the area to pack heat. But yet, when one goes to renew a permit in good standing, they cannot apply more than 3 or 4 months before the permit expires, then it takes the police 6 to 9 months to put the paper work through and renew the license. For the 2 to 3 months of not having a permit, they have to submit their weapons to the police station for lockup. And pay for it. Otherwise face jail, because they know you have the weapons. But, shit, I still hear gun shots near my home now and then. But, the politicians know best so they must have things under control with all their gun laws.
Gun laws do nothing except effect legal owners of guns. If this psycho couldn't buy his hand guns outright at a gun shop, then he still would have gotten guns from another source. Just like the gangs in Mass do. The only thing gun laws do around here is secure a nice desk job for someone.
I live in Massachusetts. The toughest state in the US on gun control. In order to own a gun, one needs a permit, pass the safety exams every few years, have a perfect record, on occasion one has to pass a psyche eval, and be very friendly with the local police chief. The police chief has complete say over who gets what for gun permits. For a good number communities in Mass the police chiefs blatantly say they will not issue class A (for all lawful purposes) permits. Instead they issue hunting and target only permits, especial with renewals. Such as: Lawrence and Methuen. However, it does nothing to stop the hundreds gang bangers in the area to pack heat. But yet, when one goes to renew a permit in good standing, they cannot apply more than 3 or 4 months before the permit expires, then it takes the police 6 to 9 months to put the paper work through and renew the license. For the 2 to 3 months of not having a permit, they have to submit their weapons to the police station for lockup. And pay for it. Otherwise face jail, because they know you have the weapons. But, shit, I still hear gun shots near my home now and then. But, the politicians know best so they must have things under control with all their gun laws.
Gun laws do nothing except effect legal owners of guns. If this psycho couldn't buy his hand guns outright at a gun shop, then he still would have gotten guns from another source. Just like the gangs in Mass do. The only thing gun laws do around here is secure a nice desk job for someone.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Why is it, every time someone mentions the second amendment, they always leave out the first part?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
Try to convince the authorities of your 2nd amendment rights next time you get on a plane. They will advise you of your 6th amendment rights to an attorney and a trial by jury. Why is that?
There are many civilized countries that allow the ownership of firearms. Yet here in the US, they end up in schools, on the campuses, in restaurants and in churches.
You're saying we should just get used to it. I don't think so.
Why is it, every time someone mentions the second amendment, they always leave out the first part?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
Try to convince the authorities of your 2nd amendment rights next time you get on a plane. They will advise you of your 6th amendment rights to an attorney and a trial by jury. Why is that?
There are many civilized countries that allow the ownership of firearms. Yet here in the US, they end up in schools, on the campuses, in restaurants and in churches.
You're saying we should just get used to it. I don't think so.