When mass killers meet armed resistance

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

With the level of ignorance it took to type that, I don't know why I bother replying to you.

I am asking a simple question. I am sure you can answer it since you know everything that happened in the case.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And you have verified none of them were armed?

0

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am asking a simple question. I am sure you can answer it since you know everything that happened in the case.

when did I say I know everything that happened in the case?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

How many police did Cho come across? That's right, none. How many students did he come across? In the hundreds......you do the math.

I think it is dangerous to assume that a law allowing people to carry on campus would have avoided the problem. It is possible less people would have been killed, but it is really impossible to say what would have happened.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I think it is dangerous to assume that a law allowing people to carry on campus would have avoided the problem. It is possible less people would have been killed, but it is really impossible to say what would have happened.

I think it is a pretty safe assumption based on the evidence in the first post, and based on the fact that killings on this scale have only been perpetuated in places where legal carry was not an option. Obviously the "bad guys" see this kind of place as an easy killing zone where they can do the most damage.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

I think it is a pretty safe assumption based on the evidence in the first post, and based on the fact that killings on this scale have only been perpetuated in places where legal carry was not an option. Obviously the "bad guys" see this kind of place as an easy killing zone where they can do the most damage.

Well I would contend that your position is influenced by your bias. Most of these guys end up killing themselves, so I doubt it is a major concern for them.

The point is that pre-empting the outcome of such events is almost impossible. Sure it is possible that someone may haves been able to him, but it is also possible that even with a law allowing carrying no-one would have been in a position to effectively use a gun against him before he racked up a tally of death.

Just as guns do no increase violence, nor do they reduce it

[thomez]

Death is not a major concern, but they seem to target places where they believe they can kill the most innocent people before going out with a bang - these just happen to be places like schools where they believe they are least likely to encounter armed resistance. The evidence of this seems rather clear to me.

Even if guns did not decrease crime, hell even if they increased it, I would still argue for the right for a law abiding citizen to protect himself and his family by whatever means necessary - it should be his right as a person to do so.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

Death is not a major concern, but they seem to target places where they believe they can kill the most innocent people before going out with a bang - these just happen to be places like schools where they believe they are least likely to encounter armed resistance. The evidence of this seems rather clear to me.

I can point out most of these crimes are by young people, so there is "clear evidence" that age is to blame. There are many factors involved, and each case is slightly different. While I concede it is possible they consider the school a soft target, as opposed to say a police station, I find it is a bit of a logical jump to say they target them because they are soft target as opposed to because it is a large part of their lives.

Originally Posted by thomez

Even if guns did not decrease crime, hell even if they increased it, I would still argue for the right for a law abiding citizen to protect himself and his family by whatever means necessary - it should be his right as a person to do so.

That is a personal viewpoint, though I'm not really against it - though I'd be uncomfortable with some weapons (such as tanks etc). My point is, and has continued to be that carrying is more of security blanket than anything else.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I can point out most of these crimes are by young people, so there is "clear evidence" that age is to blame. There are many factors involved, and each case is slightly different. While I concede it is possible they consider the school a soft target, as opposed to say a police station, I find it is a bit of a logical jump to say they target them because they are soft target as opposed to because it is a large part of their lives.

That is a personal viewpoint, though I'm not really against it - though I'd be uncomfortable with some weapons (such as tanks etc). My point is, and has continued to be that carrying is more of security blanket than anything else.

The difference is that we can work to eliminate "soft" targets through measures that expand the areas where people can legally protect themselves, but we cannot do much to change the age of criminals with guns.

I don't think anyone is advocating a tank in your backyard, but then again I really believe that unless people are able to defend themselves from government tyranny on a level playing field, the future of the human race is bleak... freedom will likely be rare, just as it is today. The age of the revolution is over.... sadly.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

The difference is that we can work to eliminate "soft" targets through measures that expand the areas where people can legally protect themselves, but we cannot do much to change the age of criminals with guns.

Even if legally allowed, I am unsure of how many people would carry at all times. I am not sure it would change much at all. After all guns act as an amplifier (they are a tool).

Originally Posted by thomez

I don't think anyone is advocating a tank in your backyard, but then again I really believe that unless people are able to defend themselves from government tyranny on a level playing field, the future of the human race is bleak... freedom will likely be rare, just as it is today. The age of the revolution is over.... sadly.

Freedom has always been rare, though the current climate of fear does little help. My hope is that all this technology will one day remove many of the problems faced. If people were better at solving issues, and didn't allow emotion to rule them, the world would be far better off.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Well I would contend that your position is influenced by your bias. Most of these guys end up killing themselves, so I doubt it is a major concern for them.

The point is that pre-empting the outcome of such events is almost impossible. Sure it is possible that someone may haves been able to him, but it is also possible that even with a law allowing carrying no-one would have been in a position to effectively use a gun against him before he racked up a tally of death.

Just as guns do no increase violence, nor do they reduce it

If concealed carry was allowed on campus the outcome *MAY* have been different. I'm not saying it would have been different, I'm saying it *MAY* have been different. Given the situation the way it was in VA he was guaranteed an easy couple hours of killing people.

IMO it's safe to assume, given that the campus is a gun free zone, that the outcome was predictable. If concealed carry was allowed then it may not have turned out the way it did.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

.....carrying is more of security blanket than anything else.

Of course it is. Just like putting a blanket and food in my trunk before heading out for a drive in the winter rather than hoping, if I go off the road, that someone else will come along and save me.

It puts ME in charge of what happens to me. I can choose to use a weapon or not. If it's a gun free zone then that choice is taken from me.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Of course it is. Just like putting a blanket and food in my trunk before heading out for a drive in the winter rather than hoping, if I go off the road, that someone else will come along and save me.

It puts ME in charge of what happens to me. I can choose to use a weapon or not. If it's a gun free zone then that choice is taken from me.

I have not advocated the widespread denial of being able to carry a weapon, and I am not really opposed to it as such. I just don't think many of the justifications people are using are really all that accurate. I won't deny possbility of it coming in handy, but this idea of pulling out a gun to save the day or protect yourself and your family is just as likely to go wrong if you are poorly trained.

Ignoring current law etc, I would support carry laws on condition of training and assesment.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Even if legally allowed, I am unsure of how many people would carry at all times. I am not sure it would change much at all. After all guns act as an amplifier (they are a tool).

It is already legal in many states - it is an individual's choice whether to carry or not, but it should be exactly that, a choice.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I have not advocated the widespread denial of being able to carry a weapon, and I am not really opposed to it as such. I just don't think many of the justifications people are using are really all that accurate. I won't deny possbility of it coming in handy, but this idea of pulling out a gun to save the day or protect yourself and your family is just as likely to go wrong if you are poorly trained.

Ignoring current law etc, I would support carry laws on condition of training and assesment.

All carry laws that I am aware of require the passing of a class and shooting test.

I'm not sure how you can continue to disagree with the justifications when it is extremely clear that people have both saved their own lives and the lives of others by legally arming themselves.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thomez

All carry laws that I am aware of require the passing of a class and shooting test.

Nope. My friend in Mass had to take a class but did not have a shooting test in order to pass the class and get his license.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 7960

Nope. My friend in Mass had to take a class but did not have a shooting test in order to pass the class and get his license.

Hmm... I have just never witnessed a carry discussion without a shooting test. I know Ohio and many other states have one.

[7960]

Originally Posted by thomez

Hmm... I have just never witnessed a carry discussion without a shooting test. I know Ohio and many other states have one.

I'm k. My friend in Mass just did this 2 years ago.

k: what did you have to do to get your gun permit
D: in MA, it's up to each police cheif if they issue one, or not...
k: any class? any test?
D: for hand gun carry license, yes....class...no test...
k: class is mandatory?
D: class A is license to carry concealed...class required...
D: class B is hand guns, but not carry...class required...


and I don't see anywhere on the licensing application for NH where it asks for "course/training/class" information

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/n...nts/dssp85.pdf

actually, I get pissed when people guess and I often tell them to call and get the real answer. I just called my local police dept. There is no class, no test, ..... just fill out the application and they do their federally mandated check and then issue the license.

[DosEquis]

Gonzales: More guns won’t stop college violence - Massacre at Virginia Tech - MSNBC.com

Attorney general disagrees with arming campuses in light of Virginia Tech

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday that having more guns on college campuses is not the way to prevent campus violence like the massacre at Virginia Tech.