It's a shame that a few of of those students weren't packing LEGAL guns
 

They'd at least have had a chance to defend themselves.

In fact I'd hazard a good guess that had any of those students been legal gun owners with some training and a permit to carry, the deathtoll would have been far less than 32... not to mention all those he severely injured.

I know, we should arm every citizen starting at age 13. That way we would all be safe !

Yea I was just talking about this in another thread. Am I correct when I say some states like Texas still allow you to carry a gun on you in public?

If so, it doesn't seem to be so detrimental to those state's societies... In my opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon.

Its legal in 48 states with the proper permits, and courses.

Not everyone, gun ownership will never be everyone's cup of tea. I'm just saying that if even one of the students in thos classrooms where the shooting took place had a gun on his person and was able to shoot back it very likely would have turned out vastly different, and a lot less tragic.

Hell yea. I have no intention of murdering innocent people... but I would sure as hell carry a gun on me for protection if I was allowed to. I have a perfect little .38. If I was sitting in a lecture hall with my gun tucked in my pants, and some guy came in and started shooting my innocent classmates, of course I'm going to pull my gun out and shoot back at the psycho...

yep.....like i keep sayin.........

I basically agree. I pointed out in another gun thread - you can't have it both ways. Either everyone is allowed to walk around with a gun or nobody can even own them.

The downside is - would you want to raise your children in a city/town/state where almost anyone can walk down the street with a loaded gun? Or in one where there is no right-to-carry? I'll take the third option: One where people can't walk into a gun dealership and buy a 9mm like they were buying candy.

Lol, you guys just can't be serious.

So your solution now is to give pretty much everyone their own gun? Do you realize you are probably the country with the easiest laws to buy weapons? And at the same time you are the only country with this school shootings??

How dumb are you?

counter strike? duke nukem? shadow warrior? doom? blood? what?

I dont' think someone from Brazil has room to talk about gun violence.

Seriously.

Don't make me break out the favella youtube clips of gun violence in Brasil. Cause I will. :)

if someone was packing it would of been very different,also if the school locked down after the first shooting at 7am it could of been very different.

I am licensed to carry, and one of the Rules is NO GUNS ON CAMPUS, im not allowed to be on campus with my piece

Well I know your pretty dumb.
China, Korea, Russia, Japan, UK... And thats just what 3 seconds finds me.
In China the media was banned from reporting the school shootings there, only a few websites posted it, all of which are blocked to all of china. But the US shooting were heavily reported to show how bad democracy is.

The states with right to carry have the lowest rates for violent crimes.
Hell look at Canada, strict and stupid gun laws left and right. Makes it a real pain in the ass for people in the right of the law to shoot, and costly too, ammo and the guns are on average far more here then in the states.
And while it seems there is less gun related deaths thats just because large US citys have more people then all of Canada. On a per capita basis Canada and the US are very close. And Canada isnt near as densly populated either.

Also for Canada almost zero of the gun crimes are comitted with a legally owned firearm, in the US I would suspect not many are either.

Yeah, hormone crazed 18-21 year olds carrying handguns in a college environment would be a great idea..... Kegs and 9mms go hand in hand too.

Yes, that twat would probably get shot back at pretty fast.
33 students dead in shooting incidents would be a weekly thing though.

Where did I say my solution was to "give everyone their own gun"?

Also, it's clearly written in my location that I'm Canadian.

How dumb are you?


I said that IF a few of those students were armed and had the ability to defend themselves and their classmates this event would have unfolded a lot differently, that's all. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that concept?

come on, why i have to have a gun? to be drunked or on drugs and totally blind kill someone in fail? or cause i am paranoic and i need to take care about myself? if someone want to kill you, someone will! if someone is mad as this guy, that happens as the aircraft fall! guys posessed with guns must be mafia or they are trying to catch a girl, but thanks thats the last girl on planet i want to pick up ... i know, thanks god i am living where i am living ... :thumbsup

I realize that. Maybe it's time to change that rule to allow those with proper documentation and credentials to carry on campus?

Or have armed security posing as students like they do on airplanes with the air marshals posing as passengers. :D

Because that has ever been statistically demonstrated. I love when people post anecdotal evidence and present it as if it was a fact. :2 cents:

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Ban handguns countrywide, get rid of the problem all together and make it extremely hard for ANYONE to get a gun except for law enforcement officers.

The notion/argument that if you have a gun to "defend yourself" it will be safer is the biggest crock of shit I hear.

I don't agree with that at all. I've found that most legal gun owners who take the time to get the training and registrations and accreditations etc are the kind of people I would want sitting beside me when the psycho opens fire on the crowd. They aren't the type to bust out random killings at all.

You, like 1 or 2 others, seem to have skimmed over what I wrote and instead read into it that I'm suggesting every student and idiot on the street be issued a firearm. That's about as far from what I said as it gets.

One of my nieghbors is a gun owner. I've been a gun owner in the past, and believe me, I have no problem with that nieghbor owning a handgun and hunting rifle. Why? Because I know he's a sensible responsible guy.

In a perfect world I would so agree with you. If you could trust the notion that no one had guns, not even the crooks and psychos, I'd be singing the same tune you are.

But especially in the US that isn't the case. There are already millions of guns there, banning them isn't going to make them go away. The only people who will surrender their guns to a ban are the law-abiding people. You'd be disarming all those law-abiding enough to voluntarily turn their guns in, and leaving the crooks armed.

I'm sorry, I don't see that as an option for the USA. Did it work in Australia? I just heard recently that some nutjob there ran through a mall with a knife and stabbed 5 or 6 people before being taken down.

No, personally when I hear about psychos opening fire on innocent people like this, one of my immediate reactions is the having the urge to own and carry a gun for protection. Which brings us back to the original point of this thread... that being IF even one student at Virginia tech had of been carrying a gun.....


Sorry, it's easy to point out how "ridiculous the notion is" etc when you're from a country that doesn't have the kind of social situations the USA does.

Everyone armed to the teeth - hmm well not a place I would want to visit in a hurry!

Am curious though. Last time I checked gun deaths in the US were around 15 per 100,000 and in the UK it was 0.6 per 100,000

Yet you want more guns not less.

So explain the logic behind this because from where I am sitting its not really working for you is it?

where do you get your information from?

"BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- The student who killed 32 people and himself Monday at Virginia Tech paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago, the owner of Roanoke Firearms told CNN Tuesday.

John Markell said Cho Seung-Hui was very low-key when he purchased the gun and 50 rounds of ammunition with a credit card in an "unremarkable" purchase.

Cho presented three forms of identification and state police conducted an instant background check that probably took about a minute, the store owner said."

I rest my case...

So that's the ideal situation? A bunch of college kids defending themselves with guns against an armed lunatic? How about stopping him from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon in the first place.

I haven't heard about this story. Care to post a link? But even if it is true, that just furthers the gun control argument. Yes, this guy may have killed 5 or 6 people, but with a semi-automatic weapon, he could have killed many more just as the Virginia Tech shooter did, or even more like Martin Bryant did.

Anyone know what the highest number of kills a spree killer has been able to make without using an automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

If your case is that they (the US) needs to make it more difficult to purchase guns, that there needs to be mandatory firearm ownership programs put in place so that people like this guy can't just buy a gun in minutes, then you and I are in full agreement.

maybe its just me but i don't think i'd try my chances against assualt rifles or shotguns when all i would have is a handgun.

I think you imagined that story.

Did it work in Australia? Sure seems that way.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2004/20040102.html

That is why we have things called Laws. You might be able to carry a gun, but if you do something stupid with it then you will goto jail...

No, no link. While watching the CNN coverage yesterday on this shooting they had on a correspondent who mentioned the incident in Australia. There may be a link out there, let me know if you find it.

The point of her bringing it up was that it doesn't matter if guns are banned or not, people will find a way to kill and maim others if that's what they want to do.

And whether it's 5 people or 50 people, when it's your son or daughter who is among the dead does it really matter about the numbers or the method?


People, this is not another thread about gun control or whether they should be banned or not, stop making it about that. The ONLY point I put forth here was that if a few or even one of the students present had of been armed, that events would have very likely unfolded differently.

Would I prefer it if no one anywhere had a gun? Actually no, some people like to hunt. Others are members of gun clubs and like to shoot. Others collect, and yes, many keep them for protection. If you've ever had to walk home on the streets of Newark after dark :D or any big US city through certain neighborhoods alone you'd change your tune about carrying a weapon. Do I know first-hand what it's like? Actually yes, I've been in several US cities where people start running for the subway once it starts getting dark.

I'm sorry, what works in another country isn't going to work in the US, the differences are just too great to make that judgement. For one thing millions of legally registered gun owners are never going to surrender their guns, EVER. Have you ever been to an NRA rally or seen footage of one on TV? For another thing, the vastly huge gun companies in the US would never stand for a ban, and believe me there are many billions of dollars talking loudly there.

So "Cho" bought a legal handgun. I wonder what the ban camp would be saying had he purchased an illegal gun from some crook out of the trunk of a car?

It's an idea, but I still don't think it's needed. Thousands more college students will die from alcohol poisoning this year. While it makes headlines, school shootings are still very rare.

I do think armed security would help, and better training is necessary. Most colleges have their own security force, but most aren't allowed to carry more than a flashlight. I also think the cops need to be trained better. Watching that one tape, you hear 15 shots go off and the cops sit around a van waiting. I'm not expecting anyone to go Jack Bauer in the building, but a cop should try his best to save some of the kids.

Comparing the US to Australia over this issue just doesn't fly.

Oz has nowhere near the crime or similar culture/social settings that the USA has, never has never will. And it has about a fifteenth of the population.

Saying something worked in Australia means nothing to the US.

YOU brought up Australia first. You asked, "Did it work in Australia?" All I did was show what the Australian institute of Criminology found.

Does a 50% drop in firearm deaths over 10 years means that it worked? Sure sounds like it.

thats not true.. think about germany - weve got some of the most strict regulations when it comes to purchasing and carrying guns and sadly there's been some very tragic school shooting incidents in the past. in 2002 a teenager went on a shooting spree and shot 16 people to death.. i know its a controversial topic but *perhaps* some people wouldn't have died if someone had carried a legal gun and used it in a proper way..?!

I'd like to live in a world where I *can* expect a cop or two to go a little Jack Bauer in the face of this kind of crisis, actually. :D

Yes, thank you for providing the article.

Inferring from it that because it worked there it will work for the USA is not a wise assumption to make though, that's all I'm adding to that part of the discussion.

Oh I agree, its too late for the United States.

I hear people saying if only people there had been armed this guy may have been stopped. In my view, if you need to go to university armed to protect yourself, you have already lost. Your whole society has lost.

Sad.

There are sooo many different facts and situations that are involved in this.
We do not know exactly how this went down yet.

His positioning his re-load time panic ect, ect, ect.
Even a trained individual or two with a weapon does not eliminate the element of surprise.

It's a math problem people. Training and weapons both add and take away from the overall equation.

Remember these are young people. The question is weighing out the pros and cons. If this was a prison then arming has less of a negative effect. (Convicts have less of so called Life value)

This is not a situation that has a simple answer / resolution. Such as too arm or un-arm,
It may be a combination of several different things.

There are certain aspects that make me believe that this kid was trained or had other groups that helped him with the delivery. Either that or he had just spent a long time planning, He was a very smart kid. (this is just my opionion)

As more facts are found and released the resolution will make it?s self more evident.

:2 cents:

Don't mistake what I've said for me suggesting anything of the sort that it's a solution. It's really just a simple observation that had a student or two been armed and able to shoot back it may have made a difference. (maybe a huge difference)

No one is really arguing that point either, and understandibly so. Because when someone is shooting at you, the first thought on some people's minds is "wouldn't it be great if I had a way to shoot back?" along with the obvious "I hope I survive" of course.

I'm going to agree with that. It really does sound like this kid performed his attack with precision and timing. That doesn't come out of thin air or luck, it is born out of planning and training.

Odds are you'd be a lot safter in a place "armed to the teeth". It's a fair bet that just about everyone in my town owns a gun. Many of us carry them with us. We've not had a gun related crime since I've lived here in 6 years.

You might also Google "Kennesaw Georgia". Seems crime went down when they passed a law saying everyone had to own a gun.

There were 7 college students killed recently in Atlanta in a bus accident. Buses must be bad.

The dude was a psycho. He broke dozens of laws. Even OUTLAWING guns isn't going to keep them out of the hands of someone like him.

What an idiotic thing to say. Comparing an accident to a killing spree.

Oh, and in regards to Kennesaw..

I think whether or not gun control has an impact on the number of burglaries or murders is irrelevant. For me, it's entire purpose is preventing spree killings If someone has a beef with someone to the point that they want to murder them, they're going to kill them. It could be with a gun and it could just as easily be with a knife. But try and find some lunatic who has a beef with the world who can go on a spree killing with a knife. That's what gun control is about. Preventing massive spree killings.

No permit neccessary in Vermont. Concealed carry is a right.
No permit neccessary in New Hampshire for open carry.

Imbecile.

But of course :)

The fact remains that more laws won't stop massacres like this from happening and more people die in other ways than by guns.

You can't pass a law to stop every crazy person's possible actions.

Sorry. Facts are facts.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Indeed they are. Killing sprees were already fairly rare here in Australia. But since the ban on semi-automatic weapons, we haven't had a single one. Facts are facts.