Whether Students Carrying Their Own Guns Could Have Prevented Massacre

[Yodrak 7]

Natty Bumpo,

Please read my post more carefully and do not change my words.

I wrote "odds are", not "would be".

Yodrak

metta,

Good thing they lost, or the odds are that there'd be more than 33 people dead on campus between then and now.

Yodrak

link

More than a year ago, Virginia Tech was at the center of a debate over whether students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on its campus. The gun advocates lost that debate.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Shootings on American College Campuses

Please share with us your proof that this would be the case.

....

Edited April 19, 2007 by Yodrak

[natty bumppo 297]

Police in the US have never had any liability for failing to ensure the saftey of the people. This has always been the case here. If this were not the case, the police would be potentially liable for every crime that is commited. I am not a lawyer (nor a cop), but I believe police can be liable for failing to enforce the law. They are called "Law Enforcement," not "Crime Prevention."

The function of police is to investigate crimes, not to prevent them (though their presence frequently does has this effect).

You are responsible for your own safety. Just think if the police were responsible for a persons safety, there would now be 33 lawsuits to be placed against LE agencies for their failure to perform their duty this week.

How many times have the police been linked to the motto "Serve and Protect"? Many people have the "thought" that the police or campus security people are there to protect or prevent criminal acts. Unfortunately it is not true.

It all comes back to the individual to protect themselves.

[slim 1,530]

It doesn't take everyone carrying concealed for it to be an effective deterrent. One person carrying is enough. The possibility of one person carrying is also a deterrent.

That's the only statement needed in the debate over concealed carry.

[russ 1]

Police "Serve and Protect" society. Nothing stops you from hiring an off-duty police officer to protect yourself. Grocery stores and bars do so all the time.

How many times have the police been linked to the motto "Serve and Protect"? Many people have the "thought" that the police or campus security people are there to protect or prevent criminal acts. Unfortunately it is not true.

It all comes back to the individual to protect themselves.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Police in the US have never had any liability for failing to ensure the saftey of the people. This has always been the case here. If this were not the case, the police would be potentially liable for every crime that is commited. I am not a lawyer (nor a cop), but I believe police can be liable for failing to enforce the law. They are called "Law Enforcement," not "Crime Prevention."

The function of police is to investigate crimes, not to prevent them (though their presence frequently does has this effect).

You are responsible for your own safety. Just think if the police were responsible for a persons safety, there would now be 33 lawsuits to be placed against LE agencies for their failure to perform their duty this week.

How many times have the police been linked to the motto "Serve and Protect"? Many people have the "thought" that the police or campus security people are there to protect or prevent criminal acts. Unfortunately it is not true.

It all comes back to the individual to protect themselves.

Law Enforcement is around to investigate crimes not prevent them. Oh sure they sometimes are in the right place at the right time but 'odds are' that's coincidental.It's up to the individual. Like you said.

[almaty 19]

Police in the US have never had any liability for failing to ensure the saftey of the people. This has always been the case here. If this were not the case, the police would be potentially liable for every crime that is commited. I am not a lawyer (nor a cop), but I believe police can be liable for failing to enforce the law. They are called "Law Enforcement," not "Crime Prevention."

The function of police is to investigate crimes, not to prevent them (though their presence frequently does has this effect).

You are responsible for your own safety. Just think if the police were responsible for a persons safety, there would now be 33 lawsuits to be placed against LE agencies for their failure to perform their duty this week.

How many times have the police been linked to the motto "Serve and Protect"? Many people have the "thought" that the police or campus security people are there to protect or prevent criminal acts. Unfortunately it is not true.

It all comes back to the individual to protect themselves.

Law Enforcement is around to investigate crimes not prevent them. Oh sure they sometimes are in the right place at the right time but 'odds are' that's coincidental.It's up to the individual. Like you said.

working with police and sheriff's dept, that is mainly true....

[natty bumppo 297]

Police "Serve and Protect" society. Nothing stops you from hiring an off-duty police officer to protect yourself. Grocery stores and bars do so all the time.

How many times have the police been linked to the motto "Serve and Protect"? Many people have the "thought" that the police or campus security people are there to protect or prevent criminal acts. Unfortunately it is not true.

It all comes back to the individual to protect themselves.

Grocery stores, bars, etc. hire and have off-duty officers as a deterrent. The officers are not there for individual protection.

I see nothing wrong with someone wanting individual protection by hiring a 24/7 personal body guard.

[KarenCee 3]

Courthouses have metal detectors because there have been courtroom killings. Federal buildings have them because there have been federal building killings. Why not college campuses? Why not high school campuses?

My high school got one after someone was shot and killed in front of a high school in the ghetto in Dallas. All it did was make us late for class...all to placate noid parents. Total waste of time if you ask me.

I would rather my child be late...than not be alive. I am NOT a "noid" parent. I happen to love my child more than anything. If you are a parent I would hope you want your child as safe as possible. If you aren't a parent...if you become a parent...you might feel differently.

[natty bumppo 297]

Natty Bumpo,

Please read my post more carefully and do not change my words.

I wrote "odds are", not "would be".

Yodrak

metta,

Good thing they lost, or the odds are that there'd be more than 33 people dead on campus between then and now.

Yodrak

link

More than a year ago, Virginia Tech was at the center of a debate over whether students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on its campus. The gun advocates lost that debate.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Shootings on American College Campuses

Please share with us your proof that this would be the case.

....

Sorry for not responding before. Missed the post in page updates.

The words "Odds are" in your sentence, were an indicator that the Las Vegas bookies would alter their numbers because it was a strong possibility the event would happen I think

[Caladan 19]

It doesn't take everyone carrying concealed for it to be an effective deterrent. One person carrying is enough. The possibility of one person carrying is also a deterrent.

That's the only statement needed in the debate over concealed carry.

Deterrence doesn't mean jackshit when a person is thoroughly deranged. There's great arguments for concealed carry, but the idea that Cho would have been deterred by the thought that maybe someone had a gun when he was on a suicide-by-cop spree isn't one of them. The spree didn't happen at VATech because it was a safe zone; it happened because if you're a student who wants to kill a lot of students, you go to a place with a lot of students.

[William33 110]

It doesn't take everyone carrying concealed for it to be an effective deterrent. One person carrying is enough. The possibility of one person carrying is also a deterrent.

That's the only statement needed in the debate over concealed carry.

Deterrence doesn't mean jackshit when a person is thoroughly deranged. There's great arguments for concealed carry, but the idea that Cho would have been deterred by the thought that maybe someone had a gun when he was on a suicide-by-cop spree isn't one of them. The spree didn't happen at VATech because it was a safe zone; it happened because if you're a student who wants to kill a lot of students, you go to a place with a lot of students.

I disagree. Ever heard of soft targets? Although Cho was psychotic, he was intelligent enough to know the difference between a soft and hard target.

If there were armed faculty or students, he may have gone elsewhere or maybe just ended his miserable life.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't take everyone carrying concealed for it to be an effective deterrent. One person carrying is enough. The possibility of one person carrying is also a deterrent.

That's the only statement needed in the debate over concealed carry.

Deterrence doesn't mean jackshit when a person is thoroughly deranged. There's great arguments for concealed carry, but the idea that Cho would have been deterred by the thought that maybe someone had a gun when he was on a suicide-by-cop spree isn't one of them. The spree didn't happen at VATech because it was a safe zone; it happened because if you're a student who wants to kill a lot of students, you go to a place with a lot of students.

I disagree. Ever heard of soft targets? Although Cho was psychotic, he was intelligent enough to know the difference between a soft and hard target.

If there were armed faculty or students, he may have gone elsewhere or maybe just ended his miserable life.

I think in cases like this - the motives are usually personal. Massacring a bunch of 'complete' strangers wouldn't have the same meaning/satisfaction for the guy as killing a bunch of people he thought he knew and resented - in a familiar context. I mean, the guys that go nutzoid like this at work - attack their own workplace, not the one next door.

Edited April 19, 2007 by erekose

[natty bumppo 297]

Just what we need ... more gun laws to fix a broken health care reporting system.

*****

Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama wants stronger laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns.

The student who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech, Cho Seung-Hui, had a history of mental health problems but still was able to buy the two guns used in the rampage.

In an interview with the syndicated radio program "The Steve Harvey Morning Show," Obama said gun laws have to change to prevent the type of killings seen this week at Virginia Tech and on a daily basis in urban areas. The senator said "some common-sense" changes are needed.

Obama also said he wants mental health services improved to identify people with serious problems who aren't getting treatment.

http://www.click2houston.com/politics/12535089/detail.html

[metta 0]

metta,

Good thing they lost, or the odds are that there'd be more than 33 people dead on campus between then and now.

Yodrak

link

More than a year ago, Virginia Tech was at the center of a debate over whether students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on its campus. The gun advocates lost that debate.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Shootings on American College Campuses

Brother Yodrak,

I agree with you. Gun violence on campus, such what happened at VT, cannot be solved by a magic bullet or "deus ex machina."

The real world issue is far more complex than what our preconceived notions would have us believe. Admittedly, I am against guns but given the 2nd amendment and the existing prevalence of guns in our society, banning guns is impractical. I do believe, however, that college campuses should remain gun-free. I shudder to think of students on college campuses packing concealed weapons. If that were the case, there are all kinds of hair-raising scenarios that could develop on campus other than a derangned student going off on a shooting rampage.

To say that students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus also smacks of linear thinking which ignores the reality of "unintended consequences" that never fail to show up when simple, linear solutions are applied to highly complex problems.

Talking about unintended consequences,George Bush went into Iraq on the simple linear assumption that taking out Sadam will solve all his problems in the middleeast ignoring the unique and complex dynamics in that society. Now we are stuck in an impossible situation amidst a sectarian civil war that George and ####### never cared to anticipate.

Another example of a linear solution that comes to mind is China in the '50s. The then leader Mao looked at the problem of grain shortage in one year and attributed the problem to sparrows feeding on the grain. So he launched an anti-sparrow campaign, decimating the poor birds. Paradoxically, the bird-killing led to a horrendous famine precipitated by an explosion in the population of crop- destroying insects.

I think a workable solution calls for better ways to make different systems such as the healthcare system and the criminal justice system talk to one another without compromising seriously undermining civil liberties and privacy rights etc.

Edited April 20, 2007 by metta

[Lona.C. 16]

link

More than a year ago, Virginia Tech was at the center of a debate over whether students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on its campus. The gun advocates lost that debate.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Shootings on American College Campuses

It's not like EVERY student on campus would have a gun. But certainly a few competent gun carriers could have helped.

Previous thread on the subject with damning quotes

The typical minimum age requirement (21) for CCW would exclude lots of the “younger” college students. I'm sure a LEO would love to arrest and have an 18-20 yr old college student incarcerated for breaking the law by illegal concealed possession.

The LE you talk of did nothing for 32 people at VT.

I'm only suggesting legal carry.

I agree the LE did nothing. Too little and too late.

The comment about CCW and age was just a bit of info so others would know there are limitations and consequences on legal and/or illegal CCW . Also, there are already lots of limitations on legal CCW in VA. Meaning ... VA has lots of rules that must be adhered to for legal carry and for use of deadly force.