One year ago today............

[Little-Acorn]

On April 16, 2007, a madman with multiple weapons entered a classroom at Virginia Tech university and killed 31 of his fellow students, before finally getting one right and killing himself.

Thanks to a complete ban of firearms on campus, law-abiding students who obeyed found themselves unable to defend themselves as the gunman calmly reloaded again and again, moving from room to room and gunning down more victims. The gun ban, praised by many liberal officials, gave him plenty of time to rack up an impressive body count with no effective resistance, before police finally arrived.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Yeah, it's a gun ban on campus that's to blame. It's not the fact that guns are more accessible than anti depressants in Virginia or our mental health care system that needs improvement. Just more guns around more vulnerable people.

By the way, I just purchased this baby, but I'm not itching to take it to campus:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=4

 

[Epicurus]

By the way, I just purchased this baby, but I'm not itching to take it to campus:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=4

Why not? I've CCed like everyday since I've been in college.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Why not? I've CCed like everyday since I've been in college.

Because I go (well, went until recently - now doing it via correspondence and don't need to actually show up) to a state college and it's illegal - like walking into a school or government building with a CC. It aint kosher.

 

[Norman Paperman]

Yeah, it's a gun ban on campus that's to blame. It's not the fact that guns are more accessible than anti depressants in Virginia or our mental health care system that needs improvement. Just more guns around more vulnerable people.

Actually, the blame lies solely with the shooter and him alone. The only aspect of the shooting that might have been effected by a different policy regarding guns on campus would be the body count. Provided, of course, someone who was carrying that day was close enough to intervene.

By the way, I just purchased this baby, but I'm not itching to take it to campus:

You first 1911? I have had a Colt for a few years now and I love it, so much so that I am considering buying another. So far, no urge to take to a school or mall.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Actually, the blame lies solely with the shooter and him alone. The only aspect of the shooting that might have been effected by a different policy regarding guns on campus would be the body count. Provided, of course, someone who was carrying that day was close enough to intervene.



You first 1911? I have had a Colt for a few years now and I love it, so much so that I am considering buying another. So far, no urge to take to a school or mall.

No, I owned the Springfield GI model and it was a piece of shit. I couldn't hit a bus at 10 yards with it. So I sold it and this is my second try. I did some reading and realized that the federal law enforcement agencies matched up SA with Kimber and determined that SA outshot Kimber, so I stuck with SA. I don't know anyone who shoots a stock Colt without modifying it to shoot worth a darn.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only aspect of the shooting that might have been effected by a different policy regarding guns on campus would be the body count.

There are 31 bodies who might agree with you... and might even regard that "only aspect" as a good thing... but they are now unavailable for comment.

If concealed carry by responsible students and adults had been legal, most probably still wouldn't have bothered carrying. But a few probably would. And on a campus with more than a thousand students and teachers, there's a pretty good chance one or more of them would have been close enough to respond, and the body count might have been a lot smaller. So would the count of bereaved relatives, children, spouses etc.

And, Cho probably would have known that. And would have been aware he probably coudn't have achieved the spectacular results he was hoping for before killing himself. And so might have changed his mind and not tried it in the first place. Maybe.

Two good reasons for concealed carry by responsible adults to be allowed. even though most people probably still wouldn't bother carrying if it were. The few that would, would make all the difference. Innocent people ALWAYS vastly outnumber the murderers in these cases.

 

[Norman Paperman]

No, I owned the Springfield GI model and it was a piece of shit. I couldn't hit a bus at 10 yards with it. So I sold it and this is my second try. I did some reading and realized that the federal law enforcement agencies matched up SA with Kimber and determined that SA outshot Kimber, so I stuck with SA. I don't know anyone who shoots a stock Colt without modifying it to shoot worth a darn.

Really? I have not modified mine at all and have had no problems hitting what my target. Though I keep telling myself that I am going to beaver tail the grip safety, every time I fire it, it bites.

There are 31 bodies who might agree with you... and might even regard that "only aspect" as a good thing... but they are now unavailable for comment.

If concealed carry by responsible students and adults had been legal, most probably still wouldn't have bothered carrying. But a few probably would. And on a campus with more than a thousand students and teachers, there's a pretty good chance one or more of them would have been close enough to respond, and the body count might have been a lot smaller. So would the count of bereaved relatives, children, spouses etc.

And, Cho probably would have known that. And would have been aware he probably coudn't have achieved the spectacular results he was hoping for before killing himself. And so might have changed his mind and not tried it in the first place. Maybe.

Two good reasons for concealed carry by responsible adults to be allowed. even though most people probably still wouldn't bother carrying if it were. The few that would, would make all the difference. Innocent people ALWAYS vastly outnumber the murderers in these cases.

I do not disagree with these sentiments.

 

[evince]

The only problem is the shootings you would have because guns were arround when someone got drunk and angry.

The right person with a gun could have stopped this guy no doubt. Would it make up for the deaths that would occur if guns were more prevailent on campus would be the important question.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Would it make up for the deaths that would occur if guns were more prevailent on campus would be the important question.

Right.

Look back to the time, not all that long ago, when high schools and colleges had school-sponsored shooting teams. Students brought their guns to class, kept them in their dorms, in their cars, in their lockers....

Who can forget the incredible carnage of the 1940s and 1950s on our nation's campuses?

desh is so sure carnage comes from plentiful availability on campus, I'm sure he can provide us with many examples from that period. Can't you, desh?

Ummm... there WAS carnage during that time, wasn't there? Killings everywhere?

Or was there?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Right.

Look back to the time, not all that long ago, when high schools and colleges had school-sponsored shooting teams. Students brought their guns to class, kept them in their dorms, in their cars, in their lockers....

Who can forget the incredible carnage of the 1940s and 1950s on our nation's campuses?

desh is so sure carnage comes from plentiful availability on campus, I'm sure he can provide us with many examples from that period. Can't you, desh?

Ummm... there WAS carnage during that time, wasn't there? Killings everywhere?

Or was there?

You guys have a real problem with causation and correlation.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, the blame lies solely with the shooter and him alone. The only aspect of the shooting that might have been effected by a different policy regarding guns on campus would be the body count. Provided, of course, someone who was carrying that day was close enough to intervene.



You first 1911? I have had a Colt for a few years now and I love it, so much so that I am considering buying another. So far, no urge to take to a school or mall.

Yep the 1911 is a sweet gun. I got one a while back, accurized apparently. and I agree on the blame too. My concern ifs if students have guns there might be more incidents. Imagine if I walked up to an armed republican teen age student and told them Bush was more evil than OBL ?

Or more likely fusses over girl friends or boyfrineds.

And I have no problem with qualified teachers carrying on campus. Imagine though all those armed liberal types

btw I was about 10 miles away on that day. Tragic....
.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah, it's a gun ban on campus that's to blame. It's not the fact that guns are more accessible than anti depressants in Virginia or our mental health care system that needs improvement. Just more guns around more vulnerable people.

what did 32 people have in common that day?
here's a hint....they were all defenseless against someone else who ignored that campus ban. so yes, the campus ban is partially to blame. Why do you think VT settled for 11 million dollars of payouts to avoid being sued?

 

[uscitizen]

what did 32 people have in common that day?
here's a hint....they were all defenseless against someone else who ignored that campus ban. so yes, the campus ban is partially to blame. Why do you think VT settled for 11 million dollars of payouts to avoid being sued?

Compassion for the families of the victims ?

 

[Good Luck]

You guys have a real problem with causation and correlation.

Who is it that has problems with correlation and causation? Seems to me it would be the gun control advocates who keep claiming that availability of guns is the cause of gun violence. But when looking at the problem, all we can find is areas of tight gun control having high gun violence. Now most (but there are idiot exceptions) 2nd Amendment advocates will not try to make the claim that tight gun control is CAUSING the higher levels of violence. But those facts certainly make problems for those who claim availability is the cause.

And historical references are perfectly valid in showing the claim that availability is a cause of violence. It is perfectly true that availability in the 40s, 50s and early 60s was MUCH higher than today. For one, there were of course far fewer gun control laws. For another, all the surplus weaponry coming out of WWII and the Korean War made weapons inexpensive so even low income people were able to own a few. Hell, you could get weapons via mail order prior to Jack Kennedy's assassination.

But despite the high level of availability of weapons, we did not have any where near the culture of violence seen today. So we come to today, where weapons availability is MUCH lower than the 50s and 60s. First, due to a variety of gun control laws, guns are much more expensive even when adjusted for inflation. That bring purchases and ownership down. The severe limits on who can legally sell weapons retail, and their requirements for sales records also brings purchases down. In areas of tight control, one has to go through a ball-squeezing strip search before being granted their 2nd Amendment rights. That, too, tends to reduce purchases. The end result is ownership is way down from earlier decades, yet even while availability and ownership declined, violence rose on and increasing curve through the early 1990s.

The OBVIOUS conclusion (unless you are an idiot glued to a mindless policy) is availability of weapons in no way affects the level of gun violence in our society.

 

[ib1yysguy]

what did 32 people have in common that day?
here's a hint....they were all defenseless against someone else who ignored that campus ban. so yes, the campus ban is partially to blame. Why do you think VT settled for 11 million dollars of payouts to avoid being sued?

What they had in common:

1) They were all young or were school employees. Young people and school employees must be bullet magnets.

2) They were all probably liberal-leaning, since statistics show that's probably the case. That means they were wusses.

3) They were all in Virginia.

4) They all were in the same class.

Because they had these things in common, they died. Ta da! Causation proven.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Who is it that has problems with correlation and causation? Seems to me it would be the gun control advocates who keep claiming that availability of guns is the cause of gun violence. But when looking at the problem, all we can find is areas of tight gun control having high gun violence. Now most (but there are idiot exceptions) 2nd Amendment advocates will not try to make the claim that tight gun control is CAUSING the higher levels of violence. But those facts certainly make problems for those who claim availability is the cause.

And historical references are perfectly valid in showing the claim that availability is a cause of violence. It is perfectly true that availability in the 40s, 50s and early 60s was MUCH higher than today. For one, there were of course far fewer gun control laws. For another, all the surplus weaponry coming out of WWII and the Korean War made weapons inexpensive so even low income people were able to own a few. Hell, you could get weapons via mail order prior to Jack Kennedy's assassination.

But despite the high level of availability of weapons, we did not have any where near the culture of violence seen today. So we come to today, where weapons availability is MUCH lower than the 50s and 60s. First, due to a variety of gun control laws, guns are much more expensive even when adjusted for inflation. That bring purchases and ownership down. The severe limits on who can legally sell weapons retail, and their requirements for sales records also brings purchases down. In areas of tight control, one has to go through a ball-squeezing strip search before being granted their 2nd Amendment rights. That, too, tends to reduce purchases. The end result is ownership is way down from earlier decades, yet even while availability and ownership declined, violence rose on and increasing curve through the early 1990s.

The OBVIOUS conclusion (unless you are an idiot glued to a mindless policy) is availability of weapons in no way affects the level of gun violence in our society.

Okay, Dano made the same spurious arguments and they're just as ignorant. You know what? Teenage pregnancies were lower in the 50s. They also didn't teach sex ed in the 50s in public schools. Ergo, sex education causes higher rates of teenage pregnancies.

This is his and your logic, and it's absurd.

 

[Good Luck]

Okay, Dano made the same spurious arguments and they're just as ignorant. You know what? Teenage pregnancies were lower in the 50s. They also didn't teach sex ed in the 50s in public schools. Ergo, sex education causes higher rates of teenage pregnancies.

This is his and your logic, and it's absurd.

You really have a serious problem with reading comprehension, don't you?

The CLAIM of you and other twits is that there is a causational relationship between availability of weapons and gun violence.

My entire post showed that there was no way to show that causational relationship. The post in no way suggested any different type of causational relationship.

Then your comeback makes a ridiculous and truly submoronic suggestion to refute the ability to show a causational relationship.

Are you truly the most ignorant imbecile on this board, or do you like to pretend to be?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Your contention is that there's a causal relationship between proliferation of guns and reduction in violence. That's absurd on the face of it.

 

[uscitizen]

What they had in common:

1) They were all young or were school employees. Young people and school employees must be bullet magnets.

2) They were all probably liberal-leaning, since statistics show that's probably the case. That means they were wusses.

3) They were all in Virginia.

4) They all were in the same class.

Because they had these things in common, they died. Ta da! Causation proven.

they were all in the same class ?