Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security

I was thinking the same thing


--
þT

L'autisme c'est moi

"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"

"Cerebus Lothario" wrote in message
...
Better lock up Quentin Tarentino right now by this criteria!


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...

On Apr 18, 5:24 am, Rob wrote:
Kane wrote:

It only takes ONE.

But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA.

Yep. So?

Making something "hard" to get, doesn't stop violence. Human history
is proof of that. We've always found ways to kill if we wished.
Poison, fire, explosives, they have all been used by individuals to
kill large numbers of people. Do a little reading on mass murder for a
clearer picture.

Buy at a gun fair
and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID

Only if you buy from a private party. All retail sales (wholesale too
for that matter) are recorded and require background clearance and ID.
Handguns moreso in most places in the US. In some, you simply cannot
GET a handgun legally...though it appears you can. Try NYC for
instance, or DC.

Gun crime is there.

Why would I want to keep a defensive firearm in a safe where I can't
get to it immediately? Most folks involved in a hot entry B&E
(burglary) don't even know the thug's in the house until he IS. A
little late then, for some.

The obvious answer is the one we "gun nuts" know perfectly well by
statistical data analysis works. An armed citizenry reduces the 'urge'
when the person knows he or she can be shot down by a legally armed
citizen, and two, that care about that or not, the murderous rampage
will stop when the murderer is down and or dead.

So your answer is more guns.

There are already all the guns we could want for defensive purposes.
The question is who has the guns at a given moment in time...like when
a madman comes into the room and starts shooting people
indiscriminately...or discriminately for that matter, as in Cho's
first murder.

Try reading this interesting account of an armed citizen that sadly,
was following the law at the time, and was unarmed in a similar
situation.

http://tinyurl.com/3yel4y

Among the comments you will find is this:

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or
she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive
citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over,
controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -- Rep. Suzanna Gratia
Hupp (Texas House of Representatives), leading concealed carry
advocate after when in 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order
to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her
parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a
local restaurant.

An aside: The gunman mentioned had to stop and reload a number of
times. Suzanna Hupp was known to be a very good shot. But no gun in
her hand, because of the same kind of stupid law that exists on the
Virginia Tech Campus.

With so many guns in the US why is the
USA not the safest country in the world.

For the same reason that some of the richest countries in the world
have abysmal poverty within. The guns are not in the right hands,
yet.

Oppressive dangerous laws keep that from happening.

Where gun laws have become less prohibitive, as our experience with
the proliferation NOW of 'shall issue' carry laws, violent crime tends
to drop.


No one could do it.

Imagine if that janitor you heard talk about being shot at about five
times, as he had to run away, had himself been properly armed, and
fired back.

Do a ng google on talk.politics.guns searching for "Tacoma Mall." The
armed citizen was hit even BEFORE he could get a shot off, but the
perp ran and hid and STOPPED SHOOTING PEOPLE.

You didn't did you?

What does that tell you about YOUR honesty, or lack thereof? Not
willing to look at factual information and still support your claims?
Give it a try.

It is wonderfuly sobering to the crazy to get return fire. They may
decide later to suicide by their own hand, but there is something
about someone ELSE shooting at you that tends to slow the scenario
down considerably.

A couple of school shootings in England, under similar circumstances,
that is that it was illegal to carry on schoolgrounds, ended with a
paroxism of gun control.

How's the UK doing today?

MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before.

Gun deaths per 100,000

United States 14.24

England and Wales 0.41

You seem to be reading impaired. I didn't make any such claim of
comparison to different countries. I made one about a timeline...from
the past to the present.

"MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before."

See the "ever before?"

You literally changed the subject to avoid the question. How honest is
that?

We have always tended to be a nation with more violence, while the UK
and Wales, who now enjoy one of the highest violent crime rates in the
industrialized world, were one that peaceful of places.

Post the gun and violent crime rates from the past 30-40 years or
older. Go ahead.

I dare you.

This relatively peaceful nation, one of those with the LOWEST gun
crime in the world, how has among the highest violent crime rates in
the civilized, or Western, world.

Stop blaming guns. Blame the lack of them and the laws that prohibit
full self defense, including the use of deadly force against attackers
when one believes their or other's lives are in danger.


Thinking is the answer, not lockstep gun ban drooling.

Like I said.

What the university missed was sending out ARMED patrols to monitor
the other buildings quickly after the first incident of a killing.

But like cops everywhere, when the action starts, they tend to "clump"
at the site, then hang around getting their "hit" of adrenaline,
yakkin' it up, instead of going back out immediately on patrol, or
never coming to the incident site in the first place.

In this time and place, where both criminals and terrorists KNOW how
to create a situation to draw the cops off their primary target, or
their secondary one for that matter, having ANY slowdown in patrols
and changes in distribution of LE staff is totally stupid.

My we are slow to learn, eh?

Kane

Thanks for responding.

Kane

On Apr 18, 7:12 am, Jeremy wrote:
On Apr 17, 10:51 am, "Angelocracy.com"
wrote:

At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
security cameras.

I find it absolutely amazing that so many people think the way to
reduce these kinds of events is to lock doors, send out warning text
messages, install cameras, increase security forces, provide mental
health care, monitor students activities, ban MySpace and a million
other suggestions that totally miss the blindingly obvious:

CONTROL THE BLOODY GUNS!! Sheesh!!

Show how that would be done in such a way as this person could not
have committed mass murder with a gun, or by other means. Fire,
explosives, poision.

You are right about the overkill in prevention though. Nothing is
perfect.




Jeremy

On Apr 18, 8:59 am, Jeremy wrote:
bluemoon wrote:
"Jeremy" wrote in message
I find it absolutely amazing that so many people think the way to
reduce these kinds of events is to lock doors, send out warning text
messages, install cameras, increase security forces, provide mental
health care, monitor students activities, ban MySpace and a million
other suggestions that totally miss the blindingly obvious:

CONTROL THE BLOODY GUNS!! Sheesh!!

That's not going to happen.

No, I know sigh. The USA will always be a place where someone with
a recent mental health evaluation and numerous complaints of
disturbing behaviour on file can walk into a shop and buy a machine
specifically designed to kill and enough ammo to kill 150 with it.

Jeremy

You are mistaken. That was an illegal buy. He HAD been evaluated
apparently, thus on doing the required BG check it would have shown up
and the seller would not have made a legal sale.

While we don't expect the mentally ill to act rationally, HIS act of
buying was also illegal for HIM to do.

Kane

On Apr 18, 8:59 am, Jeremy wrote:
bluemoon wrote:
"Jeremy" wrote in message
I find it absolutely amazing that so many people think the way to
reduce these kinds of events is to lock doors, send out warning text
messages, install cameras, increase security forces, provide mental
health care, monitor students activities, ban MySpace and a million
other suggestions that totally miss the blindingly obvious:

CONTROL THE BLOODY GUNS!! Sheesh!!

That's not going to happen.
"
No, I know sigh. The USA will always be a place where someone with
a recent mental health evaluation and numerous complaints of
disturbing behaviour on file can walk into a shop and buy a machine
specifically designed to kill and enough ammo to kill 150 with it.

Jeremy


" In 1982 the heads of household in Kennesaw, Georgia (except
convicted criminals and those with religious objections) were required
to own at least one gun and ammunition. That year incidents of
burglary dropped 73% in Kennesaw. In 1991 and 1992 combined there were
three robberies, and from the passing of the law until ten years later
there were no murders. "

What do you suppose might have been going through the minds of
criminals around there?

On Apr 18, 12:34 pm, Kane quoted "Mr. Y":
If one could only buy shotguns, then they
would be harder to conceal and shoot up 32 people with.

and replied:
Vise. Hacksaw. Very nasty weapon that would have done MORE carnage.
Ever handled a short barrelled shotgun?

Also, a shotgun is a MUCH deadlier weapon than a handgun. 80% of
those shot with shotguns in America die - versus only under 30% of
those shot with handguns. If you are shot with a shotgun above the
waist from within 30 feet, your chance of survival approach zero.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

On Apr 18, 10:00 am, Kane wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:12 am, Jeremy wrote:







On Apr 17, 10:51 am, "Angelocracy.com"
wrote:

At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
security cameras.

I find it absolutely amazing that so many people think the way to
reduce these kinds of events is to lock doors, send out warning text
messages, install cameras, increase security forces, provide mental
health care, monitor students activities, ban MySpace and a million
other suggestions that totally miss the blindingly obvious:

CONTROL THE BLOODY GUNS!! Sheesh!!

Show how that would be done in such a way as this person could not
have committed mass murder with a gun, or by other means. Fire,
explosives, poision.

You are right about the overkill in prevention though. Nothing is
perfect.



Jeremy

Aftermath Of Tragedy: GOA Defending Freedom

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Tuesday, April 17, 2007


Our hearts and prayers truly go out to all of those affected by Cho
Seung-Hui's evil actions. But not even senseless, brutal murder
justifies taking away the God-given rights of the law-abiding.

It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of
deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament
zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are
denied their right of self-defense.

In fact, pro-gun forces just last year tried to get the Virginia
legislature to address the problem. The bill to allow permit holders
to carry on state-supported college campuses died, due in no small
part to rabid opposition from Virginia Tech itself.

VT spokesman Larry Hincker put it this way after it became obvious
that the bill would not pass: "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."

The unfortunate irony continues when one recalls that not long ago,
two students at nearby Appalachian School of Law managed to stop a
gunman at that institution. Happily, they were able to dash
off-campus to retrieve their guns from their vehicles.

Four GOA spokesmen (one based in downtown D.C. and three at our
Springfield, VA office just outside the Beltway) are working non-stop
-- doing literally interview after interview -- making certain that
the above points reach the public.

GOA has appeared on Fox News, ABC, CNN, BBC -- lots of alphabet soup
networks -- as well as countless talk shows like Michael Reagan and
Lars Larson. GOA spokesmen have been heard in every major radio
market around the country and have done interviews with large print
media outlets, such as the Associated Press and U.S. News & World
Report.

The overall message that GOA is delivering is that gun prohibitions
are part of the problem, not the solution.

We can expect some forms of new gun control to be pushed in the U.S.
Congress. The Democrats control Congress, but more importantly,
anti-gun politicians control the Democrat party. If House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi -- certainly no friend of gun owners -- gives free rein
to virulently anti-gun House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI),
literally anything can make it to the floor of the full House.

Conyers' counterpart in the Senate is Judiciary Chairman Patrick
Leahy (D-VT), whose GOA rating of "F" is well-deserved. Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has also earned an F. Gun owners
will have to be especially vigilant in the coming weeks to block any
new attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

And whereas the predictable media stampede to give voice to the
possibility of such new gun control is certainly there, it does not
seem to have the same "this simply must happen now" tone that it did
after the Columbine tragedy in 1999. Indeed, the idea of firearms for
self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction. Which should not
be all that surprising, given a Research 2000 poll which showed that
85% of Americans find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to
use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" in stopping a
massacre.

ACTION: For now, stay tuned for future alerts. (If any anti-gun bills
start moving on Capitol Hill, GOA will be counting on you to contact
your legislators in record numbers.) And pray for all of those whose
loved ones were injured or killed at Virginia Tech.


****************************

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

Rob expounded:

But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID

Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
one.

But they can be used to stop honest, legitimate people from owning a
gun. Because you know what? Criminals and madmen don't follow laws.
People like me do. And my guns aren't being used to commit crimes.
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked

"Ann" wrote in message
...
Rob expounded:

But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID

Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
one.

But they can be used to stop honest, legitimate people from owning a
gun. Because you know what? Criminals and madmen don't follow laws.
People like me do. And my guns aren't being used to commit crimes.

I don't follow your argument at all.

A mad gunman goes on a killing spree.
Typical British response: this wouldn't have happened if guns were made
illegal
Typical American response: arm everyone with a gun so the killer can be shot

So explain something to me. Why do "honest, legitimate people" need to own a
gun? A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill.

Fact: in 1999 there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the USA. That's over
80 deaths a day. The number of non-fatal firearm injuries in 2000 was
75,685.

Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population in England & Wales = 0.22
Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population in the USA = 6.08

Wake up!

It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of
deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament
zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are
denied their right of self-defense.

Gimme a break!

had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
Really not very logical thinking and obviously a mentality of
destructive thinking.