Virginia Tech Students Doomed by Gun Ban [a 'must read']

Hog On Ice ^ | April 16, 2007 | Steve H. Graham

[jdm]

I just found out about the massacre at Virginia Tech.

The thing that makes me most angry is that the dead students were penned up like sheep for the slaughter, in a ridiculous "gun-free zone." A better phrase would be "self-defense-free zone," or maybe "danger-free zone for armed criminals."

[plain talk]

Whether VA is or is not a gun friendly state is irrelevant. College students do not routinely carry weapons on campus at 9am in the morning. The probability of someone just happening to have a gun at the right place and at the right time and then multiplying that probability by the probability of a person with a gun being able to retrieve the gun, load the weapon, cock the weapon and then fire it without being shot first is virtually nil.

My original post said “So I am challenging the premise that “In reality, gun control is what sealed their doom.” I think that is stretching. So while I oppose gun control I also don’t appreciate people with agendas playing loose with reason and facts to make their points.”

So I did not say there was no chance of someone saving a few lives. Of course that is possible. But I said and am saying again that the probability of preventing this is low and the author’s premise that gun control “sealed their doom” is stretching.

[TigersEye]

Gun control did seal their doom. I think that is abundantly clear now.

[plain talk]

Nope. One crazy person sealed their doom.

[353FMG]

“The thing that makes me most angry is that the dead students were penned up like sheep for the slaughter..”

I hope that I am dead wrong, but I think that you ain’t seen nothing yet.

[353FMG]

Is that a Kahr?

[353FMG]

I don’t know if the photograph is genuine and taken at VT, but the guy being arrested also resembles someone of Korean descent.

[353FMG]

“In just a few minutes this guy emptied his weapon which is not enough time for a guy to go to his car and get his gun.”

Students often us backpacks - a perfect container for a gun. A student with a CHL has no excuse of keeping the gun in the dorm. Lots of lisenced people do not carry because it is literally a pain in the ass especially when you’re 5-6 and have a gut and the weather is 95 degrees. Where the hell do you keep the gun when you wear a T-shirt and shorts?

[TigersEye]

Very imprecise language. One crazy person brought them doom. Gun control sealed it.

[TigersEye]

Whether VA is or is not a gun friendly state is irrelevant.

It is quite relevant. You state it is very unlikely that any student (why you leave out instructors is a puzzle) would have a gun. The more guns are accepted in a given population the more likely an individual in that population is to have one. Why you keep mentioning that it was 9AM in the moring is puzzling too. Most people who carry firearms carry them whenever they leave home. It makes no sense to do otherwise.

[plain talk]

It is not only that a small percentage of people would happen to have a gun on their possession at 9am. They also would have to be at that specific place at that specific time. Then that person has to retrieve the weapon, load the weapon, cock the weapon, aim and discharge the weapon before the criminal shoots him. Its an accumulation of probabilities that results in a small liklihood anyone could have prevented all of these deaths in this specific case.

The original post said "gun control sealed their fate. No. This insane criminal did.

[TigersEye]

You mean like the professor that ran a half a mile to his off-campus truck, retrieved a gun and then ran back and shot the perp as he was still on his rampage?

Now that more stories are coming out it is clear that one teacher or student, just one, could have easily stopped this guy. He went from room to room. That provides alarm to the students and time to pull out a gun from shoulder holster, book bag, backpack or purse. He walked into one room and walked out for a couple of minutes before coming back and, as stated by a student, "just shot randomly, not aiming at anyone." There was time. The whole campus was e-mailed so they had warning to be on alert. One phone-cam video shows students in a classroom watching TV coverage of events unfolding, there's warning and time to get your gun out and get ready or go after him.

The more news that comes out on this the more my position is vindicated. This BS about "retrieve the weapon, load the weapon, cock the weapon, aim and discharge the weapon" shows that you know nothing at all about firearms. Yet with no knowledge or understanding of the subject at all you make absolute statements that "in this case there was no possibility that anyone could stop this guy." What hooey!

The gun is on one's person, it is loaded, flipping a safety off takes a millisecond on most semi-autos and there's no safety and no cocking on a double action revolver. Discharging is pulling the trigger and blowing the perps brains all over the wall. Takes less than a second.

[TigersEye]

The criminal wanted to kill lots of people.

Gun control made it certain he could.

[NCLaw441]

HinckLEY????

[plain talk]

Gun control made absolutely no difference because a suicidal murderer doesn't care about deterrence. He was able to easily take out any number of people with a semi-automatic weapon.

You are just posting generic gun control arguments without thinking through the specifics of this case. Your comments are not an example of shallow reasoning - they are an example of no reasoning. This guy wasn't worried one way or the other about someone having a gun or not having a gun. It didn't matter because he plabnned to kill himself anyway and knew he could take many people out first. Same goes for a suicidal bomber. Before any action is even possible many, many lives can be taken out in a free society.

So one cannot blame society or blame laws or lack of them on this. If we want to continue to have a free society we cannot guarantee against incidents like this happening.

[TigersEye]

I am posting logical common sense which is what most anti-gun control arguments are. Unlike your nonsensical statements like this...

Gun control made absolutely no difference because a suicidal murderer doesn't care about deterrence.

The classic strawman argument. You state my position in a way I never did and argue against it making it seem like you made a point. Gun control made the crucial difference because it disarmed the madman's potential victim's not because it might have deterred him.

He was able to easily take out any number of people with a semi-automatic weapon.

That's a silly point. It shows again how little you know about firearms. A double action revolver fires a shot with each pull of the trigger just like a semi-auto pistol. With a revolver he could have used moon clips or a speedloader which pop six rounds into the cylinder nearly as fast as removing and replacing a magazine. As a point to your argument it is pointless. No matter how many guns he had or how much ammo it would only take one shot to kill him. There is no reason an armed student or teacher couldn't have also had a semi-auto even though it doesn't really mean sh^t what kind of gun either had. That's just a bunch of Sarah Brady talking points.

Your comments are not an example of shallow reasoning - they are an example of no reasoning.

You wish.

This guy wasn't worried one way or the other about someone having a gun or not having a gun.

That wouldn't make a lick of difference when a bullet smashed his skull.

Same goes for a suicidal bomber.

Why change the subject? Is your line of bull getting thin?

Before any action is even possible many, many lives can be taken out in a free society.

Less in an armed society, more in an unarmed society. Simple logic.

If we want to continue to have a free society we cannot guarantee against incidents like this happening.

Classic red herring argument. No one on this thread ever said the word "guarantee." Your misdirection didn't work.

[TigersEye]

You might consider reading some facts before prattling off inanities.

In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Gun control makes all the difference.

[plain talk]

You are talking generalities. I’m talking about a specific case. You are a lost ball in high weeds when it comes to analyzing a specific case, son. I have not been debating the merits of gun control. After all these posts you never understood that. I am against gun control. LOL!

In this specific case nothing could have stopped this criminal before he was able to waste a bunch of people because it happened so fast and the probability of someone being able to retrieve, load, cock, aim and fire a weapon before getting shot was nil.

[TigersEye]

You're wrong about it all, kid. I'm not talking about generalities. I illustrated the specifics of this incident. It didn't happen that fast, he walked from room to room. There was warning in an e-mail that sent word of mouth around campus. There was in-room, classroom, TV coverage in at least on case. Each shot is fire one at a time and pointed in one direction only. There were dozens of students so one with a gun (or a teacher) could have easily pulled a gun taken aim and fired.

The teacher who was a former IDF soldier could have done that instead of throwing his body against a door and become a human shield. He had time to shut the door and brace himself against it. That is way more time than it takes to draw a weapon and fire it and he had the training. Other students also had that kind of time and did similar things.

We know that at least one student used to legally carry on campus so it's not a stretch at all that several more could have if the university hadn't made a big campaign in the courts to end it. Gun control disarmed the teachers, employees and students on this campus. Those are all very specific realities of this situation.

Your ignorance of the way firearms work and the way violence plays out in real life is glaringly apparent. You say you are against gun control but your sophomoric arguments are classic Sarah Brady logic.

[archy]

The thing that makes me most angry is that the dead students were penned up like sheep for the slaughter, in a ridiculous "gun-free zone." A better phrase would be "self-defense-free zone," or maybe "danger-free zone for armed criminals."

[archy]

In this specific case nothing could have stopped this criminal before he was able to waste a bunch of people because it happened so fast and the probability of someone being able to retrieve, load, cock, aim and fire a weapon before getting shot was nil.

Not if the first residence Hall RA where Cho murdered Emily Hilscher, the first female victim, had gone down fighting, taking his murderer with him.

In that case, we'd now be mourning the murders of two valued university students instead of the fifty shot and 32 killed.

Instead he was forced to be a helpless victim, slaughtered like an animal in its pen. I hope Ryan Clark didn't have to beg for his life before Cho finished him off.