School Shooting at Virginia Tech

[Bill_Thompson]

The worst school shooting in US History just happened.

This is clearly a neocon conspiracy to divert attention away from the Iraqi war.

[Мастер]

I have an alibi.

[Lance]

Clearly

[Bill_Thompson]

George Bush, and company are behind this somehow just like they were with 9-11. It is obvious.

(or is the word "oblivious"?)

[Enzo]

Already I have heard people blaming video games, moral decay and for all I know Mexican-style Velveeta. One defective soul out of 300 million and it is somehow a systematic problem.


Meanwhile just a couple miles from my home:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[Bill_Thompson]

I heard that at work too. Video games and movies.

Of course, it is clearly right-wing extremists upset that evolution is taught in the schools.

I cannot wait until it becomes a political spin.

[Lance]

Nah, it was the lib-dems. They want to get he assault rifle ban reinstated.

Damn Commies!

I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[Bill_Thompson]

Nah, it was the lib-dems. They want to get he assault rifle ban reinstated.

Damn Commies!

I will give up my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

I think only white people were killed. So they have lost the chance of getting Jackson and Sharpton to make sure the ....

Oh, and it was one of those 9mm hand guns not an assault rifle.

[Lance]

Oh, and it was one of those 9mm hand guns not an assault rifle.

So what? To a Commie Lib-Dem, any gun is an assault rifle.


When you disarm your subjects, you offend them by showing that either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you.

[Bill_Thompson]

Anyway, according to the department of vital statistics, In the US there were about 110,000 firearm homicides from 1990 to 1997 (yes, data's a bit old, but I'm guessing they haven't changed by an order of magnitude.)

That works out to about 13,700 homicides per year or more than 35 homicides per day. (Approximately 80% of the homicides were from handguns.)

I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of today's tragedy, but looking at the statistics, such a tragedy happens every day, but spread out rather than in one place.

[Dragon Star]

Anyway, according to the department of vital statistics, In the US there were about 110,000 firearm homicides from 1990 to 1997 (yes, data's a bit old, but I'm guessing they haven't changed by an order of magnitude.)

That works out to about 13,700 homicides per year or more than 35 homicides per day. (Approximately 80% of the homicides were from handguns.)

I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of today's tragedy, but looking at the statistics, such a tragedy happens every day, but spread out rather than in one place.

Jesus Christ, Bill Thompson actually used a smiley!

*ahem*

Sorry, just had to point that out...

[pmcolt]

Meanwhile just a couple miles from my home:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Silly Enzo. The Bath disaster was a bombing. Don't you know that shootings are much, much worse than bombings? After all, they involve those evil black [s]rifles[/s]handguns.

I have a novel approach, though. It's going to sound crazy, I know, but bear with me. Why don't we not go around blaming video games, movies troubled childhoods, George W. Bush, the Democrats, global warming, guns, Illuminati death rays, the moral decay of society, the victims, the school, the parents, the neighbors, the third-cousin-once-removed, his pet, his barber, and his sun sign, and try blaming the idiot who actually killed these people?

And how about we not air coverage of this 24-7 on the major news networks, thus glamorizing this guy in the eyes of future copycat killers? And hey, politicians and interest groups? How about we not hover around like vultures, ready for the chance to spin this terrible tragedy for our own political gain?

My heart goes out to my metaphorical brothers and sisters of Virginia Tech, and to the families of those lost today.



{eta}

Unless you have some specific issue with the Uniform Crime Reports, the FBI has more recent statistics. According to the FBI's crime statistics for 2005, there were 16,692 murders and non-negligent manslaughters in the US that year. Firearms made up 10,100 of those, or ~28 per day.

[Enzo]

Well it is a hokie story...

[Arneb]

This is clearly a neocon conspiracy to divert attention away from the Iraqi war.

And I thought that this was too terrible even for Bill to use for one of his trolling rampages. Silly me. And that has to happen just after lunch, of course.

[troubleagain]

Enzo, I read about (or saw a documentary, don't remember) about that Bath thing. It was sad. This is sad. I don't have words enough for any of this.

[Bill_Thompson]

This is clearly a neocon conspiracy to divert attention away from the Iraqi war.

And I thought that this was too terrible even for Bill to use for one of his trolling rampages. Silly me. And that has to happen just after lunch, of course.

We shouldn't rush to judgement on this issue or on the shooting insident iteslf. It might have all been a misunderstanding or even an accident.

[Lance]

We shouldn't rush to judgement on this issue or on the shooting insident iteslf. It might have all been a misunderstanding or even an accident.

What is the point of statements like that?

[umop ap!sdn]

or even an accident.

Of course. "A gunman accidentally got up, walked into a campus building, and accidentally shot 30+ people." Makes perfect sense to me.

[Мастер]

Of course. "A gunman accidentally got up, walked into a campus building, and accidentally shot 30+ people." Makes perfect sense to me.

Hey, remember the fellow who walked into a mosque in Hebron with a machine gun and killed 29 people, and was then beaten to death while reloading? Someone once told me he did this to "prevent a massacre," and was outraged that the people in the mosque had brutally murdered him in this fashion.

[Enzo]

You had me there for a moment KOS. You mean THE SOMEONE was outraged. At first I thought that you meant the gunman was outraged that he had been beaten to death. If someone beat me to death, I'd be mad too.


I was thinking earlier - yes, actually thinking about something BEFORE commenting upon it - about the comments from some folks who think that if all the students were armed with their second amendment handguns, then they would have "taken care of" this shooter.

Aside from thoughts of bullets just flying every which way as emotionally charged people do something they are not accutomed to doing, let's say you hear shots down the hall, or for that matter, across the room, and being a good second amendment citizen, you draw your gun and run down/over there to help. You see two guys shooting at each other. One must a bad guy, and the other must be a fellow 2nd Am guy. WHich one is which and whom do you shoot? Act fast now.

OR

Three guys are shooting at one guy. Is he a bad guy shooter and the other three good guys helping us? Or are the three heroin dealers there to shoot the other because he testified against them in some court? Who do you shoot?

[Мастер]

You had me there for a moment KOS. You mean THE SOMEONE was outraged. At first I thought that you meant the gunman was outraged that he had been beaten to death. If someone beat me to death, I'd be mad too.

Oops, sorry about the ambiguity. Yes, my former correspondent was outraged. We're going back a few years, but I seem to recall that the fact that they people in the mosque fought back and killed their attacker proved that they were violent and uncivilized, and the shooter was right to attack them.

Somehow, I have trouble seeing a guy who walks into a mosque with a machine gun and opens fire as a victim. . .

I was thinking earlier - yes, actually thinking about something BEFORE commenting upon it - about the comments from some folks who think that if all the students were armed with their second amendment handguns, then they would have "taken care of" this shooter.

Aside from thoughts of bullets just flying every which way as emotionally charged people do something they are not accutomed to doing, let's say you hear shots down the hall, or for that matter, across the room, and being a good second amendment citizen, you draw your gun and run down/over there to help. You see two guys shooting at each other. One must a bad guy, and the other must be a fellow 2nd Am guy. WHich one is which and whom do you shoot? Act fast now.

OR

Three guys are shooting at one guy. Is he a bad guy shooter and the other three good guys helping us? Or are the three heroin dealers there to shoot the other because he testified against them in some court? Who do you shoot?

Well, there are advantages, and there are disadvantages. Take your pick. . .

I personally think that BT's earlier comment in this thread was spot on. This sort of thing happens every day. It just isn't all in one place, and it isn't on television, so it's OK. It's only a problem when it's on television and we have to look at it.

[pmcolt]

Enzo,

Yours is a question that has been fiercely and frequently debated on 2A message boards since the dawn of time, or at the very least, since the dawn of whenever I became involved in concealed carry and gun politics.

It boils down to this: when do you shoot?

There is a short, simple, and safe standard answer to this question: shoot the person who is shooting at you.

Why? You are not law enforcement. It is not your duty to rush headlong into an unknown situation to subdue a shooter, nor to defend anyone but yourself. Your first reaction should be to retreat from the area altogether, or if this is not possible, find cover. You should only engage the shooter if the other options are impossible, that is, if your escape is cut off and the shooter is firing at you.

That said(TM), this advice doesn't sit well with most people. Most good people would feel a moral obligation to assist the innocent in such a situation. That's a noble thing, but the phrase "don't be a hero" exists for a reason. If you feel that you must intervene to save someone else, and you're reasonably confident who the bad guy is, then it's very gallant of you to ride to the rescue of the innocent. They may even give you or your next of kin a medal, but you should keep in mind that you're taking your chances.


So, how does this apply to the VT shooting? We had a single shooter, going from classroom to classroom, indiscriminately shooting people. The hostile is easily identifiable. It wouldn't have even taken all of the students being armed. A single student or faculty member, in the right place at the right time, could have ended this with much less loss of life.

Of course, in reality, people with concealed carry permits typically make up about 1% of the population. They also tend to be middle-aged folks, not college students, though it was an engineering building, and I know a lot of engineers who are also gun guys. A 'one person who happened to be nearby' scenario is much more likely than any 'hail of bullets from the classroom' scenario.




(And for the record, I, too, thought KOS's beaten-dead gunman was expressing his anger from beyond the grave.)

[Bill_Thompson]

or even an accident.

Of course. "A gunman accidentally got up, walked into a campus building, and accidentally shot 30+ people." Makes perfect sense to me.

A glock 9 mm is often used for target practice. He just didn't know where the shooting range is and the kids just got in the way.

Instead of being such a good shot and a cold blooded killer like everyone says he is, maybe he was a really really bad shot and just very very very unlucky.

[Bill_Thompson]

You had me there for a moment KOS. You mean THE SOMEONE was outraged. At first I thought that you meant the gunman was outraged that he had been beaten to death. If someone beat me to death, I'd be mad too.


I was thinking earlier - yes, actually thinking about something BEFORE commenting upon it - about the comments from some folks who think that if all the students were armed with their second amendment handguns, then they would have "taken care of" this shooter.

Aside from thoughts of bullets just flying every which way as emotionally charged people do something they are not accutomed to doing, let's say you hear shots down the hall, or for that matter, across the room, and being a good second amendment citizen, you draw your gun and run down/over there to help. You see two guys shooting at each other. One must a bad guy, and the other must be a fellow 2nd Am guy. WHich one is which and whom do you shoot? Act fast now.

OR

Three guys are shooting at one guy. Is he a bad guy shooter and the other three good guys helping us? Or are the three heroin dealers there to shoot the other because he testified against them in some court? Who do you shoot?

I was thinking almost the exact same thing. Although serious discussions seem out of place here.

I think the solution lies in addressing this seriously. Something that people, including me, don't want to or incapable of doing. I think this is going to become a serious political issue but never really get resolved.

If the standards for having handguns are raised and if those who most qualify to have them, carry them, then I think this sort of thing will be prevented. THe back ground check was not good enough and there were noone around carrying them that could be.

On a different vein, I wonder if postal workers are relieved that finally the "going postal" expression is replaced with "turning Korean" as in "relax, you don't need to go and turn Korean on me".

[umop ap!sdn]

He just didn't know where the shooting range is and the kids just got in the way.

Believe that & I'll tell you another one. :P