Moto Nhoj

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

OK, I want to preface this by saying it is very late here in New England, and I have been watching and reading about the Virginia Tech Shootings. That being said, I was thinking along different lines and have come to a couple of questions that I would like some input on:

There is alot of talk about the poor responce of campus police and the need for more protection all over the media right now. All kinds of different "plans" to secure and protect the populace will pour out over the next few days. Random bag searchs, security checkpoints, Metal Detectors, transparent bags that cannot hide anything, etc,. But my question is:

A - Is there a way to achieve real Security without demanding an individuals freedoms be compromised?


The second question goes into two parts:
I have to believe that, in this specific instance, if the faculty and/or students had been trained and allowed to carry firearms, if they wanted to, there would have been a significantly lower death toll in Virginia. A single gunman was able to fatally shoot 32 other people. Had anyone else in the building had a gun, they might have been able to wound or kill the gunman after 3-5 people had been killed, thereby saving the lives of up to 29 other people.

1) So, is this just the late night and shock over the days events talking, or does this make sense to anyone else?

2) Would allowing the citizenry of this country carry concealed weapons as part and parcel of turning 18 or 21 curtail or exasperate the crime in this country?

Please post your views on these topics.

Thank you

tyrus

Interesting questions.

First:
I honestly don't think you can achieve any level of security that would prevent such an event. Case in point, look at our prisons. The prisoners there are stripped of their rights and freedoms, subjected to numerous and very intrusive searches, yet they still manage to smuggle drugs, weapons and the like even within the prison, as well as to others outside.
Increased security is probably what they'll call for, but increased security isn't "free". Expanding the police force at VT will cost a lot of money, and while in the aftermath of todays events no price is too high, eventually the emotional wounds will heal, there will be a monument type of structure in place as a reminder, but some bean counter in an office will decide to reduce the force again, and you have the cycle.

Second:

The answer to your question there is already in the works. There are several states in the Midwest that allow conceal and carry permits to those over the age of 21. I can only speak for Indiana though, but I know that state wasn't alone. I can't honestly say that crime was reduced, or a large scale shooting could be thwarted because an armed population would shoot back, but keep in mind one thing. It only took 2 guns to create the havoc of today. Imagine the outcome if marginally trained people in that school produced firearms and returned fire in the attack. The damage would no doubt in increased multi-fold. Military and Police training for firearms is my experience base, and its in that training that you learn when and where to shoot. Military not so much, but for Police.. the background and environment many times dictate whether or not an officer can fire(at least here in Ca.) The impact of untrainned and armed population would probably create more innocent victims. Although the flip of that is, would it be more of a deterrent to the would be attacker if he knew his mission would probably be derailed by a gun toting target? Keeping in mind that a person who carries out an attack like this isn't thinking rationally to begin with, or for that matter planning on sticking around to admire their work. I can't think of an instance in recent memory where a rampaging gunman has lived.. Columbine they died, UT he died, Amish schoolhouse guy died.. This guy died.. these are basically suicide missions to begin with.


The questions can be answered for either side. I'm not a gun control freak, or bleeding heart liberal, I'm just trying to see both sides on it.

Again, this is JMO

moo1

My quick take is that you perfect freedom would yield no security, and perfect security would yield no freedom. It's in striking the balance that is the difficult part. We take our liberties very seriously in this country, and it would be a scary day to give up much for a little security.

On concealed weapons. I don't think it would matter. It could have been made better, but it also could have made things worse.
The shooter was nuts. He also did not care about his own life, and was willing to die... there is a good chance he wanted to die. Arming people isn't going to deter him one bit. At best it stops him sooner, at worst... a hell of a lot more bloodshed.

durden

On the first question, I think we as humans always have a false sense of security. It takes an event like the VT Shooting to make people realize that any security measure we take will most likely not be enough without infringing on ones rights granted to them through the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I feel there is a way that real security can be achieved but it will not come freely. We will have to give up our own rights of freedom on order to achieve it. And sadly I feel that this will end up being achieved under our noses and without our permission. Already, since 9/11 especially, our rights at Airports and at International Borders have been cut in half if not more just to give a sense of security to those in charge and those in transit. I do not think that any great step in higher security will come without a price.

Concealed weapons are a right granted to Americans through the Bill of Rights. It is a right to carry a gun. But, in responding to your question, I do not think it would have changed anything. It is just speculation, but alot of people who carry concealed weapons for thier own protection have had little or no formal training using weapons. So, they most likely can not or just wont react to an event like the VT Shooting.

And for your last part of your question...to allow a U.S. citizen carry a concealed weapon is a personal right. To promote it as a way to protect yourself and others in random and unknowing situations as the VT Shooting would just be uncalled for. Thats why we have a police force and a federal governmant who train and teach people to be those people who did respond to this shooting. Now, if you choose to carry a concealed weapon, I feel you should have to go through a formal training course and a formal test in order to show competency of using your weapon in various situations. Thats how it is with hunting...why not in protection?


Lastly, my own comment. I have been watching and listening to the news since yesterday morning at around 11:00am EST. I am shocked at how people have begun o blame the VT Police for "not responding in a prompt and proper manner". That is bullshit. The first shooting occurred at approx. 7:30am. The police responded and did what they were supposed to do...not cause a panic. If the police were to have released a statement at 8am that a shooting had occurred across campus, then people would have been out, panicked, and most likely have caused more trouble in the end. The Administration did the right thing...you have to make choices when your faced with a situation like this. After the second shooting began, campus-wide emails went out telling student what to do. They put the campus on lock down. They did what they could when they could. I think any blame should be put on the shooter and they should focus on him, not the VT Police.

As a firefighter in my local township, I listen in on the Police meeting and training sessions. We are required to because in a situation such as this, we help them out. This is a tragic and horrible event that occurred. God Bless the families affected and my thoughts and prayers are with you...

dantwood

I am a married father of five who carries a handgun legally and have been trained by my own choice to use it as have my older kids. I am very white collar, good or bad, and do not fit what most people think a gun fanatic looks like. I pray that the only time that I shoot it is when I am practicing, which I do often, but I am prepared to protect not only my family but any other unprotected person that may come under the attack of an insane, unthinking wacko like the VT shooter. Very few people know that I carry and that not only allows me to feel comfortable but permits me to have options in a worse case scenario. I personally do believe that if one or more of the staff legally had carried a legal concealed firearm, there would have been a massacre but of lesser extent. In many states, an employee of a university may carry a weapon if they have a liscense and we should take a moment to think about whether even one life could have been saved by a responsible gun carrying professor...............

ddoubleez

It seem most replies so far indicate that more guns on a campus probably would not have benifited the the situation... I agree... Furthermore arming a group of children, 18 to 23 to me is still a child, is not a good idea. Then when you think of all the drinking and other poor judgment calls kids looking to get laid, high and drunk you should argee tha giving them licences to carry weapons just does not sound like a good idea... At that age I was doing everything wrong to impress the ladies... Over a five year period I would expect a lot of single shootings that would equal the same tragity... Added security leads to other mental problems and stress.. I went to a smaller school, but still had to have a bike to get from one class to another to be on-time, that was without security checks.... What we should really be asking is what we are doing to keep these kids happy and entertained to prevent things like this from happening.... We used to have safe hangouts, civic centers, activites that kept us occupied.... NOw neighborhoods and schools are built on limited budgets, have no art, entertainment, or the like.... So these kids isolate themselves get depressed and go over a mental edge...
I am a gun owner, but I don't think individuals under 25 should be toting them to school.... I also know that one and 10 people I meet have the capacity of doing something stupid.......

ddoubleez

dantwood

To clarify, I don't think the college kids should be carrying but professors who have a concealed weapon permit, training with their weapon and since they are teaching, hopefully common sense. How could a mature trained person with a gun not make some difference in the end result of a situation like the ones at our schools and universities over the last decade and a half.

dantwood

PS feel free to go to Canada at your convenience and get old with lesser FREE health care and don't bother wasting mine and my countries time, wealth, resources and freedom for which you surely don't appreciate. I am all for loving everyone but hey, don't let my love hold you back from your opinion of Nirvana.

ddoubleez

Dantwood, I apoligize for misreading your first post, and thanks for the clarification, but with that clairification you need to understand that professors don't hang out in dorms, so that is now a mute point in the argument. Do we need to give them sledge hammers and a welding kit to get doors open too. Again, I am a gun owner, and a hunter. As far as canada goes, if you like to pay for health care there you can, and it is a little better, but you have the option of free health care. You can also hunt there and own a gun, they just have 1/4 the murders, because their attitudes are different. And on a recient gallop pole child safty health care and education, out of twenty developed countries the UK was the only one that scored worse than the US, and we were the only two privatizing. I don't want to hijack this thread or loose site of this tragity, so you can PM me or start a new tread if you like, and explain how I am wasting you time and resources... And is it the love for your country that keeps you from trying to improve it?

Ps Nivrana is the way buddhists explain where an a state of the end of suffering in this life and beyond, I would prefer enlightment...

dantwood

I was talking of the 3rd-32nd persons killed in the classrooms who may have been saved by a armed prof and I would say that we agree more than disagree. As far as Canada, the previous writer was in my opinion knocking the USA more than building up Canada, a country I spend time in and like, and my point was they could move there instead of staying here and whining about it while enjoying the benefits of the USA instead of being a part of the answer.
Regardless, what transpired last week was in any sane opinion a tragedy which will leave a lasting impression and deep sorrow in many lives and is truly not the best example of Americans and the truly loving giving country we are compared to many other countries.

jasefm

Police can only respond to a crime AFTER it has been commited. It is the right and duty of an American citizen to protect protect ourselves against military / political take over (just thinking about history... Revolutionary war...) This is our land and a free country. We need to keep it that way. No one will do it for us. I had firearms while in college but never kept them on campus or carried. I carry every day and train every month. I am not law enforcement or ex military, but there are several training facilities that offer advanced training to the public. Having a firearm on you is a great responsibility, so is being an American!

Kimber1911

Well said Jasefm. We are becoming a land of sheeple who believe it is the duty of the police to protect us from the crazies in this world. that is a huge burden to put on our police. It is impossible for the police to be everywhere! We are told from pre-school to call 911 to get help, help that will arrive AFTER the fact. We are responsible for our own safety and well being, not the police!
In an above post a member refers to adults aged 18-23 as children, tell that to the men and women who are serving over seas to keep this country safe from terrorist threats. We hand them guns and train them to use them. If a person legally carries a concealed weapon, that person is trained in its use and accepts the responsibility to carry that weapon safely. The crazies that are out there carrying illegally will always do so, if its legal or not and it's asking a lot to tell the police they are to protect all of us against all of them. We need to take responsibility for our own protection.
If its the guns that are so dangerous, why are there not mass killings at gun shows, at gun shooting ranges, NRA conventions, and police stations? Think about that for awhile.

kawligia

A gun does not give its owner's mind any evils it would not have otherwise had.

A person out to kill can accomplish his goal with any other weapon, or even no weapon at all.

Gun laws will be no more successful in getting rid of guns than drug laws are at getting rid of drugs.

Since bad people will always be able to get guns, good people should not be forced to bring a knife to a gun fight.