What noone seems to want to talk about.

In the last 24 hours, the number of posts aimed at more gun control, tougher gun control, completely banning civilian firearm ownership, blaming glock, blaming the NRA, blaming *, blaming the sunset of the AWB, blaming hi capacity magazines, blaming semi automatic firearms, blaming "assault weapons", blaming easy access to firearms, blaming the gun lobby, blaming gun nuts, and 300 other things...have been too numerous to count.


What noone seems interested in discussing, is just what part the "gun free school zone" played in this. I'm quite sure I'll next be accused of being one of the "arm them all camp" for making this post, but I really don't give a damn. I believe it amplified this event. I believe it enabled a safe shooting zone for a scumbag bent on killing as many as he could. I don't believe it is even defensible. You can't talk about what the gun did without acknowledging that the circumstances played a part as well. At least not in good faith.


School shootings that end up as massacres have one thing in common besides the gun. They're all safe places for an armed bad-guy with intent. I believe they need re-thinking.

Show me I'm wrong.

It makes the school a more dangerous place.

and nobody gets shot. I'm not sure we can just assume that these restrictions make the place any safer.

doesn't mean you aren't safer without a piece of metal designed to kill you around.

I want to see some experiments done with control groups for these things instead of having to rely on what people "reason" will happen. Empirical evidence would be nice.

but, I think I'd be more concerned with accidents and heat of the moment bullshit than I would premeditated killing sprees.

It would be one thing if people were suggesting allowing boxers, or ultimate fighting championship matches to take place with a gun in the middle of the ring. But the environment that I see on campus most of the time is not bristling with heat of the moment stuff. I have never seen students in a university classroom break into a fist-fight (high-school students, yes). I highly doubt that a group of adults who maintain composure and don't fist-fight is suddenly going to start shooting each other in the heat of the moment once guns are not strictly forbidden on university property.

In fact, a professor who works on the university's judicial board was telling me today that a large number of students are actually sent out of the school for weapons violations (this usually involves students keeping a weapon in their dorm-room, not class) so we already know that a good number of students are armed and not making any trouble.

The only heat of the moment college shooting I remember was at a frathouse in PA one time when a man shot another resident in a dispute over a sandwich. But this is a level of idiocy that is not typical of a human being.

but on campus. And your circumstantial evidence is fine.
My circumstantial evidence is that kids can't bring guns on campus (or even really own them) where I live, and it seems to be safer.

We seem to be at a circumstantial impasse

under the same rules and yet isn't safer.

I think this is because your campus is a gunfree zone within the context of a country that has relatively little gun violence. Here the gunfree zone is surrounded by areas with almost no restriction on guns.

Having a gun free zone in a land that is relatively free of gun-violence: everything seems hunky-dory.

Having a gun free zone in a land where every other place seems to allow guns: ineffective.

But the idea that if students at university have guns they will just shoot each other in "the heat of the moment" is odd, the moments on campus are just not that heated.

just that it was more likely than if they didn't have guns. Just as you are more likely to shoot someone in a drunken bar brawl if you have a gun than if you don't, because frankly, it's there.

I know I'm oversimplifying, but so much of what I've read totally ignores the idea of guns being violent and dangerous in the first place. And I don't understand this national obsession with firearms.

because the kind of people who are likely to get pissed off enough to shoot someone in the "heat of the moment" in an everyday altercation in public, are the same kind of people who are very likely to blow off the whole "no guns on campus rule" anyway.

As far as national obsession goes, I just look at it as they're here, get used to it.

But I don't think I agree.


And I'm glad I am where I am. Scary shit.

NT

Perhaps the rules against marijuana on campus are too blame.

That said, I wouldn't go and use this disaster to further my own personal pet issues. That strike me as rather... seedy.

But, I'm sure it's bound to get lost in the rhetoric.

I appreciated it, nonetheless.

:thumbsup: for poignant logic, however lost it is in the fray.

made it easier for this guy to operate???

...

That way, the one holding the gun will have had extensive training in tactical situations and be a professional in handling the gun.

Just a suggestion off the top of my head.

with more UCLA type police brutality type incidents?

But, this isn't a completely thought out suggestions, either. Just off the top of my head kind of thing.

with tasers are poorly trained and low-paid. But some campuses have official cops who use guns and are less likely to abuse a taser in non-lethal situations.

Yeah, I think these things would all be a good start.

Why is it that when a disaster happens people suddenly expect the "rent-a-cop" to turn into Joe Friday on PCP?

... it was just the first thing that came to mind. :shrug:

I didn't know it was an assignment I would get graded on! :P

if he thought any one else had a gun?

Forgive me, but I would say that a guy like that who is already wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy on the other side of rational thought (by the time he gets his guns and starts this plan of action) would not be deterred at the thought that others might carry. Likewise, I sincerely doubt he chose to shoot up his campus because it was a gun free zone - - I don't think that ever entered into his thought processes. He was there, his pain was there - - he was gonna do what he did if every student packed or not, IMO. Once you get on that Other Side Of Sane, toss all rational arguments out the door, Jack...

to secure buildings after a shooter is on the loose - what were the cops doing for those 2 hours - why was no one on high alert, and why were they not on patrol.

Also, the shooter could have stayed in the dorm and shot more people - but he left for some reason.

No one could have predicted that he would go across campus and commit more murders. He could have done that at the dorm. What was his motive for going into the Norris Building?

cause me to lose more and more of my freedoms daily. The proliferation of guns and the culture of violence has created a culture that requires me to go through metal detectors, use a key card to enter most buildings, and be searched attending most any public event. I don't think adding more guns to the mix is the answer.

The worst school massacre was a suicide bombing in 1927 in Michigan.

Denied guns, the homicidal maniac will just choose a more unpleasant weapon: home made explosives, Molotov cocktails, even machetes.

Keep the focus on the nutcase in this instance. Maybe with national health insurance and decent mental care, he'd have been given decent care and 33 people would still be alive today.

Maybe not.

There is no way to know who is going to flip out and commit mass murder and who is just squirrely, poor thing, hope he gets some help.

The shooter is dead.

9-11 never would have happened - right?

So, let's just let everyone who wants to carry a gun on a plane and we won't have to worry about hijackings ever again because some good law abiding citizen will shoot the darn terrorist.

I mean, that's where this logic leads, you know.

would you -do- anything?
It's an easy yes or no question.

after all, they proved on Mythbusters that the explosive decompression thing is a myth.

Anyway, it's probably a good thing they don't let me carry a gun on commercial aircraft. I tend to get sloppy drunk.

Because terrorists and criminals aren't that stupid. They'd grab a small child or the prettiest woman on the plane to use as a human shield.

You going to shoot that cute kid or you going to fire that gun knowing the kid dies first?

As he's yelling his demands. If he just picks a hostage and shoots them, you can't do anything anyway but if he grabs a hostage and starts threatening, you can just headshot the bastard. He'll be dead before he even hears the shot. And if you think it might save everyone else and you have a gun with enough power you just shoot him through the hostage, as long as it's not a cute child or the prettiest woman on the plane.

You assume the "hero" could hit the jerk in the face.

But, my scenario is melodramatic and probably unrealistic, even if guns were allowed on planes.

Are law abiding citizens going to carry their handgun in their pocket or next to their body? Or is it usually going to be in a bag or case "securely stowed underneath the seat in front of you or in the overhead compartment"

You better believe the jerks are going to have theirs concealed on their person. Once they whip the fire arms out, no one is going to be able to move or they will get shot.

...

At our local university, there is 24 hour coverage with armed security forces.

A better plan is to make mental health services more available for troubled persons.

I also understand that safety training isn't even required in Virginia to purchase a gun. You really want college students to carry guns when these extreme cases are so scarce? I've had one professor state she will quit if students are allowed to carry.

...and keep ammo and know how to use it by city law.

This law was put into place as a response to the Morton's Grove 'no handguns' law back in the late 70's.

(having been a friend of the city atty's son at the time, if you want to know how this survived a supreme
court challenge, PM me....)

At the time, Kennesaw was experiencing a rash of home burglaries and liquor store/convenience store robberies - it seemed that every weekend 'someone' would come north from Atlanta and rip-off someone in Kennesaw. REALLY. I lived it. We had 5 dogs, some very big, and of course, being hunters who ate our kills, we had alot of guns. And our neighbors knew it. We never had a problem.

BUT, many of our neighbors who traveled alot did, as did some of our friends who owned small businesses.

I do NOT believe in SPORT hunting or fishing - if you are going to kill something, at least have the decency to consume it. Of course, if you can use it in your compost heap, do so.


After this law was passed (if you want to know the details, PM me), the property crimes went way down.

Domestic violence went way up - if you've got a gun in the home and someone pisses you off, you might use it....additonally, if someone causes you to develop road rage and you have a gun under the seat, you might use it.

Therefore, I will not own a gun. I have (adult) children who were once kids. I came of age in a local society that said it was OK to use one. I do not want to use one.

There are many other 'weapons' out there. A bit harder to use, but they are there. I leave it to the reader as an exercise to puzzle out what I am implying.

I am of the opinion that we have to do something about this - yes, we need to be armed against the gov't deciding to be a police state, but are we really able to do that anymore? They have REAL arms, and we can only get pretend arms (and possibly modify them). Haven't we passed the point where we the people can effectively stop the police state - I think we can only hope to rely on the individual 'police' or 'army' to decide that they will not participate.

Ah, to retire to Amsterdam.....

Good point.

It isn't the gun, it's lawlessness and culturally accepted mental illness.

22, check. Off to school.

it's going to make school supply shopping interesting this year, now my daughter will be 13, can you recommend a nice lightweight firearm for her to put in her Hello kitty holster?

was armed. He was going to do this anyway. He wasn't going to be dissuaded by the thought that somebody might be packing. The only deterrent would have been if somebody with a gun would have gotten to him during the mysterious 2 hour interval and killed or wounded him before he got to the classroom building.

instead thank you, but it would help those nervious Nellies who are convinced someone is going to muder them.

What would you rate the odds of getting shot while attending college are? I mean by a criminal, not by your friend who thought the safety was on?

One in 5 million? 1 in ten million?

Had they not been standing there, all rigid and flammable.....

Why do the gun sympathizers always blame the one thing that is least responsible for these tragedies?

Take all the factors that lead to this, list them, and give me a percentage of responsibility for each of them. I'd give "gun free environment" about 0.000001%.

-16 die every year resulting from homicides (I realize yesterday doubled that)

-1000 die every year through suicide

-2000 die every year as a result of ALCOHOL POISONING!!!

When do we delcare our War on Budweiser?

More mental health services!

I had always known that binge-drinking and suicide were major issues with college students, but these numbers really brought the scope of it home to me...

First of all, I am NOT saying CCW is the answer. I believe on SOME level it is a partial answer. Not the only possible one however.

Would I bring a gun to class if I was allowed? Honestly, I would have to give that ALOT of thought, Eric, before I could answer truthfully and earnestly.

Bornagain, I really am NOT trying to advance a pet issue in this thread. I started this thread with the jist of it being that school gun-free-school-zones (GFSZ'z) need rethinking and left it wide open. I believe there are multiples of choices that could be put into effect to make these places less attractive to wrong-doers, less assailable when that fails. I just dont want to see this happen again.

Quaker, I'm not saying it made it easier for this guy to operate, I'm saying it made it easy for him to operate to the EXTENT that he did.

Kerrytravelers, Exelent suggestion.

Wick, You know where I stand on guns. I don't hide the fact that I support private ownership broadly. This isn't about adding more guns to the mix per-se. This is about making sure that IF were going to have "gun free zones", that proper protection, procedure, and preparation are in place so that gun free zones stop being attractive/successful places for mass killings.



To all of you, gun rights supporter though I may be, I honestly dont care if guns are the answer or not. I just want not to expect to hear the word "massacre" in the same story as "gun free zone" ever again.

That sounds like a true massacre.

A kid who one of the girls on my hall dated during sophomore year took his grandmother's gun an blew his brains out behind the supermarket.

Adolescent impulsivity + depression + guns = dead kids.

Death is sometimes tragic, particularly when it happens to the young. Let's not limit this to college kids--after all, does the mother of a non college bound youth mourn any less?

FIVE LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH, USA, AGES 15-24, 1998 CAUSE PERCENT OF TOP 5 NUMBERS
(1) Accidents 51.8% 12,752
(2) Homicide 21.3% 5,233
(3) Suicide 16.3% 4,003
(4) Cancer 6.8% 1,670
(5) Heart Disease 3.9% 961

are we going to live our entire lives in fear of what if.....

I heard an interesting idea from a caller on Rhandi Rhodes show.....let them buy all the Guns they want....however....if they are hunters or sport shooters or even homeowners protecting their homes...they are limited to how much ammo they can have. Also, bullets should be 20 bucks a piece.....a very interesting idea...

No the common denominator in all of these massive shootings is the shooter (usually male) has a serious mental problem.....everyone saw the signs but didn't think that anything bad would happen...Mental Health in this country needs to be addressed....

The shooter in this case was extremely anti-social, stalked young women, wrote horrific gory papers about shootings...all of the signs were there......

and I don't have to check my guns in when I come into town?
Damn, I get to play cowboy again like I did as a kid then Yippie-kay-ya, motherfucker."
I can be a gunslinger and a mean hombre. Kool!


What a second, I see a twilight zone episode coming.

That's progress.

Like the post above says, 99.9% of the time there's no shooting. When you introduce a gun into a home, a family member is far more likely to be shot than an armed intruder. Guns are dangerous and people are stupid. Trained professionals with all sorts of dangerous equipment can have bad days. You ever hear of the skydiver with 10,000 jumps who forgot to pack his damn chutes on his last jump? Splat. Remember the DEA agent who was giving a talk in a high school and managed to shoot his ignorant self in the leg with his own weapon? And when you are in a pumped up situation with a weapon and are feeling it's a matter of life and death, mistakes are lethal. Remember the Japanese kid who rang the doorbell on Halloween? Bang!

The other factor to consider, as mentioned in other posts here, not all shootings are like that belltower where everybody knows where the shooter is and anyone on the ground must be a citizen coming to help. Imagine you're a cop and you hear there's a shooting in the school. Now it's one thing if you see a uniformed school cop there with his gun out, you know he's supposed to be there. But what about if you see a guy in a suit with a gun, teacher or crazy parent? What if you see a college-age kid running around with a gun, shooter or NRA member? (not that they're mutually exclusive.) It's just one more person to get shot in the confusion. You want to know what that would be like? Go watch Battle Royale.

For those of you unfamiliar with the movie, the basic premise is that a fascist Japan is facing a Clockwork Orange-level of unrest and disobedience from the youth. The solution arrived at is the Battle Royale Act. One high school class in the nation is selected at random. The students are shipped to a remote location and told to fight to the death. They have a limited time in which to complete this task. There can be only one survivor. If there is more than one after the time expires, all will die. There will be no mercy, no negotiation, no escape. The sad thing is that most of the kids are so detatched from the world at large that the whole thing comes as a surprise. The very premise of the Battle Royale is so stupid, so counterproductive that only a government could come up with it. (I find it distressingly plausible.) The film then plays out as the students form their alliances, betray each other, and fight to be the sole survivor. Some refuse to even try, committing suicide instead. Others take to the game with disturbing enthusiasm.

This is one of those films that from the premise seems like a grindhouse exploitation flick and would be if ever remade in the States. As it stands, it's a movie open for interpretation. When you consider what's happening, it's like a draft with all of the bulllshit about patriotism and honor and duty stripped away. "Naw, it's none of those things. What we do is we take a bunch of young guys with guns and the other side takes a bunch of young guys with guns and we send you all to some remote place to kill each other. Why? No real reason. Well, sure, we've got pretty things to tell your folks after you're dead but it's all just bullshit. Have a nice life!"







Anyway, back to the point I was making. If you think the solution is to arm the students so they can take on attackers, you'll just end up with a clusterfuck like the lighthouse scene in Battle Royale. It's a mexican stand-off that goes about as poorly as the one in Resevoir Dogs.

and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

christ on a cracker, just look through the threads from the past 24 hours! you are old, old, old news.


every post that starts out "what noone seems to want to talk about..." should IMMEDIATELY be put on ignore.

late at might and someone jumped out of the bushes from behind him and attempted to slice his throat.,luckily for him, he was bigger than the perp and the gash was barely an eighth of an inch deep though it was across his throat...

He quickly turned around grabbing the assailant and proceded to well make mince meat of him, he needed no gun nor knife to defend himself but he as I stated is very large, not all are so capable of defending themselves without a weapon, and if the assailant had shot at him, I assume he would not be here today, but I don't believe gun ownership to be the problem, point is, there are all types of weapons one can kill with..

Too many people are hot-heads (I'm one of them).

Have any students ever been furious with a professor about a low grade? Try adding a million guns.
How about drunken frat parties? Try adding a million guns.
More broken college romances? Try adding a million guns.
Stadium and rec hall riots after games? Try adding a million guns.
College punks just out for a thrill? Try adding a million guns.

On a larger note: Does "road-rage" mean anything to you? Try adding a million guns.

Do you ever read any history at all? Do you recall reading what Dodge City or Abaline were like before gun laws? You gun worshipers are as nuts as the Republicans.

Though I feel that allowing concealed carry MIGHT mitigate an occurance like we had, it by itself would not be enough.


And, as I said in my last post, there are a myriad of other things that could be done BESIDES (meaning alternatively)concealed carry.


I'll say it again, and make it clearer, since admittedly I did a poor job of getting the message across last nite.

I really don't care whether guns are part of the solution or not. Gun free school zones need rethinking. That can mean anything from allowing concealed carry, to security, to metal detectors, to police presence, to...


I am not set on any one particular strategy. What I want, is to NEVER hear of another school massacre again.