Horrible story still developing. Reports of 22 dead in two separate shooting incidents (but just one shooter) at Virginia Tech.
Feel free to post updates in the comments section.
Mass Death in Blacksburg
Comments to "Mass Death in Blacksburg":
Mr. Steven Crane | April 16, 2007, 1:03pm | #
this would never have happened if students were allowed to pack heat in the dormitories, right?just checking.
There still isn't a confirmed death total, and the talking heads are already telling us that we need to ban guns.
ed | April 16, 2007, 1:07pm | #
It might have happened anyway, Mr. Crane, but probably not to this extent.anvilwyrm | April 16, 2007, 1:07pm | #
I expect some of the victims might have wished they were allowed to "pack heat" so they could defend themselves.The rules didn't protect the good people. It just made them helpless before the bad, non-rule following people.
Asshat.
Seamus | April 16, 2007, 1:08pm | #
this would never have happened if students were allowed to pack heat in the dormitories, right?You *do* recall how a similar incident at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia (about four counties southwest of Blacksburg) was brought to an end precisely by a student packing heat, don't you?
fdm | April 16, 2007, 1:09pm | #
Isn't it interesting that this type of tragedy happens every time the RKBA has the potential for a quantum leap in effectiveness, as the recent DC Appeals Court ruling on the individual nature of the right?And if the students had been truly raised in the American tradition, even at a paltry 1-in-20 rate of being armed, at least one kid could have taken out the shooter.
What a tragedy... an avoidable tragedy...
Pro Libertate | April 16, 2007, 1:12pm | #
Jesus wept.John | April 16, 2007, 1:14pm | #
How can this happen? I am told VaTech is a "gun free zone". Didn't the shooter know that? He is going to be in big trouble for bringing a gun on campus.This is horrible. One thing is for sure, a conceal and carry law might not have prevented it but certainly wouldn't have caused it and as the Appalachian Law School incident shows, it might have prevented it. It will be interesting to see if the lesson that is taken from this is the proper one; the uselessness of gun control or the typical one; we must take away everyone's guns to prevent this from happening again. I am betting on the latter but maybe I am wrong. I hope so.
Jozef | April 16, 2007, 1:14pm | #
I spoke to an administrator at VA Tech a few minutes ago. Current word on campus (or at least in the accounting department) is that a non-student got into an argument with his girlfriend in her dorm room, shot and killed her, and then went on a killing spree.In this age of homeland security, how is the college still operating two hours after a murder with a gunman running loose?
shecky | April 16, 2007, 1:16pm | #
Sad day.thoreau | April 16, 2007, 1:18pm | #
You know, any points that anybody might care to make about gun laws, pro or con, probably won't be all that persuasive to anybody at a time like this.lunchstealer | April 16, 2007, 1:18pm | #
My condolences to the Virginia Tech community. Beyond that words fail me. Blacksburg is such a beautiful place, this just seems unbelievable.Imus did it! | April 16, 2007, 1:19pm | #
Think it has anything to do with drugs?I bet the anti-depressants did it
/waiting for toxicology
mediageek | April 16, 2007, 1:21pm | #
In January of last year, the VA House killed a bill that would have allowed concealed carry on VT's campus.Gun bill gets shot down by panel
"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "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."
Warty | April 16, 2007, 1:23pm | #
execution styleI don't mean to sound like an internet Rambo, but I can't imagine just complying with some guy's order to line up against the wall and wait for the shot in the base of my skull. The psychology of mass murders is...interesting.
Other than the above, I can't say that I have anything to add to the discussion, but to offer my condolences to those affected.
I. Self. Divine. | April 16, 2007, 1:27pm | #
From a FoxNews.com article: "Police also said there is no evidence the two shootings at opposite ends of campus were related."WTF is in the water?
John | April 16, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Warty,It is kind of interesting. I would think that someone would just say fuck it and take their chances. Indeed if fifteen or twenty people charged the guy he wouldn't stand a chance. He would get five or six of them but they would get him and beat his brains out. I think at some level people don't really beleive that the guy is going to do it and they go along with it thinking that if they just stay calm and controled he won't kill them.
I had a good friend of mine who was a special forces guy tell me once that if you are ever confronted by someone with a gun and have any way of doing it just run. The fact is that it is really hard to hit a moving target when you are under stress of a real situation, even highly trained FBI and Delta Force guys can only hit about 25% of the time under those circumstances. Your typical murdering scumbag probably will hit a lot less. Also, he might not have the balls to shoot you right them. Whereas if you stand there or God forbid get in a car with him, he has time to get up the guts to shoot you and can do it at point blank range.
ed | April 16, 2007, 1:31pm | #
On a brighter note, Anna Nicole and Imus will soon (like, instantly) become invisible. On a horrible note, Nancy Grace has fuel for six more months.All I can say is, sad so sad, my heart goes out to everyone involved.
thoreau | April 16, 2007, 1:41pm | #
All that I can say about this is that I am very sorry for the victims and their families. I suspect that the numbers we're getting right now will turn out to be wrong, simply because the first reports usually are wrong.Or at least I hope the numbers are wrong...and wrong as in "too high." I'd hate to find out that even more are dead.
John-
That's interesting. I guess it makes sense.
Warty | April 16, 2007, 1:41pm | #
"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," Perino said, noting that Bush and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings held a conference on school gun violence last October. "Certainly, bringing a gun into a school domitory and shooting ... is against the law and something someone should be held accountable for," Perino said.Bringing a gun into a school domitory and shooting is against the law?? That's what that fucking buffoon chooses to say? Jesus, how I hate that chimp-looking asshole.
Imus did it! | April 16, 2007, 1:42pm | #
the shootings were hours apart1 at a dorm
20+ at a classroom across campus "hours later"
I bet the school hopes the two shooting weren't related
otherwise, here come the lawsuits
joe | April 16, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Warty,I imagine there's a difference between what you would do if you're given a few minutes to think about it, and what you would do if someone kicks in the door, shoots someone, screams for everyone else to get up against the wall, within the space of five seconds.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 1:47pm | #
I've read 22 confirmed dead.what you would do if someone kicks in the door, shoots someone, screams for everyone else to get up against the wall, within the space of five seconds.
If I had a gun, I'd probably get a tad panicky and shoot the motherfucker who just screamed at me to get up against the wall. Only I couldn't if I were at Virginia Tech, since the school banned guns for my protection.
Warty | April 16, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Right, joe, that's what I was trying to say with the "internet Rambo" comment. I would like to think that I would have the balls to not meekly submit to my death, but I'm afraid that I wouldn't.Has anyone seen the video on CNN where it looks like the cops are waiting outside the building while the guy is killing people inside? Shades of Columbine.
NoStar | April 16, 2007, 1:48pm | #
I'll bet the shooter had eaten high fructose corn sweeteners in the last 24 hours.And so had the victims. That stuff is unpredictable. It'll turn you into a crazed gunman or a passive lamb for slaughter.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 1:49pm | #
Has anyone seen the video on CNN where it looks like the cops are waiting outside the building while the guy is killing people inside? Shades of Columbine.Typical. It's illegal to protect yourself and the cops are too chickenshit to do it for you. Just wait until the gunman runs out of ammo, kills himself or plain gets bored.
Jonathan Hohensee | April 16, 2007, 1:49pm | #
Guys, this isn't the time or place for politics. :(A-fucking-men.
Warty, also, would you rather be shot in the back of the head, or have your ballls and/or kneecaps blown off THEN be shot in the back of the head?
This IS a time for politics. Politics is why none of the gunman's victims had a fucking chance, due to jackass politicians making self-defense illegal in the name of safety.
thoreau | April 16, 2007, 1:53pm | #
There's another angle to consider, though, on the subject of what to do if confronted by a psycho: If you don't run right away, then he might have time to lock or otherwise block exits. At that point, running might just get you caught in a corner where he can shoot until he hits you. In which case the most rational response might be to keep your head down, try not to make yourself a target, and wait for the cops to arrive.I know that the passive approach isn't a popular one here, but if escape is not possible, and if you doubt your ability to surprise and overpower the psycho, then the best odds might be on simply waiting for help. Yeah, it sucks, and it's no guarantee, but in highly uncertain situations the odds are all you have.
John | April 16, 2007, 1:53pm | #
Warty,Now that I remember a few years ago a Jewish militant went into a mosque on the West Bank and started mowing people down and the crowd charged him and riped him to shreds. He got his share but they got him. So, not all crowds react the same.
NoStar | April 16, 2007, 1:54pm | #
Jennifer,Liberals think that the police are here to protect us. The truth is, their job is not to protect but to arrest after a crime has been committed. Although, sometimes they encourage criminal activity (this used to be known as entrapment) to justify their paychecks.
terrorific | April 16, 2007, 1:55pm | #
"Has anyone seen the video on CNN where it looks like the cops are waiting outside the building while the guy is killing people inside? Shades of Columbine."Exactly what I was thinking. Shots pounding all over the place, most likely from the shooter, and these cops are hiding behind the fucking trees. I guess they only become heroes when they die.
Or, perhaps my expectations have been raised to the height of Jack Bauer, who would have stormed the building all by himself and saved the day "within the hour". The only people that would have died would have been the ones he personally promised to protect.
I can understand why the cops would be scared, not being Jack Bauer and all.
Jonathan Hohensee | April 16, 2007, 1:55pm | #
This IS a time for politics. Politics is why none of the gunman's victims had a fucking chance, due to jackass politicians making self-defense illegal in the name of safety.This isn't time for pissy "my political side wouldn't of let this happen" chest thumping. I'm sure that even if it weren't for that gun law, if violent video games where illegal, if all guns where banned, if bla bla bla bla, this kind of thing would still happen. I think that's the biggest lesson from Columbine, at least to me; some times you can't do anything about bad things.
GILMORE | April 16, 2007, 1:57pm | #
thoreau | April 16, 2007, 1:18pm | #You know, any points that anybody might care to make about gun laws, pro or con, probably won't be all that persuasive to anybody at a time like this
Indeed. It's also just boringly predictable knee-jerk type stuff.
Rather, lets fume about how illegal immigration provokes these crimes. Oh wait, thats Steve Sailer's blog.
Lets fume about how it's all the fault of the decline of our christian values. Oh wait, we're all athiests here
I really dont understand people what makes people want to shoot other people for no reason.
JW | April 16, 2007, 1:57pm | #
Jesus, this is horrid.Let me just say right now that I have no idea how I would react if a gun were stuck in my face or to the back of my head. I hope that I don't do something in my pants.
I see them kick the gun out of the bad guy's hand all the time in the movies. Maybe I'd try that.
Good point, t. This makes me want to get a good holster; no-carry-on-campus laws be damned. Do any of my fellow gun nuts here have a recommendation? I have a Makarov.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 1:59pm | #
I'm sure that even if it weren't for that gun law, if violent video games where illegal, if all guns where banned, if bla bla bla bla, this kind of thing would still happen.No doubt. But if someone other than the mass-murdering psycho could've had a gun, it sure as hell would've evened the odds a bit, no?
This isn't time for pissy "my political side wouldn't of let this happen" chest thumping.
No chest-thumping here, just an objective fact: my political side isn't the one dumb enough to think that if you make guns illegal, the guy who wants to kill 21 people will refrain from doing so for fear of violating the no-gun law.
joe | April 16, 2007, 1:59pm | #
Jennifer/Rambo,If you had a gun, you'd probably get drunk at a pub some Friday and not notice when it fell out of your purse, or your purse got snatched.
At least, that's what you'd do if you were a typical college freshman in the United States. If you're going to insist on arguing politics before the blood has even coagulated, I'm going to remind you to account for human nature. Let's not pretend that college freshmen are the most rational and responsible human beings on the plant, mmm-kay?
Warty,
I don't think reflexively responding to the guys orders is a question of balls. In a confusing moment of panic, human beings have a tendency to follow the person who seems to know what he's doing. It's instinct.
John | April 16, 2007, 1:59pm | #
"Has anyone seen the video on CNN where it looks like the cops are waiting outside the building while the guy is killing people inside? Shades of Columbine."I hate to say it but cops are basically cowards. They are the ones that have guns and they are paid to put their lives on the line for the public. Yet, when the opportunity arises and there is real danger but also real need, they basically stand around outside and wait until the guy is done shooting and then go in and clean up the mess. That is what they did at Columbine, that is what they did at the Edmond, Oklahoma Post office to just name two and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what they did here. I contrast this to the behavior of the police during the Charles Witman rampage in Austin back in the 1960s. Two Austin police officers went up to the top of that tower and got the guy. An act of incredible bravery. If that happened today, they would just put everyone on "lockdown" and hope he didn't shoot too many of the wounded. Cops just are not what they are supposed to be or once were.
Jonathan C. Hohensee | April 16, 2007, 2:00pm | #
Judging by the way the CNN guy is talking,, I think that if he where to stand up from his desk, we would see a throbbing erectionname wthheld | April 16, 2007, 2:01pm | #
The shootings at Penn State in 1996 (or was it 1997?) happened on the lawn right across from my dormitory. These were open-air shootings wherein the shooter took up a position at the top of the lawn and fired downhill in the direction of my dorm. She killed one person, grievously wounded another, and hit another who didn't realize it until hours later when a bullet fired from her rifle fell from one of his textbooks when he opened it.Anyway, I was in my room getting dressed at the time and heard shots. I knew what they were, being a shooter myself, and hit the deck, not knowing where they were coming from. When I got the nerve to look out the window (facing away from the lawn in question), I saw many people continuing to walk up the hill, oblivious to what was going on, as if they did not recognize gunshots.
In this case there were only 7 shots fired and it was over quickly as a rather heroic student attacked the shooter as she reloaded. She drew a knife on him and when she realized she couldn't fight him, attempted to suicide with the knife, which he stopped.
At the time, I had a rifle in my room (VERY much against school policy). If my window had been facing the lawn it is likely that I would have attacked the shooter from my window, but I certainly wouldn't have been a student there for very long.
By the time I was dressed, the shooting had stopped, and I felt it was not the best idea in the world to go out with a rifle looking for the shooter. I lost no time in clearing the room of any trace of the rifle, however.
That was one really scary day.
GILMORE | April 16, 2007, 2:02pm | #
- Sorry delete first "people". Me type no good.Seriously, what the fuck is it with killing innocents. Dont they get their rage out playing paintball, torturing their pets or something?
Fuck this guy/those guys. What a deplorable thing to do. All the best to the families.
mediageek | April 16, 2007, 2:03pm | #
"I think that's the biggest lesson from Columbine, at least to me; some times you can't do anything about bad things."Such policies may very well exacerbate the outcome of such situations.
I think cops don't do anything because they don't want to be the ones responsible if something goes wrong. it's a problem with people having too much respect for chain of command and procedure.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:04pm | #
If you had a gun, you'd probably get drunk at a pub some Friday and not notice when it fell out of your purse, or your purse got snatched. At least, that's what you'd do if you were a typical college freshman in the United States.I was far from typical as a college freshman. But let me see: are you trying to argue that guns may as well be illegal anyway, since even if those kids were allowed to have a means of self-defense in their dorms they'd be too much of a dumbass to use it?
If you're going to insist on arguing politics before the blood has even coagulated, I'm going to remind you to account for human nature.
Ditto to you. Lesson one: a guy who's not afraid of the legal consequences of mass-murdering 21 people in a death-penalty state like Virginia won't give two shits about the possibility of a fine or a few months in jail for carrying a gun on campus. The only people who obey such laws are naive little college students who could legally do absolutely NOTHING except wait meekly for death when their killer stormed their room.
It would be nice if this were not a time for politics. But that isn't the case. If you listen, you can already hear the thudding of the gun control folks' war drums.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:08pm | #
If you listen, you can already hear the thudding of the gun control folks' war drums.Yeah. If only we had stiffer penalties for guys who carry guns on a college campus, I'm sure the shooter would NEVER have done this.
thoreau | April 16, 2007, 2:08pm | #
The only people who obey such laws are naive little college studentsUm, some people obey firearms laws for very rational reasons.
ASDF | April 16, 2007, 2:08pm | #
Discussing the role of gun laws, hypothesizing about their effect in incidents like this, is certainly not out of place on this blog. Enough with the sanctimonious "this is no time for politics" bullshit.We're adults here. We're not bad people just because our reaction to Bad Stuff isn't simply weeping and moaning. Or if you want a moment of silence, head to a church -- they'll certainly have plenty of room for your self-righteousness, too.
Number 6 | April 16, 2007, 2:10pm | #
BTW-Due to a power outage, I'm working at home today, and watching CNN. It's been on for about 20 minutes and I haven't seen the video mentioned.Oh. it's one now...
My take: The movies aren't real. You do not simply charge into a building with an active shooter. Too many things can go wrong, and you could end up with even more people dead. I doubt the cops were just scared; they were probably frustrated as hell, and wanted nothing more than to take the guy down. But they also knew that acting precipitously can help rather than hurt.
Nancy Grace | April 16, 2007, 2:11pm | #
I just wet 'em.Schutz | April 16, 2007, 2:11pm | #
"I don't think reflexively responding to the guys orders is a question of balls. In a confusing moment of panic, human beings have a tendency to follow the person who seems to know what he's doing. It's instinct."It's not instinct, it is an extremely conditioned response since early childhood in our culture. Instinct comes in two forms- fight or flight, not do as your told.
I can see the fnords...
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:12pm | #
Um, some people obey firearms laws for very rational reasons.I mispoke. I'm talking about in the context of this story.
But I wonder, when classes resume, how many Tech students will keep a gun illegally stashed in their dorm rooms, just in case?
At least until some gun-control fanatic rats them out in the name of keeping everybody safe.
Christ. I grew up in Virginia and had many friends go to Tech. Had this happened just a few years earlier it could've been MY friends dead at the hands of this psychopath, because it would have been illegal for them to have the means of self-defense.
If any of the dead happen to be gun owners, I hope their families sue the fuck out of the school for denying them a means to self-defense. So far as I'm concerned (and I'll freely admit I'm frothing furious right now), that no-gun law is the political equivalent of holding a woman down while someone else rapes her.
Only worse. At least that hypothetical rape victim lived to complain about it.
Number 6 | April 16, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Incidentally, the cops in the video are advancing.Some of the things they had to think about:
Was the building wired with explosives? (There were, apparently recent bomb threats.)
Is there another shooter covering the doors? What about the windows?
Is there a sniper somewhere else, waiting to take down SWAT teams?
What does the building look like inside? Is there a hall? Do the doors lock? Are they wood or steel? Do they have windows?
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:14pm | #
I live in Blacksburg and work in a town right next to it. Obviously the information we have here isn't going to be much superior to anything anyone else can get. Talking heads are basically repeating just the same information over and over again. From everything I've heard the two shootings were the same person, and I heard the girlfriend-shooting angle as well. Although I'm now seeing numbers like 29 and 32 dead, the shooter is one of them from all I've heard.I agree w/ the sentiment of keeping politics out. I seriously doubt that it would occur to many early college students to carry a concealed weapon anyway. In anyone's conception of a utopia, there are still enough fucked up people out there to ruin things regardless.
John | April 16, 2007, 2:15pm | #
"My take: The movies aren't real. You do not simply charge into a building with an active shooter. Too many things can go wrong, and you could end up with even more people dead. I doubt the cops were just scared; they were probably frustrated as hell, and wanted nothing more than to take the guy down. But they also knew that acting precipitously can help rather than hurt."In 99% of the cases that is true. In the one in a hudred case where the guy is just lining people up and shooting them how could going in possibly result in more death? At that point the cops simply have nothing to loose but their lives. You can not sit and do nothing while that is going on. Had the cops confronted the killers at Columbine they would have saved a lot of lives. They were punk teenagers who would have stood no chance against a trained, armed person. All they could do was shoot unarmed kids. In cases like these, you have to go in and do something.
Number 6 | April 16, 2007, 2:16pm | #
Also: What does the shooter look like? Will he try and blend into the crowd?What is he armed with?
Has he built a barricade wherever he is?
Will he have time to kill more hostages when he hears you coming?
BDEF | April 16, 2007, 2:16pm | #
ASDF, normally when people contradict themselves within one post at H&R it is time to pounce. (calling others self-righteous at the same time calling their view “bullshit”)In this case, I won't, given that another young college student has probably been pronounced dead since you typed your comment.
Take a break.
John- They didn't know that it was some guy lining people up and executing them. They didn't know it was one guy. That's my point.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:17pm | #
Jennifer,"are you trying to argue that guns may as well be illegal anyway, since even if those kids were allowed to have a means of self-defense in their dorms they'd be too much of a dumbass to use it?"
Nope. You're the one seizing on this case to argue for your politics. I don't even have a strong set of beliefs about gun rights. College freshmen, on the other hand...been there, done that, probably a good thing I wasn't armed.
"Lesson one: a guy who's not afraid of the legal consequences of mass-murdering 21 people in a death-penalty state like Virginia won't give two shits about the possibility of a fine or a few months in jail for carrying a gun on campus."
Lesson two: psychopaths who set out to kill dozens of strangers aren't the only threat to people's well being. Drunk macho men who like to pick fights and hate to lose them are a lot more common than spree killers.
mediageek | April 16, 2007, 2:18pm | #
"I seriously doubt that it would occur to many early college students to carry a concealed weapon anyway."FWIW, I did.
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:18pm | #
This is so fresh and there are so many rumors swirling around that anything beyond the BARE facts (including the number of dead) is just bald speculation. There's no point in arguing about someone lining people up execution-style or what, since we don't know what happened, TV and radio will continue to repeat basically nothing to ad nauseum and beyond, but we really won't know what went on until things can return to something approximating normal.John | April 16, 2007, 2:19pm | #
"John- They didn't know that it was some guy lining people up and executing them. They didn't know it was one guy. That's my point."How do you know anything if you don't go in and see what is going on? It is not as if it is a hostage situation. You know someone has a gun and people have been killed. How do you not go in and look for the guy? How do you just stand there? If you go in and confront the guy, I don't see how it gets any worse.
Jennifer, agnostic as I am re: campus gun laws, I have a hard time imagining many folks going armed to engineering lab. Its entirely possible that conceal and carry laws would have had no effect on the outcome, or even more people could've been killed in the shootout by ricochets, collateral damage, etc. And yes, lives could've been saved too. But its far from crystal clear your argument for safety wins out. Now, an appeal to the constitution is another matter, but that speaks nothing to safety.
Pedant | April 16, 2007, 2:20pm | #
I contrast this to the behavior of the police during the Charles Witman(sic) rampage in Austin back in the 1960s. Two Austin police officers went up to the top of that tower and got the guy. An act of incredible bravery.Don't forget that they deputized, on the spot, Mr. Allen Crum, a citizen who had a hunting rifle in his back window.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:20pm | #
Schultz,"It's not instinct, it is an extremely conditioned response since early childhood in our culture. Instinct comes in two forms- fight or flight, not do as your told."
When an animal is denied both options, the instinctive response is to freeze.
John- They were going in. They were advancing. But they were doing it carefully as befits a well-trained unit.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:21pm | #
Lesson two: psychopaths who set out to kill dozens of strangers aren't the only threat to people's well being. Drunk macho men who like to pick fights and hate to lose them are a lot more common than spree killers.Oh, I get it. The kids at Tech had to be disarmed lest one of them turn out to be a macho man just waiting to get drunk and pick a fight? If that's not the proper interpretation of your statement then please explain how I should interpret it, so that it applies to the topic at hand.
College freshmen, on the other hand...been there, done that, probably a good thing I wasn't armed.
Don't be solipsistic enough to assume that if you couldn't handle it, nobody else can either.
John | April 16, 2007, 2:21pm | #
Pendant,I forgot about that. They also borrowed hunting rifles because back then the cops just had handguns and shotguns and nothing with enough range to get to the top of the tower.
"Some James," I know a guy named James that lives in and works near Blacksburg. Does your last name start with a P?
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:23pm | #
Jennifer, agnostic as I am re: campus gun laws ... its far from crystal clear your argument for safety wins out.Oh, I'm not saying that if Tech students were allowed to have guns, this absolutely positively would have had a less-tragic outcome. I'm just saying it could have changed the odds: maybe the kids' chances of survival would have been something higher than ZERO.
I think the example of "name withheld", assuming it is true, puts lie to the idea that college students wouldn't ever arm themselves or that doing so would never do any good. We will never know what would have happened if VaTech had not been a "gun free zone" but I think it there was at least a chance that things might have turned out differently.
Oh, and for the "keep politics out of it" crowd: There are already Senators taking the opportunity to be publicly concerned.
mediageek | April 16, 2007, 2:24pm | #
"I have a hard time imagining many folks going armed to engineering lab. Its entirely possible that conceal and carry laws would have had no effect on the outcome..."But at least they wouldn't have been denied the possibility of self-defense in the first place.
Look, a gun is not a mystical totem. If you carry a defensive weapon of any sort (gun or no) you should know how to use it. You should be absolutely willing to use it if the situation warrants it.
However, just having a gun, or even having training doesn't guarantee that you're going to win.
But at least you have a fighting chance.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Jennifer,All your nattering about disarming people is coming from your own head. I haven't written a word about disarming anyone.
Finding your argument - everything would be ok if everyone was armed - unconvincing does mean I'm arguing the opposite.
So you can knock of the John impersonation any time.
"Don't be solipsistic enough to assume that if you couldn't handle it, nobody else can either." Back atcha, dear. "I was far from typical as a college freshman."
mediageek | April 16, 2007, 2:26pm | #
"Don't be solipsistic enough to assume that if you couldn't handle it, nobody else can either."In my experience, this is the base for why many people are anti-gun. A horrendous case of psychological projection.
mediageek | April 16, 2007, 2:27pm | #
"I haven't written a word about disarming anyone."Perhaps not in this thread. But you've argued as much in others, especially with regard to banning guns based purely on scary aesthetics.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | April 16, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Twenty-nine dead is the latest estimate. As for the political commentary, the people who speak most glibly about death are most often those who have spent the least time in its company.Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:29pm | #
"Don't be solipsistic enough to assume that if you couldn't handle it, nobody else can either." Back atcha, dear. "I was far from typical as a college freshman."Joe, I'm not the one arguing that college freshmen, as a group, are too fucking stupid to be trusted with a gun like a grown-up. And even if I were, I sure as hell wouldn't base that on the evidence "Gee, *I* couldn't be trusted at that age, so of COURSE nobody else can!"
So what point were you trying to make with your comment about dangerous drunken macho men who don't want to lose a fight?
Finding your argument - everything would be ok if everyone was armed - unconvincing does mean I'm arguing the opposite.
Not even close to what I argued.
BTW, John: You only see one group of police. Could it be that they were using standard procedure and using several teams, one of which was providing cover, and one of which was entering?
NotThatDavid | April 16, 2007, 2:29pm | #
Oh, and for the "keep politics out of it" crowd: There are already Senators taking the opportunity to be publicly concerned.We're talking about human decency, here. Taking your cues on that from politicians is not completely unlike taking your cues on truthfulness from...well, politicians.
Edward | April 16, 2007, 2:29pm | #
I hope they didn't send in a dreaded SWAT team.Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:31pm | #
Nice smartassery, but I'd think that this would be one of those context where Mr. Balko would conceivably approve of the use of SWATJean-Michel | April 16, 2007, 2:33pm | #
If I lived in your sick, violent country, I think I would want to be armed. Thank God, I don't.joe | April 16, 2007, 2:33pm | #
mediageek,"But you've argued as much in others, especially with regard to banning guns based purely on scary aesthetics." No, I haven't. As a matter of fact, I've argued exactly the opposite. Please stop confusing me with the liberal that lives in your head, and makes arguments that you can easily refute.
jennifer,
"Joe, I'm not the one arguing that college freshmen, as a group, are too fucking stupid to be trusted with a gun like a grown-up." No, you're the one arguing that they are so dependable that campus would be a safer place if they were armed.
Could be Number 6. Perhaps the police did everything they could in this case. I don't know. But one thing is for sure, the didn't do everything they could at other times.
JW | April 16, 2007, 2:35pm | #
If I lived in your sick, violent country, I think I would want to be armed. Thank God, I don't.Funny, I thought the same thing during the Paris riots last year.
Cab | April 16, 2007, 2:35pm | #
I'll try again: "Some James," I know a guy named James that lives in and works near Blacksburg, has the day off, leans libertarian, used to be on a SWAT team, and can make up words like "smartassery" at the drop of a hat.Does your last name start with P?
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:35pm | #
"Fuck you, frenchy."Hear, hear. How are things in the banlieues, anyway?
John | April 16, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Yeah Jean Michel,Too bad all of those Jews the Viche French shipped off to the death camps weren't armed. I guess they didn't realize what a sick violent country they lived in.
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Ha, no, that's not me, but that's amusing. Never been on a SWAT team, I was born around here but only moved back 8 months ago or so, I'm working today and my last name starts with K.Warren | April 16, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Gun rights is a side issue.This is what happens when people who can't count, (read: handle calculus) attempt engineering.
robc | April 16, 2007, 2:38pm | #
Joe,College freshman arent old enough to (legally) get drunk at a pub.
Brian24 | April 16, 2007, 2:38pm | #
I am certainly against laws banning guns on campus, etc. but it's certainly within the rights of a university to ban students from having them on university grounds; I'd say that should hold for state universities too.Presumably then we would have some schools where guns were allowed, and others where they were not. Personally, my college experience apparently having been more similar to joe's than Jennifer's, I would never want to go to a college where guns were permitted, nor would I allow my child to go to one. But hey, that's me, Jennifer is free to differ.
I bet insurance premiums alone make my school cheaper than yours though.
GILMORE | April 16, 2007, 2:39pm | #
Jean-Michel | April 16, 2007, 2:33pm | #If I lived in your sick, violent country, I think I would want to be armed. Thank God, I don't.
Yes, one lunatic takes out 32 people, and we as a nation are to blame.
Please go back to protesting your own country into the sewer.
JG
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:39pm | #
No, you're the one arguing that they are so dependable that campus would be a safer place if they were armed.Was I wrong to say that their odds of survival would've been higher if someone other than the killer had a gun? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Matt | April 16, 2007, 2:40pm | #
Look, a gun is not a mystical totem. If you carry a defensive weapon of any sort (gun or no) you should know how to use it. You should be absolutely willing to use it if the situation warrants it.Mediageek, for WiW, lemme tell you some anecdotal truths.
I lived with three people who 'knew how to use guns' in college. Armed forces actually. Over time, our basement was turned into a shooting range. One guy shot a picture of his girlfriend after a brutal breakup. Another shot a hole in a bike and television. Another shot a stereo after being kept up all night when he had to go to reserves the next morning.
20-22 yr old Marines, all.
Finally, a couple years later, while rock climbing along the New River one day, I witnessed another, unrelated to the above, Marine shoot himself in the hand while digging through his truck for fishing tackle. I drove him to the Christiansburg hospital, the same one that is so busy this morning. While there, I swear to you, a boy came in with his father. He had shot himself in the leg with a rifle.
Somehow, I have never been shot.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:41pm | #
I would never want to go to a college where guns were permitted, nor would I allow my child to go to one. But hey, that's me, Jennifer is free to differ. I bet insurance premiums alone make my school cheaper than yours though.Unless your school were Virginia Tech.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:41pm | #
If I lived in your sick, violent country, I think I would want to be armed. Thank God, I don't.Don't worry about guns, JM. Just fireproof your car and you'll be fine.
GILMORE | April 16, 2007, 2:42pm | #
I think I now realize what drove this guy into his murderous rampage=Tax Season
Kwix | April 16, 2007, 2:42pm | #
Hey!! For everybody riding Jean-Michel, he could be Quebecois, don't forget Canada bans guns too!Blame Canada.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:42pm | #
Jennifer,"Was I wrong to say that their odds of survival would've been higher if someone other than the killer had a gun?"
I think you already know the answer to that. I was making a different point, one you've responded to with - yaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn - the accusation that only an elitist would say that college freshman are irresponsible.
Warty | April 16, 2007, 2:43pm | #
he could be QuebecoisIn that case, fuck that frenchy-with-an-inferiority-complex.
I briefly attended a college in one of the few towns in the U.S. that statutorily required each household to have a gun. I had one, a tiny 357 revolver. Got good at plinking floating debris in the river. But I had no occasion to need it in campus or in town, given that there were no murders or shootings and only a handful of breakins in the entire town the whole time I was there.
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:44pm | #
Jesus, Matt, after hearing your story, I'm wondering what my odds of survival are around here!!Jonathan Hohensee | April 16, 2007, 2:44pm | #
Oh, and for the "keep politics out of it" crowd: There are already Senators taking the opportunity to be publicly concerned.But none of them got up and said "it's video game's fault."
dhex | April 16, 2007, 2:45pm | #
guys, the bodies aren't even cold yet.and yeah, it's going to be ugly, and yeah the brady fucks and the conservative agit-proppers are going to be doing their best reenactment of the war of terri shaivo, but we can be a little bit better than that.
there will be plenty of time for the ugly to come a runnin'.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:45pm | #
One mass-shooting gets a lot more press than 50 individual shootings.That does not mean that the one high-profile event should be weighed more heavily than the far more common events when we think about how to keep ourselves safe.
Jennifer, you're fallen for the "airplane crashes get a lot more press than car crashes" error.
who said that?! | April 16, 2007, 2:46pm | #
They were going to send the SWAT team, but it was busy making drug busts.Kwix | April 16, 2007, 2:47pm | #
Marine shoot himself in the hand while digging through his truck for fishing tackle.This is a gun case, this is not.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:48pm | #
I think you already know the answer to that.I should hope so, since I doubt you could bring yourself to say it.
I was making a different point, one you've responded to with - yaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn - the accusation that only an elitist would say that college freshman are irresponsible.
I did not use the word elitist but solipsist, regarding your insistence that since you were at the age of 18 too irresponsible to be trusted with a gun, so too must all 18-year-olds be.
By the way, if that long "yawn" had only three w's more, it would have convinced me. Ooooh, you were so close.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 2:49pm | #
One mass-shooting gets a lot more press than 50 individual shootings.Especially the individual shootings wherein a would-be criminal is stopped by a responsible gun owner. Those shootings hardly get any press at all.
Evan! | April 16, 2007, 2:49pm | #
"That does not mean that the one high-profile event should be weighed more heavily than the far more common events when we think about how to keep ourselves safe."Funny, I've never seen any data that shows that conceal-carry laws result in more gun deaths. Maybe that's just me.
robc | April 16, 2007, 2:50pm | #
joe,Both get a lot more press than "victim pulls gun on mugger, who runs off"
Kwix | April 16, 2007, 2:51pm | #
dhex,The bodies may not be cold but the Brady Campaign already has a Press Release for it.
Blacksburg, VA – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the Virginia Tech University community, and to the families of the victims of what appears to be one of the worst mass shootings in American history.
"Details are still forthcoming about what motivated the shooter in this case to act, and how he was able to arm himself. It is well known, however, how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country.
"Eight years ago this week, the young people in Littleton, Colorado suffered a horrible attack at Columbine High School, and almost exactly six months ago, five young people were killed at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. Since these killings, we've done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we've made it easier to access powerful weapons.
"We have now seen another horrible tragedy that will never be forgotten. It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur."
Joe where is the evidence that increased gun ownership results in higher crime? If that were true, Washington DC and NYC would have the lowest murder rates in the country. Of course they don't. Moreover, cities like London and Paris, while having lower murder rates, are also much more dangerous in terms of assault and other violent crimes than comparable U.S. cities. In the U.K. it is illegal to defend yourself against someone breaking into your home. In the U.S. breaking into someone's home is an invitation to get shot. Needless to say, live breakins are very infrequent in the U.S. and all too common in the U.K.. Indeed, if you take out the urban black subculture and its appalling murder rate, the U.S. murder rate is actually quite low. The U.S. doesn't have a gun problem it has an inner city youth gang problem.
GILMORE | April 16, 2007, 2:51pm | #
Jennifer, if someone bitchslapped you, would you shoot them?This an not an argument for or against CCW.
jimmydageek | April 16, 2007, 2:52pm | #
No, the SWAT teams were busy rounding up the poker playing criminals.Yogi | April 16, 2007, 2:52pm | #
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE0DB1538F930A35752C1A967958260A similar incident happened at the University of Iowa in 1991. The reports out of VaTech I've seen say he was Asian, or of Asian descent. At Iowa in 1991, an Asian physics graduate student who was distraught over not receiving a top prize for his thesis went on a killing spree. He killed several of the top physicists that were on his committee execution style.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:53pm | #
Jennifer,If you can work up the honesty and courage to address what I wrote, go ahead.
Evan!,
Where did "concealed-carry" laws come from? We were talking about whether it's a good idea for college students to go about armed. If there is any regulation in play here, it is the rules that colleges adopt for their enrollees' behavior.
Anyway, since you seem so curious, I don't think that conceal-carry laws result in more gun deaths. I don't think they make a detectable difference, one way or the other.
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:54pm | #
How exactly is whether the guy is Asian or not relevant, Yogi?Warty | April 16, 2007, 2:54pm | #
it has an inner city youth gang problem.It has a prohibition problem.
joe | April 16, 2007, 2:55pm | #
Wow, you people are REALLY eager to argue with someone who supports laws agaist owning firearms!Maybe you should find some, and have a blast.
Heh.
John | April 16, 2007, 2:55pm | #
"It has a prohibition problem."Perhaps so. But I don't know that legalizing drugs would keep the gangs from killing each other. They would just have less money.
thoreau | April 16, 2007, 2:56pm | #
Could we all at least agree that it would be OK to bar internet tough guys from carrying concealed? I don't need the mall ninjas getting suspicious and taking it upon themselves to put down the cinnabon and respond to a rumor of suspicious activity at the Spencer's Gifts.Especially if their idea of a tactical entry involves impersonating some TV actor. Guys with 52" waists should not be impersonating actors who live at the gym when not on camera.
Even worse, anybody who isn't injured by the mall ninja would probably die of laughter from watching him.
JW | April 16, 2007, 2:56pm | #
"If anything, we've made it easierAll fixed.
Some James | April 16, 2007, 2:59pm | #
Indeed. Now I'll have to be on the lookout for this doppelganger/namesake/workmakerupper.Yogi | April 16, 2007, 3:00pm | #
The fact that he's Asian just that it reminded me of the Iowa incident.Many here at Iowa seemed to think that the incident here was partially caused by the shooter being a recluse which in part was exacerbated by being a foreign student who had very few friends.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 3:00pm | #
Jennifer, if someone bitchslapped you, would you shoot them?Honestly? That depends. I'm (physically) small enough that pretty much any healthy male above the age of 10 could kill me barehanded if he so chose. I've never tolerated a man who would hit me (nor known many jackass enough to try), so I suppose it would boil down to this: did I think this was a guy planning to slap me once and walk off, in which case I'd use bitchy-but-legal methods of psychological sadism to get back at him, or have I reason to think the slap was a prelude to my being beaten to death?
If you can work up the honesty and courage to address what I wrote, go ahead.
What you wrote has little bearing to anything being discussed here. To address what you said I don't need honesty or courage; I need hallucinogens. Go on and keep implying that Tech's gun ban made the new corpses safer, though, if it makes you happy.
Nick M. | April 16, 2007, 3:01pm | #
To Edward (I believe),This is exactly what SWAT is for. Too bad they were probably raiding some grandma's house.
Nick
Brian24 | April 16, 2007, 3:02pm | #
If that were true, Washington DC and NYC would have the lowest murder rates in the country. Of course they don't.Actually, NYC does have one of the lowest murder rates in the country. Feel free to look it up.
Kwix | April 16, 2007, 3:02pm | #
Perhaps so. But I don't know that legalizing drugs would keep the gangs from killing each other. They would just have less money.Guns don't grow on trees, you usually have to buy them. Additionally, most of the gang "wars" are over drug/illicit behavior turfs that generate said money for the gangs. Take away their means of income and there won't be much to fight over.
Gangs worldwide are a direct result of the prohibition of consensual behaviors. Triads, Yakuza, Crips and Bloods all make their money by peddling drugs, prostitutes and numbers rackets. These things exist even when prohibited, so why should the money go to violent criminals?
Of course this should really be a discussion for another thread.
John | April 16, 2007, 3:03pm | #
Jennifer,Something tells me if you were packing heat, the guy wouldn't slap you in the first place and you wouldn't have to shoot him. If knew you had a gun and he slapped you anyway, I guess there would be a good case to be made that he needed killin.
Internet Tuffguys shouldn't even be allowed nerf guns. Although the Mall Ninja could probably benefit from some of those nerf shuriken and maybe a nerf-tana.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | April 16, 2007, 3:04pm | #
I am not doubting that both sides are ramping up for a "surge" in the firearms debate. I fail to see how public discourse is served by arguing while standing in the still-warm blood.C'mon folks, I know you all have the right to pontificater. If you can't find the decency to wait until the bodies are buried, how about trying to wait until the bodies are counted?
Some James | April 16, 2007, 3:05pm | #
Fair enough, Yogi. You didn't say enough the first time around to let me know whether I needed to lower my eyebrows and ask that with scorn.Anyway, Southwest VA is not exactly racially diverse (as a white guy who moved here from CA, I'm actually a bit freaked out by how white it is around here). But Virginia Tech has a large population of international students and is fairly diverse, at least for the region. In the Iowa case, I can see that argument, but in the end some people are just psychopaths.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 3:06pm | #
If you can't find the decency to wait until the bodies are buried, how about trying to wait until the bodies are counted?Politics contributed to this travesty. Damned if politics should be let off the hook now.
Emmy | April 16, 2007, 3:06pm | #
In case you don't realize, they are in fact kids. The reason why kids don't carry guns is because when they are illegally drinking (breaking one law), what's to stop them from breaking another and shooting at someone because they are mad or upset. You said it, they are kids! Now on the note of making this a republican agenda for you gun loving fiends, this is about a kid who was disturbed and 31 kids who lost their lives.GILMORE | April 16, 2007, 3:07pm | #
Jennifer =:)
I think the right answer would have been, "I'd kick him in the balls, then stick my gun in his mouth and scream at him and make him cry"
Evan! | April 16, 2007, 3:10pm | #
Emmy,"In case you don't realize, they are in fact kids."
good point. kids. "kids" who are old enough to join the military and...wait for it...shoot people.
So, in effect, what you're saying is that these kids are old enough to defend out country...to be sent to Iraq and brave the horrors of war with an assault rifle, but not old enough to take shooting lessons and apply for a concealed carry permit.
Yes, great point.
JW | April 16, 2007, 3:12pm | #
Emmy--Sorry, all of our troll positions are currently filled. Should one of these positions become an open in the future, we will keep your record on file.Best of luck.
Some James | April 16, 2007, 3:13pm | #
Emmy,I agree w/ your sentiment, and I think Jennifer is being particularly craven and trying to make political points, just as her opponents will do in trying to blame this on video games or that gun laws aren't strict ENOUGH. I see no difference in that sort of "blame it on society/politics" mentality. The fact of the matter is that some fucked up kid decided to do this. Jennifer's not even attempting the argument about how many people would have been saved if the laws had been somehow different. I really don't know that many late-teens in this rural/suburban area desperate to pack heat if not for those pesky laws. All the same, Emmy, I also don't think that a conscious thought about what is and is not against the law is what motivates kids (or people in general). If people want to drink, they will; If they want to carry a concealed weapon, they will; And unfortunately, if they are determined to carry out a massacre, there's a good chance they will to.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 3:14pm | #
I think the right answer would have been, "I'd kick him in the balls, then stick my gun in his mouth and scream at him and make him cry"Naw, I wouldn't want to give him the chance to take the gun out of my hands.
I went digging through the archives to find an example of what I meant by "bitchy-but-legal psychological sadism." This is what I wrote on a thread dated June 23, 2006:
If the guy is physically violent, then he needs to be arrested. If he's emotionally violent, that doesn't give the woman the right to physically hurt him; just respond in kind.
Like when I broke up with this one (mega-asshole) ex of mine: I did not sound angry, but spoke in a very sad and regretful tone as I explained that, while he certainly had many fine qualities and ordinarily I'd be madly in love with him, he was absolutely the worst lover I'd ever had [not true], and I'm just too selfish to spend my life with a man who was so thoroughly uninspiring in bed. (My own version of the "it's not you, it's me" cliche.)
You should've seen the way his face crumbled. See? I have nothing against emasculating asshole guys; I just do it with sharp pointy words rather than sharp pointy devices.
Evan! | April 16, 2007, 3:15pm | #
Yogi:Even 5 years ago when I was still at VT, there was a very large foreign student population. Asians moreso than many others...and Pakistani too. They have their own student clubs, etc. If this guy had trouble finding friends, then...damn.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 3:16pm | #
Jennifer's not even attempting the argument about how many people would have been saved if the laws had been somehow different.No, I'm not, because it would be dishonest to pretend I can say with any assurance "If Tech allowed guns only X people would have died, rather than Y." All I've said, repeatedly, is that it would've changed the odds.
mediageek (just getting back from lunch.) | April 16, 2007, 3:16pm | #
"As a matter of fact, I've argued exactly the opposite. Please stop confusing me with the liberal that lives in your head, and makes arguments that you can easily refute."Then again, I s'pose that your beef with those who own .50's isn't wholly based on aesthetics...
I had fallen in love with you earlier in the thread, Jennifer. Now I'm just scared of you. Please don't hurt my ego.
John | April 16, 2007, 3:17pm | #
Jennifer,I had a similiar conversation with a particularly evil and unbalanced ex girlfriend. I told her that she was just the kind of woman that I would normally want to marry but her tits just weren't big enough and her sister was just so much better looking than her. It had the desired effect.
Kwix | April 16, 2007, 3:17pm | #
Emmy,????
Breaking one law means I am likely to break another? Because I speed on occasion means I am likely to rape and kill somebody? I'm sorry, but your theory doesn't hold water, try again.
Jennifer | April 16, 2007, 3:20pm | #
Men prefer to be shot.I know. That's why I won't shoot 'em.
Heh heh heh heh heh.
mediageek (just getting back from lunch.) | April 16, 2007, 3:20pm | #
"I lived with three people who 'knew how to use guns' in college. Armed forces actually. Over time, our basement was turned into a shooting range. One guy shot a picture of his girlfriend after a brutal breakup. Another shot a hole in a bike and television. Another shot a stereo after being kept up all night when he had to go to reserves the next morning."FWIW, In college I had close friends in the same apartment building who were all armed. I've spent time with people from every facet of the shooting community from 10 meter air pistol competitors to the (extremely rare) full-auto enthusiast.
Starting in college, I've shot in IDPA, IPSC, 3 Gun, Service Rifle, Bullseye, and 25 Meter International pistol matches. Most of which were attended by more than thirty people.
I have, to date, not witnessed one injury resulting from a negligent discharge.
Just because your college room mates were incompetent and irresponsible doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Dee | April 16, 2007, 3:21pm | #
Just saw the news at lunch, very sad situation for a lot of people.I can't understand the whole emailing of students about SHOOTINGS on campus, doesn't seem like the best way to get the word out especially when you don't mention it in the 1st email you sent to them at all.
The anti gunners will be jumping all over this of course and already have apparently as posted above. What I have to point out is the news footage of all the cops with BP vests on and the AR-15's and .40 cals on their sides. Dressed in their best about to kick someones door down outfits. If the cop feels the need to have all that hardware and defensive clothing why should I not feel at least inclined to carry a gun of my own at all times at a minimum and be allowed to unhassled by the law? I mean face it when the shit hits the fan unless they are kickin YOUR door down they are not there to defend you in the immediate moment. Something tells me had 1/2 those dead been carrying a weapon themselves the number would be a lot lower.
Its easy to shoot chickens in a coop when their not shooting back. People would think long and hard about pulling out a gun if they knew in all likelyhood 1/2 the room would be pulling their own to take them out when they did. Compared to someone who knows they have the only gun and is gonna be the "man" and shoot defenseless people.
If the cops feel the need for it give me one reason I shouldn't feel that same need for my self preservation and defense? Most cops carry their pistols off duty, they are not making overtime for it, they do it because they know damn well if something goes down no on duty cop is going to be around to save their ass at that very moment. It says a lot about the police forces own view of public safety when off duty cops still fell they need to carry a gun, doesn't speak highly of their own outlook on the public safety they themselves provide.
Not knocking cops because they could never be there when the shits hits the fan everytime without being a police state.. But we are working on that.