What's next? Will the government start paying families of those killed in traffic accidents? Will the government start paying families of those that die of a disease? Give me a break!
If Virginia really wanted to do something productive, they would start allowing honest citizens to carry handguns on campus so that they could protect themselves!
IP: Logged |
What's next? Will the government start paying families of those killed in traffic accidents? Will the government start paying families of those that die of a disease? Give me a break!
If Virginia really wanted to do something productive, they would start allowing honest citizens to carry handguns on campus so that they could protect themselves!
Ah, yes the ole let's give everyone a gun so no one shoots anyone else argument... Though I do not agree with giving the families money unless the State of Virginia was at fault, arming everyone is even a more stupid solution. Guns are never a solution to society's problems but a contributor themselves. As always there should be a solution to preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not a free for all in letting everyone being armed. If hypothetically all the students at Virginia Tech were armed on that day and a panic happened when the shooting started. In that panic the students would of shot each other not knowing which is the shooter because everyone is armed and anyone could be the shooter. More deaths would of resulted because of your "solution" of arm everyone with no restraints.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
I agree with MN giving money for families and victims of the bridge collapse but I do agree this goes a bit far afield.
Woulda been better for the state to set up a fund that folks could donate to rather than just out and out giving em each a wad of cash. Seems like a pay off and I think I'd be a might bit offended if I were one of those families (of course, I'd wouldn't turn down the money.)
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
They should perhaps sue the gun dealer who sold the guns which is their right to do but other then that I would say a fund like BF suggested is a better solution. But much like BF I wouldn't turn down the money and I don't blame the families for not turning it down neither.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
Once again another thread started with no facts posted....
The families deserve alot more than $100k
That's why the state offered than a small amount first to see if anyone would bite.
1.The school was not properly protected
2. Cho shot his first two victims in a dormitory just after 7 a.m., but university officials did not send an e-mail alert until more than two hours later
3. The school didn't even send out an email or notify the students another way.
.........the VIRGINA tech is the reason so many died that day....the families should turn down the $100k and get what they deserve.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Once again another thread started with no facts posted....
The families deserve alot more than $100k
That's why the state offered than a small amount first to see if anyone would bite.
1.The school was not properly protected
2. Cho shot his first two victims in a dormitory just after 7 a.m., but university officials did not send an e-mail alert until more than two hours later
3. The school didn't even send out an email or notify the students another way.
.........the VIRGINA tech is the reason so many died that day....the families should turn down the $100k and get what they deserve.
Spoken like a true 5 year old!
e-mails blah blah blah.... he would have found his random targets regardless.
As for your price tag of "get what they deserve."? Im curious to know the formula you would use to calcuate the amount a victims loved one should receive?
The real issues are how this bean-bag obtained these firearms LEGALLY and so EASILY with all the red flags he had waving around him.
His mission was clear to some of the people around him. Guns or not there should be laws to detain these obvious types. And when I say detain I mean indefinetly if needed.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
quote:The real issues are how this bean-bag obtained these firearms LEGALLY and so EASILY with all the red flags he had waving around him.
Just because Red Flags were raised....doesn't mean his Legal right to buy a gun can be taken away. Unless he committed a crime. I come across people every day that give warning sign, but who Im I or anybody else, to judge what he will do in the future. It's not something that is easy to determine.
Teachers at virginia tech brought up the same point....they saw warning signs in his writings....but what could they do? Sure his writing was disturbing and bizzare...but you can't realy do anything legaly...unless he acts on those warning signs.
quote:e-mails blah blah blah.... he would have found his random targets regardless.
If classes were cancelled and students were alerted...they would not all have been cornered in a class room like sitting ducks...End of Story. But you are correct...he would have killed regardless....like you said...it was his mission, However, He would not have killed so many...so easily.
IP: Logged |
posted
BLACKSBURG, Va., April 17 -- They met across the professor's desk. One on one. The chairman of the English department and the silent, brooding student who never took his sunglasses off.
He had so upset other instructors that Virginia Tech officials asked whether the professor wanted protection. Lucinda Roy declined. She thought Cho Seung Hui exuded loneliness, and she volunteered to teach him by herself, to spare her colleagues. The subject of the class was poetry.
The students once recited their poems in class. "It was like, 'What are you trying to say here?' It was more sinister," she said.
Days later, seven of Giovanni's 70 or so students showed up for a class. She asked them why the others didn't show up and was told that they were afraid of Cho.
"Once I realized my class was scared, I knew I had to do something," she said.
She approached Cho and told him that he needed to change the type of poems he was writing or drop her class. Giovanni said Cho declined to leave and said, "You can't make me."
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
By Brigid Schulte and Chris L. Jenkins Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, May 7, 2007; Page A01
Seung Hui Cho never received the treatment ordered by a judge who declared him dangerously mentally ill less than two years before his rampage at Virginia Tech, law enforcement officials said, exposing flaws in Virginia's labyrinthine mental health system, including confusion about the law, spotty enforcement and inadequate funding.
Neither the court, the university nor community services officials followed up on the judge's order, according to dozens of interviews. Cho never got the treatment, according to authorities who have seen his medical files. And although state law says the community services board should have made sure Cho got help, a board official said that was "news to us."
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, yes the ole let's give everyone a gun so no one shoots anyone else argument
Mach,
It's not a matter of giving everyone a gun. The government hasn't given me a single gun and I don't expect them to. The idea is to allow people to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun so that SOMEONE has a gun when a nutjob decides to go on a murderous rampage. Here in Ohio, only about 1 in 80 people that you pass on the street are carrying a concealed handgun. However, that's enough that in a large auditorium or crowd at least someone might be able to stop the nut from killing a lot of people.
Just because people have a right to carry a handgun doesn't mean that everyone will carry a handgun. You are the perfect example of that.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, are you being serious that you think it's a GOOD idea to let kids bring guns to class, and that in this situation there would have been FEWER casualties if a couple of kids in the class pulled out a gun and opened fire on the original shooter?!?!??? I'm frightened that anyone can look at this situation and say that giving MORE kids guns would make things better.
IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not talking about letting kids bring guns to class, I'm talking about allowing adult college students and faculty to carry guns as is their constitutional right. No, I do not think this is a good idea, I think it is GREAT idea. Almost all states with concealed carry permits require the permit holder to pass a training course and then periodically to have recurrent training. My recurrent training is this weekend.
Do I think there would have been fewer casualties if a couple of properly trained, armed students pulled out their guns and shot the criminal who was standing by himself in the middle of a stage? YES!
IP: Logged |
posted
You're totally insane. Hopefully they set aside a separate state where people like you can all go feel "safe" while you all shoot each other.
IP: Logged |
If you would do a little research on the subject, you would find that violent crime goes down when concealed carry laws are passed. Ohio just completed its 4th year of a new concealed carry law with no problems, despite the dire predictions of the wacko left.
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there is a great deal of evidence to support what PropertyManager claims. The Hoover Institution had an article on the results of 'shall issue' laws
and legal scholar John Lott's book 'More Guns, Less Crime' is the largest study done on the effects of CCW laws and what effect on crime they had.
Both conclude that an armed public did not increase gun crimes and actually lowered violent crimes. It concluded that property crimes did increase as the criminals switched to non-confrontational means of ill gotten gain.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Actually, there is a great deal of evidence to support what PropertyManager claims. The Hoover Institution had an article on the results of 'shall issue' laws
and legal scholar John Lott's book 'More Guns, Less Crime' is the largest study done on the effects of CCW laws and what effect on crime they had.
Both conclude that an armed public did not increase gun crimes and actually lowered violent crimes. It concluded that property crimes did increase as the criminals switched to non-confrontational means of ill gotten gain.
I would rather prefer a study from a non-Right Wing organization since those you reference are alittle biased. Of course a right-wing Org will show "facts" to the contrary.
Below is a story happening in my area. A "well trained" gun owner imo would be one who would hold the teenager at bay while someone in the house would of called police to have him arrested. He did not see any gun being pointed at him and acted in a panic. How would you feel if this was your son who got shot? :
quote:Ah, yes the ole let's give everyone a gun so no one shoots anyone else argument
Mach,
It's not a matter of giving everyone a gun. The government hasn't given me a single gun and I don't expect them to. The idea is to allow people to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun so that SOMEONE has a gun when a nutjob decides to go on a murderous rampage. Here in Ohio, only about 1 in 80 people that you pass on the street are carrying a concealed handgun. However, that's enough that in a large auditorium or crowd at least someone might be able to stop the nut from killing a lot of people.
Just because people have a right to carry a handgun doesn't mean that everyone will carry a handgun. You are the perfect example of that.
They do have a right to carry a gun but that does not give them the right to carry them everywhere especially on a campus which is private property in and itself. The students do not own that property and could be said they are there as guests. Perhaps you can carry a gun in a public street but not on "property" that is private. And my guess is that any sane college will not want a single gun on campus unless it is the police carrying them. How about having a well trained private security company on campus at all times when class is open? With the insane prices that colleges charge for their kids education private security should be thrown into the package imo. But guns on a campus to students who imo are immature to begin with (are physically adults but not yet completely mentally adults) is definetly not the answer.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by PCola77: You're totally insane. Hopefully they set aside a separate state where people like you can all go feel "safe" while you all shoot each other.
His insanity on this board was well established long ago along with a couple of other board members lol
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
I don't agree that this is the same as the CCW debate, Mach. In order to recieve a CCW permit, one has to take training regarding weapon use and the laws around it. The defendant in the article, Mr. White, admits that the weapon was unlicenced and one can assume that he hadn't taking the forementioned classes.
Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. Anyone comes to my home threatening my family, I'd act in any way I felt neccessary to defend them. He couldn't have known that the teenages DIDN'T have weapons.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: No, I'm not talking about letting kids bring guns to class, I'm talking about allowing adult college students and faculty to carry guns as is their constitutional right. No, I do not think this is a good idea, I think it is GREAT idea. Almost all states with concealed carry permits require the permit holder to pass a training course and then periodically to have recurrent training. My recurrent training is this weekend.
Do I think there would have been fewer casualties if a couple of properly trained, armed students pulled out their guns and shot the criminal who was standing by himself in the middle of a stage? YES!
And what happens in the cases of road rage and sayyyy an argument at a checkout line or a bar or DMV? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ETC!
I guess it will be like the ole wile west.... quicker draw wins!!
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: I don't agree that this is the same as the CCW debate, Mach. In order to recieve a CCW permit, one has to take training regarding weapon use and the laws around it. The defendant in the article, Mr. White, admits that the weapon was unlicenced and one can assume that he hadn't taking the forementioned classes.
Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. Anyone comes to my home threatening my family, I'd act in any way I felt neccessary to defend them. He couldn't have known that the teenages DIDN'T have weapons.
I told my wife if anybody every comes in the house keep the lights off(somtimes its instinct to turn them on, and lets face it, you know your house in the dark where the intruder does not) Then I will proceed to carve them up like a thankgiving turkey.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: I don't agree that this is the same as the CCW debate, Mach. In order to recieve a CCW permit, one has to take training regarding weapon use and the laws around it. The defendant in the article, Mr. White, admits that the weapon was unlicenced and one can assume that he hadn't taking the forementioned classes.
Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. Anyone comes to my home threatening my family, I'd act in any way I felt neccessary to defend them. He couldn't have known that the teenages DIDN'T have weapons.
I told my wife if anybody every comes in the house keep the lights off(somtimes its instinct to turn them on, and lets face it, you know your house in the dark where the intruder does not) Then I will proceed to carve them up like a thankgiving turkey.
LoL...I like the way you phrased that.....
"Then I will proceed to carve them up like a thanksgiving turkey"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. Anyone comes to my home threatening my family, I'd act in any way I felt neccessary to defend them. He couldn't have known that the teenages DIDN'T have weapons.
The teenager was in full view and he saw that he didn't have a gun. His defense was that the gun went off by accident which is BS. In a situation like that a person panics and overeacts. He could of said that but instead he said the gun went off by accident while aiming it at his head and shot the kid in the head or whatever. If you read the article you will remember these were classmates of the man's son. He knew that and who they were when they arrived at his house. They were not gang members. It is a highly affluent neighborhood. He should of been charged with involuntary manslaughter and done some time though not heavy time. Like I said he could of told the kid to freeze while a member of his family called the police. And he could of fired a warning shot into the air to let the kid(s) know he was serious. It would of prevented two tragedies in this particular case.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:And he could of fired a warning shot into the air to let the kid(s) know he was serious.
And that just proves that you don't know the first thing about guns. Firing a warning shot into the air in a populated area could hurt an innocent person and no responsible CCW holder would do that.
Furthermore, this person was NOT a CCW permit holder and did not have the training. Again, you don't understand guns or gun laws.
quote:And what happens in the cases of road rage and sayyyy an argument at a checkout line or a bar or DMV? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ETC!
I guess it will be like the ole wile west.... quicker draw wins!!
Again, someone that knows NOTHING about guns or law abiding gun owners. Law abiding CCW permit holders do not shoot people on the road or at the checkout line or at the DMV (and guns are not allowed in bars in Ohio). I work in a dangerous environment, with frequent contact with drug dealers, drug addicts, and various other deadbeats. I have been threatened many times, yet I certainly don't shoot anyone! I carry a handgun to protect my life, not to settle arguments. Again, you leftos don't have your facts straight. FORTY-EIGHT STATES have some form of CCW. Where are all these wild west gunfights you are predicting? Where are all these CCW holders shooting people in the checkout line at the grocery store? The bottom line is you leftos don't know what you're talking about (as usual).
quote:Perhaps you can carry a gun in a public street but not on "property" that is private.
More ignorance of the truth. CCW holders CAN carry a gun on private property. CRIMINALS CAN AND DO CARRY GUNS EVERYWHERE. It is up to the owner of the private property to decide whether they allow CCW holders to carry guns on their property or not. Almost all businesses allow CCW holders on their property. Why? Because CCW holders (including me) will not patronize businesses that prohibit CCW on their property. They lose business by putting up the "No Concealed Carry sign.
How about a few more facts and a little less hysteria from you pacifist leftos?
IP: Logged |
quote:And what happens in the cases of road rage and sayyyy an argument at a checkout line or a bar or DMV? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ETC!
I guess it will be like the ole wile west.... quicker draw wins!!
Again, someone that knows NOTHING about guns or law abiding gun owners. Law abiding CCW permit holders do not shoot people on the road or at the checkout line or at the DMV (and guns are not allowed in bars in Ohio). I work in a dangerous environment, with frequent contact with drug dealers, drug addicts, and various other deadbeats. I have been threatened many times, yet I certainly don't shoot anyone! I carry a handgun to protect my life, not to settle arguments. Again, you leftos don't have your facts straight. FORTY-EIGHT STATES have some form of CCW. Where are all these wild west gunfights you are predicting? Where are all these CCW holders shooting people in the checkout line at the grocery store? The bottom line is you leftos don't know what you're talking about (as usual).[/QB]
Wait a second... first of all im not a LEFTO. Second, arent you arguing for everbody to carry? Third, MAYBE I WOULD SETTLE AN ARGUMENT WITH ONE! orrrrrr maybe be I have seen arguments settled with them.....COMPRENDA AMIGA?
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, yes the ole let's give everyone a gun so no one shoots anyone else argument
Mach,
It's not a matter of giving everyone a gun. The government hasn't given me a single gun and I don't expect them to. The idea is to allow people to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun so that SOMEONE has a gun when a nutjob decides to go on a murderous rampage. Here in Ohio, only about 1 in 80 people that you pass on the street are carrying a concealed handgun. However, that's enough that in a large auditorium or crowd at least someone might be able to stop the nut from killing a lot of people.
Or miss their target "in a large auditorium or crowd" 6 or 7 times and add to the carnage...
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, yes the ole let's give everyone a gun so no one shoots anyone else argument
Mach,
It's not a matter of giving everyone a gun. The government hasn't given me a single gun and I don't expect them to. The idea is to allow people to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun so that SOMEONE has a gun when a nutjob decides to go on a murderous rampage. Here in Ohio, only about 1 in 80 people that you pass on the street are carrying a concealed handgun. However, that's enough that in a large auditorium or crowd at least someone might be able to stop the nut from killing a lot of people.
Or miss their target "in a large auditorium or crowd" 6 or 7 times and add to the carnage...
Ding ding ding. "Properly trained" reactions and real life reactions aren't always the same.
IP: Logged |
quote:...arent you arguing for everbody to carry?[/quote/
No, I'm not advocating a law that mandates that everyone must carry a gun. I certainly wouldn't want you pacifists carrying guns. The left loves to be the victim and they certainly have every right to allow themselves to become victims. I'm just advocating allowing law abiding citizens be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves.
[quote]Or miss their target "in a large auditorium or crowd" 6 or 7 times and add to the carnage...
Believe it or not, there is a responsibility that comes with carrying a gun. You've got to know where your shooting. However, that is the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. You're saying that allowing some madman to kill a bunch of people is better than risking that someone might be hurt when a responsible citizen shoots the madman. THAT'S CRAZY!
quote:OK im convinced, you guys win.... GUNS FOR EVEYBODY!
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: And that just proves that you don't know the first thing about guns. Firing a warning shot into the air in a populated area could hurt an innocent person and no responsible CCW holder would do that.
call me ignorant but I wouldn't consider a suburban neighborhood in a upper middle class town where there is alot of space between houses as "populated" compared to a city neighborhood/street. And call me ignorant but I think there is a less likely chance of a teenager getting shot in the head if you shoot a gun into the air then actually aiming a gun at that same teenager. Wouldn't you agree? because that is what happened in this tragic case.
quote:Furthermore, this person was NOT a CCW permit holder and did not have the training. Again, you don't understand guns or gun laws.
I did not read that in the article(s) but I am sure he has a permit for the gun and furthermore I do not see why he would need a Concealed Permit in his own home.
quote:More ignorance of the truth. CCW holders CAN carry a gun on private property. CRIMINALS CAN AND DO CARRY GUNS EVERYWHERE. It is up to the owner of the private property to decide whether they allow CCW holders to carry guns on their property or not. Almost all businesses allow CCW holders on their property. Why? Because CCW holders (including me) will not patronize businesses that prohibit CCW on their property. They lose business by putting up the "No Concealed Carry sign.
call me ignorant but wasn't that my point... that a "private property" such as a University, Mall, Casino etc. would not allow guns to be carried on their property.. permit or not... and perhaps you have not traveled outside of Ohio but no.. most businesses do not allow CCW holders... if a CCW holder has a gun on him/herself it is usually without the business owners/private property owners knowledge because it's CONCEALED.
quote:How about a few more facts and a little less hysteria from you pacifist leftos?
You haven't shown much facts imo... just rants and raves...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Though I do not agree with giving the families money unless the State of Virginia was at fault, arming everyone is even a more stupid solution. Guns are never a solution to society's problems but a contributor themselves. As always there should be a solution to preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not a free for all in letting everyone being armed. 
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
