And wouldn't it have been nice to have a contraption whose only practical purpose is killing people when you're in a classroom and an insane maniac barges in the room and starts firing?

You've got to look at this from the killer's perspective. If you were going to go on a killing spree, where would you do it? BINGO! The campus! Even people who are LICENSED TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS are not allowed to carry there! What better place to go on a rampage? You don't have to fear that someone will shoot back. They're all sitting ducks. It simply baffles me that you have this "gun-free" zone only a few miles in diameter. That's stupid. Banning guns everywhere would even work better than that. The optimal solution is to let people carry concealed weapons so they can put a stop to this kind of **** REAL fast.

You'll never be able to prevent people like that doing things like this. Ever. There's no point kidding yourself that you can, you'll just fail. The trick is to do your absolute best to minimise the chances of something this bad happening again. There are lots of little things that maybe could have been done (with 20/20 hindsight) to prevent this particular tragedy, or to minimise the loss of life... I dunno:

(1) Better gun control. I'm smart enough to realise that the 2nd ammendment is here to stay. It's popular among many Americans, even with plenty of liberals who others might think would oppose them. The fact is though that tighter control of gun sales is definitely achievable (at a cost). Better vetting, better training (someone's already mentioned courses they took) and just more care.

(2) In this instance, perhaps the college is partially to blame for not realising that the killer might return and take better precautions. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

(3) It has been reported that the killer was in therapy already. Perhaps warning signs were missed (yes, I speculate)?

I dunno really. They're just some of my thoughts. It seems to me that if someone like myself (supposing I lived in America and was American) tried to buy a gun I'd expect some sort of serious resistance - if someone seemed a little unstable I'd refuse them sale of a weapon, in the same way that when I worked bar if someone was rat-arsed or under-age I'd refuse them alcohol. I know it's a watery analogy but it does have some merit.

Well, let's assume that all guns do get banned and somewhat very limited to the people of the U.S. Would that stop from illegal guns to be made? No.

One problem solved will end up with another problem like filling a hole in a boat and another hole appears.

hence why in australia we only LIMITED the sales of guns after the port arthur massacre. It was one of a number of spree shootings in the past few decades before 1996. since the stricter controls were brought in, there has not been a major shooting happen in Australia, and most of the groups involved in organized crime based shootings were already in existance before the laws were introduced, meaning they already had their illegal weapons.

the fact is, banning guns is a stupid idea, but letting anyone take a gun anywhere is just as stupid. what would stop someone on a campus that allows people to carry weapons from shooting someone they get into a fight with, or even more sinisteraly (is that a word?) to shoot someone that they just dont like or is competing with them. you realy need to think about the bad things that can happen as well as the good things that can come with things like that.

No it won't stop them from being made illegally but you could have that attitude with everything. Oh lets let murder be legal because they'll probably just go and do it anyways.

The problem is, if you have strict gun control, then only nutjobs and criminals will have guns, and when they go crazy, then they can kill and people can't retaliate because they have no guns themselves. When shootings DO happen, they will be much more tragic and bloody because the shooter can't be stopped until police arrive.

I'm not a supporter of stricter gun control, but really, how often does the situation you described happen? Not much, I bet.

The answer to that is not that often, but more than you'd think.

I think the unarmed civilians argument is a bit silly, making guns illegal would NOT suddenly increase the amount or severity of shootings or anything like that. However, I think it should be noted that criminals are criminals because they will do whatever it takes to get by, or because they are crazy...neither of those types of people are going to be much affected if guns are made illegal. So, doing so would mainly affect law-abiding citizens. And why shouldn't WE be allowed to have and use guns? It's not hurting anything. Sure, implement a more careful screening process to purchase guns, but it's not really going to help. If you want a gun, you can get a gun. And if you can't, well, then you get a knife. If you can't get that, you get a rock, and failing the presence of rocks, you just use your fists. Violence is violence.

Hey, it's like that saying (or mutation thereof) when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

...or something like that.

Yeah, someone else posted about the Holocaust survivor. To me that's always the silver lining to tragedies, so to speak, is that sometimes true heroes reveal themselves. The guy basically sacrificed himself so his students could get out. While they were rushing to the windows, he was rushing to the door. Even if it was only to lock it, it was an act of heroism none the less, putting the safety of others above his. Some go on to say how horrible humanity is, blah blah, but the actions of people like him counter that showing that humanity can be selfless and noble as well.

Did that teacher survive?

No, he was killed.

Wow, one of my professors was just telling us about this guy today. Apparently he knew him.:(

Yeah, cause we'll have more success with those than with drugs or illegal immigrants. Oh wait...




Yeah, but they'll only get one or two or people as opposed to thirty. I'd say that helps.

If what, if guns are banned..?

Just what are we talking about allowing here? Guns for campus security? Fine. Guns for professors? Eh, a bit excessive, but probably still alright. Guns for students on campus? Absolutely not. Letting students carry guns on campus is guaranteed to end more lives than it saves.

Maybe what I'm saying is obvious, I just want to make sure we're all on (sort of) the same page.

Yes, I bet just the accidental deaths will be greater than the number of lives it saves if students are given guns to defend themselves. I suggest just mobbing gunners as people surrounding and trying to hurt you are harder targets than people running away. If a gunner is mobbed, at most 5 people will die as opposed to 32 :(.

Who's talking about "giving" guns to anyone? In states that permit concealed carry, they don't just start randomly arming the population -- that's not how it works.



If I was taking college classes in my spare time, you wouldn't want me armed on campus?



I'd rather have the opportunity to take him out with my firearm, rather than committing 'suicide-via-rush.'

am i the only one who thinks that if a lot of people in an area have a concealed weapon, and someone comes and starts shooting up the place, and people react to it, that in the confusion people would shoot at the wrong person, leading to a giant confused shootout?

I tend to agree with JLee. For whatever that matters.
[And the Phelps should die]

If you can find a mob of unarmed people willing to charge a guy with a handgun, be my guest. I doubt you'll have much luck.



I've never heard of a single case where something like this has happened, so I don't see why it would.

It's a choice between possible death or certain death. Which would you choose?

But we aren't the borg so we dont immediantly know the logical course of action. When we see a threat our natural instinct is "****! RUN!".

My choice would be obvious. So, you go ahead and tell me why it didn't happen.

Oh btw, i'm not blaming those in the incident for running. I myself would have probably done the same. I think what to do in situations like this should be instilled from early on so that people can resist the urge to run when the time comes.

i hate all the news reports, quoting the killer as some sort of "beast", and the woman he loved as some sort of "angel".

Who's stupid enough to believe that?

The shooter was mentally ill, driven to such ends by lonliness and depression, and in such a state, cannot accept the sins of those around him. He was probably heart broken, and the girl messed him around, or maybe it was just in his head.

At any rate, we should realise that more care should be taken to watch out for signs of mental anguish and treat it, this isnt the 1st time an untreated mentally unstable person has gone on the rampage ( i.e Maggie Thatcher)

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

i dont think that people from the US will get that part about thatcher unless they followed 1980's english politics.

Um, no?

I'm off the opinion of Warlocksmith and Freelancer here. Regardless of laws or not, people will still get guns. However, with very strict gun control laws, all that does is create an even bigger black market / cartel for guns, which could potentially be even more dangerous.

Like someone made reference to above, look what happens when we place strict laws on immigration, and ESPECIALLY drugs. The "War on Drugs" has lasted for decades, no matter how many laws they throw at it, and it's no harder to get drugs now then it was a long time ago.

And frankly, I dont' see how giving students guns on campus would cause more deaths. Think of it this way. Criminal gets gun, no one else has one. He has an incredibly low cost, in that he has a MUCH greater chance of getting away with it, and fulfilling his goal. However, if he is surrounded by 25 other people who have guns, he will be much less reluctant to go on his rampage because he know that the risks of dying are MUCH greater. And let's say that even with the lessened gun control, the killer executes his mission or plan, but in the case without gun control, he will be MUCH less successful.

I'd bet those 32 students would've wished someone was armed.

I am qualified, btw...can carry in all 50 states.

you need to remember that a number of people that go on these rampages are the type of people who do not care if they die. also, not everyone will suddenly decide to get a gun. there is also no way to stop the schools themselves from makeing their OWN rules. after all, the second ammendment of the united states constitution only prohibits CONGRESS from making laws that could restrict the ability to MAINTAIN A WELL ARMED MILITIA.

You must've forgot the part where it says 'the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Regardless, this is a different topic, and I don't see where mscbuck was calling this unconstitutional.

it is because when laws that merely restrict the purchase of guns (not even banning them) come up, people go "OMQ GUN LAWS ARE TEH UNCONSTIONALZORS" without even bothering to realize that it will probably in no way affect them. also, my point about the militia is that it is at the start of the sentence, meaning that the "well armed militia" is the topic of said amendment. I say this because there are other parts of the constitution and bill of rights that people try to take literaly, so why shouldnt it?

The way that the amendment is worded leads me to believe that it only is to stop laws that would prevent a militia from existing. It realy amazes me when people quote the second amendment but dont quote the whole thing.

The semantics arguments that go on over the bill of rights in the US makes me glad that we dont have one in australia. As my mum said, if there is a bill of rights, people WILL argue that if something is not in said bill of rights, then we dont have said omitted right. And dont say im cynical, i know i am and i have good reason, our prime minister coined the term "non-core promise" to refer to his lies in election campaigns, so i have no doubt that he would also be the type to argue that if something is not in a bill of rights, then that right is not guarenteed.

Thank goodness his roommates say he typed while on his computer and not that he played games. That keeps a can of worms closed up.

mabey thompson will say that word processors cause people to kill.

Oh, I have no problem with schools setting it. Like, I fully support private institutions making whatever rules they want. I'm not sure where you got the whole constitution thing from my post, but this is my stance regardless. I was just suggesting.

And I thought I covered that part about the "type of people who do not care if they die". So regardless, they will go on a killing spree. So in that case, I'd definitely want people with guns ready to shoot him down, then defenseless.

I'm watching something with Chris Matthews, and he's being kind of a jerk. Matthews tried to bring up Counter Strike and asked if Cho Seung-Hui played it - the roommate flatly denied it.

Edit: Matthews just keeps bringing up CS. "Is there a subculture of CS players?" Lets see if me mentions it again in these 14 minutes.

I saw that and asked myself "WTF?" Since when did CounterStrike become the target of "OMG TEH VIDEO GAMES MADE TEHM DO IT!"? And why is he knocking on CS? He probably played it and sucked.

Chris Matthews is a douche bag. End of story.

Uh...

You know what his profession is, right?