good idea wish it was easy to put into law . kinda like the people that are against national licensing . what is the hurry that you need a weapon now and not in 2 weeks . the geese going to fly away ?

the other part is he was one of their own ( student ) . how do you stop someone that has access to building that an outsider may not . we have gates with card access and keys needed for stairways and entry doors . still if one of the little darlings wanted to start a simular event , there would be no way to stop them until the damage was started .

Chris,

If my info is correct, the gun that was used in the shooting was legally purchased 35 days ago.

Not sure what a 2 week waiting period would accomplish.

We have the technology to do instant checks even in our home state (for valid pistol permit holders).

Not too long ago I witnessed a gun dealer call the staties for transaction approval on a handgun. He gave the staties the pistol permit number ... and then said "by the way, this man's shrink just called and told me the applicant is suicidal." The applicant was denied for a handgun purchase.

I applaud 1) the doc for having the foresight to call the dealer, and 2) the dealer for ethically volunteering the info to the staties.

We have pretty well-developed criminal history databases, but not mental illness databases. I mean, some states may have involuntary committment records that are readily available, but there's nothing that says "joe blow is taking anti-depressant meds right now."

you know, i just raised a hornet's nest on some gun chat boards about anti-depressants.

they are are apparently used for a LOT of illnesses, like heart disease, fibromyalgia, weight loss, smoking cessation, and sleeplessness, particularly amongst the older crowd. you'd be making a lot of people ineligible by restricting the rights of someone solely based on the fact that they are taking a particular medication.

Bassturbed I am familiar with the questions on the permit apps, the only problem is there is not any way of checking whether the applicant answers that question truthfully. Now with the new federal HIPPA law it will be harder to find out anything about anyones health. I refused to give a permit out twenty some odd years ago to a person I knew was lying. Moved to town, a week later walks into the p.d. and fills out the application. His father was a chief in a small town, (so why didn't he get it there), no one would give me the time of day in that town. Things were different then than now. Then you could ask about physical or mental problems. He went to court, which in Mass. is/was his right. Judge said I didn't have grounds not to issue it. So I did. A week after I gave it to him the ambulance was sent to the front of his apartment. He was on the sidewalk in the throws of a mental breakdown. Laying next to him was a gun that fell out of his coat. Took the gun and the permit. Never saw him again. Gun was melted in the local foundry, permit was shredded.

Yah Makomike I wanted to ask that question myself, but I figured I had suggested and said enough. The only one so far to have defended themselves yet was the holocaust survivor. It doesn't take much to understand that one. And that brings me to why I reasoned the way I did about armed students. Not one seemed to defend themselvves by going after the shooter, throwing a chair, table, books, whatever. Thats why I say I find it difficult to imagine anyone of them shooting someone. It is an action that has to be ingrained into a moral law-abiding person. Shooting someone is an action that is contrary to most everyones psychological makeup and generally great thought beforehand is given before one decides that they are capable of doing so.

I do believe firmly that if they want to carry they should be allowed to with proper training and guidance, no doubt about it.

Not all criminal records can be accessed immediately. Some are on (older) micro film in different states. When you do a III (triple i) if they are on micro it can take a few weeks to get. Thats O.K. if your talking about a permit application and not a seven day buy rule. Many times the III wont come back before the hard copy of the micro fiche arrives.

Bassturbed all those physical problems you just mentioned (in quote) whose sufferers may take anti-depressants. All those people generally suffer from some form of depression do they not.

the glock had the serial number filed off i thought...
so maybe you're talkin about the other gun.... :huh:

they can still magnetize the glock and get the stamp to
align the filings on the spot to read it...

sooner or later we will have computer technology
capable of brain analysis which will shed more
lite on this type of violent behavior.

Say all you want about not having legally armed students in school, how there isn't enough time to get your gun when someone has the drop on you, but the facts speak for itself. It took me awhile to find this because most of the media accounts say students tackled the shooter, not that he was first subdued at gunpoint by lawfully armed citizens.....


http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html




COLUMN: Law school, guns, and a media bias

By James Eaves-Johnson

The Daily Iowan (U. Iowa)
01/24/2002





TODAY'S HEADLINES
01/24/2002







Colorado bill would punish students for rioting

Zantops' friends reflect on Dartmouth couple's legacy

NCAA may adopt stricter eligibility rules

Rival Arizona State stuns No. 10 Arizona

FILM REVIEW: Mandy Moore disappoints in 'A Walk to Remember'

CD REVIEW: Nas, Wu-Tang Clan show growth, change with new albums

COLUMN: Rural America faces inevitable death

COLUMN: Law school, guns, and a media bias





(U-WIRE) IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.

Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.

With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.

Of course, this media bias is not unprecedented. A more thorough Lexis-Nexis search by a Yale researcher revealed 687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved a gun from his car and stopped the shooters four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.

Few will remember that an armed guard helped many students at Columbine escape and was thwarted only when shooters began using explosives. Fewer still will remember that a restaurant owner who was hosting a school dance for students in Edinboro, Pa., stopped a student shooter 11 minutes before police could arrive.

Our myopic view of guns leads too many of us to believe that if we disarm people, we will be safer. Unfortunately, mandatory disarmament only disarms those who are interested in obeying the law. Laws against gun ownership and possession are ineffective against those who would do us harm.

No one would believe that people in Iowa City don't smoke marijuana or that underage college students don't find ways to procure alcohol. Why should we be any more naïve when it comes to rules against firearms?

I was unable to discover Appalachian School of Law's weapons policy, but if it is like almost every other law school in the country, it probably prohibits students from possessing guns on campus. That is probably why Bridges and Gross did not have their guns on their persons. Imagine what these men might have prevented if they could have responded immediately, guns in hand.

Unfortunately, at the University of Iowa, we are more defenseless. The university prohibits the possession of firearms. At our law school, as on most of the campus, people would be unable to run to their cars to fetch their guns, as the only available nearby parking is on university property.

Even worse, our Public Safety officers would be unable to protect us. Only last week did the state of Iowa Board of Regents decide to arm Public Safety officers with air Tasers. Most Tasers are ineffective at more than 21 feet, and they can be defeated with a heavy coat. The UI officers are trained to use firearms, like ordinary police officers, and they have the authority to do almost everything an Iowa City police officer does.

The university should allow responsible individuals with defensive firearms training to carry arms on campus. That begins with the officers who are responsible for our safety. Right now, we are at the mercy of any thug willing to come on campus with a gun. Many would be murdered before Iowa City police could arrive. The presence of responsible armed individuals on campus could reduce or prevent the harm done by a thug. Just over 10 years ago, the UI was visited by such a thug. We are just as defenseless today as we were then. Even the students in Grundy, Va., weren't so defenseless.

i cant think of a more important time for Law abiding citizens to arm themselves. I think every person with out a violent criminal record should carry a concealed handgun. the thugs will calm down real quick when they know if they try to mug granny they might get a cap in there ass.

You can't even speculate whether someone would have shot in this situation if they were armed.

Nobody has any clue what anyone would do, training or no training without having been put in that situation themselves.

Paper does not shoot back.

There is ZERO factual evidence that shows that any amount of shooting time, cqb training or anything else like that would allow a completely caught by surprise KID to draw and fire. Never mind not accidentally shooting another innocent...

Would someone armed have helped this situation?
Nobody will know.
Period.

Circular logic with circular reasoning leads to the same argument over and over.

everything in life goes full circle

i have a feeling this event is going to have
allot of lawsuits against the school because
nothing was done when the warning signs
were made known to school officials..

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you Likwid.

But, I would prefer the probability (however small) of a lawfully armed citizen taking out a shooter [and possibly wounding me or another innocent] over the near certainty of being killed by a shooter if I am unarmed. You have to give people more credit than you are.

BTW, thirty of the thirty-two fatalities died before the cops arrived on scene.

Swimmer, I am not a doctor so I am relying on the informed opinion of others. There seem to be numerous therapeutical applications for anti-depressants that are unrelated to depression. Like taking Zoloft for erectile dysfunction. :rotfl:

Then again, I guess I'd be a little depressed if I couldn't get my soldier to salute, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot up a school. :spidey:

One of the pitfalls of screening people for anti-depressant use is that it may prompt people who need treatment to avoid it altogether for fear of tainting their otherwise pristine records. This has been borne out in FAA pilot licensing as well as military service screening (submarine programs).

In a fight or flee situation most people will flee.
Not odds you want to bet on.

And honestly, I'm waiting for the "well the military trains people to deal with the stress". I'm sure anyone wanting a concealed permit wants to go through the programming say a Force Recon Marine goes through huh?

Likwid, I know what you're driving at. Most sheeple won't know what to do when shots start getting fired. They freeze. Then if they're smart they run. They don't have the training that directs them to run to gunfire.

A little civilian training, while not up to USMC tempo, does help, however. But most importantly, there are many people who are motivated to do the RIGHT THING whether they are armed or not.

While paper targets don't shoot back, a CCW'er who might regularly practice at the range will at least immediately be able to recognize AND NOT BE FLUSTERED BY gunfire. THAT in itself is useful.

I'm no macho armchair mall ninja, but I can speak as someone who has personally experienced the unpleasantness of armed encounters.

I guess when there is nowhere to flee to, the weak will die and the strong will survive, that is natures way is'nt it.

Oh yeah the shooter who probably had no real training practiced by shooting at paper targets, granted that k no one shot back at him, but he did not know if anyone in that school was gonna be armed and shoot back. By the way I have had people shoot at me before, and I was'nt scared I was pi$$ed. Most people with CCW's are type A people who when adrenaline kicks in will not be afraid, most will not fear the sound of gun fire, having been conditioned to it from hundreds of hours at the range, and will think more clearly than others who have not. You believe what you want to, but all I know is that I will never be a victim as long as I have my CCW and the means to carry.

Well, I have no qualms admitting I was scared $hitless - "WTF this can't be happening." Out of my mind.

But training took over, thank God.

You never think you can shiver so hard a half hour or so post-confrontation.

dang. docs prescribe anti-depressants for irritable bowel syndrome.

what DON'T they prescribe them for? :confused:

My grandmother who is 88 now, was once help up at goinpoint(she was about 78? at the time), 2 thugs with what looked lile a "big silver revolver" to her. The thugs were for real ,as the cops told us later. it was raining, and she BEAT one of them over the head with an umbrella, and yelled police as loud as she could. they RAN & got nothing. Granted this a completely diff situation,and was on a city block in the bronx where a cop could literally have been around the corner, turns out they were just a minute away. Point is, people react diff to situation. Some just choose NOT to be a victim. grandma has a hist(when she was very young ) of defending herself, but I cant get into that here.
As stated above, training takes over when u are being shot at. My NYC cop friends , all say the same thing, they get really PISSED when being shot at, none of them cower down ,they shoot back, and usually they have to restrain themselved from killing the perp.
Proper training saves lives. Im guessing a lot of our boys over in Iraq were absol no diff than these college students, but they were properly trained, and now fear almost noone. You only need one guy to step up.
The drunken college kid comment is somewhat lame IMO, cops drink too when they are off duty. Carrying is a huge responsibility and not everyone would be qualified, 21 is a good age IMO, and if you would not even trust a professor with a permit, maybe you should not send your kids to that school. Personally I would feel a lot safer knowing that Profs like that Holocaust survivor (who gave his life without any hesitation) were packing.

Ben the situations I was in were different, I was deer hunting, and I could see the A hole, so I yelled at him. He just took off, he was about 80 yards away in the woods . When I was 17 I had a 357 shoved in my face while closing my cousins pizza place at night. I can honestly say I was'nt scared, just level headed, gave them what they wanted and they left.

bill, that sucks.

i agree with slip. if people were of age and had a concealed weapon, alot of killing perhaps could have been prevented. guns dont kill people, people kill people. just because he had a gun doesnt mean that guns should now be banned. i think the opposite is true: allow for concealed gun carry on campuses for those that have a permit. it could save a lot of innocent lives as well as time for police to get there.

a side note for those who have resident and non-resident Class A and Class B LTC in Mass:

College campuses have been and are off-limits to handguns.

Unless you have permission from school officials to carry, possess, store, or transport.

Yeah right. Try getting permission for THAT at BU.

Have faith, though. BU Police, Newton Police, and Boston Police and the Staties will all show up half an hour later to move your lifeless body to the medical examiner of your fellow taxpayer's choice.

Training
 

I wasn't going to add anything to this but........

There is a trailer used in training in my area that the sherriff's department tows to various locals and department instructors take officers in one or two at a time. The trailer is lined with thick steel and rubber on the inside and coupled with a lead ejection system is a really neat way to train in shoot/dont shoot situations. Their were as I understood approximately 100 different taped shoot/dont shoot confrontations on tape. You use the forward half of the trailer, and interact with what ever is taking place on the screen in front of you. Real ammunition is used. While no one would comment on who they shot or how many rounds they fired at different perps on the screen I did find a noticable difference between myself and two much younger officers I went through the exercise with. There was a noticable difference with what I felt comfortable with as an end result and what the younger officers found acceptable. You can see the bullet penentrate the perp/screen and while the other officers fired thier weapons, they did not fire as much or as soon as I found necessary.
The only younger officers who do protect themselves adequately are the veterans. While the others reaction time is considered appropriate it might not keep them healthy. My point is the younger the person, less experienced in life, the less likely they'll shoot at all, or enough to "stop" the person.
Again I have to say distance is the first choice one needs from the aggressor. It increases the chance of survival in multiples that can't be measured almost.
Many well thought out posts on this, very interesting.

Bassturbed, sorry to hear about your "ED".

Swimmer,

I will go on record saying that the average gun owner who intends to CCW could use more training to understand the practical, legal, and moral issues. They are quite complex, as you know.

In my mind, a basic handgun safety course just doesn't cut it for the average joe. It is but an introduction.

LEO's such as yourself get periodic training and refreshers on the job.

Folks in the private sector need to pay for it. I think every person who CCW's should at a minimum take DOCUMENTABLE TRAINING such as LFI I (http://www.ayoob.com) or similar, and take a fighting handgun/force-on-force course (such as offered by http://www.tacticalresponse.com) on top of that. And plenty of range practice in between.

Comprehensive shoot/don't shoot exercises are probably more applicable to LEO's, as the average citizen isn't exposed to the same kinds of scenarios as cops are. The best I've ever got was a simulator exercise.

I was shot at once, Mission Hill, I fled - bet your ass...

info for the Rhode Island crowd...

RI is on paper a "shall-issue" state for RI residents ("may-issue" for nonresidents).

an increasing number of people have aggressively pushed their local pd's for carry permits and have gotten them.

more info here: (go to the message board).

http://www.cralri.com/

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if that courageous professor that blocked the door had a gun the whole incident would have ended right there?

MM I was thinking the same thing...

okay, there's one FBI source saying that the shooter was NOT on anti-depressants.

:uhoh:

Yahoo headlines are stating the the shooter had a history or mental problems and was a loner. Anybody surprised by these facts? See any of the kid's writing?

in virginia anyone can legally buy a gun . anyone ! here in ct there is a waiting period . as there should be in every state . I know what we have here in Ct I have a permit to carry also . legally obtained and properly trained . the key word you said was "(for valid pistol permit holders)." what about the ones that dont have a valid permit and are out to try an obtain their very first one . oops no instant check , why cause there wasnt one done before , were we have and all they are looking for is recent issues that would warrent them taking it away . A waiting period is a good idea , whats the rush ? nothing would have stopped this idiot from doing what he did other than a bullet in the head . Why not ask why no one responded when a teacher brought this to the authorities ? there was nothing said/done illegal , but I bet they are wishing they at least looked into it . Its proof that no matter safe the authorities and citizens of this country want it safe and secure there isnt one thing that can be done to accomplish it . this is my opinion and doesnt reflect anyone else's ideas . I dont take anti-depressants for heart disease it depresses and inflates just fine . thank you very much

Chris - a background check applies to all gun sales in the U.S. wherever you are. Not everyone can buy a handgun in Virginia.

He bought the gun 36+ days ago. A seven or even fifteen day waiting period would not have helped.

In CT if you have a valid pistol permit ... THERE IS NO WAITING PERIOD except for NFA toys.

In this case, it looks like the NICS background check failed MISERABLY.

Fox News is reporting that the shooter was involuntarily committed (by court order) for psychiatric observation.

He was therefore INELIGIBLE to legally buy ANY gun under federal law.

According to my sources, the gun dealer did EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK and the purchaser had all the right documents and paperwork. HOWEVER, the applicant apparently LIED in his response to question 12 f of the ATF Form 4473. NICS (that's the fed.gov, folks!) cleared Cho for the purchase.

There was apparently a BREAKDOWN in the government database - he otherwise would have most certainly been DENIED a handgun purchase with this on his record.

Wow, this really is looking like a case where somebody just slipped through the cracks.

I've been nearly shot four times. Twice in the same day hunting, which I gave up. Not fo fear of being shot, but for fear that I'd return fire and kill someone. And twice by jokers who thought it was a fun idea. I could hear the slug rip past my head both times. Fun? Boy were they wrong. One got a beating and the other had his Dad's guns confiscated. Had I been armed, I woulda killed them both. I can honestly say that fear was not a factor, but focus sure was.
Having said that, I cannot imagine the depth of grief that all those familys are enduring. All those hopes and dreams gone..

The Kid made a video!!! And Manifest!!! You just feel so bad for the families, this story will be going for quite some time, forever for the families....I pray for them...

Unbelievable! Now we know what he was doing for those two hours... NBC just today got the package he sent from the post office on his way to the last shooting.... just blows my mind.


http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...18/640434.html

so this bastard threw the media a bone and in turn the media whores are having a field day celebrating this monster. just what mr. cho wanted.

well, i'm not going to watch the videos or browse through the pictures or read the manifesto, because i won't bother glorifying mr. cho's psychotic actions. god what is the media thinking? they are just pouring salt into the fresh wounds of the victim's families.

i sincerely hope mr. cho's parents are wilting under the crushing ignominy of mr. cho's despicable, unimaginable, and senseless acts of violence that have brought unmeasurable SHAME to Koreans here and abroad.

it is my belief that mr. cho's upbringing was a major contributing factor to the awful events of 4/16/07. the mailman says his parents are good people? bosh! it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they raised a psychopath.

no wonder they are in hiding. if i were them i could commit ritual suicide.

act of terrorism
 

whether or not he had a green card....

it was an act of terrorism ...plain and simple....

CNN editors should be jailed for plastering the web
with his photo....they're doing exactly what he wanted
them to do....i agree BEN.

this is madness - to show him pointing the same gun....:af:

So is this what CNN is going to do if and when another act of terrorism
happens.... by keeping the terror ALIVE..... bastards

I'm against censorship but in this case CNN should be censored!!!
by the President himself if need be....

+1, bigtime.

All the news agencies are cashing in on this. Pathetic really.

Swimmer, I agree with what you said about not being able to get to a gun in a backpack. Maybe if you had a gun, you could get it while he's shooting someone on the other side of the room. At least you'd have a chance.

Like Bassturbed, I'm sick of the news coverage of this, but I did see something that was a little unsettling. Police taking cover outside the building while he was shooting inside. It really rubs me the wrong way when you see police with their fancy tactical gear hiding. It's great to have nice clothing with matching helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, flak jacket, $5,000 souped-up M4 (all paid for by the taxpayer - because all of this is essential equpment in rural Virginia), but when the poop hits the fan, how about grabbing anything that shoots and getting in the fight? Grandpappy's rusty 30-30 and blue jeans would have worked just fine.

To paraphrase the police spokesman 'We did not exchange gunfire with the suspect.' My question - why not?