22 dead kids

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

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.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

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.

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.

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.

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).

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

You have to give people more credit than you are.

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?

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[TheSpecialist]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

By the way I have had people shoot at me before, and I was'nt scared I was pi$$ed.

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.

[fishpoopoo]

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

what DON'T they prescribe them for?

[Diamond Tackle]

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.

[TheSpecialist]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

bill, that sucks.

[Gunpowder]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

[Swimmer]

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".

[fishpoopoo]

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.

[JohnR]

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

[fishpoopoo]

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/

[MakoMike]

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?

[TheSpecialist]

MM I was thinking the same thing...

[fishpoopoo]

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

[The Iceman 6]

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?

[chris L]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

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.

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

[fishpoopoo]

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.

[Backbeach Jake]

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 Iceman 6]

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...

[nightfighter]

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

[fishpoopoo]

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.

[Raven]

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....

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....

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by Strike_King

I feel for the victim's families.They haven't even buried their loved ones yet and they're seeing an image that was probably the last thing they're loved ones saw before their death.I can't believe NBC news released everything and the media is giving this lunatic so much airtime.It's giving him the publicity and noteriety that he couldn't get before.Now he's doing it from beyond the grave.I just hope all the images/videos don't inspire or energize some other loser/loner to think that by committing mass murder,it's their way of being recognized. How about giving some coverage to the innocent victims?Do a segment on each one of them and profile their life cut short?At least give them equal time.The media in this country is repulsive...

+1, bigtime.

[wheresmy50]

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?