22 dead kids

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by chris L

but remember
the guys in the military do too .

But they don't have their guns with them...they are locked up in the Armory when they are out partying on town.

....and Mommy and Daddy aren't going to bail out some enlisted dude when he does something stupid with it.

what happens to a guy in the Miltary if he gets caught drunk on Watch.....he'll be paying for it for quite awhile

[Skip N]

No gun control in the world would've stopped this kid from doing this, he clearly had a vision in his mind of commiting mass murder, regalrdless of the gun laws, this kid would've found a way to gain access to a firearm and commit murder. If someone wants a gun that bad they'll find a way to get one, regardless of how tough the gun laws are.

So all the people calling for more gun control just dont get it, this kid would've found a way to get a gun regardless.

Rot in hell you %$%$%$%$ing murdering bastard

Just heard on the news that one of the kids murdered was from Lincoln, RI Hits even closer to home now.

[wheresmy50]

There's no way the legal carry is at 1%. 1% may have permits, but that doesn't mean 1% carry.

I have a permit and carry about 0.5% of the time. Someone could shoot up the office and my pistol would be safe and sound at home while I'm contemplating taking a pen to a gun fight. I don't think most people would carry to class - why would you need to?

I really don't think this a legal carry issue, other than to say we need more licensing and more actual legal carry. Even where legal, laws and society provide a strong disincentive.

CNN reported yesterday that the suspect was reportedly carrying a 9mm and 22mm pistol. That pretty much sums up their understanding of guns.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

There's no way the legal carry is at 1%. 1% may have permits, but that doesn't mean 1% carry.

I have a permit and carry about 0.5% of the time....I don't think most people would carry to class - why would you need to?

Sadly, there were at least 33 reasons yesterday to carry to class.

Nobody says you HAVE to CCW, but those willing to shoulder the burden (and it is a BURDEN) should be allowed to.

[fishpoopoo]

[TheSpecialist]

Gotta love Oleg Volk..

[fishpoopoo]

thought you'd recognize that, bill.

[chris L]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

But they don't have their guns with them...they are locked up in the Armory when they are out partying on town.

....and Mommy and Daddy aren't going to bail out some enlisted dude when he does something stupid with it.

what happens to a guy in the Miltary if he gets caught drunk on Watch.....he'll be paying for it for quite awhile

I knew people that partied on guard duty ( with 45's ) , on manuevers with 45's and m2 mg and in m60 tanks ( 105 mm (63 rounds ) 50 cal and 2 7.62 mg and more ammo you could shake a stick at . No partying in town with weapons and no mommy and daddy , but it still happened . today the younguns think differently and I blame todays parent

[Swimmer]

I can tell you that the shooter could and probably did buy the weapons legally and was probably permitted. A resident alien can get a permit to carry for any number of reasons. I have issued two that I can recall recently.

I think since this guy was under treatment for depression the law should read or a law should be in place that a state and national check be done after giving a precription for treatment of depression or any other mental illness. All of these shootings have been done by people who are unfit mentally. While mental illness is certainly treatable guns and access to guns should be taken away until its amedical certainty the person has recovered.

[Jimbo]

We're looking at colleges now, so this situation is most disheartening as far as letting my teenager go too far away. But are there really folks out there who seriously think the threat will go away by arming the students? I'm wondering if that isn't a step backwards instead of making college campuses safer you're not turning them into Dodge City. I'm dealing with today's high school student right now, and while she's extremely intelligent, she is in no way, shape or manner anywhere near responsible enough to possess a gun, let alone have what it takes to use it, and have her glasses with her, and have the gun loaded and not in the bottom of her backpack in a situation where she might need to. She can't go a week without misplacing her glasses, driver's license, or cell phone and most of her friends are no better. There's got to be some other recourse than arming students and faculty, maybe something like sky marshalls dressed like students randomly walking around campus.

[fishpoopoo]

jimbo, nobody is saying your daughter HAS to carry a weapon.

Carrying a weapon lawfully carries a huge responsibility (as does driving a car lawfully).

It's not for everyone ... but the relatively few people who do (in VA we assume 1% of the population based on carry permit records, which are public...but maybe not for long) should be allowed to without hindrance.

Again, if you are uncomfortable with students carrying, can you argue with more mature folk like professors and employees and teaching assistants?

[Swimmer]

Did anyone notice how well all of the students spoke before the camera? How polite they were and even if they condemned/critisized someones job performance they were decent about it. VTech has a strong/large ROTC background and courses. The students seemed mature and had a good grasp of what had taken place.

One more thing, a gunmen bent on murder doesn't have his weapon holstered, its out and in the gunman's hand ready to perform. The law abiding citizen keeps his weapon holstered, probably with a saftey snap mechanism. If some pulls a gun on you you have no way of getting yours out to defend yourself. Any training states, distance first, then defense. Any officer who has survived a shooting will tell you he turned and ran first then while running drew his weapon. My point is how many college students are going to know what to do if faced with what the VTech students were faced with. How many without any real training would actually pull the trigger? I know people who are trained to pull the trigger that are incapable of doing so. I know that trainees in police academys when given thier weapons can't pull the trigger and were dismissed/fired.

The other point I can think of is suppose 20 of 30 students have weapons on them (most would be left in backpacks, which is an absurd thought, and not on there person) in a class. Someone comes into the room, gets the dropped on them and confiscates the 20 weapons from the carrying students. Now the gunman would have 22 weapons, not 2.

I know what you mean b-turbed but when this guy fires 27 rounds in under a minute in the first classroom thier is not much one can do. Stories of the heroic acts are starting to emerge. I am sure we will hear of students teachers who attempted to engage this puke and died.

[Diamond Tackle]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I think since this guy was under treatment for depression the law should read or a law should be in place that a state and national check be done after giving a precription for treatment of depression or any other mental illness. All of these shootings have been done by people who are unfit mentally. While mental illness is certainly treatable guns and access to guns should be taken away until its amedical certainty the person has recovered.

BINGO!!! this covers it in a nutshell ,pardon the unintentional pun.
I got no problem with that.
Youre under a doctors care for depression, and on MEDS, you LOSE your right to your guns. PERIOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember when TYSON beat up those senior citizens , cause the old guy cut him off on the road. IMAGINE if that bafoon had a gun at that time. He was so stoked on Zoloft he would have killed his own parents that day.
Since were pointing fingers at guns and all, what about the pharmaceutical companies, who make drugs which have "RAGE" & "MANIA"as a possible side effects???

[fishpoopoo]

swimmer, i think it highly unlikely that one person could disarm 20-30 people in a room. i wouldn't give up my gun - not that the shooter would ever know i was carrying one.

carrying a loaded pistol or revolver in a backpack or purse is an unsound and unsafe practice. you're responsible for whatever happens to that weapon. a loaded weapon should be on your person under your control (properly holstered). there are many many good options out there for deep concealment - be it a belly band, an ankle holster, or a tuckable IWB.

as far as a mental illness database - no such animal exists on a national level, i think. this is mostly a state thing.

problem is, you run into privacy challenges. secondly, not all mental illnesses should disqualify one from being able to have a firearm. it really depends on the individual. example: vietnam vet who is active LEO being treated for PTSD, but is still capable of CCW'ing.

i don't know how such a database would work, but don't think it would be a bad thing to have.

[Swimmer]

I hear you Bassturbed. Just offering up some fears I have with what you propose. I still like the idea that if your taking meds for depression you lose your weapons/permits.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I still like the idea that if your taking meds for depression you lose your weapons/permits.

that is the case in many states.

for what it's worth, question 12 f. on ATF 4473 is:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes being adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affiars) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

of course, if you really want the gun you're going to answer "no."

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Did anyone notice how well all of the students spoke before the camera? How polite they were and even if they condemned/critisized someones job performance they were decent about it. VTech has a strong/large ROTC background and courses. The students seemed mature and had a good grasp of what had taken place.

One more thing, a gunmen bent on murder doesn't have his weapon holstered, its out and in the gunman's hand ready to perform. The law abiding citizen keeps his weapon holstered, probably with a saftey snap mechanism. If some pulls a gun on you you have no way of getting yours out to defend yourself. Any training states, distance first, then defense. Any officer who has survived a shooting will tell you he turned and ran first then while running drew his weapon. My point is how many college students are going to know what to do if faced with what the VTech students were faced with. How many without any real training would actually pull the trigger? I know people who are trained to pull the trigger that are incapable of doing so. I know that trainees in police academys when given thier weapons can't pull the trigger and were dismissed/fired.

The other point I can think of is suppose 20 of 30 students have weapons on them (most would be left in backpacks, which is an absurd thought, and not on there person) in a class. Someone comes into the room, gets the dropped on them and confiscates the 20 weapons from the carrying students. Now the gunman would have 22 weapons, not 2.

I know what you mean b-turbed but when this guy fires 27 rounds in under a minute in the first classroom thier is not much one can do. Stories of the heroic acts are starting to emerge. I am sure we will hear of students teachers who attempted to engage this puke and died.

If one or more of those students and teachers had a gun and tried to use it would they have been any worse off? Even if they died anyway, they may have prevented the deaths of others. We teach people to be complacent in the face of threats, why didn't any of them try anything to defend themselves? Because they were taught not to! Never attack anyone! Christ they could have at least thrown a chair at him or at least tried to run away. A moving target is a lot harder to hit than one kneeling on the floor in front of you.

[Diamond Tackle]

I heard on the radio that there was a 60+ year old jewish teacher who either himself survived the Holocast, or his father did? im not sure exactly .but anyway, he was a teacher, and he barracaded himself & his students into his classroom and although bullets were flying through the door he stood his ground. He is a true hero, if this info is correct. Noone in his class supposedly was killed.
Another student who also supposedly barracaded the door, but that was after the shooter killed 15 already in that classroom & left.
just very sad.

[fishpoopoo]

yes, that prof had major balls and i salute him.

bitter irony, to have survived the holocaust and then be killed yesterday.

[daceman63]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

true, but what about professors, teaching assistance and other employees?
also, it is unlawful for concealed handgun permittees to be under the influence of alcohol/drugs and be armed. most people who value their permits understand this.

the same goes with cars. you don't booze and drive cars at the same time. most responsible people who value their driving privileges understand this.

and by the way, i slept with a loaded .357 mag under my bed in school. no problems whatsoever.

That's assuming that the people you mentioned want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. You can't force them too....so maybe most teachers and professors and othe remployees at the school are anti gun. You end up with a similar result. Then what, sue the school because someone went nuts and the teacher didn't provide the necessary protection he could have if he had been carrying?

[chris L]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I can tell you that the shooter could and probably did buy the weapons legally and was probably permitted. A resident alien can get a permit to carry for any number of reasons. I have issued two that I can recall recently.

I think since this guy was under treatment for depression the law should read or a law should be in place that a state and national check be done after giving a precription for treatment of depression or any other mental illness. All of these shootings have been done by people who are unfit mentally. While mental illness is certainly treatable guns and access to guns should be taken away until its amedical certainty the person has recovered.

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 .

[fishpoopoo]

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.

[Swimmer]

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.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

Chris,
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.

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.

[Raven]

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

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.

[TheSpecialist]

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.

[CANAL RAT]

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.

[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.

[Raven]

everything in life goes full circle

[Raven]

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..