I'm sure that was a gun-free zone... how on earth could this happen? When will we learn?
Terrible to say - but thankfully there appears to have been 'only' four casualties.
Since when do criminals and psychopaths respect signs posted that a campus is a gun-free zone?
I'm waiting to hear more about the shooter. I'd really like to know why so many (relatively speaking) young college students are resorting to such disastrously violent outbursts.
The reality is there is no way to prevent or stop this unless we want to gate up schools and search kids as if they were boarding a plane. If a crazy wants to kill ppl the crazy will find away. You and I just have to hope we are lucky enough to get out of the way. Thanks to the media the gun (wo)man gets his 15min of fame in his/her pathetic life.
I'm personally still amazed that classrooms full of 200 people just run from a shooter. Two or three people with those particleboard desks are all it would take to neutralize most of these lone pyschopaths with few or any casualties. Maybe if the classrooms finally defended themselves, these shooters would stop doing this and simply kill themselves the old-fashioned way. I think it's time for schools to begin formally educating their students about ways to defend themselves and neutralize a gunman. At the very least, that education would serve as a deterrent to any would-be gunman.
We've already been through this with airline hijackers. Many, many people have already come to the conclusion that they will be the first in line in a counter-attack against anyone who stands up in an airplane with a box cutter.
Personally, if I'm ever in a situation like this, I'll be the first to the rush the bastard. If I die in the process, so be it. The guy right behind me won't, and that'll be the end of it.
How about they simply allow those with legally obtained, background checked, FBI fingerprinted, firearm trained, concealed carry permits to carry their handgun at their own school. The best way to defend against a gunman is to shoot back.
I would like to think I could be a hero like that Warren. Maybe I've lived a "soft" life, but if a shotgun was in my face unexpectedly I'm not so sure what I would do. That's kinda of a mind ****ing situation.
Until one year he becomes the one who's picked on and then shoots up the school...
I've been on NIU campus last year. It's pretty shocking to see what's happened there. The school suffered intense flooding last summer, Nazi Swastika scandals, and now a repeat of Virginia tech. My condolences go out to families.
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm from Australia and we have pretty strict gun laws and no one gets shot in schools over here. Surely the solution to the problem is to not allow these people the guns in the first place...
I believe the best way to decrease the number of students killed in these situations would probably be allowing other students to have guns. You'll never be able to keep guns out of the hands of kids who actually want to go in and shoot it up, although you could probably decrease the chances of someone shooting up a school if other law abiding students were armed.
Interestingly enough, there was a school were someone started shooting, and two students ran out to their car to get their gun, and they were able to subdue the shooter. Funny thing was, these students were interviewed and not one of the original newspaper reports mentioned how they stopped the shooter with their own guns. They talk about it on the documentary "Michael and Me."
I doubt gun laws will do much good. Most criminals buy their guns on the black market in the first place. In fact, 80% of murders happen with guns that were bought on the black market. Essentially, gun control just keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I find your argument about as convincing as saying, "In the US, marijuana is illegal, and therefore nobody smokes the stuff because they can't get it."
Besides, the right to own a gun is about much more than just protecting yourself against other citizens. Essentially, the framers of the US constitution believed the right to own a gun was important because that way citizens will be able to keep the government in check.
The easiest way to keep control over someone else is by not allowing them to have a gun. Castro knows this. Hitler also knew this, as it was one of the first things he took from the Jews. Slave owners in the US knew this as they faught extremely hard to make sure that blacks (including free blacks) couldn't own guns.
Anyone who thinks gun control is a good idea, I urge you to watch the documentary "Michael and Me." I'm not saying it will change your position, but it will definitely offer up some things to think about.
Life is a bit different over there. I'm sure there are other factors that contribute to the peaceful schools you have. Less condensed populations. If we had the exact same laws as you folks have, I doubt you would see much of reduction in this kind of craziness.
Though its not in a school its a bad shooting nonetheless
I found some population numbers:
United States 301,139,947
That's the incident that took guns out of the hands of law abiding Australian folks.
Why would a man who killed himself care if MAYBE another kid in that room had a gun. He would still be able to kill a few people.
Except we didn't have a rash of incidents like this back when gun laws were more lax. It doesn't really support that it's the gun laws or availability that are the issue.
But, even when gun laws were more lax (or nonexistent), you didn't have college students walking around carrying sidearms either, so the other argument to allow people to have more concealed carry permits for self defense doesn't work either. And, since this shooter supposedly committed suicide at the end, that too suggests it would be no deterrent or threat that someone else might shoot him first.
To me, this really is more of a cultural mentality shift that we have more of these crazies showing up on campuses at all. Perhaps we've become too tolerant of disruptive and antisocial behavior in schools that we don't notice the budding psychopath?
I agree with you on the point that having stricter gun laws would not completely solve the problem... that would be a ridiculous position to hold. But surely this line of reasoning is much more logical than say arming the other students in the universities which was suggested in an earlier post. I'm sure 80% of murders to occur with illegal weapons... but what about the other 20%?
As i said above... i dont think taht gun control would solve the problem... i think it would help to. Im sure that if marijuana was legal alot more people would smoke it.
And as for arguments being convincing.... Do you seriously think people own guns in the U.S these days to keep the government in check??
I will be sure to watch "michael and me" thanks for the tip.
Also the Port Arthur massacre was Austrralia's wake up call for something to be seriously done about the gun laws our country held.... With Columbine, Virginia Tech and now this... how many more incidents will it take for the U.S to try something realistic?
(im sorry if i sound ignorant, condescending or arogant, this really is not of any intention... im just trying to debate a point ;) )
Your last statement supports my notion that we should not restrict those with carry permits to carry at their own school for there own defense. You don't hear of people that have been issued carry permits carrying out these kinds of crimes. I don't know the stats but I'm sure it is substantially lower if not just about non-existent that those with permits are not involved in crimes that involve weapons. Permits require, criminal FBI background checks, fingerprinting, photographs, and in a lot of states certified weapons training. Why would you want to disarm these kinds of people?
Christ, another school shooting? What the hell is the matter with people these days?
Well, not all of these shooters commit suicide at the end, so some maybe deterred. Even the ones who commit suicide at the end maybe killed before they kill as many as they would have otherwise. For example, if some guy wants to walk into a school, post office, or any other "gun-free" zone and kill a few people and then commit suicide, without anybody else armed there's no telling how many he will choose to kill before committing suicide. At least if others are armed they can potentially decrease the number of causalties in such a situation. It'd be better to have someone walk in and kill 2 people before being shot, then walking in and killing 15 before committing suicide. At the very least, at least they have a fighting chance of controlling their own destiny and walking out alive.
Dr. John Lott has done a lot of statistical analysis of this thing. His finding is actually that laws which allow citizens to carry concealed handguns decrease the criminal activity. Essentially, he argues this is because criminals are less likely to go rob and harm people when there's a greater chance they have a gun.
Again, I would also like to promote this interesting documentary: https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Me-Larry-Elder/dp/B0009PW03Q
The death penalty is not a deterrent, so why would concealed guns be any different?
Your logic is flawed. Just because we get rid of legal guns, doesn't mean murders will decrease by 20%. In fact, murders may increase because now criminals are even less afraid of running into a citizen with a gun.
In the documentary, Larry Elder claims that hundreds of thousand of people use guns each year to fight off perpetrators. So, if we get rid of legal guns, we'd have to take this into account to.
If guns were illegal, then I agree people would have less guns. However, the people who'd have less guns would likely be law abiding citizens who could actually be trusted with guns in the first place. In other words, less people may have guns, but criminals would probably have the same number of guns. The real question is, would this scenario lead to less or more crime?
No, I don't think that's why most people in the US own guns. However, maybe they should also keep that in mind. In the documentary, many of the constitutional legal scholars argue that it's no coincidence that the founding fathers made it the 2nd ammendment (only behind the right to free-speech). If the Jews knew that giving up guns to the Nazis would have turned out the way it did, maybe they wouldn't have given them up.
I guess when I still had a romanticized view of government, I never thought that people would need guns to protect themselves against the government. However, I do think it's an important aspect of the gun control debate.
I promise you won't be disappointed. It's thought provoking and interesting.
I would be willing to bet that many people (special interest groups, lobbiests, politicians, etc) already wanted gun control. What the Port Arthur massacre did was make it politically realistic to fight for such regulation. You see this all the time with these sorts of situations.
Don't worry about it. I imagine I sound the same way often times on this board even though I don't mean to. I guess it's just the way it is having a serious discussion online.
other countries, such as the united kingdom, have very densley populated areas aswell. There are alot less incidents like this in such countries. Population may be a factor, but why is it then that the UK has significantly less tragedies of this type?
Separate names with a comma.