[design219]

Our thoughts are with you.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If one person in the crowd had been carrying a gun and properly trained to use it, the shooter could have been taken down within moments of him opening fire. People probably still would have been injured and maybe died, but far fewer. And rather than a horrible massacre to mourn, we'd have a hero to celebrate.

There are about 35 000 students at VT. The odds of anyone being trained with and having a gun, were they allowed, would be immensely small.

Why the heck would anyone take a gun to school anyway in the first place? In case 1/35 000 goes postal and happening to be in the same place at the same time? Life isn't a Die Hard movie. It's more like one of those Swedish 70s drama movies that are about twisted families and put you to sleep faster than an intravenous injection of heroin.

V

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

wow, what I was trying to say went right over your head, but alrighty, putting words in my mouth is okay I guess. no, not really

Didn't go over my head at all. I just think we should be looking to the future and seeing what can be done to prevent incidents like this from happening again in the future.

[Jawbone54]

The count I have is still 32, but I heard that they're still discovering bodies and wounded.

Has anyone else heard a different number?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

There are about 35 000 students at VT. The odds of anyone being trained with and having a gun, were they allowed, would be immensely small.

As are the odds of what happened happening... What's you're point? It only took one crazy with a gun to kill a bunch of people. It would have only taken one hero with a gun to prevent that.

Why the heck would anyone take a gun to school anyway in the first place? In case 1/35 000 goes postal and happening to be in the same place at the same time? Life isn't a Die Hard movie. It's more like one of those Swedish 70s drama movies that are about twisted families and put you to sleep faster than an intravenous injection of heroin.

V

I wouldn't (and didn't). But some people would. My college actually did allow guns on campus (though they didn't allow you to carry them, you had the check them into a locker with campus security and could check them out when you wanted the). But as I said before, it would only have taken one person (and the percentage of students that would carry a gun given the chance in Virginia is probably higher than you'd suspect).

Also, what's with the assumption that allowing people to carry guns means that irresponsible and untrained people will do so? Ever heard of licensing? We do it with cars to prevent exactly that scenario, why wouldn't we do it with guns?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Noooooooooo not this again...

I stand by my statement.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

The count I have is still 32, but I heard that they're still discovering bodies and wounded.

Has anyone else heard a different number?

I have heard it's still 22, and that 32 was just a miscommunication.

Edit: University just verified 33.

[Jawbone54]

April is a bad month. From Wikipedia...

Wars that started/ended in April include:

* The American Revolution (Started with Paul Revere's Ride: April 18-19 April 1775)
* The American Civil War (Started April, 1861, ended April, 1865, thus "Across Five Aprils")
* The Bosnian War began in the first days of April, 1992
* The Rwandan Genocide began in April, 1994
* The Armenian Genocide began in April 24, 1914

Other events that have occurred in the month of April include:

* President Abraham Lincoln's assassination (April 14, 1865)
* The Frank Slide (April 29, 1903)
* The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (April 18, 1906)
* The sinking of the RMS Titanic (April 14-15 April 1912)
* The Armenian Genocide (April 24, 1915)
* Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination (April 4, 1968)
* Super Tornado Outbreak (April 3-4, 1974)
* Chernobyl nuclear accident (April 26, 1986)
* The 1992 Los Angeles Riots after the Rodney King verdict (April 29, 1992)
* The bloody end to the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, Texas (April 19, 1993)
* The Oklahoma City Bombing (April 19, 1995)
* In Lebanon, at least 106 Lebanese civilians are killed when the Israel Defense Forces shell the UN compound at Qana (see Qana Massacre). (April 18, 1996)
* The Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australia (April 28, 1996)
* The Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado (April 20, 1999)
* The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia (April 16, 2007).

God help this country...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

As are the odds of what happened happening... What's you're point? It only took one crazy with a gun to kill a bunch of people. It would have only taken one hero with a gun to prevent that.

That's exactly my point. I'm being pragmatic here. The odds of something like this happening are very small and add to that the odds of someone else having a gun and trained to use it in addition of being in the same place and time as the would-be shooter.

I wouldn't (and didn't). But some people would. My college actually did allow guns on campus (though they didn't allow you to carry them, you had the check them into a locker with campus security and could check them out when you wanted the). But as I said before, it would only have taken one person (and the percentage of students that would carry a gun given the chance in Virginia is probably higher than you'd suspect).

It probably is. I wouldn't suspect any collage student to go to school packing heat. It would be like taking a parachoute on an airplane. All realistic odds are it is just going to be useless extra weight.

Also, what's with the assumption that allowing people to carry guns means that irresponsible and untrained people will do so? Ever heard of licensing? We do it with cars to prevent exactly that scenario, why wouldn't we do it with guns?

Yes yes, I've heard of licencing. That's how us Yurpeans get guns our in the first place, would you believe it! I'm not saying you're wrong - in theory - but practically the odds of this happenining as you lay it out are very low.

More guns on campus mean more accidents with guns, which also kill people. The attrition could be similar or more than the occational postal shootout, although not as dramatic.

I'm saying that in a society one has to weigh - pragmatically - what is more of a tragedy. 30 people killed every five years in a school shooting or 50 people killed evenly over five years because of gun-related accidents.

I'd choose the occational postal event.

V

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Rather than just TV specials after such a tragedy time and money needs to be spent on why these incidents are so common in the US.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

April is a bad month. From Wikipedia...



God help this country...

Don't forget taxes.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

That's exactly my point. I'm being pragmatic here. The odds of something like this happening are very small and add to that the odds of someone else having a gun and trained to use it in addition of being in the same place and time as the would-be shooter.

I don't think the odds actually work out that way. Say properly trained and licensed students were allowed to carry concealed firearms (or unconcealed, whatever). Out of 35,000 students, how many would actually do it? Even if we take a low figure of 1%, that's still 350 trained, armed people on campus. Every day.

Suddenly, it seems a lot more likely that at least one person nearby would have had a gun, and had the training to use it properly and safely.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Don't forget taxes.

[::maroma::]

Yeah, arm everyone and the world will be more peaceful. Makes so much sense I think my head's going to explode from the pure rationality of it all.

Jesus people, you live in a fantasy land. This isn't a ******* movie. This is real life. Licensing? What a joke. Yeah, there are no idiots who have driver's licenses at all! No way! And there's no way to cheat on getting a license either! Its fool proof!

The majority of people in this country are mentally unable to drive a car with any degree of responsibility. Why in god's name would anyone think that giving all these people guns is a smart thing to do.

And this "it only takes one hero" argument is also bullshit. So you are suggesting we test for heroism before we hand someone a gun? How are we going to do that? Or do we just arm everyone, and hope that the "one hero" happens to be in the right place at the right time to take down the "crazy". What would really happen is one crazy would start shooting, and 50 other crazies would also start shooting back. Good plan.

Think before you stand behind something as big as this. The deadliest handheld item in existence should NOT be given out to everyone. Period.

I have a feeling these people who are so sure that a hero would emerge in a situation like this have no idea what its like to fire a gun at another human being. I don't, but I do know that its nothing like I imagine it would be. Again, this isn't a movie. This is real life.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yeah, that's how they make me feel too.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Yeah, arm everyone and the world will be more peaceful. Makes so much sense I think my head's going to explode from the pure rationality of it all.

No one said that. I'm arguing safe, not peaceful.

Jesus people, you live in a fantasy land. This isn't a ******* movie. This is real life. Licensing? What a joke. Yeah, there are no idiots who have driver's licenses at all! No way! And there's no way to cheat on getting a license either! Its fool proof!

So you're suggesting that we should ban cars too then? (Cars that happen to kill more people than guns, I might add.)

The majority of people in this country are mentally unable to drive a car with any degree of responsibility. Why in god's name would anyone think that giving all these people guns is a smart thing to do.

Who said we will? A gun license and a drivers license are two completely different things that require different tests. Also, fewer people are likely to apply for a gun license than a drivers license because a car has a whole hell of a lot more utility for most people. Try thinking rationally.

And this "it only takes one hero" argument is also bullshit. So you are suggesting we test for heroism before we hand someone a gun? How are we going to do that? Or do we just arm everyone, and hope that the "one hero" happens to be in the right place at the right time to take down the "crazy". What would really happen is one crazy would start shooting, and 50 other crazies would also start shooting back. Good plan.

We allow people who want to be armed and demonstrate some minimum level of proficiency in firearms use and rigorous familiarity with firearm safety procedures to purchase and carry guns. That's just slightly different from arming everyone. No, it's not going to stop all crime. Yes, it will stop some crime.

Think before you stand behind something as big as this. The deadliest handheld item in existence should NOT be given out to everyone. Period.

Right... That's why I'm a proponent of licensing... Didn't we just go over that?

[Nicko]

It's completely ridiculous to say that if someone was carrying a gun that they would become the 'hero' and take down the crazy person. Incidences like this show pretty conclusively that life is not like a movie. Unless you're some kind of deranged person, or a trained police officer, the first instinct upon hearing a gunshot would be to go in the opposite direction and save your own ass.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

It's completely ridiculous to say that if someone was carrying a gun that they would become the 'hero' and take down the crazy person. Incidences like this show pretty conclusively that life is not like a movie. Unless you're some kind of deranged person, or a trained police officer, the first instinct upon hearing a gunshot would be to go in the opposite direction and save your own ass.

In which case there's still no harm done in allowing people to have guns...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I don't think the odds actually work out that way. Say properly trained and licensed students were allowed to carry concealed firearms (or unconcealed, whatever). Out of 35,000 students, how many would actually do it? Even if we take a low figure of 1%, that's still 350 trained, armed people on campus. Every day.

Suddenly, it seems a lot more likely that at least one person nearby would have had a gun, and had the training to use it properly and safely.

All right, and how many lethal accidents would happen annually because 1% of the students (which I think is very high at a university) goes to class with a gun?

I'm no libertarian, I'm a pragmatist. I also come from a country without an ambigous constitutional amendment regarding firearms. Sure even in Yurp the occational school-shooting happens or school-knifing or whatever.

It is tragic. But it is the weapon that enables a person to go on a rampage. There are less deaths by guns in societies that don't embrace people's right to bear arms. I like that.

Your hypothetical example works in theory, but the odds are still low and 1% of college students with guns everyday in school doesn't sound like any school I would want to go to. I would not feel safe. I'd feel annoyed even.

At my university there are no guns and no deaths by guns. This is a good thing. There are in fact no intensional deaths that I am aware of. No murders, no accidental killings.

So, yeah. It is possible. How? That's the question you should rather be asking. Maybe it is possible in a different manner than at my university, but it is possible. No one should get killed in school. I would like to think that this last sentance makes immense sense.

V

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In which case there's still no harm done in allowing people to have guns...

Well, your logic doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a uniquely American thing

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Noooooooooo not this again...

Unfortunately, he's right. There appear to have been a number of opportunities for private citizens to stop the shooter, but it is apparently illegal for anyone to be armed on the VT campus. Fat lot of good that did for the people this idiot shot.

I can see a bunch of pols drooling over this right now. They're rubbing their hands together saying "now I can introduce a bill to ban all firearms everywhere and capitalize on the suffering this shooter has caused!" Watch-it'll happen. And it's WRONG. This doesn't indicate we need harsher gun laws, it indicates we need a better mental health system, and better funding for the VT police so that they can have more people protecting the campus.

And please, everyone should think about this. It is NOT about guns. It's about someone actively MURDERING people. Those 32 innocent people would be just as dead if this guy ran them over with his car, hacked them to death with a machete, or pounded their brains in with a hammer. He could have constructed a bomb and taken out more people. It is NOT ABOUT GUNS. It IS about someone so unbalanced that he went around and murdered innocent people, and it doesn't matter how he did it.

[Mithras]

To try to pull it back to just the human tragedy, and I really do mean this in a nonpartisan way:

Imagine how hard must be for Iraqi civilians in Baghdad these days -- they have an incident like this happening nearly every day, week in, week out. The emotional toll must just be devastating.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

At my university there are no guns and no deaths by guns. This is a good thing. There are in fact no intensional deaths that I am aware of. No murders, no accidental killings.

It's worth pointing out that you just described 99% of universities. When a country has as many as America, the number of schools with incidents such as this will increase.

These are the only college shootings in America that I'm aware of...

Austin, Texas - 1966 " Austin Tower Massacre"
Kent, Ohio - 1970 "Kent State shootings"
Iowa - 1991 "University of Iowa shooting"
Great Barrington, Massachusetts - 1992 "Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting"

I understand that doesn't include high schools, but 4 college shootings in 41 years, when there are 2,474 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S.

That's 1 out of 618 colleges that experiences a significant shooting.

[EDIT] I just realized I left out today's shooting from this post. The point is still understood, I think.
However, it does change it from 1/618 to 1/495.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unfortunately, he's right. There appear to have been a number of opportunities for private citizens to stop the shooter, but it is apparently illegal for anyone to be armed on the VT campus. Fat lot of good that did for the people this idiot shot.

I can see a bunch of pols drooling over this right now. They're rubbing their hands together saying "now I can introduce a bill to ban all firearms everywhere and capitalize on the suffering this shooter has caused!" Watch-it'll happen. And it's WRONG. This doesn't indicate we need harsher gun laws, it indicates we need a better mental health system, and better funding for the VT police so that they can have more people protecting the campus.

And please, everyone should think about this. It is NOT about guns. It's about someone actively MURDERING people. Those 32 innocent people would be just as dead if this guy ran them over with his car, hacked them to death with a machete, or pounded their brains in with a hammer. He could have constructed a bomb and taken out more people. It is NOT ABOUT GUNS. It IS about someone so unbalanced that he went around and murdered innocent people, and it doesn't matter how he did it.

I think it's worth noting that we've completely abandoned any conversation about the individual (even the individual victims) many, many posts ago.

I hope we know what happened to the shooter prior to April 16.

I will never make excuses for him, no matter what it is that caused him to do this, but I wonder if he'll have as an alarming story behind him as Klebold and Harris.

[Atomic Rooster]

"Va. shooting violates school sanctity": Bush.

Well I would say it violates a persons life Georgie.

This would be a quiet day in Iraq.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I think it's worth noting that we've completely abandoned any conversation about the individual (even the individual victims) many, many posts ago.

I hope we know what happened to the shooter prior to April 16.

I just got home from school and got into this discussion. I had to put my 2¢ worth in. And I think my comments are still valid and important. Particularly the one about jackal-like politicians waiting to pounce on tragedy for their personal glory and gain.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I will never make excuses for him, no matter what it is that caused him to do this, but I wonder if he'll have as an alarming story behind him as Klebold and Harris.

I hope we can find out before someone in some position of authority manages to ram some new infringement of our liberties down our throats as "for the safety of the populace."

[tocrawfo]

I work for Virginia Tech. I am out of town this week though so I wasn't their. 32 killed plus the gunman is the latest I have heard. I heard the gunman was wearing a bulletproof vest though. Yes it is illegal for a citizen to carry a gun on campus. I really don't think there was much that could have been done to prevent this though. It looks like tech did their best to warn people about what happened but you can't predict some insane person going on a shooting rampage.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I just got home from school and got into this discussion. I had to put my 2¢ worth in. And I think my comments are still valid and important. Particularly the one about jackal-like politicians waiting to pounce on tragedy for their personal glory and gain.I hope we can find out before someone in some position of authority manages to ram some new infringement of our liberties down our throats as "for the safety of the populace."

I strongly agree.

[turtle777]

I think I need to point out that guns (as always) don't kill people.
It's those motherfreaking students

-t

[Nicko]

Well it seems that the university could implement a better alarm system. I read in one article that they sent out an ...email warning. Pulling the fire alarm probably would have been a better idea.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

No one said that. I'm arguing safe, not peaceful.

And safe doesn't equal peaceful to you? So you think as long as anyone can shoot and kill someone else at any given moment, thats safe?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So you're suggesting that we should ban cars too then? (Cars that happen to kill more people than guns, I might add.)

Absolutely not. I'm saying that licensing is not the solution to weeding out the morons who will abuse or misuse the very thing they're given a license for. YOU brought up the car scenario, I was merely showing how ridiculous it is.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Who said we will? A gun license and a drivers license are two completely different things that require different tests. Also, fewer people are likely to apply for a gun license than a drivers license because a car has a whole hell of a lot more utility for most people. Try thinking rationally.

Try thinking. You are throwing out "most likely"'s and "probably"'s. Yet these sorts of arguments require absolutes. You can't sit there and argue for the right to bear arms using probabilities and conjectures. You should start thinking more factually. Maybe then your argument might hold some water.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

We allow people who want to be armed and demonstrate some minimum level of proficiency in firearms use and rigorous familiarity with firearm safety procedures to purchase and carry guns. That's just slightly different from arming everyone. No, it's not going to stop all crime. Yes, it will stop some crime.

And thats different from taking all guns away from people how? Taking all guns away won't stop all crime, but it will stop some crime. Same argument. How is yours better?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Right... That's why I'm a proponent of licensing... Didn't we just go over that?

Yep, but you completely missed the point. Again.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think I need to point out that guns (as always) don't kill people.
It's those motherfreaking students

-t

I would say it's the bullets fault because they just don't wanna stop when they hit something soft like flesh.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And safe doesn't equal peaceful to you? So you think as long as anyone can shoot and kill someone else at any given moment, thats safe?

As long as the people who think they WANT to shoot anyone at any given moment also think that OTHERS around them are armed, they will almost always think twice. Concealed carry in states like Texas and Florida has significantly decreased crimes against individuals for this very reason. An armed society is a POLITE society.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Try thinking. You are throwing out "most likely"'s and "probably"'s. Yet these sorts of arguments require absolutes. You can't sit there and argue for the right to bear arms using probabilities and conjectures. You should start thinking more factually. Maybe then your argument might hold some water.

Any right in the Constitution is an absolute. Do not try the old wording dodge either-the founding fathers wrote all the other Bill of Rights amendments as INDIVIDUAL rights, and there is absolutely no solid reason to believe they excluded this one. Unless someone is dangerous to society in some real, and measurable way, as in being a felon or having been adjudged mentally defective, the right holds for all citizens. (By the way, if you apply common usage from the 1770s, "well regulated" works out to be "well trained," and "militia" was "the armed citizenry." Kind of important changes in how things sound, eh?)

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And thats different from taking all guns away from people how? Taking all guns away won't stop all crime, but it will stop some crime. Same argument. How is yours better?

Disarming the 99.999+% of the population that abide by the law may stop a crime or two here and there. But it will harm countless law abiding citizens, not in the least way by leaving them vulnerable to the kind of predator that used the prohibition against weapons on the VT campus as a shield so that he could kill more people. Disarming the population is a BAD IDEA. Making it VERY COSTLY to commit any crime that involves a firearm is a much better idea.

[Atomic Rooster]

According to CNN it's the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.

I guess Native Americans don't count.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

As long as the people who think they WANT to shoot anyone at any given moment also think that OTHERS around them are armed, they will almost always think twice. Concealed carry in states like Texas and Florida has significantly decreased crimes against individuals for this very reason. An armed society is a POLITE society..

'scuse me.

[design219]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I'm arguing safe, not peaceful.

This is bizarre.

[greenamp]

Rather than post our knee jerk opinions on gun laws, how about we discuss the true issue here: The 1st shooting occured around 7am. No classes start on VT campus before 9am. The VT administration had nearly TWO HOURS to cancel classes and they didn't. They had two hours with the knowledge that an unexplained shooting had occured in a dorm and the shooter was still at large and they did not cancel classes nor attempt to secure the campus or lock down other dorms.

The VT president should be fired at the very least. Had he canceled classes and took steps to secure the other dorms and the rest of the campus, the students in the engineering building would not have been there to be masacred. This is an outrage.

[Mithras]

I agree with greenamp that something went very wrong in the emergency procedures.
Of course, it can be hard to second-guess decisions in the midst of a crisis, and crises are by definition unexpected, but it does seem like some better choices could have been made.

ghporter: is that why New York's per capita violent crime rates are lower than Houston's?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by tocrawfo 

I really don't think there was much that could have been done to prevent this though. It looks like tech did their best to warn people about what happened but you can't predict some insane person going on a shooting rampage.

Well, that is just not true.
The first shooting happened at 7:30am and some students weren't warned until 9am. Classes should have been canceled at the time of the first shooting if they had not caught the gunman. They had 2 hours to secure students inside the dorms, warn the ones who were off campus, and maybe post real cops at major crossways.

I am going to assume the girl who got shot first was his ex and he was an engineering student. All they are reporting is that he was Asian and that he carried no ID with him.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by greenamp 

Rather than post our knee jerk opinions on gun laws, how about we discuss the true issue here: The 1st shooting occured around 7am. No classes start on VT campus before 9am. The VT administration had nearly TWO HOURS to cancel classes and they didn't. They had two hours with the knowledge that an unexplained shooting had occured in a dorm and the shooter was still at large and they did not cancel classes nor attempt to secure the campus or lock down other dorms.

How do you tell people who do not live on campus? It's a HUGE campus. They can't go around to every room and lock them, especially if there is a gunman maybe loose on campus.

University of Washington had a shooting a few weeks ago and I don't think they shut down campus at all. Sadly, it's not all too rare to have murders on campus. And for the larger campuses, it's not usual to lockdown.

FYI they did cancel classes (which surprised me actually). The problem was people just didn't know classes were canceled.

About him killing his girlfriend, in the press conference they are saying (it sounds like) the two incidents were done by two different people. No word yet on if they are connected.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Licensing? What a joke. Yeah, there are no idiots who have driver's licenses at all! No way! And there's no way to cheat on getting a license either! Its fool proof!

The majority of people in this country are mentally unable to drive a car with any degree of responsibility. Why in god's name would anyone think that giving all these people guns is a smart thing to do.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

And this "it only takes one hero" argument is also bullshit. So you are suggesting we test for heroism before we hand someone a gun?

The gun maketh the man.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

An armed society is a POLITE society.

And republicans would win more arguments.


"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

Heh.

[Dakarʒ]

Great a discussion about guns. And we didn't even make it a full page before it started. Charming.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Had the university and the state respected the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, this tragedy probably would not have occurred.

Sad but true. If some nutball started popping people and others were packing heat, he would have been toast, and his rampage would have ended a lot sooner.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Great a discussion about guns. And we didn't even make it a full page before it started. Charming.

You must be new here..

V

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Didn't they establish the no guns on campus rule because they'd already had previous shootings?

So apparently allowing students to have guns worked REAL well for them in the past.

Apparently that 'rule' doesn't work at all, and was just a 'feel good' measure put out by the adminstration, without actually making anything safer. In fact, I'd argue it probably made it more dangerous, as nobody could defend themselves against that guy.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

You must be new here..

V

I think I have a new fan.

[CollinG3G4]

At least, Don Imus is out of the daily news cycle.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Great a discussion about guns. And we didn't even make it a full page before it started. Charming.

Guns seem to be the problem AND the solution.

The shooter saw his guns as a solution. Gun supporters see more guns as a solution.

That's the problem.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And obviously banning them has been such a vast improvement...

Exactly. What was the purpose of this rule, other than keeping normal people from being able to defend themselves? IF someone feels like shooting a bunch of people on campus, I doubt they'll be like "Oh gee golly darn! I guess guns aren't allowed on campus, so scratch those plans!!!!"

Wake up and smell the freaking coffee.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

The deadliest handheld item in existence should NOT be given out to everyone. Period.

Ricin? That's why it's a controlled substance.