<p>
[quote]
GZhang - Have you ever drawn a weapon? Have you ever fired a weapon? I heard a radio report on NPR that the shooting lasted as long as 30 minutes. It's been confirmed that the shooting was not in 1.5 minutes. Training and skill are important, as are nerves, but it is not "idiotically naive." If students had time to barricade a door or dive behind a desk, it's probably they would have had time to draw and fire a weapon. The shooter left room 204 for 2 minutes and then returned. That is sufficient time to find cover, draw a gun, and cover the entrance.
[/quote]
I have never fired a weapon--I have already stated this. I don't think I would be able to compel myself to shoot and kill anyone, whether or not they are on a murderous rampage.
Since we're on hypothetical situations, lets consider--
Mr. Cho, who has just finished writing his angry note and is heading for Norris Hall to begin his shooting spree, is stopped by a police officer. Under current rules, if the police search him and find a concealed weapon they can detain him and stop the whole thing from happening. However, if the posession of concealed weapons were allowed, the police would not have been able to stop him (under the assumption that he owns a concealed carry permit. I doubt officials would have found a reason to deny him one). After all, what if he was just an innocent bystander, carrying around his two semiautomatic pistols for the purpose of self-defense?
I am not saying that a concealed weapon could not have saved lives in the VA Tech shootings, but perhaps it would make it easier for someone in another situation to actually commit murder.</p>
<p>gzhang, I see what you are saying. Where I disagree is in the "easiness" part. I think someone who is willing to do this, who has planned it out...WILL do it. You can't place laws in his way. People like this are going to do what they are going to do, and in all honesty I dont think there's any laws that could have been put in place to stop this kid. If there were an ideal situation it would be in place already, however there is no 100% win win situation when it comes to guns. Laws do not stop criminals...if they want to do something more often then not they will do it (hence making them criminals)...I think the law should at least allow those who will be victimized by these criminals a means to defend themselves. </p>
<p>On a side note, I sure hope you would be able to compel yourself to shoot someone if they were on a murderous rampage and you had the ability.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ok gzhang, this guy didn't kill 33 people with guns, he killed them with bullets laden with gunpowder.
[/quote]
That's not a fair analogy =(</p>
<p>Saying that the 9/11 hijackers killed 3000 people with boxcutter knives is equivalent to saying that a person kills people with the money that he uses to buy the gun.</p>
<p>I know, I was just messin with you. I think the point he was trying to make w/ the post is saying that people who are determined to do crimes will do them, and no tightening of laws is gonna change that...</p>
<p>Well, I think the point of this thread is not that we should increase the level of gun control, but that we shouldn't allow people to carry concealed weapons (we shouldn't decrease the level of gun control). I mean, I personally don't agree with more laws to solve any situation, but I think that deregulation in this case, pragmatically speaking, would not be a wise action.</p>
<p>Then I guess we just have a different opinion. I think if you are legally able to own a gun you should be legally able to conceal it. An issue that I'm sure will soon come to the forefront in the coming weeks...</p>
<p>I'm undecided on the gun control issue but a reactionary policy to a black swan event like this is probably a bad idea - whichever way it goes.</p>
<p>CCW permit holders are statistically (on a per capita basis) more law abiding than police officers. So I doubt the concern over the danger of CCW is a true argument. </p>
<p>A better argument against guns is one that looks at non-suicide gun deaths and the amount done by legally owned guns.</p>
<p>Sometimes I wish it would be allowed to carry a firearm in self defence when going through bad neighborhoods. Disregarding the noble cowboy and western nostalgia, I'd feel like I had a fighting chance against these gunmen and not be a lamb forced to line-up in the case of slaughter. Incidently, I feel that classrooms should have more than one exit in case a solitary gunman enters...</p>
<p>Realisticly though, having more firearms would mean more violence and spontaneous killings when people got mad. But I still wish there was a way to take self-preservation into your own hands...don't you?</p>
<p>I'm just going to put my .002 cents in and not come back to this thread.</p>
<p>It won't help if we restrict guns because you can smuggle them in from other countries. Also, if you're crazy enough to kill someone, you're going to get a gun by any means necessary. How in the hell can you try to prevent people from obtaining guns when our government cannot even prevent illegal aliens from entering this country?! They're a lot more visible than guns, no?</p>
<p>Draw your own conclusions. Obviously, firearms that kill people in the house draw far less media attention. Even if there was a headline news report about the number of gun deaths in the house, it would STILL draw less attention than Virginia Tech.</p>