What is Digg?599 Comments
- inactive, on 02/17/2008, -14/+70The NIU police responded in 29 SECONDS and they were still too late to prevent the carnage. The gunman was the only armed person in the room. I don't set foot in no-gun zones. They are too dangerous. There's a reason mass shootings don't take place in police stations and firing ranges. There are 150,000 concealed carry permit holders in Virginia. And nobody knows how many people carry guns openly, because they are not required to have a permit. The average murder rate in Arlington, VA is about four per year. In next door Alexandria, it's about six. Yet, step across the border in DC, which has some of the strictest gun control in the nation, and there are about 200 murders every year. The same goes for gun-shy Maryland. Of course, speaking logic to a liberal is like speaking French to a poodle. You'd THINK it should work, but it doesn't.
- Shaman760, on 02/17/2008, -6/+51Well as long as the drug companies are allowed to keep feeding kids SSRI drugs and boosting their bottom line with no sort of regulation (other than themselves) then we can be rest assured that the "Paxil Nation" will be rearing it's ugly head more often than not.
I was once on Paxil. I know how destructive that stuff is. It's like 70 degrees in your mind at any given time. It makes any activity OK. Even say, drowning your kids, shooting your friends, hey, it's all good! - RuffRidr, on 02/17/2008, -9/+49The Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers make the intent clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -12/+52"This morning, some NIU parents, led by Dr. Connie Catellani, plan a press conference to push for tougher gun laws. "A call to action — to put all federal and state elected officials and candidates on notice, that parents will no longer take "the gun lobby is too powerful" as an excuse not to have tougher gun laws in the U.S.," wrote the group in a press release."
Tougher gun laws will only make it even more difficult for upstanding citizens to protect themselves from criminals and those with malicious intent. If you intend to murder someone, you probably don't have any moral issue with getting a gun illegally. - chikoos, on 02/17/2008, -1/+36What has changed?
Nothing. Just the setting and the victims. - avengingturnip, on 02/17/2008, -8/+37Twenty seven years old is not a kid, and automatic weapons are tightly regulated in the U.S. What is your point?
- LeeSoong, on 02/17/2008, -5/+34What's Changed Since the Virginia Tech Massacre?
More states realize the stupidity of their gun control laws, and eliminate gun-free zones
with concealed carry and Stand Your Ground Laws.
Concealed Carry protects your 2nd amendment right to be ready to defend your life, family and property in most locations.
Stand Your Ground laws Do Not require you to retreat from violent criminals
- you have the Right to defend yourself in any location.
So the mini-mart gas station guy is not legally required to ''cooperate'' with the criminal trying to beat him to death for crack money. The mini-mart employee now has the legal right to reach under the counter and shoot through the counter, and unload every round in his weapon into the idiot trying to end his life for $100 and some smokes.
Stand Your Ground laws mean any 'mass shooter' can and will be met with return fire in states that obey the 2nd amendment.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html
"These laws send a more general message to society that public spaces belong to the public - and the public will protect [public places] rather than trying to run into the bathroom of the nearest Starbucks and hope the police show up," says David Kopel, [research] director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.
http://volokh.com/posts/1141019249.shtml
http://www.nra.org/ NRA, Join Today. - avengingturnip, on 02/17/2008, -6/+32You really want to know the root cause? Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors. There. Now you know.
- mmd643, on 02/17/2008, -8/+34I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to get a concealed carry permit and protect myself from these crazy *****. - rhustang, on 02/17/2008, -0/+25I'll probably get dugg down, but come on, this is life. The day we can predict and stop these kind of acts is the day we create a society not worth living in.
People get hit by cars, struck by lighting, and sometimes get shot in random acts of violence. It's sh1tty, but you should not wish for it to stop -- that's a very dangerous wish.
I'm actually a Virginia Tech alumni and one of my professors was killed during that shooting, so please don't tell me I can only say the above comments because I haven't been impacted by such a heinous act. - jcims, on 02/17/2008, -1/+24I think he (and i) have a problem with the correlation, that guns equal violence, and the assumption, that banning guns effectively limits access to them. Marijuana has been completely illegal in this country for 50 years, and nobody would bat an eye if this kid was stoned. Why? You know why. Yet we look at firearms, a durable good that doesn't go up in smoke every time you use it, and think that somehow banning them...in a country with hundreds of millions of them in circulation, is going to do anything at all? (Yes, i know, ammunition does go up, but i can fit 2000 rounds of pistol ammunition in a shoe box). This kid killed himself...he was on a mission of destruction and the threat of a felony just doesn't seem like that much of a barrier.
The reality is guns will not go away. Law enforcement and military will always have a justifiable reason for them, and people with a $2000 home cnc mill could make one a week. Why don't we focus on the motivation behind the trigger pulls, because it's the will to kill that is the enemy, not an inanimate object (i'll give you a hint, avengingturnip is on to something a few posts above...do a little research, it is shocking). A gallon of gas and a padlock could have done a lot more damage here, and i don't think you're going to ban either of those any time soon. - Barbrady, on 02/17/2008, -4/+27"Tougher gun laws will only make it even more difficult for upstanding citizens to protect themselves from criminals and those with malicious intent. If you intend to murder someone, you probably don't have any moral issue with getting a gun illegally."
Exactly. It's been proven over and over that gun owners with concealed carry permits commit crimes at much lower rates than the general population. In Oregon if you have a CHL you can carry on the campus of ANY public school. The only gun problems occuring on school campuses are being committed by people breaking the law, not concealed carry gun owners. - cygnus2112, on 02/17/2008, -1/+22http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/18/200 ...
"In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 fromhis truck and ran to the scene. In February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun.
Police can't be everywhere, and as incidents from Columbine to Virginia Tech demonstrate, by the time they show up at a mass shooting, it's usually too late. On the other hand, one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. Only if they're armed, they may wind up not being victims at all.
"Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one." - ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -7/+28Why not arm the students? They're adults of legal age to be carrying a firearm in many cases. It's quite obvious that "Gun Free Zones" don't really deter people who have harmful intent, so allowing students who have a permit to carry to carry on campus doesn't seem like a very big deal. Just the fact that other people have weapons and you don't know would act as a deterrent to many people who might otherwise commit violent crimes.
- avengingturnip, on 02/17/2008, -4/+25"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of meaningful elections, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Now, from the structure of the above clause, can one reasonably conclude that only registered voters will have the right to own books? - gandhi2, on 02/17/2008, -3/+24It worked really well at Trolley Square in Utah. An armed gunman went on a shooting rampage, only he was taken down quickly by an armed off-duty police officer.
When are people going to understand that the gun debate is not some whimsical or silly thing? At the very core is an individual's natural right to protect himself/herself/family/friends. The ability for self-defense is essential, and anybody who thinks otherwise is dangerously naive. - chopenik, on 02/17/2008, -1/+21Good point. Gun control is not the answer. America had very liberal views on guns throughout it's history. But it isn't up until recently that we had the rush of school shootings. Why is that? Up until Columbine shooting I can only recall a single school shooting in 1960's (I think), and that was a disgruntled former marine. I don't recall the college campus where that happened. There are other reasons for the shootings, and I for one think it has to do with medication that the shooters are on.
- matador3, on 02/17/2008, -4/+24Castle Doctrine + Concealed Carry = Solution
- donutwant, on 02/17/2008, -1/+19Yes, because school shooters always apply for a concealed carry permit before walking on campus with a gun.
- matador3, on 02/17/2008, -6/+24For all the hoplophobes on here who think it's possible to ban guns. Here's a submachine gun you can build with hand tools and parts from the hardware store, ammo too.
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
Those who know anything about guns will tell you that an open bolt submachine gun is actually the simplest of all gun designs and the easiest to build. It's also exactly what you don't want some nutcase to open fire with into a room full of of unarmed victims but it's exactly what underground manufacturers will be building
You can't ban guns and you can't ban crazy.
Self defense is a human right. - verifex, on 02/17/2008, -2/+20At least we haven't had psychotic politicians trying to pass new laws in the wake of these school shootings.
I can see it now, "New law requires metal detectors at every classroom" - matador3, on 02/17/2008, -4/+22Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
How restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html - inactive, on 02/17/2008, -10/+27This is nothing but people getting hysterical over nothing. There are over 300 million people in the US and there have been what? 10, 20 shootings this decade?
Isolated cases mean nothing. - donutwant, on 02/17/2008, -1/+18That's exactly what the anti-gunners were saying back in the 90's when Florida brought in their shall issue concealed carry permits. "It'll be the gunshine state!" they hysterically proclaimed "People will be shooting each other over fender benders!" Guess what, it didn't happen. Murder went down, crime went down and the same thing has happened in the forty some states that have followed Florida's lead. There is still lots of crime in Florida, no doubt, but a lot of that has to do with their drug gang problems, the key point is that it went down not up.
- Randrayla, on 02/17/2008, -0/+17This crap starting happening in Israel so guess what they did? They armed the teachers and it stopped. Wow, who would have thought?
- doctorfungi, on 02/17/2008, -10/+26The people who are determined enough, and sick enough to walk into their school with a gun and kill dozens of people are always going to find a way to do so.
Prohibition of guns infringes on second amendment rights, deterrents won't work, and preemptive measures (eg. metal detectors) are unlikely to have much of an impact. What we need to be doing is meeting fire with fire. Don't arm the students, but at least get some kind of armed security on these campuses or this is going to keep happening year after year, death after death. - nanoware, on 02/17/2008, -5/+20what changed? nothing. what is happening now isl a whole lot of coppy cat "i got to shoot people up to prove im depressed" *****.
monkey see monkey do - kinggps, on 02/17/2008, -5/+20if guns kill people then spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat
- gandhi2, on 02/17/2008, -3/+18Yes, because nobody on the planet is capable of making rational decisions or has any sort of intuitive logic. There are reasons to train yourself with a weapon, and most of them have nothing to do with improving accuracy.
What is it that police officers learn about guns and defense tactics that the average person is completely incapable of learning? - nixfu, on 02/17/2008, -1/+16>In Australia NO-ONE but the military can have an automatic weapon.
In the US NO-ONE can have an automatic weapon without lots and lots of special permits, permissions, and anal exams from the intelligence community.
What makes people think that automatic weapons are easy to get in the US? They have been banned since the 1920's gangster era, and been very hard to get and pretty much limited to collectors with major connections to get the required permissions from the government. - HanSolo69, on 02/17/2008, -1/+15I agree completely that people should be able to carry, open or concealed, wherever, whenever, school, church, out to dinner; and i also live in Virginia and I know that your example is flawed. Using Alexandria and Arlington as examples? Yes, I'm sure all the rich people are just dying (no pun intended) to shoot each other. I live in Richmond where the murder rate hit a long time peak of 83 a couple years ago. It's just a different setting. Arlington and Alexandria don't have les murders because of Virginia gun laws. They have less murders because they are Arlington and Alexandria.
- evilemma, on 02/17/2008, -0/+13But how many people had Suicidal Ideation before taking SSRIs? I know I did - I was prescribed Zoloft which actually made me have aggressive outbursts. I have since been given a correct diagnosis (Bipolar disorder) and am now on Lithium as well as another SSRI called Lexapro and I have felt the best I have in years. I think SSRIs are too commonly perscribed and aren't monitored closely enough though.
Oh and FTR - I no longer have any problems with suicidal ideation. - arcooke, on 02/17/2008, -2/+15Actually, according to Wikipedia there have been 46 in the US since 1966. Not many for 42 years, but when you consider the fact that 5 of those happened in the past 2 weeks, and half of all of them since 2000, it's steadily getting more frequent. I made you a graph. I would hardly say people are getting hysterical over "nothing".
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/6712/graph2nj3. ...
Ignore my typos and horrible graph making abilities. - inactive, on 02/17/2008, -3/+16Spare me the drama. I remember when Virginia dropped gun control, the Democrats when nuts. One politico actually said, "The streets will run red with blood!!!" Never happened. EVERY time a government drops gun control, violent crime goes down. EVERY time a government bans guns, violent crime goes up. It's fact, not opinion. But, liberals feel and conservatives think. Just because you don't trust yourself with a gun doesn't mean everyone else is irresponsible.
- matador3, on 02/17/2008, -3/+16O RLY?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/deta ... - mmd643, on 02/17/2008, -7/+19Bingo.
If more people were armed, I think you would see much less crime. Try robbing a gas station when the three people in line might be packing. - jjacksonRIAB, on 02/17/2008, -2/+14Yeah I was just looking at a gun the other day and it didn't like that I was staring so it shot me.
Then I drank some tea but it didn't like me trying to swallow it so it burned me.
Then I got in my car and my car decided on its own to crash into a semi and killed me.
(Ranked in reverse order of most likely to happen) - ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -1/+13You have quite obviously never been to a university. Many of them have an open campus wherein anyone can walk on or walk off. Many of them also have major roads going through them. Would you propose that we stop and search everyone driving through campus and that we strip search everyone walking onto the campus? It's completely impossible to prevent guns from being brought onto a school campus, so your idea is completely useless. Allowing students who are legally qualified to carry a weapon and who have bought that weapon for their own protection to carry said weapon would go a long way in prevent people from commit such violent crimes.
I'd also like to know what fairy tale you're living in where carrying a holstered, concealed handgun is anything remotely close to "armed to the teeth". - ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -2/+14Kids? I didn't say anything about kids. Many college students are of legal age to be carrying a firearm without changing any laws whatsoever. Many of them even own a firearm and are forced to leave it at home as these schools are "gun free zones". Thus they go out unprotected, easy prey for a criminal with no regard for gun laws in the first place. Allowing legally fit persons who have a legally obtained concealed carry permit to carry on the property of a public university would only increase the safety of the school and it's students.
If even ONE student at Virginia Tech had been carrying a weapon with them, the rampage could have ended well before 33 people were left dead, but instead, as they abide by laws, they were NOT carrying a weapon, and many lives were lost because of it. - jcims, on 02/17/2008, -4/+16That's because, if you'll notice, all of these incidents happen in GUN FREE ZONES. Malls, schools, post offices...look at all of them.
- Grond, on 02/17/2008, -0/+12The current kneejerk legislation attempts suck.
(sarcasm)
Ban schools!
The fact that these tragedies all happen in schools is another thing common in these situations - if schools are banned, only outlaws will have access to schools! STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS NOW!
(/sarcasm off)
Why make it *more* difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves? Everyone who lives in reality accepts that criminals will still obtain guns.
The questions that the anti-civil rights, big government loving, gun grabbers still refuse to answer:
Why are you more scared of your law-abiding neighbors than you are of criminals?
Would you let the government, in its wonderful efficiency, run your household finances? No? Why let it have absolute control over options for personal protection? (No, don't be absurd, we're not talking about Stinger missiles, nukes, M203s, etc. - equating a handgun to military-only weapons is like equating the usefulness of a doctor to a bandaid.)
Why are these tragedies more common in recent history, considering that for the couple hundred years prior, gun ownership laws were much less restrictive? - nixfu, on 02/17/2008, -2/+14>the people
You forgot to CAPITALIZE "right of the People"...its capitalized in the constitution like all the other individual rights (2nd, 5th etc).
And notice it does not say "the militia". Your welcome to amend the constitution if you don't like it, but as of now it says "right of the People". - jjacksonRIAB, on 02/17/2008, -2/+14This scenario has happened before, but did not have the results you predict:
"In shootings at other schools, armed students or employees have restrained gunmen, possibly preventing additional murders. Four years ago at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, a man who had killed the dean, a professor, and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns. In 1997 an assistant principal at a public high school in Pearl, Mississippi, likewise retrieved a handgun from his car and used it to apprehend a student who had killed three people."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119694.html
Your logic is a massive fail, Nostradamus. - KaJuN4, on 02/17/2008, -0/+11First off that photo of the students with their phones out snapping pictures of the victim sickens me to no end.
Secondly, the idea of notifying a student's parents if he or she is considered a possible threat is just plain dumb. Who sets the criteria for what's considered normal behavior? We're all individuals and we all act differently. I tend to be the shy type in class but does that mean I'm a threat to anyone? According to all the stories the NIU shooter seemed to be what just about everyone would consider to be perfectly normal. If we concentrated on the weird ones then the 'normal' people would slip through the cracks.
To me it's just another safety blanket and the sole purpose of it is to provide a way to hide from ourselves and hope the problem goes away.
Something else struck me too. From the article: "Whatever changes and modifications NIU made, worked very well yesterday," said Wolf.
Tell that to the parents who will never see their children again. The text message notifications are a step in the right direction but they didn't make a damn bit of difference to the five NIU students who didn't make it, or to anyone else for that matter.
At least the NIU police chief seems to have his head on straight: "It's a horrendous circumstance, and ... it's unlikely that anyone would ever have the ability to stop an incident like this from beginning."
Since these incidents can't be stopped the only logical course of action is to reduce the amount of damage that's done once the shooting starts. So all in all, what's changed since Virginia Tech? Nowhere near enough has changed. And until something does all those dead students and faculty will have died for nothing. - jjacksonRIAB, on 02/17/2008, -0/+11It's irrelevant to my corpse whether it was riddled with bullets or slashed by a meat cleaver.
- ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -1/+12He wasn't a kid, so no, his comment has absolutely nothing to do with the story. I also must've missed where there was an automatic weapon involved in this shooting.
- ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -4/+15Obviously most people who have been shot and killed aren't going to be shooting anyone back. However, incidents like this HAVE been stopped by witnesses and those nearby shooting back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of ... - ind3p3nd3nt, on 02/17/2008, -0/+11neither do guns; people kill people.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 595 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 