Monday, April 16, 2007

Virginia Tech Shooting

Oh, Christ, here we go again.

Some maladjusted little bugsnipe gets his mental panties into a bunch and goes flat boiling nutters with a gun in one of the few places where he knows someone isn't going to put him down like a rabid dog during his first magazine.

And -- as usual -- the Mainstream Media is bleating about needing more Gun Control.

Gun Control is a failure. You simply can not expect those who would do murder -- those who would violate the highest law -- you can not expect them to obey a lesser law.

And you can not turn a failure into a success by doubling the failure.

None-the-less, I will be greatly surprised if the Mainstream Media and the political lapdogs don't try to use this tragedy to further their gun control agenda.

You want to be really disgusted? I mean, the down deep nausea kind of disgusted?

The State Government of Virginia had a bill before it which would have allowed college students to exercise their Second Amendment rights on campus earlier this year.

The bill didn't even make it out of committee.

When the bill died, the spokesman for Virginia Tech -- where some college kids really needed to be able to shoot back this morning -- Virgina Tech spokescritter Larry Hincker stated:

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

He was happy to hear of the defeat of the bill which would have allowed college kids to carry weapons for self-defence on his college campus.

Happy now, you sodding dacoit? Go tell the dead that they're really safe because the Virginia State Government refuses to allow them to carry for self-defence on campus, you ate-up catamite with delusions of adequacy.

And despite all of that -- despite the senseless death and the smug arrogance that allowed the death to happen -- there is news that sickens me to the very core.

There are reports -- granted unconfirmed at this time -- that several students were forced to line up, kneeling, and executed from behind.

I pray to the old gods -- the gods of war and blood and thunder -- that this is not the case.

I pray that some students went down fighting.

Because as bad as this is -- and this is a horror -- as bad as this is, if fifty some-odd people were injured and killed by one person whilst on their knees begging like so many Eloi, like a herd of sheep -- if no one stood up and fought back, then this is becomes an example of evil.

Not the evil that allows a man to kill other men -- although that is here in abundance. No, I am speaking of the putrescent evil which convinces good men not to fight back; the sordid filth of the soul which allows one bad man to prevail against fifty -- or 25,000 -- good men because good men have been systematically denied the mindset required to meet with, engage and defeat evil -- even if all you have is fingernails and rage.

One man. On a campus of 25,000 people. 25,000 people surrounded by fire extinguishers, book bags, pencils, pens, drafting compasses, chairs, broom handles, power strips, ceramics, chains and everything heavy and/or sharp.

One man managed to gun down fifty people -- or more -- without being stabbed and bludgeoned to death where he stood by the other 24,950 people.

I weep for the dead. I weep for the families who lost their treasured children today.

I weep even more for a land which not only denies the tools required for self-defence, but also denies the very mindset required for self-defence.

LawDog

151 comments:

JoeMerchant24 said...

Amen.

kateykakes said...

I worry now about copy-cats. For some reason, one psycho who does this stuff doesn't seem to be enough for some.

My thoughts and prayers to those at Virginia Tech, and to their families as well.

Stephen Renico said...

Gun bill gets shot down by panel

In Virginia, "HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee..."

One CCW holder could have ended this with a bullet to the back of the shooter's head. The only people affected by the law (gun control in this case) are those who obey the law.

JoeMerchant24 said...

I, too, worry about copycats.

But, alas, as state law and school policy allow, I will be headed to class tonight with and empty holster.

martywd said...

Eloquent as always, LawDog.  'Gun Free Zones' really work, don't they?  NOT!  Now Copy-cats' are an issue?

LawDog's eloquence needs no further backup, but just in case, I found a therapist who might be able to assist here.

JeanC said...

Well said LawDog. I wish I could write as well as you.

Scott from Oregon said...

Yawn-- The trouble with you nutters is that you cannot concieve of a socieety that has removed guns from its midst. When was the last time you heard of a Japanese guy going on a shooting spree in Tokyo? It's been awhile. Wanna know why? They removed the guns from society completely.

The trouble with gun control laws is the second amendment. What that means is that the laws only go part way. So what you get are half-measures resulting in partial cures.

Allowing the "students" of a university to walk around armed will simply increase the incidences of shooting on campuses.

More guns. More shootings. Law of averages. You make the (again proven) false assumption that people who carry guns "for protection" are always sane.

The reason so many did not fight back is the reason gun control advocates want to remove guns from society. You can't fight against a barrage of bullets. Bullets have a way of trumping bravado. They are designed to maim and kill effectively and that is what happens.

Your rant is nothing more than silliness dressed in camo.

It's embarrassing and solves nothing, and disparages those who died by another nutjobberdoodoohead with a grievance and a gun.

Kaylee said...

Amen 'Dog... truth, well written. Better to die making a difference than live always wondering "what could I have done???"

That's a basic duty of mankind.

Oh, and "where have all the real men gone?"
..evidently not to Oregon.

Justin said...

This link's for Scott.

But then again, if removing guns from society leads to a reduction in violent crime, perhaps he'd care to explain what's gone wrong with the UK?

Anonymous said...

I see Scott from Oregon makes the same old lame arguement that "blood will run in the streets if..." that's been trotted out every time another state passes a pro-CCW law.

Japan? I don't live in Japan. Maybe he'd like to move there, but I doubt it. He wouldn't be here on election day to vote for a Leftist candidate.

"You can't fight against a barrage of bullets. Bullets have a way of trumping bravado. They are designed to maim and kill effectively and that is what happens."

That's also why bullets, outgoing, also have a way of ending the incoming barrage.

MonkeyGirl said...

Scott from Oregon said, "Your rant is nothing more than silliness dressed in camo. It's embarrassing and solves nothing....."

No, it's not silliness, and not embarrassing. It's very eloquent, and very thought-provoking. And it's scary to realize that a lot of people like Scott from Oregon really think that you can cut down on gun crimes by passing "tougher" laws. Last time I checked, criminals don't follow laws.

Thanks, LawDog.

Fyremandoug said...

Thanks lawdog for tell the good word here, Trust me Kaylee there are still some MEN in Oregon and Scott Dosnt speak for us all, I worry about the media glorifying this and then a copycat will run with it and it starts all over
and above all I am broken hearted for the People that lost loved ones

James Griffin said...

Scott from Oregon, when nut cases go batty in Japan, they use knives, and kill folks by the dozen.

Unfortunately, all too many Japanese have been taught that you can't fight back, violence is never the answer. All too many times, Japanese confronted with a knife wielding killer, wait on their knees for their turn to come.

Then again, since they can't use guns to defend themselves, at least they don't have gun violence. Better dead than use a gun? NOT MY IDEA OF A GOOD SOLUTION!

Fyremandoug said...

And my guess Scott is Probaply from Portland or Eugene the bastions of leftist stupidity

Kaylee said...

Thanks Doug - my apologies to the good men of Oregon. I've just been reminded of Cooper's old quote in "Hold! Enough!" where he states..

Fifty years ago young people were made to understand - around the dinner table - that strife was a part of life, and that they might well encounter it, and that it would then be their duty to face it without blinking - ready, willing, and able to use force quickly and expertly if necessary. Boys were taught to shoot and use their hands, and girls were taught to expect that in their men."

A wise man from a more civilized time. Thank God for those of you who still carry that torch.

Anonymous said...

"They are designed to maim and kill effectively"

Well, I hope so. At least, mine had better do that if I have to shoot someone breaking in my home at 3:00am.

Boats said...

Well I too am from Oregon and completely disagree with Scott.

First of all, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. For better or worse, the United States set its policy on the public ownership of firearms in 1783. That's a lot of firearms to make disappear, especially since I figure I could make my own in a pinch.

Secondly, the comparison to Japan is inapt. From early in its feudal period, weaponry in Japan was a tightly controlled commodity. Only members of the privileged samurai class were capable of openly wearing swords, or generally carrying any effective weaponry. Everyone else, save for outlaws of their day, made due with improvised farm implements.

Gun control was not hard to achieve in Japan because there was never an individual right to be armed.

What the events of the day represent is one of the ultimate failures of gun control. After all, where were guns more controlled than at Virginia Tech up to the moment someone decided to exploit the fact that precious few in the vicinity would be capable of shooting back?

It is a great disservice done to forcibly disarm people for the "greater good." In essence, all that one accomplishes is to turn what is supposed to be a citizen, into a herd animal.

The US Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled that the police forces of the state have no obligation to save the individual from even totally foreseen criminal harm. Can't sue them, and you'll be damn lucky to get an objective inquiry into the adequacy of their actions following a crisis.

I imagine that the Chancellors of the Virginia University System also feel no obligation to defend the individual bodily integrity of their students beyond having to issue deepest sympathies.

The police are not responsible for an individual's life or limb after enforcing a disarmament zone. The school officials are not responsible for your life or limb after mandating a disarmament zone.

So who is responsible for your ultimate safety in all possible circumstances? You yourself are.

I guess that is why I carried contra policy throughout my college years in Oregon.

I don't want anyone's deepest sympathies. I want my God given rights observed.

Byron Quick said...

I usually avoid criminal safety zones whenever possible.

When it's not possible, I knowingly break the law and go armed except when I have to pass through a metal detector.

I've attended class on campuses where the nanny state said I could not carry arms to defend myself or others. Nothing ever happened but I wouldn't have been on my knees.

Heh. That rollover accident last November. I was armed. EMS never discovered it. The emergency department never discovered it. Hospital staff never discovered it. I was wheeled in with my carry pistol and walked out with it ten days later.

Scott, old buddy, there are guns in Japan. The yakuza have them when needed and the rich and politically connected can also have them. Tell you what, corner a bunch of unarmed rednecks with one shooter at the exit and a room full of the type of improvised weaponry LawDog listed. See what happens. There will be a bunch of dead and wounded rednecks, sure. There will be one ragged, stomped flat, and DEAD shooter, too.

Byron

Mike V said...

Bryan Jones, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington (Big gun control supporters) said recently:

"I hate to say it but it's going to take the kind of massacre that kills lots of children. That's the only way we are going to see progress, "I think it's got to be worse than (Columbine)."

I guess Mr. Jones got his wish.

Mushy said...

Let me say that I knew the news media would focus on the firearms instead of the parenting issues that were the ultimate cause of America's kids going wild.

And, they did...not 2 minutes into the NBC piece did they bring up that 9mm weapons (they say guns) can now be purchased with 19 round clips instead of the pre-Federal Assault Weapons Ban 10 round limit! Like a shooter can't carry enough clips of any size to do what he intends!

Cellphones, text messaging, computers, video games all take priority over family time, instead of when the family was more important than these things is the root of this evil!

Sorry - couldn't help myself.

MrsJoseGoldbloom said...

This post was right on the money and VERY well written. More and more I ask myself what happened to the America I remember from my youth. If people don't wake up we will lose our country one day.

Alex said...

It seems to me that if one is going to take away someone's most effective tool for self defense (a gun) in a particular area, one ought to be required to at least provide plenty of armed sheepdogs to protect the sheep in that area.

I shudder to think what kind of gun control monstrosity is going to come out of this...

Bonnie said...

Allowing the "students" of a university to walk around armed will simply increase the incidences of shooting on campuses.

Scott, this is untrue. By nature, and by the rule that you yourself stated, allowing everyone to be armed would assure that almost no one would act brashly like the suck fuck (excuse the language) who shot up those students today. Why? Because at any turn, there COULD be a student with the necessary means to end the madness with a single shot.

You make the (again proven) false assumption that people who carry guns "for protection" are always sane.

We KNOW that not everyone who carries a gun is sane. This is why more sane people need to carry guns, to help weed out the REAL "nutters" who feel the need to attack innocents just because they know there's no opposition in those areas. No, you can't always tell the level of sanity in a person owning a gun...but the fact that you can't do that, and because we have that "OMG AWFUL" (sarcasm, everyone...sarcasm) 2nd Amendment, we need to give ourselves level fighting ground, and allow people to obtain protection legally as easily as those who DON'T follow the law do. Because do you think they're stymied by your precious gun-control laws? Nope. If they were, today wouldn't have happened.


Also, an American citizen who doesn't know that the 2nd Amendment is to protect us not only from each other, but from our government becoming too big for its britches, is an American whom I wouldn't trust for a minute when it came down to the wire.

dracphelan said...

LawDog,
I have quoted you on my blog and LJ.

BBC said...

I dare say that almost that many people die in this country everyday in random shootings and deaths.

The press just decides to pick on the big ones, or smaller ones if it's a slow news day.

My point is, this is one crazy country. And you may be next, following the story will just be a waste of my time, it's just a bunch of monkeys fucking around.

They will take my gun from my cold dead fingers, I have the right to personal protection from the crazy monkeys.

Let me be more clear on that, I'm taking the right and fuck any laws.

Flyinfox_SATX said...

Yeah Lawdog, you said it right. If I may be so bold as to sum it up another way. We don't need gun control...we need people control.

Flyinfox_SATX

Janie said...

Just today I reinforced to my children, "If I have to choose between being a sheep or a sheep dog, *I'm* going to be a sheep dog. And it's NOT just because I like Border Collies..."

I further told them that if one day this attitude gets me killed, they will know I died fighting and attempting to take the baddie out with me.

BTW, the girl that used to babysit my kids is fine. She's an engineering student at VT. The first shooting was "near" her dorm. I have yet to hear the definition of "near", but I hope she is well mentally.

Janie in Virginia

Scott from Oregon said...

Y'all are about as predictable as wet gun powder.

The most amazing thing about male gun nutters is their cowardice. I am a man because I defend myself with a gun!

Teehee!

That's rich...

I read that-- "I am a coward because I am afraid to go through life unarmed".

If everyone twenty year old had the ability to run aaround packing, you'd see alot more basic run of the mill homocides that would dwarf today's calamity.

If one person in five hundred had it in him to pull out his gun when drunk and anfry and pull the trigger... the numbers would add up in a hurry.

Look at all the false assumptions y'all just made about me. It is sad, really. As if y'all have lost the ability to reason and think.

Scary is the fact that most of you think you should walk around armed in a supermarket.

my my my...

Hammer said...

Scott: Random 20 year olds DO walk around with guns.. they are called gang bangers.

Bad nutty guys that want to carry guns already do. Why should we be defenseless against those predators who do not obey your precious laws?

Why not even the playing field and let the sane law abiding folks be able to shoot back?

I guess stacks of bodies are much more interesting than stories of some guy pulling out a gun and ending an attack before it starts.

Your personal attacks are very unbecoming scott.

Anonymous said...

Well said Lawdog.

My first thought was where were the people who jumped up, threw coffee, sodas, notebooks, computers at the stinking SOB right as he burst into the classroom?

Why didn't they seize the initiative? Why didn't they gang tackle this piece of trash and proceed to pound his head into jelly and then pound on it some more? Until nothing was left but a really nasty mess.

Why were there not 20+ people putting their feet, hands, chairs, tables, books to good use and defending themselves?

Diamond Mair said...

As always, LawDog, you hit the nail on the head ................... and it sounds as though Steger, {president of VT} is preparing to lay the blame on campus security and the local law enforcement ..............
Mushy, if you hadn't brought up the Assault Weapons ban commentary, by that purveyor of 'emotional goo', I was gonna ................... I'll be copying your commentary, LawDog, & posting it on my Marine message board, with attribution .................. requiescat in pacem, you innocents who died today ..................

Papa Ray said...

My oldest Grandson (who is going in the Navy next month) said he couldn't understand why the kids didn't fight back in some way.

I told him that they were "in shock and dismay because they had never been in a room when a gun was being fired and that all they could do was nothing but try and hide."

He thought a minute and said, "your right, it is a shock and deafing and if your not used to guns (like he is) I guess it would be pretty overpowering."

I added, "plus they are just kids, they think that nothing will ever happen to them, just someone else."

Papa Ray

Kaylee said...

It is the decent and honorable man who is willing to shoulder the responsibility of protecting himself and his community. To do otherwise is not just cowardly, it's selfish, it's lazy, and it's irresponsible.

God help the family of the coward, who hides his lack of honor with juvenile scorn - words that prove him proud that he is unable to live up to the vow to protect them. That's no way to go through life.

Me, I'm glad for men like the 'dog. They're the ones that make civilization possible.

And hammer... don't forget our young soldiers, also young 20 year olds with guns... and like CCW holders, training... and honor.

Dact said...

What I will remember most from this one is the image of two police officers hiding behind a tree while the shooting is going on inside. I'm sorry, but that just does not compute! Now, I know the value of discipline, as a former [SAS] member, and a veteran, but at some point, if the leader, or commander on site does not respond, then F**k him, it's time to take the situation in hand. Did these officers really think there was a hostage situation, when 27 gunshots ring out before they move? Whatever happened to personal initiative? I have always been a team player, but I also have always had a leader! Lately, in real life situations, there has been a very noticeable lack of them!

Anonymous said...

I'm reminded of LawDog's article on "I can't believe he/she just hit me".

I see we still have a commie troll following this discussion.

mustanger98 on THR

Turk said...

OK Scott in Oregon, explain to me how you plan to make this a gunless society. Explain to me how you want to collect the illegal/stolen firearms that are in criminal's hands and on the black market now. The law abiding citizens will turn the guns they posess, and the criminals won't. The only people without weapons when we ban them will be the criminals, not the innocent ones who follow the law.
Further, to totally eliminate guns from the public the only way to prevent more weapons from getting into the black market and criminals hand would be to take weapons from the police, and every day when they clock out have them leave their weapons in a secure facility at the station. I don't know about LawDog (though I can guess his feelings), but as an officer I don't want to leave work and to put it gently, have my work follow me home...

The UK took guns away, what do you know, there are still guns used to commit crimes there. Yeah they went down, but the problem still exists, and now, the victims can't defend themselves.

Also, I once read a statement that is appropriate. To relinquish your guns to the government requires an absolute trust of the government. I imagine 1930's Germany trusted the government....

Also Scott, your condescending tone only shows your lack of maturity. You lose any chance of credibility when you take a tone like that of your last post. If you do not like the views, bug off man...

And thanks LawDog, good post as always.

Cybrludite said...

Scary is the fact that most of you think you should walk around armed in a supermarket.

Oddly enough, I carry anytime I'm not at work and yet there's no trail of bodies to mark my passage. Even at the supermarket.

Lauren said...

You know that if the bill had past, the media would be blaming today's shooting on that.

Last night I read about the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. A disgruntled Jewish settler in his IDF uniform walked into an Islamic place of worship and opened fire with an assault rifle and (allegedly) grenades, killing 29 men and boys, wounding 150 others. The Palistinian "victims" disarmed him with a fire extinguisher (then beat him to death with it...not that you can blame them.)

Palistinians grow up in a culture where violence is a fact of life. We do not. So when violence happens to us, we are real victims. Because we can't concieve of it happening to us, we freeze when we encounter it, expecting someone else to fix it.

To some extent, I see that as the natural trade off to living in what, compared to the rest of the world throughout human history, is a pretty darn peaceful place. We don't have to accept violence as a reality until it happens to us, so we aren't prepared to fight it.

Obviously, there are exceptions to this "we". Most of the people commenting probably are. I'm not. I'm 20 and still in the process of becoming competant with a handgun, and a martial art.

If I really expected to encounter violence, I would have put a lot more time, effort and money into achieving that competence much sooner.

Which is all just a long-winded way of me saying I don't think the handgun law would have made much of a difference. Lawdog has stated that the human mind is the most important weopon. If nobody was willing to fight without a gun, what makes you think they would have the kind of mentality that would make them carry one to class?

Anonymous said...

"Scary is the fact that most of you think you should walk around armed in a supermarket."

I'm reminded of that time right after 9-11 when an Israeli woman used her sidearm to stop a suicide bomber... in a supermarket in Haifa, IIRC. After we see such a monumental attacks, don't think more stuff can't happen here.

mustanger98 on THR

Anonymous said...

"Scary is the fact that most of you think you should walk around armed in a supermarket."

You must live in constant fear, since many of us are already doing so.

ArfinGreebly said...

My sentiments are very much those of 'Dog. Thank you, sir. Yer erudition is exquisite.

In the absence of defensive weapons . . . well here:

At the risk of quoting myself ( http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3300661#post3300661 )

Critical Mass

Sometimes you have to have some kind of critical mass.

Sometimes all it takes is one.

A critical mass of one.

One guy with the stones to run at the guy.

One guy with the sand to make a stand.

And if only one or two others follow him, it's Flight 93 all over again.

I remember the day I got punched in the mouth for the first time. He was bigger, he was faster, and he was meaner, and I knew I would get hit. And I attacked him anyway. And I was the class coward.

All it would take is one guy with a simple decision to take the hit: a coward with a little grit.

Dozens of dead people would still be alive.

And the former coward -- live or die -- would be a hero.

If you're gonna die anyway, at least make it count.

Who knows? You might live.

~~ ArfinGreebly @THR

bjbarron said...

If Scottie wants to go through his life depending on the kindness of strangers....Okey Dokey.

I wish him luck with it. Chances are good he'll never have to look in a mirror and wonder...

Do not, however, require me to live the same way. Some of us aren't wired like that.

Kiki B. said...

Okay....I've been a little out of the loop on this one. All I know is that a shooting happened at VT. ARE YOU FREAKING TELLING ME THAT ONE MAN,JUST ONE, DID ALL OF THIS?? Oh my heart!! That is just unconscionable.

Let me engage in a little sarcasm here: Where was the campus police who are supposed to protect your children located during this melee??

Anonymous said...

Whenever I see people like Scott from Oregon wanting to create their gun free society I have to ask the question about how exactly they intend to implement that and how many people do they wish to kill while doing so? Are they themselves willing to step up to the plate and start kicking in doors to round up weapons and people or would they rather just send agents of the state and other people's children to do their dirty work for them? Just how many other people's sons and daughter's are they willing to send to die to achieve this? How many of their formerly law abiding, countrymen that they make outlaws are they willing to murder to make their dreams of gun free utopia come true? Are you willing to kill me Scott? Do you want me dead so you can get rid of all guns from society? Are you yourself willing to kill me to get your defenseless, weaponless society?

It's not about bravado or camo silliness - it's about Liberty. Some of us are willing to die for it. It's not like it hasn't been done before.

Kiki B. said...

No one is a coward for not carrying a gun. They're a coward because they don't fight the present evil, and want to make it illegal for the brave to fight it.

I love a satirical blog I also read, called "Blame Bush". Here is his headline about the shooting:

"Guns Used in Shooting Spree Possibly Had a Human Attached to Them"

I think this speaks to everything the Loonie Left believes. People aren't bad, just guns. So, lets make sure there aren't any more evil guns to be found in society.

Read this link about a great story where someone had the right to carry a concealed weapon, used said weapon,and averted a "tragedy".

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446

Draven said...

Scott said...

"Y'all are about as predictable as wet gun powder."

So are you, Scott. (by the way, wet powder isn't predictable. It burns unstably.) You would rather people die because they are unable to defend themselves than even take the chance that someone might be able to control themselves well enough to not pull out their gun and start shooting- and you assume that enough people who would be CARRYING guns have impulse control as poor as someone that would do this.

BTW, the perp was a Chinese national in the US on a student visa. It was illegal for him to even possess a gun. A lot of good it did those kids.

In some areas, MORE than one person in 500 is carrying. but they don't draw their guns and shoot everyone.

The perp here took an opportunity many have taken before. He knew his victims would be unarmed and knew he would have plenty of opportunity to shoot people before the police can respond.

Fourteen years ago, I was robbed at knifepoint. I used martial arts to disarm my attacker and neutralize the threat. Today, I can't do that- due to persistent injuries from when I served in the Army. So am I, and the millions of other Americans who can't use physical force to defend ourselves, supposed to just 'give the criminals what they want'? In the case of this guy, he wanted their LIVES. Am I supposed to give him what he wants- my LIFE- because YOU don't feel comfortable with me having the most effective self defense tool I can get? Or is everyone supposed to go take years and years of martial arts? As my old sensei said " All these moves are good for self defense- unless your attacker has a gun. If you don't have a gun, you're just going to be a victim."

So thanks for consigning all of us to just having to give away everything we work for to the first criminal that manages to steal a gun (or, in the case of my location, smuggle it across the border)

Scott from Oregon said...

Yawn-- y'all just can't wrap your heads around nuthin'!

America has a gun heritage and so guns will always be a part of that heritage. Therefore, to try and remove guns from Americans (in spite of the logical motivation to do so) would result in chaos and an enormous black market.

So, rational thought dictates that gun banishment won't work in America.

It HAS worked in many parts of the world with similar lifestyles and educational levels, demonstrating that most of y'alls arguments are not based on evidence or proof, but on "feelings". You are afraid someone will take your gun away because you live in fear, and so you argue blindly and without rationality.

The shooting today was a natural occurence that spawns from a society who posseses guns. You can't control it. It will happen. It will continue to happen because this is a society that posseses guns. It is that simple.

A percentage of any population will go loopy every now and then, and if guns are available, they will shoot and kill people.

As gun nutters, your cowardice and obsession with guns is simply a piece to this simple puzzle. You want guns. People will go nuts and kill people. You want more people to have guns? More people will go nuts and kill people.

I don't carry a gun because I am never afraid. I can shoot a rifle as well as anybody, though, but I have no need for it.

Society needs more couragious people and less people who need to hide behind the illusion that more guns means more safety. Anecdotal evidence all around you points to the opposite conclusion, but y'all have been reading too many NRA pamphlets to even get that far in the conversation.

THe equation will always be more guns meet gun nutters, more killing.

Now, who amongst you has the courage to admit that at least that is true?

And sorry Hammer. I get around nutjobbers who rant, especially in such lunatical terms, and I feel the urge to meet their rants with rants of my own.

Anonymous said...

So, was it Portland or Eugene?

You cite Japan as an example of effective gun-control, with a population that can FEEL safe.

So, tell me, when, (not IF), a government becomes tyrannical and murderous, in which would you prefer to live: A civilian population without the means to defend themselves; Or a society of armed civilians?

Since the real mass murders throughout all human history has been government sponsored, (where body counts reach the tens of millions), you might considered this carefully while planning your little Utopian wet dream.

Anonymous said...

Scott, so is it the tool you have the problem with or the "loopy" people?
Would you be expressing similar outrage if a student had knifed 31 classmates? What if they had driven their car through the campus on sidewalks and run over 30 students, or walked through campus with a baseball bat smashing the heads of passerbys? Should we then consider getting rid of all those tools (knife, car, bat) since they were used by a criminal to create havoc?
Do you really believe that it is the firearms that create the violence? Do you believe all violence would end if all firearms were wiped from the Earth? If there is any ultimate truth to this world it is that mankind has always and will always use violence against fellow man. Whether it be with firearms, knives or truncheons man will use the available tools to commit violent acts. That is a fact.
Regarding your comments about fear and cowardice... Today, I may get sick or lose my job. I don't fear these possibilities but I prepare for them. I buy health insurance and put money in my bank not because I am a coward but because I take responsibility for my life and prepare for what may happen. A firearm is just another tool to prepare for what may befall me on any given day, not because I fear what happen to me but because I am aware that something may happen and want to be able to deal with it.

Mark@C said...

Scott from Oregon,
I could dissect your post line by line. A psychologist would have a field day with it.
I could offer rational counter-arguments backed by real data, real statistics, and real incidents.
Wasted effort, though. You aren't listening, and you aren't capable of logical thought.
So that leaves me with one question. In what community is the mental masturbation you substitute for discussion considered acceptable public behaviour?

Joseph said...

Scott-
If you are never afraid, you are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

After sleeping on it and watching Geraldo at 0500,
People in the media are overlooking the obvious, what else is new?

1. You have a Red Chinese Spy in the country on a student visa.
2. His Girlfriend learns something.
3. He goes to silence her, but blows it and has to shoot her and another party.
4. He reports to Peking, Theres a wait for a committee meeting.
5. He is ordered to do a mass killing and suicide, to atone for his failure and distract the investigation from what is real important.

I'm terrified of some plot that would make the murders of 30 US Citizens just a minor cover up.

Geoff
Who never watches 24.

Anonymous said...

STANDING OVATION!

I stopped leaving mine in my car a long time ago. I'd rather be able to fight back.

Yuri Orlov said...

Something tells me "Scott" is not a native American. Something about his choice of words and phrasing suggests either England of Australia. The term "gun nutters" in particular is not something an American would say. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. If so, this could explain a lot. After watching that smarmy Rebecca Peters bitch debate Wayne LaPierre, I am struck by the similarities. Oh well, just musing...

Oh, BTW, LawDog, I blogged you...

http://therealgunguys.blogspot.com
http://camasgunguys.blogspot.com

Cybrludite said...

So, Scott, how do you explane the per-capita murder rate in NYC (Where no one but the cops may have guns) is so much higher than in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area (Where everyone and their dog have guns)?

PS: The plural of anecdode is NOT data. The actual FBI crime stats show that crime is lower in areas where the would-be victims can shoot back...

phlegmfatale said...

Remember this heartwarming post over at Xavier's?
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/09/nurse-kills-armed-assailant.html

Apparently the real men in Portland are women.

Fantastic post.

KB said...

Well said. Even if the law was different, that nutter would've found a gun somewhere.

I wondered why one 'brave' policeman didn't just GO IN THERE and shoot the guy dead???? Two hours it said on our TV - TWO HOURS!!! Couldn't SOMEONE, (and yes, I agree, someone inside!!!) have just gone in there and DONE something???? Hit the guy over the head or something??

Geeeez.....and this is my first visit here....but 32 people is a small number compared to the 400,000 in Somalia who may die of starvation or the 5000ish Indian women who get killed for dowry every year......I hope this doesn't go on and on and on and on and on and on.....like the 9-11 thing.......(sorry, not American!!)

It's sad, it's awful, I agree. I'd hate it to happen to a member of my family or a friend.....but why is everything American the BIGGEST news??

Anonymous said...

they say y'all in Oregon?

Kiki B. said...

Just so it's clear, Kiki B and KB are 2 different posters.

Anonymous said...

more on the incident

Joseph said...

All sheep, even the supposed sheep dogs. I cannot believe that no one even tried to fight back! If nothing else, throw books, book bags...something, at least.

Elaine said...

Some points i'd like to make:
Deaths from firearms are a reflection of their availability in various countries. The following table gives figures per 100,000 population and are derived from the WHO3 and the Australian Institute of Criminology4:

Country Homicide Suicide Accident
USA 4.08 6.08 1.34
Canada 0.54 2.65 0.15
Switzerland0.50 5.78 n/a
England,
Scotland,
Wales 0.12 0.22 0.01
Australia 0.24 1.34 0.09



The number of deaths from firearms injuries in the UK was 358 in 1995, 254 in 1996, around 200 a year from 1997 to 2000 and about 165 from 2001 to 2003.5 Between 1998 and 2003 hospital admissions for gunshot wounds in England alone ranged from 102 to 155 a year in a fairly random manner unsuggestive of a trend. Hence it may be that figures for England, Scotland and Wales are fairly static but the trend for the UK is down because of the peace process in Northern Ireland. Crime statistics are misleading as they include offences in which no weapon was discharged and offences involving replica guns unable to fire.

Also, it's true that guns don't kill, people do, but by definition if you allow everyone the right to carry a gun then you face the risk of unstable people being in control of a dangerous weapon. If someone flips & has access to a gun then dozens can be killed. If they have a knife or other weapon the numbers drop rapidly.

Americans quote the increase in violent crime in the UK where there is strict gun control, stating how you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime here. Maybe so, but firearm deaths are pretty stable, and i'd much rather face being assaulted by someone without a gun than someone with a gun - i've a better chance of surviving.

What shocked me most was a Columbine survivor saying she still wasn't sure if gun control was needed as it was people's right to bear arms.So,people's right to carry a gun is more important than the rights of those who were massacred at Virginia Tech? Go figure!

Anonymous said...

I don't believe it could have been better said than that, LawDog. You have captured the trajedies of the situation precisely.

Mark

Anonymous said...

Yawn ... supprise, suppries another mass shooting in "The Good ole U S of A" - Give them all guns, that way they can shoot back at the lunatics hell they can even blow thier teacher away for giving them a bad grade. Face it most Americans are Fat deranged Psychotics anyway, too much inter-breeding....

anti-oregon said...

The scene is 40 years ago, a small country school. All the boys would bring in their rifles and the teacher had them stack them in the corner. They want to be able to hunt on the way home. At recess, they would pull out their knives and skin the animals that were in the traps they checked on the way to school. It was a fun life. Lot's of guns and knives and it never crossed our minds to use them on another person. Since Scott from Oregon is obviously a tidal wave of knowledge, maybe he should look into the country that REQUIRES those who are over 21 to have a gun. What is their murder rate buddy?

Anonymous said...

Way past time to educate young people about self defence and mind set. Like I've shown my son anything in reach can be a weapon and no way should anyone be conditioned to do nothing. Excellent LawDog. Mark C

Anonymous said...

Don't be so fast to say that everyone at VPI that day was a coward or clueless. Some people did what they could: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152816138&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

and I am sure there were others. So even though they could have done better--and survived themselves--if they had been armed, respect their memories.

Anne Fairbanks said...

Public Advisory:
NOKR is asking anyone that may have a missing or potentially injured family member due to the Virginia Tech shooting to register this person with the Next of Kin Registry. Register at http://www.nokr.org

NOKR has made contact with Virginia Tech Police to provide their department access to this registered information as they continue to investigate and establish whom they do not have emergency contact information available for.

Virginia Ref:
Commonwealth of Virginia Listed Under Homeland Security
http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal2/online_services_4096/emergency_notifications.html

Virginia State Police:
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Links.shtm

About the Next of Kin Registry (NOKR):
The Next Of Kin Registry (NOKR) was established as a FREE tool for daily emergencies and national disasters. NOKR is an emergency contact system to help if you or your family member is missing, injured or deceased. NOKR provides the public a free proactive service to store emergency contacts, next of kin and vital medical information that would be critical to emergency response agencies. Stored information is only accessible via a secure area that is only accessible by emergency public trust agencies that have registered with NOKR.

NOKR is a non-partisan; non-profit 501(c)(3) dedicated to bridging rapid emergency contact information. NOKR was established in January 2004, for daily emergency situations.

Keith Walker said...

What is really going to tick me off is if one of the dead had a permit to carry, but didn't because they obeyed the law.

DW said...

Well said lawdog,

To those of you who think the problem is having a gun, wake up!
When I was young, I could and did, walk into any house where I was known and borrow a gun, as long as I could keep both ends off the ground at the same time. We carried guns to school in our cars and no one cared. I was taught the acceptable way of acting, and it didn't include shooting random passerby.

My friends and relatives fought when they felt the need, and won or lost as their desire dictated.

We didn't need to shoot people. A population that is taught reasonable values doesn't kill randomly. IT'S PARENTING STUPID!!!

Scott, there is none so blind as he who will not see. Historically violence goes up when guns are taken away. Every dictator in history has disarrmed the populace for their "safety", just before starting the ethnic clensing.

If you never fear, you are a natural victim or an idiot, eventually you will feel that which you refuse to admit.

I have had to defend my family three times with firearms, and never had to fire a shot.

If you quote the numbers from the post from Austraila, keep in mind the violence against the unarmed that doesn't include any weapon. Criminal acts against those who are not able to defend themselves. Have you ever put your self in harms way for the innocent? Or are you too highly evolved for that?

Anonymous said...

Not to put to fine a point on this. But for those posting and advocating that somehow gun control could have helped stop this. I would point out that a complete and total ban on guns was , at the time of the shooting, in effect in the juristriction of thew shooting.
For those posting that only a universal ban on guns could possibly be effective, I would point out that , at the time of the shooting, a complete and universal ban on shooting innocent and unarmed people was in effect across the entire nation.
For those people posting that if there were no guns such mass casulty situation could not occur regardless of being illegal, I would point out the use. possesion and manifacture of homemade bombs is universally illegal ,and are quite capable of creating mass casulties and this attack was preceeded by several bomb threats, quite possibly linked to the shooter.

The alternatives to personal self defense and personal responsibility that some advocate not only have been tried, but were in effect at the time and place of this attrocity. And as can be plainly seen the wished for bans and laws only increased the body count this time, as they have done every other time they have been in effect.
The only thing that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

dracphelan said...

There was at least one sheepdog.

Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, threw himself in front of the shooter to protect his students. The gunman killed him, but all of his students lived. He was a true hero, and humanity is lessened by his untimely loss.

Anonymous said...

You people are really bizarre. Its either " ban all weapons" or "pull them from my cold dead fingers etc". ( I'm ignoring the really whacko paranoids who are scared of the "tyrannical" governmentas though Government wasn't made up of people just like you and I .) The US is a polyglot nation ( look it up ) and guns are part of life. Terrible things like Colombine or Virginia tech happen and of course the real culprit is the madman who did it. It happens. The best a civilized country can do is try to regulate gun ownership to some extent, through background checks, cooling off periods and so forth. And lets face it guys....we all love to shoot and hunt etc but we really don't need automatic weapons...

Elaine said...

I find it disturbing that some people on here are criticising those caught up in the massacre for not figting back - have you been in that situation? If you were in fear of your life would you act in a sane & rational manner, or might you be filled with such terror that all bravado would go out of the window & your sole concern would be to do whatever seemed the safest course of action - which may well be to not antagonise a psycho with a gun any more than he already is. Also, a shit-scared student attempting to shoot back at a gunman may, in fact, injure more people.

Billy Beck said...

I have a question for Scott from Oregon:

Have you ever been to Japan?

reno said...

Americans quote the increase in violent crime in the UK where there is strict gun control, stating how you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime here. Maybe so, but firearm deaths are pretty stable, and i'd much rather face being assaulted by someone without a gun than someone with a gun - i've a better chance of surviving.

Do you really believe this? Is it your contention that violent crime is acceptable as long as it is not committed with a gun?

If you believe that it is easier to disarm a man with a knife than a man with a gun, you need some serious education.
Knife Defense.


I will never understand people like you and Scott. When there are wolves attacking your sheep, how is creating more sheep a viable soloution?

Criminology said...

For Scott, BBC, and Elaine.

Gun Control Increases Violent Crime, by shifting the balance of power to favor criminals, while it disarms helpless victims. This turns out to be true most of the time, no matter where gun control is tried. It was certainly true at Virginia Tech. You may also want to read up on the doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity", which states the legal principle that the state is not liable for failing to protect you. I predict that the relatives of the Virginia Tech victims will not succeed in their lawsuits against the school. That is a pretty safe bet, based on precedent cases and statutory law. So, if the state isn't responsible for protecting the students, why does the state have the gall to prevent the citizens from defending themselves?

Scott: Funny you call us cowards. One who abdicates their duties to the survival of themselves and their loved ones is a coward, which defines YOU. Your fake accents do not improve your credibility. Since you like to bring Japan into the comparison, let's ask your question a diferent way, "How often do you see a Japanese-American going on a shooting spree in Los Angeles?" Answer, practically never, despite "easy access". You lose the point.

Will more guns in the hands of the law-abiding increase shootings, as you claim? Nationwide data show that murders do NOT increase in states with "shall issue" CCW. In most states, the murder rate declined, because the important factor is the Balance of Power between law-abiding citizens and criminals, not the "Law of Averages". You lose this point too.

"You can't fight back against a barrage of bullets"? Actually, you can. Care to guess which tool works best? You lose this point too.

I'm sure you don't know what parts of each state have the highest violent crime and murder rates. The larger cities of each state, where the ownership of firearms is least common and the rules for acquisition are most burdensome...for law-abiding citizens, but not for criminals. Three strikes and you are out...of it.

"If one person in 500..." is an interesting speculation, but one which turns out to be untrue. Which matches the rest of your false accusations and ignorant rantings.

Too bad you don't actually know anything about the criminological data or techniques of self-defense. Your fearful, cowardly speculations turn out not to be true. Don't you have the intellectual honesty to ask why? Didn't think so.

BBC: The highest American murder rates (as much as 20x) are in many of the jurisdictions with the least legal access to firearms. Please explain.

You and your countrymen might want to start preparing to arm yourselves against the IslamoNazi terrorists, too. I understand that many neighborhoods in Britain are under Sha'ria gang law already and your police can't enter or enforce the law. Your country will be far behind the curve when the terrs start attacking in earnest. It's up to you.

Elaine: In my decades of study, I have noticed that anyone who cites "gun deaths" or "gun violence" is trying to distort the overall picture of "murders" and "violent crime". When we look at the overall picture, the "gun free" countries do not look nearly as impressive as you claim. A murder with a knife or hands is no less deadly than one committed with a firearm. As I mentioned to the other people, the safest parts of America are often the regions that have relatively easy access to firearms, including licenses to carry a handgun in public. This clearly does not match the erroneous "more guns, more violent crime" theory that you espouse.

"If you allow everyone to carry a gun..." is a conditional statement wherein the condition is not met, so the conclusion you reach is wrong. The people who are allowed to carry, undergo a background check to determine that they are not criminals or insane persons. The revocation rate for licenses as a result of criminal behavior by licensees is incredibly low--the license holders are far, far more law-abiding than the general population--despite their continuous access to firearms. Interesting, isn't it? Where are all those speculative crimes of passion and bad judgement?

Jarrett said...

ya, a person's first reaction is obviously to run from gun fire....not towards it. Our sense of self preservation is of such a nature that we don't automatically think to save our own skin, it's only when we stop and think about that we can deiced to sacrifice ourselves for a greater good. It's not evil, it's just nature.

Dave said...

I think alot of people are missing or ignoring the point this post was trying to make: the mind is the weapon in these situations. Whether the mind chooses to use a firearm or a fire extinguisher or a backpack full of text books is not the important part. What's important is that the mind chooses to act, to fight back.

I was discussing this with my wife yesterday and she agreed that if people were allowed to carry on campus, this might have been prevented. This is true. What she was overlooking, however, is that most college students (heck, people in general) have grown up without the need (and therefore, without the ability) to fight back. Growing up being taught not to stand up for yourself to bullys or muggers, that violence never solves anything, is more of a culprit here than the CCW restriction.

Scott from Oregon is partially right - the more guns out there, the more they will be used. But this works both ways - they may be used more in crimes, but they will also be used more to protect and defend. There will always be people that intend harm to others, but those people will always find ways to inflict that harm. No gun? Run 'em down in the car. No car? Chain the doors and torch the building. No matches? Swing by the grocery store for a few household chemicals and find something to do the job. There are no shortage of tools that can be used to hurt/maim/kill. The common thread is the mind of the criminal choosing to do harm.

The handun is often referred to as the 'equalizer' because, as it is fairly easy to use, it puts everyone on the same playing field. It allows the 80 year old grandmother to resist the 20 year old mugger. It allows the young [insert minority group here] to defend against the mob. The handgun, however, is just the outward expression of the mind's choice to act. Without the willingness to stand up and defend yourself and your neighbors, a firearm will do little good.

Unfortunately, firearms, handguns especially, will be the focus of most of the reporting on this tragedy. The next scapegoat in line will be the police and university officials and their 'inability' to save the students. Sadly, this is where the reporting will stop. The true message that should be learned from this is that you, and you alone, are responsible for your safety and that you should not only be prepared, but be WILLING to do what is necessary when you find yourself facing evil.

Library-Gryffon said...

I don't believe you can truly compare UK and US crime stats. If Joe Critter, male, at 6'6" and 250 lbs breaks into my house and threatens me (female), all of 5'6" and 170 lbs, and as a result I perforate him with my gun of choice, that is counted as a homicide in this country for statistical purposes. Even justifiable homicides count for the stats. The Brits don't count that; my understanding is that they do their damdest to NOT count things as homicides unless it is a 100% proven criminal act.

Japan may not have gun crime, but there have been instances of folks conducting high-body-count school attacks with knives.

I'd like to see the stats including ALL homicides, suicides, and accidents, no matter the mechanism. I suspect the numerical gap would be a lot smaller.

And the highest death toll in a school attack would still seem to be the 1927 Bath, Michigan incident where no guns at all were used, just explosives, but the perp still racked up 41 dead (I don't know if he is included in the count).

Library-Gryffon said...

Further note - it's come out this morning that the shooter was South Korean, living here legally, and that he lived on campus, keeping all those evil illegal weapons in his room, in spite of the schools gun-free policy.

Gee, that makes me feel even safer knowing how folks planning illegal actions follow gun-free zone policies.

NOT.

Joshua said...

I just wanted to let you guys know that there were some students who made at least some kind of stand.

I was told there was a radio interview with one of the students who described a row of them forming a "human shield" to prevent the lunatic from re-entering their classroom after he'd already killed their professor.

There was apparently some sort of struggle. One was shot in the leg.

I still can't believe no one tried to ACTIVELY stop this guy instead of merely block his way, but it's some comfort.

dracphelan said...

"I find it disturbing that some people on here are criticising those caught up in the massacre for not figting back - have you been in that situation?"

As a matter of fact, I have. I have a bullet scar and knife scar to prove it. In both incidents, I fought back and disabled my attacker. I will never give in to a threat of force.

Rorschach said...

if the people of japan are so safe from gun violence, how does Scott explain this?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/4721715.html

Gomez Addams said...

We can stop saying that NO ONE resisted the shooter.

At least one man - Professor Liviu Librescu, 76 - threw himself in front of the shooter when Cho attempted to enter Professor Librescu's classroom. It is probable that he did not die in vain: non of the students in his classroom, entry to which he denied Cho, were seriously injured.

I suspect it is not a coincidence that the one person we know of (so far) who fought back happened to be a Jew and a survivor of the Holocaust. He, better than most, knew what happens when you roll butt-up and hope for mercy.

story here:
http://tinyurl.com/2m3ang
---
As for the naive individual from Oregon - ah, screw it I won't even dignify his unsupportable assertions with a retort. Others have already covered the facts which contradict him well enough.
---
A friend of mine is a college instructor here in Colorado. After yesterday's news, he announced that while have a CCW never seemed important enough to him before, it does not, and he's going to get right on it.
---
As for how people react, I cannot fault them for panicking. They were mostly young, inexperienced people, and probably very few of them had ever been around a gun being shot outdoors, let alone the deafening (to unprotected ears) report of a medium-caliber pistol being shot indoors within hard-surfaced walls. None of them had any training, and likely none of them had ever thought in advance about how they might react when faced with a violent attack. It's awfully easy for those of us who have to play armchair tactician.

Remember, the will to resist is seldom summoned randomly out of nowhere - it is considered and determined in advance. In several of his books on personal defense and defensive use of guns, Massad Ayoob discuses the importance of finding your own will to resist in advance of any threat.

Regarding not being victims, I'm reminded of this passage from Art Speigelman's "Maus", where Art is speaking to his psychiatrist about his father surviving the Holocaust:

"So do you admire your father for surviving?

"Well…sure. I know there was a lot of luck involved, but he was amazingly present-minded and resourceful…"

"Then you think it's admirable to survive. Does that mean it's not admirable to not survive?"

"Whoosh…I think I see what you mean. It's as if life equals winning, so death equals losing."

"Yes. Life always takes the side of life, and somehow the victims are blamed. But it wasn't the best people who survived, nor did the best ones die. It was random!"

This doesn't detract from the brave act of anyone, but I hope it reminds us about how we can implicitly blame victims for what happened to them.

The Armed Canadian said...

Thank you! You summed it up better than I did.

Matt

Turk said...

To Scott from oregon
Your response was nothing but it will work because other places did it. You ignored (if you ever read) my previous questions.

1. How do you plan to accomplish taking firearms away from those who posses ones that are black market, i.e. stolen firearms, imported outlawed firearms? Are you wanting to put together a agency like the Nazi SS to raid every home, meth lab, business, and homeless person's cardboard box to collect each and every firearm?

I ask that because the law abiding citizens will turn over their weapons, criminals won't and will retain possession and continue to use them in committing crimes.

2. What are your plans on securing the border? If sources of weapons are taken from the criminals, there is another route to get them. Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico (drug runner becoming gun runners from South America and Cuba) and Canada also. How do the anti-gunners plan to plug the hole consisting of the largest unguarded borders in the world, and our southern border, in which tons of drugs are already moved through daily.

What you don't seem to understand is criminals will continue being criminals and just get them from another source, only now the victims can't defend themselves.

So Scott...Answer me how you plan on taking all the weapons (from the criminals), and how you plan to keep more weapons from entering the country?

Anonymous said...

Scott and Elaine... perfect together. Sorry, I'm not the biggest, baddest or strongest but I'll be damned if im going down without a fight. JimB

Anonymous said...

Japan has no gun crime. Just ask the Mayor of Nagasaki, who was just shot today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070417/wl_nm/japan_shooting_repeat_dc

Divemedic

Databeast said...

Urgh, I am so sick of listening to this 'america is a terrible place with too many guns' bullshit.

This is one British ex-pat, who saw plenty of violence and killing back in England, and now proudly carries in his adopted state of Colorado; knowing that myself and those with me, are free to choose NOT to be victims.

Scott: good luck, how about you put your money where your mouth is, there are some very good stickers out there for folks like you, they read 'Gun Free House, please do not rob or kill us'.

Put one of those in your window, or shut up and stop projecting your own inability to take responsibility for yourself onto others.

BryanP said...

Argh. Fred Phelps has decided to jump in on this with his idiocy.

http://tinyurl.com/2pzzpk

Anonymous said...

I love the fact that people like Elaine (who, by the way, cut and paste her argument from a talking points eMail -- I've seen that EXACT wording in a dozen other spots since teh shooting) always tend to overlook one key datapoint in their statistics. . .

Switzerland. Where the citizen body keeps government-issued FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND A WAR STASH OF AMMO in their homes, and they are expected to practice on a regular basis. A nation where a college professor can (on a WHIM) legally design, trouble shoot, construct, fire, and own a prime-grade submachinegun and suppressor ("silencer"), and then market the plans worldwide. (Gerald Metral -- yes, he's a reservist, but ALL able-bodied, "men of military age" citizens in Switzerland are reservists. And no, an American reservist can't do the same.)

Yet, Switzerland has a comparable rate of gun homicide as other "enlightened" European nations.

In fact, there are several places where one can LEGALLY and PRIVATELY own such "scary" guns as full automatic military-issue weapons WITH SUPPRESSORS, yet have gun homicide rates comparable to "enlightened" Europe.

And the gun-banners never like to discuss Japanese suicide rates, either, or the homicide rate among people of Japanese origen and culture in places where guns are ubiquitous (damned near non-existant, just like in Japan).

Culture counts for a lot more than hardware availability.

Rick

beren74 said...

I spent some time in Japan a couple years ago for work. I caught a story on the news about a family man who murdered his entire family (kids and either parents or in-laws) save for his wife and one child who were spared because they weren't home. He then walked off a short distance into a field and tried to kill himself.

With a knife.

I'm not calling for all Japanese to ban knives either. Do something about the person - not the object. Here's a part of the story:

2005.04.04

Japan-Murder/Suicide (Yomiuri) UPDATED

A gruesome discovery on the Chita peninsula in Aichi Prefecture this evening following a call to police. Responding officers in Chita City found six people dead in one home (three males and three females) and a fourth male seriously injured. It appears to be a family murder-suicide in this suburb of Nagoya.

Anonymous said...

On behalf of the rest of Oregon, I would like to apologize for the rantings of the imported nutjobs like Scott. We try to restrict them to a couple counties, but we can't manage to eliminate them completely. They keep sneaking in from socal.

GunnNutt said...

Thanks for the most eloquent post, LawDog. You've said what many, many folks have been thinking, but so much better than I could have. I feel much better having read it.

Fathairybastard said...

Turk - Not only would criminals fail to turn in their guns, but many law abiding citizens will become criminals by refusing to turn in many guns that have no paperwork attached to them. The lesson from Prohibition and the drug war is clear. The real result would be the criminalization of yet another segment of America's population. The anti gun folks will warm themselves in the glow of their own sense of righteousness as we proceed to fill more jails with more people who have the temerity to believe in their right to exercise their own freedom. To people like Scott from Oregon, safety is more important than liberty. Liberty is defined as the right to live in a safe place where gun nuts don't have the right to threaten the peace. That seems to be the crux of the issue. How much freedom are we willing to give up to enjoy the illusion of safety. If more people have guns, more nuts will kill people?. Well, just about everyone has access to knives. Why don't more crazy people go on stabbing sprees, like the one in Japan a few years ago? There are so many guns available in this nation, why doesn't this sort of thing happen more often? You are much more likely to die because of a drunk driver in this nation than from a gun nut. I for one won't trust my safety to cops who wait hours to go in and can't stop this sort of thing from taking my life. Turning us into a nation of sheep won't do anything but make it safer for the criminals. I'm not gonna play that game. let the Brits and others feel like they are better than us. They do that anyway. The cool ones will move here where they can still exercise the freedom that the founding generation intended us to have. I won't give up mine, and I think I'll be in good company. You think the wars on drunks and dopers has been a bloody mess. Wait till they declare war on heavily armed Americans.

Heidi said...

Howdy -
Sean hot linked you to his xanga site so yeah - thats how I found you, but this is an excelant post. *smile*

I know, this has nothing to do with you really, but last night in talking to a friend from New Zealand, I mentioned this shooting to him. Much to MY surprise, HE already knew about it. It seems he was aware of it from the time the dorm shootings happend because of a forum he is a member of. I find quite odd honestly, that a forum from New Zealand knows about something like this before the media does? *raised eye brow*

But in discussing it, I brought up my VERY strong opinions about guns and he of course disagreed with me since NZ is not allowed to have ANY guns and he's been brought up on the idea that guns are bad and if you have guns you have bad people. (groan) I can't imagine that... not having guns... ah flip it! It's stupid! I'm sorry but if the Liberals and the MSM thinks that we will be a bigger version of New Zealand by banning the guns, I'll move away or something. No idea where I would go but - I'd find somewhere.

And I agree with you (and some others who I've commented about this) that if there had been someone on campus with a gun or a weapon of some sort who were willing to fight back... perhaps it would have saved all of the blood shed.

I also believe that if more students had been packing heat, he would not have gone on such a whacko killing spree because of knowing that someone would fight back!

Blah. I'm annoyed. Sorry. :-(

Heidi

R said...

Man by Definition is Self-Destructive.
No amount of gun control/prohibition can change that.

RB said...

THIS NEEDS TO BE SENT TO EVERY SENATOR AND EVERY REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS!
AND ALSO TO EVERY STATE LEGISLATURE IN THE COUNTRY! It should also be sent to the mainstream media...ALL the media.
Not 'should be',not 'is something to think about',not 'would be a good idea',NEEDS to be.
You can send it.Or,with your permission,I'll send it.But it needs to be done.In fact,we ALL should send it.

The Dude said...

Succinct and dead on target, as always!

Aside: Looks like Scott's a psychic . . .

http://tinyurl.com/yt3d6o

ibrow said...

I think the sheep / wolves /sheepdog analogy captures it very well. There will never be enough sheepdogs in the right place at the right time unless the number is increased, and by that I do not mean more Law Enforcement (though that would be nice).
The outspoken person from Oregon needs to have a good think about what he is saying and the consequences that may entail. I strongly suspect that should he find himself in trouble and alone he would be unarmed anyway, and as a result waiting or expecting someone to turn up and fix it for him. I suspect the following applies to him.

1. Never served in the Military or Law Enforcement.
2. Maybe had one or two ‘scuffles’ in school.
3. Has a rather developed sense of entitlement.
4. A penchant for sandals and / or possibly a beard.
5. An adopted moral high ground gained from a number of very odd books and politicians desperately trying to get more votes at any cost, regardless of the sense they ignore.
6. Has never been in any real danger in his life.

By the time point 6 comes around it’s usually too late to change your views Scott.
Despite your initially (I presume) well intentioned first comment, your inability to reason and discuss this in the civilized way we gun carriers would prefer makes you someone who I wouldn’t look to for help if the wheel fell off the wagon, and certainly not someone who I would be happy with carrying a gun.
You either have it (common sense) or not. You most certainly do not, as evidenced by you prior posts.

Vindice said...

The mayor of Nagasaki just got shot to death. So much for no gun violence in Japan. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUST33398520070417

Dominique said...

It must be absolutely wonderful to be Scott From Oregon as he is "never afraid."

He has clearly never had to walk across a college campus at 1 in the morning, wondering if the man who has been walking behind him for the past few minutes is just stretching his legs, or planning to rape him.

Lucky him.

Lil said...

Another Oregonian here, from supposedly "liberal" Portland, who is very pro-Second Amendment. (Incidentally, I get a big kick out of people who assume that because I'm of an "alternative" faith and have several tattoos, that I would be anti-gun. No way, and I'm not vegetarian either.) My sweetheart just got his carry permit, and I've been considering doing the same.

For years I've been saying that, "Gun control isn't needed as much as parental control!" (I also like the saying, "I spanked my kids so they didn't grow up to shoot at yours.")

Guns are nothing more than tools, folks: neither positive nor negative, in and of themselves. How a person uses that tool is what matters, and that's true whether the tool in question is a chainsaw, a motor vehicle, a hammer, or a handgun. People who blame the tool instead of the user always have a suspect agenda!

Phyphor[THR] said...

"homocides?"

Freudian slip much?

SpeakerTweaker said...

Go.

Get 'em.

Dawg.

'Nuff said.



tweaker

Tower Tales said...

Scott, since you asked?? the PM was just shot not too long ago..

hahahaha who's the nutter now? get your facts straight...THEN call me a nutter...whatever that is.

hers some FACTS for you..

Virginia Tech VS. VASL (If they'd only show this on the news)
Virginia Tech
16 April 2007
Armed foreign student Cho Seung-hui goes on a shooting rampage on campus and shoots over 50 unarmed victims, killing 32 before committing suicide.

Virginia Appalachian School of Law
18 January 2002
Armed foreign student Peter Odighizuwa goes on a shooting rampage on campus, shoots and kills 3 unarmed victims before an armed student stops him.

I think this speaks for itself.

Geoffrey said...

The problem is expectation. Some people want to expect that everyone they meet, unless in some sort of uniform, is completely harmless. Some people expect that if everyone has a knife, club, or firearm that it will put them in a more active mindset rather than passive. People can panic and freeze even under arms. Armies can be routed.

The thing is that not everyone is going to freeze or be passive when the untoward occurs. It makes sense to allow these people with a variety of options for how to address the issue.

Since there is no way to prevent someone looking to do damage from collecting the means to do so, it's safe to assume that any given critter is going to be armed to one extent or the other. The real question is whether it's safe to assume those they are assaulting are more limited in their capacity for reprisal.

If firearms are completely banned, knives and clubs become more useful. Disarming a society does two things; makes those determined to remain armed more cunning and ruthless about it AND lowers the populaces capacity to mentally handle violence. If you see parents completely cowed and unable to react because their little darling has worked himself up to an unhinged rage wanging blocks, fingernails and teeth off anyone/thing nearby, you'd understand. The capacity to handle the brat is there, but not the capability.

Also for those who refer to countries where firearms are banned such as Australia, their legal system is also much different than here. There is no such thing as "police harrassment" in Australia. Any cop at any time can require you to turn out all your pockets and/or search your residence on suspicion. The UK practices blanket surveilance. I don't know of any country without any violent crime. It's more of a choice of what rights your willing to give up in exchange for what flavor of violence most appeals.

I love living in Portland, OR but I could with less people parroting PC lines without question because it FEELS like the right thing.

Jason said...

In response to "scott from OR"

Plagarized from CNN -

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- The shooting death of the mayor of Nagasaki by a gangster has shocked Japanese accustomed to gun-free streets, sparking calls to stop crime syndicates from evading the country's strict gun-control laws.

Nagasaki Mayor Iccho Ito, 61, was shot twice in the back outside a train station Tuesday evening and died early Wednesday. Tetsuya Shiroo, a senior member of Japan's largest crime syndicate, Yamaguchi-gumi, was captured at the scene and admitted to the attack, police said.

"This murder, which took place in the middle of an election campaign, is a threat to democracy," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said early Wednesday. "We must eradicate violence firmly."

The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned. It was the second attack in the last 20 years against a mayor of Nagasaki, which was flattened by a U.S. atomic bomb in the closing days of World War II in 1945 and whose leaders have actively campaigned against militarism.

The attack shook the sense of safety among Japanese, and comes on the heels of Monday's shooting massacre in the United States that killed at least 33 people, including the gunman.

"The use of guns is increasing among gangsters. I want Japanese laws to protect the general public," said Shinichi Tada, a 44-year-old manufacturing company worker in Tokyo.

"I do not want Japan to be like the U.S.," he said as he read an extra on the mayor's death handed out at a Tokyo train station.


--------------------------------

Guess that Japan's gun laws aren't as good as you'd think.

For what its worth, I typically vote democrat. No I don't really appreciate most of the name calling and generalization that goes on regarding political hotpoint issues, but I figure that most people have their own right to whine and cry about whatever imagined conspiritorial issues they want to, so why dissapoint them with argument...

Mark@port said...

Elaine said "i'd much rather face being assaulted by someone without a gun than someone with a gun - i've a better chance of surviving."
and "a shit-scared student attempting to shoot back at a gunman may, in fact, injure more people."

Thats' the problem, right there. She's willing to accept a (much) greater risk of violent crime because in her heart of hearts, she can't grasp the concept of self defense. She truly believes that people are incapable of the deed.

Of course, its' illegal in her country, for all intents and purposes...

Why on earth would we want that particular category of insanity here?

Charles said...

In response to Elaine

"Also, it's true that guns don't kill, people do, but by definition if you allow everyone the right to carry a gun then you face the risk of unstable people being in control of a dangerous weapon."

So you think it's better that the weak be at the mercy of the strong? The single person at the mercy of the gang? The old at the mercy of the young and violent? All because an unstable person just 'might' get their hands on a gun? I've go news for you, unstable people, violent predatory people already have their hands on guns. The vast majority of people you would deny the right to defend themselves are not unstable.

Your worry about everyone being armed is mere projection. I for one trust that the vast majority of people around me are rational humans and that putting a gun in their hands would not "magically" turn them into something they are not. I trust that they will behave as adults. I trust them to do the right thing and when that trust proves to be missplace then I trust the rest of us to stop them.

Your comments revel that you don't trust people to do the right thing and would rather deny the many a freedom because of the actions of the few.

Perhaps you worry how you would behave if you had a gun. I for one would trust even you to be armed and assume that you would take that responsibility seriously.

Almost every school shooting in the last ten years that was stopped "early" was stopped by an armed citizen, not the police. No one special, just a person that stood up and did the right thing when it was required.

That's the kind of country I want to live in. One where all of us have the courage to face the aberrant few on our own if need be. Not a nation of cowards that expects the government to protect them from all possible hazards by denying the rights of the many to protect us from the few.

Ralph said...

"sparking calls to stop crime syndicates from evading the country's strict gun-control laws."

So, they want to stop the crime syndicates from breaking the laws, then? Good luck with that.

djmarmite said...

Guns should be made illegal or access to weapons made alot harder.

In the uk guns are illegal and gun crime is very low.

My thoughts and prays go out to the victims and there family's

Scott from Oregon said...

It would be funny if it were not sad.

Nutters jumping up and down and tossing bones in the air...

Some nutter walks into a gun shop, puts down a credit card, loads himself up with ammo the following week and takes out thirty people and very few even think the idea of this convenience is part of the equation.

Yes, I lived in Japan a few years, and had a few run ins with Yukusa (though more about taxis than anything criminal) and lived in Oz and come from a military background and have lived in a war zone and was born in a military hospital in Colorado...

And no, I've never even thought of carrying a gun for protection and yes, I have had family members killed by guns, as well as neighbors...

I was a member of the NRA for five years and I earned many rim fire awards for marksmanship...

Any other silly questions?

LabRat said...

Oh, gosh.

You were a member of the NRA?! Well I guess none of our arguments have any relevance whatsoever then, do they? I AM DEFEATED, SIR.

Deal with the meat of the arguments presented against you and stop relying on scorn and "credentials", and maybe someone will take you seriously.

Julie said...

"Any other silly questions?"

Only one.

Your wish has been granted: There are no guns anywhere in the US.

How would you recommend I defend myself against someone who attacks me?

I'm not being sarcastic, facetious, or mocking. I honestly want to know.

Anonymous said...

This one is for Scott from Oregon

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Major of Nagasaki was gun down this last week.... Can you remind me what a sane and gun free culture Japan is again???

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4725431.html

cop-out said...

Scott from Oregon is either real stupid or real misinformed. I am a retired cop from Arizona, and it was law enforcement personel that worked to push through the Arizona CCW permit law. As to his referring to gun fights breaking out between drunks, only the type of scumbag that would break a gun ban law would be likely to pull a gun simply to settle an argument. During my time as a cop, we worked three month shifts at days, midnight, and swing shift. At the end of each shift there was a shift change party. During an eighteen hour period there would be an open house party at the FOP hall, which included a bar. Every one of the attendees was carring, and although some got drunk, and there were some fist fights because even guys that would lay their lives on the line for each other have differences, a gun was never drawn. An armed society is a polite society. I have seen guys that had a fight at a party back each other at the risk of life a couple of days later. I don't think that the average law abiding citizen is all that much different. Well maybe liberals are, although I wouldn't know from personal experience, as I avoid socializing with them at all cost. If I was going to murder someone, it would be one of those leaches that want all the benefits of American life, without the guts to defend it.

Scott from Oregon said...

"The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned."

ANy other silly references to Japan, where such shootings are so rare they are counted on one hand?

And the other answer to the girl who wants to protect herself. Pepper spray. WHy would you need a gun if there weren't any guns? Pepper dpray would be sufficicient and you would be less likely to br killed or have a family member killed when it was lost or stolen or simply taken from you.

cop-out said...

Does anyone besides me have a problem believing that Scott form Oregon was ever even close to being an NRA member? And yes, I have had close friends and a father killed by gunshot, but gun ban laws wouldn't have prevented any of their deaths. The only way to remove guns from the hands of criminals is to un-invent guns, and that is as effective as trying to wrestle a wild tiger. You can't win.

Rick said...

Scott has obviously never seen ANY of the numerous incidents where trained police professionals, SPECIFICALLY trained in the use of pepper spray, and using formulations more powerful than available to most civilians, have FAILED to control a violent criminal with pepper spray.

Rick

Scott from Oregon said...
"The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned."

ANy other silly references to Japan, where such shootings are so rare they are counted on one hand?

And the other answer to the girl who wants to protect herself. Pepper spray. WHy would you need a gun if there weren't any guns? Pepper dpray would be sufficicient and you would be less likely to br killed or have a family member killed when it was lost or stolen or simply taken from you.

9:48 AM

Rick said...

Another thought for Elaine.

"i'd much rather face being assaulted by someone without a gun than someone with a gun - i've a better chance of surviving."

Cupcake, you've never seen a real knife wound, have you? Not "Jimmy got made and stabbed me with teh steak knife", but an Honest to God premedetated predatory attack with a knife.

You are FAR more likely to survive a handgun bullet (especially given the crappy ammo most bad guys use out of ignorance and "thrift") than a knife wound.

If someone with ANY training or experience cames at you with a real knife (not a prison shiv made from a piece of wire), he's gonna leave your intestines dangling around your feet, your airway in gurgling shreds, and your fingers destroyed (defensive wounds).

Google "MS-13" and "machete" for some particularly atrocious examples of just what a blade can do in teh hands of a determined attacker. (They use machetes because they are cheap, readily available, and familiar from home as tools. ANY large blade - like you kitchen knives - can do the same.)

Rick

Rick said...

"djmarmite said...
Guns should be made illegal or access to weapons made alot harder.

In the uk guns are illegal and gun crime is very low."


And they were even LOWER before the gun laws went in. Such as back when an Englishman could (without license) not only purchase a pistol, but could carry it around concealed. Or when Britons could legally own fully automatic weapons.

UK vilent crimes rates have increased with EVERY single new prohibition on weapons in the modern era, and not considering Irish terroist incidents. (I had to qualify this statement in that way, as 18th Century and earlier crime rates were almost unimaginably high, especially on the roads. Once "highwaymen" - i.e., "land pirates" - ceased to be a major threat, the UK achieved a VERY low violent crime rate. Likewise, holding the violence of the various factions of Ireland against British law would be a distorting influence making the Brits look WORSE.)

The simple fact is, the modern British are (sory if I step on any toes) simply less inclined to lethal violence -- just as most Western Europeans and Japanese.

Likewise Canadians -- when their gun laws were roughly comparable to US gun laws, Canadians areas sociologically identical to US areas STILL ran extremely low levels of lethal violence compared to their US counterparts. Wen looking at areas with statistically identical enomonic, ethnic, legal, environmental, substance abuse, etc., settings, the Canadians kill fewer people. The ONLY factor not accounted for is that elusive "national identity".

The counter argument is generally, "Well, they have stricter laws in reaction to violence, something Americans won't simply allow."

Sorry guys, the fact is, the stats are VERY clear. Everytime a new law is passed, violence plateaus out at a higher level than before the law. It then stays remarkably stable for some years. Then a NEW gun law is passed, and violence starts running up again, until it plateaus at an even higher level.

Also keep in mind the difference in data collection. The United States is the ONLY industrialized nation that counts lawful self defence shootings, lawful police shootings, and SUICIDES as "homicides". The rest only classify a killing as a homicide if it is definately an UNLAWFUL homicide. ("Homicide" doesn't imply guilt -- it simply means "man killing". A hostage taker shot dead by a police sniper is STILL a homicide to the FBI stats.)

Anonymous said...

From page 13 of Virginia Tech’s “Crisis Resolution Management” policy manual:

What to Do When Violence Occurs

* Do not physically touch an outraged person, or try to force them to leave.

*Calmly ask the person to place any weapons in a neutral location while you continue to talk to them.

* Never attempt to disarm or accept a weapon from the person in question. Weapon retrieval should only be done by a police officer.

http://www.hr.vt.edu/downloads/CMRmanual.pdf

uriel235 said...

I don't know if any body else was bothered by watching the police hiding behind cars and trees while shots from inside could be clearly heard. What were they waiting for? Pehaps for the shooter to run out of ammo? At Columbine the police did not enter the building until the shooting was long over. People bled to death while waiting for police help to arrive. I feel that I've witnessed gross cowardice. These are cops and they are sworn to protect the public. It is apparent that they were thinking of themselves first. I don't know why the media thinks this sort of police conduct is ok. If I can't count on the cops to take care of business on my behalf then I sure don't want my right to defend myself infringed upon. These gutless cops should be given desk jobs or perhaps sent down to the records department. Lets bring back some of our brave soldiers from the Iraqi meatgrinder to do warriors work.

Anonymous said...

"And the other answer to the girl who wants to protect herself. Pepper spray. WHy would you need a gun if there weren't any guns? Pepper dpray would be sufficicient and you would be less likely to br killed or have a family member killed when it was lost or stolen or simply taken from you."

Sorry pal.

Some states severely limit the concentration of CIVILIAN pepper spray and/or treat them as weapons for concealment purposes.

Y'see, they're afraid someone will use it on a cop, so they'd prefer that your pepper spray carryin' girl be raped and killed.

What was the statistic again? 1.3 to 2.5 MILLION times a year guns are used in America to PREVENT crime, usually without firing a shot.

Sheep. Love 'em or eat 'em.

pascal said...

Couple of things: Dog--as usual, yes, yes, yes and F**kin-A right.

I do want to point out one of the dumbest things Scott from Oregon said:

"I don't carry a gun because I am never afraid."

Buddy, that makes you _really_ stupid, not brave.

Thank you so much to the poster of the conflict resolution manual. Guess we saw how well that worked. Senseless waste of human lives. Definitely wasn't about CCW, though--it was about refusing to accept the role that an aggressor has predefined for you. If you dictate your own role and execute _your_ will, you still might die. But so might your aggressor. If you follow his scenario, you're definitely going to die, pace those who defined their own roles as "Run!" (And I have no beef with them.)

julie said...

In re: Pepper Spray as a sufficient means of self-defense

States where pepper spray is illegal: (nonlethaldefense.com)
New York
Massachusetts
Hawaii
Indiana
Michigan (except for approved Pepper Spray <2%)
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Wisconsin

Quote from nonlethaldefense.com: "A person threatening you with a lethal weapon can injure you mortally in less time than it takes you to draw and aim a self-defense chemical weapon. An assailant may be able to take your canister away from you and use it against you. If this is happening, try to throw the spray away out of reach. Your spray could backfire at you in wind. Both wind and rain may reduce its range and effectiveness. Keep in mind that most canisters are effective up to about a ten foot range."

Several law enforcement references on-line rate the effectiveness of 10-20% pepper spray as 75-80%.

I believe that availability, range, and reliability (or the lack of those attributes) would disqualify pepper spray as a sufficient defense against an attacker.

Please recommend something else.

Anonymous said...

26,000 people, 1 Gunman.
50 people dead.
I am actually shaking with rage as i write this, asking "HOW??!!!!!". A gun toting physco goes on the a shooting spree and kills 32 PEOPLE before he shoots himself? Isnt anyone disturbed by this as i am? He LINED UP STUDENTS ON THEIR KNEES AND SHOT THEM!!! HOW could that happen? Guns or no Guns, no fire extinguisher, no pencil etc there is NO excuse you can give for that. I was never aware that timidly laying one's life down is part of human nature. ONE person could have stopped him not to talk of 25,000. I'm angry,im hurting,im trembling with rage....im utterly utterly dissapointed.

please pray for the victims.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe the Virginia Campus Shooting at all. There were signs all around. Cho was reported to the police. Why haven't they looked into it and made sure he is not totally crazy by looking in his computer and his dorm room. I am completely confused. FBI? Cho could have spit on FBI's face and they still would have said "No, he is just fine, young man."

You know when they find a knife in a luggage of a flight passengers they are questioned and strip searched and pretty much raped in their mind by having security pad them down to make sure there isn't any "weapon of mass destructions." Here is a lunatic who happened to show all kinds of signals of something seriously wrong with him. No one really paid much attention even when school officals reported him to police. I am amazed. Wow, we say our country is one of the best but our governments sucks at so many level. Oh yea, you'd better pay your tax or they will haul your ass to jail. LOL.

Another thing that I am pissed about todays world is that we are so stupid when it comes to technology. Who the fuck thought emailing and text messaging was the best way to inform Virginia Tech (VT) student bodies and factuly of this serious situation. For all the technology in the world -- Bluetooth, WIFI, wireless, statellite communications -- they have to send emails and text messaging. Email is for jackasses when it comes to alerting others of any events. How is VT to know that people are going to be on the Computer Reading emails at that very moment. Heck it was Monday morning. Good number of students would have been getting ready for school or sleeping or in classrooms like the indian professor class was. Emailing was the stupidest thing they did.

On the same note, Text messaging is no different than emailing. Not everyone in the world has Cellphone. Even if they do, who is to say their cellphone has text messaging feature. Assuming all the students and factualy members had a cellphone with text messaging feature, do you think they would have the cellphone turned on during classes. Probably not. There goes the alerting messages. LOL.

If VT is smarter than they think, then I would be expecting them to put a system in place where with a push of a button the whole campus not just one building will be alerted of any impending situations or event. So, people can take proper action and save themselves.

Anonymous said...

hey, umm personally I agree with scott. *ducks* like, I understand where he is comming from... I'm from Canada, and the chances of a gun shoot out like that in Canada is pretty much impossible. why? because we dont carry a gun with us wherever we go. it's retarded.

I am aware that there ARE guns in Canada, but to get one you have to go though alot of paper work and such, much more paper work then in the U.S.I am also aware that there are still people being shot in Canada..but not to the extent of 30 people getting killed, and surely not at a college. so seriously don't bash on scott, if we were to get rid of the guns we wouldn't have to protect ourselves from them.yes there will be other types of violence, but we can fight against it.. not everyone has a bullet proof vest to wear when they go out. this probably makes no sense, but I'm just trying to back up scott..

The shootings at Virginia tech were a horrible thing. but it just goes to show how easily someone can get a gun and turn on people. 30 people to be exact, and for the cost of a couple hundred bucks. you people who actually support guns are truly insane.

like i said, if there were no guns, we wouldnt have to protect ourselves from them.

go ahead, prove me wrong, I'd like to see you guys try and prove to the world that guns are a good thing. no one should have to keep a gun at their side and keep looking over their shoulder.. but if we were to get rid of the guns, there would be one less thing to worry about.


good job scott, even though some of your statements are a little out there, you had a very good point. i support you 110% :)

xthecritic said...

Opposed to NBC News decision to air Cho's videos? If so, join our petition and boycott at http://newsboycott.com/

Anonymous said...

It’s funny how Left-wingers point and say “look! We need more control!” whenever there is a shooting.

The fact is that even if there was not a gun involved this individual would have found some other way to do something. The poster (Scott) above mentions the Japanese and their gun laws leaving a reader with the impression that something like this couldn’t happen in Japan.

“When was the last time you heard of a Japanese guy going on a shooting spree in Tokyo? It's been awhile. Wanna know why? They removed the guns from society completely.”

Scott’s right. I can’t recall an event in my lifetime of someone in Japan going on a shooting spree. I’m not saying that it has never happened. I’m just saying that can’t think of a case. I do however remember March 20th, 1995. Do you Scott?

I also remember April 19th, 1995, July 21st, 2005, March 11th, 2004 and February 26th, 1993.

Do you Scott?

I also remember individuals such as Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer and Ramirez.

Do you Scott?


The issue isn’t about guns. This issue is about an individual that killed a number of others because of whatever reason. In this case the individual was deranged and should have been removed from the school well before this happened. The issue is the individual, not the method.

-DC Dave

Anonymous said...

"the chances of a gun shoot out like that in Canada is pretty much impossible. why? "

Actually, my friends in Alberta and BC tell me that it's no longer the haven that I once lived in.

Immigrant gangs with machine guns and handguns smuggled in from....... overseas.

Or at least that's what my friends there tell me. Not going clubbing, afraid to answer the door at night. A shame.

Correct about one thing, there will not be a shootout between a criminal and a citizen if the citizen is unarmed.

"if we were to get rid of the guns we wouldn't have to protect ourselves from them. yes there will be other types of violence, but we can fight against it.. not everyone has a bullet proof vest to wear when they go out. "

Sadly, the nature of man proves you wrong.

Sticks, knives, clubs, fists. The strong will prey upon the weak.
With no guns, the weak are defenseless.

"go ahead, prove me wrong, I'd like to see you guys try and prove to the world that guns are a good thing."

13 seconds.

That's it.

13 seconds.

You are proven wrong.

Every 13 seconds (reflecting 2.5 million times per year.) an American citizen uses a firearm to stop or prevent a crime.

95% of those events involve no shooting.

13 seconds Scott.

In the time it took a maniac to kill 33, approximately 700 crimes were stopped by people with guns.

700 robberies, carjackings, rapes, purse snatchings, kidnappings, etc.

You oughta be ashamed of yourself, buddy. Wanting people to be victimized and helpless.
What's wrong with you?

Anonymous said...

Hello,

Max from Sweden here (pardon my bad french).

Anyway, I agree with Scott. What need to be done is to tighten up the weapon control as well as the laws that gives every man right to have a weapon. Of course it will take quite a while before you´ll see any changes in the total amount of available weapons. But why not start just now? I mean, it isn´t the "wild west" anymore. Or is it?

Anonymous said...

My friends in Canada have also told me Canada is more violent now than ever. Toronto in particular.

Ban guns and only criminals have guns. The leftists are content for more people to lose their lives. They never mention that every year guns save thousands of lives.

USpace said...

I really think that leftists don't want law-abiding people to have guns partly because they don't feel that a murderer or rapist or burglar should be shot in the act. They feel that the poor misguided criminal should be arrested and get treatment.


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you may not defend yourself

guns are for criminals
just hope police show in time
.

Anonymous said...

When LawDog was about 10, I bought him his first pistol. I showed him how to use it, and let him know he wasn't to abuse the privilege of owning it. I did the same with his siblings. Not a one of us has ever gone flaming bugnuts and shot up anyone anywhere.
Now I have to say that I did shoot a man who came through the window into my bedroom where LawDog, as a baby, was sleeping. I used a compressed air speargun.
Another time, another threat to one of my children and I used a broken off poolcue like a javelin.
In neither of those cases did I have a gun; if I had had one, I'd have used it. I am going to protect me and mine with whatever weapon comes to hand. A gun just makes it a lot easier.
In other words, you don't have to be insane or have a gun to kill.
And let me ask you: if you're going to die anyway, what's to be gained by NOT fighting? You might die, but you also might save someone else's life.
Our children lack that fine sense of outrage at something that is just WRONG, more's the pity. And somehow we and our society have taken that from them.
Our ancestors must be mightly ashamed of us.
LawMom

criminology said...

MAX from Sweden
SCOTT who can't answer my facts.

SCOTT: You aren't merely a coward for refusing to effectively defend yourself and your loved ones, you are giving people terrible advice that will get them killed. You told one woman to use "pepper spray" instead of a gun, implying that it is just as effective. I have engaged in martial arts practice with commercial-grade pepper spray and I can assure you that its ability to stop a determined attacker is less than 20%. Pepper spray against my sensei was 0% (ZERO PERCENT)effective. If that poor woman uses pepper to defend herself in extremis, she will be raped, and killed. Nice work, Scott! You can be proud!

Any responses to my previous post? I didn't think so.

MAX: It is obvious that you haven't read ANY of the recent criminological or self-defense data on this subject, so I'd suggest you just go back to my previous post on this thread.

With the increasing levels of violent crime in Sweden, mostly by Moslems who intend to eventually take over Europe, I'd think you might want to plan ahead and figure out how you would handle an intifada in your country. I have no doubt that we in the U.S. will be able to handle it very effectively. If I lived in Sweden, I'd certainly campaign to let Swedish women carry handguns for self-defense (is it true the rape rates are so high that the police refuse to release rape figures? My friends in Sweden have told me that things are getting worse every day.

Criminology said...

For ANONYMOUS who agreed with Scott on Japan

Bet you can't name any massacres by Americans of Japanese ancestry in America, where they have just as much access to guns as anyone else. You would be hard-pressed to find a single murder by a Japanese-American.

Japan is a cultural issue, not a gun issue.

Criminology said...

For ANONYMOUS on Canada

1. Canada's provinces tht border America have nearly the asame violent crime rate, including murder as the adjacent U.S. states. See Brandon Centerwall's study from the early 1990's.

If you think that Canada never has shootouts, let me remind you of the case where a drug dealer killed 4 RCMP mounties a few years ago. And the mass murder by Marc Lepine (aka Gamil Ghabri) at Ecole Poly technique in Montreal, 1989 (15 dead,14 wounded). Also the Dawson College shootings by Kimveer Gill in 2006 (2 dead, 20 counded)

Of course the Quebecois separatists never killed anyone, right?

Anonymous said...

Ok I went to the first blog on Scott from oregon's profile and left a msg.



"Scott From Oregon said

"More guns. More shootings. Law of averages. You make the (again proven) false assumption that people who carry guns "for protection" are always sane."

Scott when was the last time someone went on a shooting spree at an NRA convention? A CCW class? A gunrange? I ask you to google school shootings and see where a "gun free" zone gets us.

I submit to you that by going armed I am increasing my odds of not being gunned down my a madman. And also your chances of not being gunned down by some nutjob. I had to pass a background check. (not one of those instant checks but a real FBI background check)I had to take 8 hours of class on when I can use a fire arm and where I may carry it. If you think that I am some sort of nutjob by wanting to insure my saftey and yours then there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Thomas Paine

I hope this changes your mind. That not all gun owners are nuts and that guns in themselves are not good or evil but tools to be used by those that are good or evil.

Later,
Scott (from oklahoma)"

Shaun said...

I just wanted to say that I agree with Scott that university students should not be able to carry weapons on college campuses, but I also agree with many of Lawdawgs comments. Yes it would have helped out in this instance; however I think a lot of problems would come out of it. I am at college right now, and I have seen plenty of drunken fights over the stupidest stuff. If any of the people involved had a gun, more people would die. Most likely people not even involved. Or you could have the case of a school shooting happening and there being so much confusion that everybody draws their guns and has no idea who started the shooting. I have no problem with guns. My dad even owns some, but arming college students is not the right thing to do. I think the police handled it the wrong way. The campus should have been closed after the initial shooting. I don't blame the fact that he was able to get a hold of a gun. I dont blame the fact that college students could not have a gun. I blame this kid. All the blame is on this one man who decided to kill all these people. I dont think it's fair to place the blame anywhere else.

Like Lawdawg said somebody who is willing to commit murder would easily break gun control laws. I just dont think arming college students is the best idea.

-Shaun

Anonymous said...

All of you are so stuck up on laws and gun control and dip shit lefty and righty!!!

Gun doesn't kill, it is the person using the gun. What makes someone to turn violent and kill others is simple -- Society!!! If a guy wants what others have badly, he is going to fucking even kill to get it. It's that simple. The more I read about Cho Seung Hui the more I am starting to sympathize with him. I am an asian male and a handicapped one at that. I have been looked down up on, called names after names and even laughed at many many times by classmates and everyday people. I had so much hate and anger toward society. Sure, I didn't go out and kill everyone crossing my path but I did my best to ignore the whole thing and move on but that's probably why I became porn addict. So, that way I can forget about outside world and be occupied looking at naked chicks all day.

Looks to me like Hui was humiliated, called names and never been treated like a human being. It's clear from his videos and letters he left behind.

THINK ABOUT IT, jackasses!!!

C4talyst said...

The problem with Scott's argument is that hes obviously a fanatic. He's uneducated on both sides of the argument which renders his opinion largely useless in terms of helping to form public policy. He comes across as a "nutter" himself...and an uneducated one at that.

Anonymous said...

If you all agree to SCOTT, why don't you all go marry him. Our society is the
real problem not the gun or the law. No one is born a rapist, serial killer, child molestor, terriost, robber, murderer, etc... We become who we are from everyday
experiences. That experiences could be good or bad which shapes our character.


If you analyze all the serial killer, you would notice that something sick or very bad thing happened to them when they were growing up. Zodiac killer killed mainly teenagers in love. You could probably say that he didn't get any girls or girls gave him NO all the time. So, he went on killing spree.


So, I don't agree with SCOTT in anyway shape or form. You can come up with all kinds of law after law and rules and regulations. It won't work. WHY. Well, that's because of us humen. If humen is part of the equation in anything, it won't work. Law is a law. You need someone to enforce it. That someone is a human. I am pretty sure you can bribe a cop easily. Heck, you can even bribe a Judge. Throw a ton of money at their face and they will keep their mouth shut and work in your favor. You think cops make $50,000 a year. Nope. They only make about $30,000 a year. I have a friend who is a cop. He works part-time in a deli shop after cop duty. I am pretty sure he would love to have some million dollar. He and I talk alot. He tells me once he hits the lottery he will retire.

How do you think O.J.Simpson won his case? By being truthful--NOT!!!
We all know he was very abusive to his wife and very controlling at that. How many of us heard so many stories where husband kills his wife and got sent to jail for the killing. O.J.Simpson case is no different than that. He won because he had millions of dollars. MONEY TALKs.

So, Scott for your information you can keep all the laws. It won't make any difference only when we all learn to accept and respect others the way they are supposed to be.

Anonymous said...

http://one.revver.com/watch/240237

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rH9eaAckmUY

Anonymous said...

"Things Don't Add Up -- Anomalies in the VA Tech Slayings"

by Salvador Astucia, April 27, 2007

As the world knows, April 16, 2007 was a horrific day in America. 33 students and faculty members died in a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. At 7:15 am, two young people–male and female–were shot and killed in a Virginia Tech dormitory room at West Ambler Johnston Hall. Two and a half hours later, at 9:45 am, police responded to shootings at Norris Hall, but the doors were barricaded shut. Within ten minutes, they entered the hall and found 31 dead bodies and approximately 30 injured students and faculty members. Among the dead was a 23-year-old male, of Korean origin. His face was badly disfigured from what police concluded was a self-inflicted gunshot wound. There are conflicting reports regarding this young man's name. The Washington Post has referred to him interchangeably as Seung Hui Cho, and Cho Seung Hui. Most reporters are calling him Cho Seung Hui; however, on April 21, 2007 (five days after the slayings), the Washington Post published a front-page article entitled "An Isolated Boy in a World of Strangers" where they repeatedly called him Seung Hui Cho. One would think our best and brightest journalists could get a few basic facts straight before they conclude without question that this young Korean man was indeed guilty of committing mass-murder. One would think a basic point of agreement would be the name of the perpetrator. But why trifle with minor details like the name of a dead Korean who reportedly shot roughly 60 people with two handguns, left approximately 30 survivors, none of whom were able to identify him? But the media says he's guilty, so that's all that matters. Case close.

Nevertheless, since the young man's name is a question, I will refer to him as Cho for the remainder of this article. Besides the anomaly of Cho's name, I have noticed lots of inconsistencies and peculiar occurrences regarding the Virginia Tech slayings. The "case closed" mentality centers around the fact that a package was received by NBC News a few days after the slayings, allegedly sent by Cho before he reportedly committed mass-murder and took his own life. The package reportedly contained a video tape of Cho spewing hateful remarks. It also contained voluminous documents, including two plays he authored, and other writings that espoused extreme political views, according to NBC News. He reportedly mailed the package to NBC News in between the two sets of killings, an event that is highly questionable in its own right. Upon receipt of the damning package by NBC, all serious investigations essentially evaporated. Did it occur to anyone that Cho had been set up to take the blame for the actions of others?

Here is a summary of questions and anomalies I have gathered so far:

1. How could one person kill 30 people in a matter of minutes?

2. No eye-witness identified Cho as the shooter.

3. Jay Leno publicly compared Cho to Lee Harvey Oswald.

4. Matt Lauer and the Washington Post claim Cho believed the U.S. Government murdered ex-Beatle John Lennon.

5. The news media has collectively labeled Cho an insane person, but with little evidence.

6. Emmanuel College professor, Nicholas Winset was fired for facilitating a discussion about the Virginia Tech slayings and the pros and cons of gun control.

7. There are conflicting accounts about the clothing worn by Cho while he was allegedly shooting his victims.

8. Why would a Korean–of all ethnicities–shame his family the way Cho did?

9. Cho was reportedly a loner, but Korean men are often shunned by Americans because of vast cultural differences.

10. Why did Cho commit suicide by shooting himself in the face?

11. How do we know it was Cho who mailed the incriminating video and documents to NBC News?

12. Why is Karl Thornhill not a suspect for the double homicide on the morning of April 16, 2007?

13. Could a satanic cult near Blacksburg have been involved in the slayings?

14. Why did Bush endorse witchcraft within the military shortly after the slayings?

The following points are the same issues previously raised, but with additional commentary:

Point # 1. How could one person kill 30 people in a matter of minutes? According to the news media, Cho shot approximately 60 people at Norris Hall, 30 of whom died immediately. Cho had no training in firearms and only used two handguns. Had he used a machine gun or a bomb, the high casualty number might not seem so strange. But he only used two handguns, and apparently no one tried to overpower him. One would think that with approximately 60 shooting victims, at least one would have successfully overpowered him. No one is questioning how he accomplished this task, but it seems like an impossible feat for one person with no firearms training.

To read more, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/vatech/anomalies.htm

END

To view Salvador Astucia's website, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Chris from Oregon said...

I really hope that you all don't think that us Oregonians are as simple minded and pro-gun control as Scott from Oregon. I would say that most places here are still "Redneck" and we all have our rifles in the rack behind the seat of my truck. I carry my Glock 17 9mm all the time, Not because I'm scared but because there is the possibility of an incident that i would need it. There is no way to completely remove guns from society. Imagine asking every Law Enforcement Officer to get rid of his gun, I think not! Oregon is still a very "wildwest" state and i believe every state should have at least a little of that mentality. Anyways, thats my little rant after reading these post

Frencis Merchant said...

The quality of your articles and contents is great.tippmann gryphon paintball kit

Frencis Merchant said...

The quality of your articles and contents is great.tippmann gryphon paintball kit