Virginia Tech Campus Reels From Shooting That Leaves at Least 33 Dead
By the end of the spree, 33 people, including the gunman, were dead and authorities warned the toll could rise because several more were critically injured.
The students at this university do not now need counseling or ritalin, they need concealed carry classes and self-defense training.
If student number 5 had been able to shoot back then maybe students 6-32 (I don't count "number 33" since that seems to be the subhuman gunman) would not have been murdered.
http://oregonfirearms.org/chlcentral/
52 comments:
Absolutely right.
An armed society is not a polite society.
Anon 515: you might be surprised at just how polite things can get when the question is always there: "Is this person packing heat?"
Forget polite, you can be rude to me all you want, I just want to be able to shoot back if you try to kill me.
The most arrogantly STUPID headline ever written goes to the big orifice (that's the oregonian, to you, kidiot) for their front page editorial comment "Iraq, nowhere is safe," or something near that. Let's see.....was the campus of Virginia Tech safe? How about the high school in Gresham? Maybe our kids are safe from internet prowlers? And let's not forget Philadelphia, Washington (D.C.), Nawleens (spell-check, please), Detroit, L.A., New Yawk city, all vying for the murder capital of the world award. For the lefties out there, don't forget that EVERY venue that has been attacked has been an unarmed target, and each massacre has been stopped only when MEN WITH GUNS have arrived. BTW, my 11 year old is hitting the bullseye at 100 yds. with a deer rifle. He can provide us with food, and knows that the lefties are to be "left" to defend themselves. Maybe pouring more vegetable puree in the river will stop the next killer among you.....sheesh.
The man had a 9mm and .22... a couple of people actually resisting would have made a huge difference. These days, however, cowering, running, ducking, and wailing seem to be the ingrained responses.
It's simply amazing listening to teh talking heads going on about the depth of planning, and the "well-armed" gunman. Two small caliber handguns? well-armed?
If this trend continues, in 20 years we'll all be listening to a news story about someone killing 50 people with a sharpened spork.
Someone who goes online daily and writes the kind of stupendously banal crap that you do, Daniel, spewing venom at other human beings, demonizing people, ignoring genuine injustice, reveling in the pain, loss and struggle of those you deem unworthy is, in some sense, already dead. That the best you can do on this horrible day is to call for your fellow Americans to arm themselves speaks to a level of moral and intellectual degradation that is almost as horrifying as what happened at Virginia Tech.
It's attitudes like yours Stan that allows these kind of crimes to be commited.
Stop being part of the problem or just shut up.......
Me calling for citizens to take steps to protect themselves is "almost as horrifying" as 32 murders? It's "almost as horrifying" as lining people up and shooting them execution style? Please check yourself into a mental institution.
Virginia Tech was the liberal utopia of a "gun free zone." How did that work out...
Its the US fault for not following in VA Tech's footsteps. Look at Japan.
What about Japan? Do their founding documents say that our right to bear arms comes from God and are not to be infringed upon?
Someone who blathers in public about the right to carry a gun coming from an omnipotent being has pretty much forfeited the right to be advising others to check into mental institutions.
This sort of thing would never happen there. Nor in any other society where gun laws are strict... School shootings are rare, if they exist at all, in Japan. Violent crime is not a problem in Japan. Heck, by and large the police don't carry guns.
Daniel: The final sentence in my post got off to the start I intended, but the comparison it concludes with was unnecessary hyperbole and in poor taste, and for that, I am sorry.
Anon 9:05 has now insulted our founding fathers, congrats buddy.
Again, we don't need to have a discussion about an "America without guns" because, and I know that many of you are public school grads so this is a shocker, the right for citizens to keep and bear arms in actually in the bill of rights. (in contradisction to such made up rights as the right to kill a baby or sodomize a member of the same sex)
You may also look into statistics concerning property crimes and home invasion robberies in these "gun free" utopias.
Stan, that you for being reasonable about that.
But do we remember when a crazed man stormed into the Oregon state capital, brandishing a knife at his own throat, during a senate legislative session?
OSP News Release
Luckily, that was a knife.
Daniel, you have a higher amount of spelling errors in your post than normal. Are you drunk?
Unfortunately this kind of tragedy helps the gun haters. Col. Cooper coined a term for them but I forget it right now.
So, I advise, buy now. Buy today. Before they get elected this fall.
I fully concur, that even one armed citizen could have prevented this from becoming the massacre it did.
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine)
The 2nd Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. It's not about any and every person owning any and every possible weapon.
Also, it's odd to me that a person who has been convicted of a weapons charge is able to get a concealed weapons permit in Oregon. Perhaps that law needs to be reconsidered.
Finally, ric needs to brush up on his civics--very few people will be elected in elections THIS fall--that will mostly happen next fall.
The shooter: Cho Seung-Hoi, 23, a resident alien from South Korea living in the United States.
FoxNews.com reports Seung-Hoi had receipts for a Glock 9mm pistol in his backpack, but the weapon of choice to carry out the carnage was not clearly defined.
Immigrants come to America for a better life? Tell that to the 32 dead and dozens more injured by this legal alien's rampage.
"Immigrants come to America for a better life? Tell that to the 32 dead and dozens more injured by this legal alien's rampage."
There are so many things wrong with this statement, but lets start with the fact that you are both a nationalist and elitist, which means you have the outstanding personality qualities necessary to thrive in Hitler's NAZI Germany :)
Anon 8:04, you tell me there are so many thing wrongs with my statement but the best you can do is throw some personal name-calling. Where that "so many thing wrong" list? You didn't even hit one yet.
A left-winger way to win an argument.
Immigrants come to America for a better life? Tell that to the 32 dead and dozens more injured by this legal alien's rampage.
Gee, millions come to this country to live, and they're judged by the bad actions of one.
Perhaps we should ban military service, since military vets Charles Whitman and Tim McVeigh have carried out mass killings.
Do you really think we should ban all foreign students? That seems to be what you're suggesting. Good luck with that. Just remember, that will also mean U.S. students will be banned from other countries.
By the way, ancestors of mine were immigrants. It's a sure bet that most of those posting here have at least one ancestor who was an immigrant.
If you want people to "go back to where they came from", perhaps you can volunteer to go first.
The shooter came to the U.S. when he was eight years old. He likely came here because his parents came here. I doubt very much he came here when he was eight for the express purpose of going on a killing rampage fifteen years later.
Rather than looking at ways to arm ourselves to the teeth (where does Jesus say anything about doing that?) we can start looking for ways to treat mental illness in an effective manner.
Anon 8:04, you tell me there are so many thing wrongs with my statement but the best you can do is throw some personal name-calling. Where that "so many thing wrong" list? You didn't even hit one yet.
A left-winger way to win an argument.
Ah, so you are suggesting there is something wrong with your argument, and Anon just hasn't hit it... yet. I was beginning to loose faith in you, but now I see :). Of course, you didn't explicitly say anything that was blatantly anti-immigrant, but your subtext is so obvious that a mentally impaired two-year-old could have inferred your intention.
Immigrants come to America for a better life?
No, they only come to take away from American society. Take, for instance, Albert Einstein. That bastard came to the states with his damned theory of relativity. What an asshole. Trying to advance the science of physics. If I lived in his time, I would have told him to take his immigrant, anti-American ways back home.
Father Edward Flanagan? Go back to Ireland, you evil, moral preaching catholic. John Kennedy? Your ancestors were Irish immigrants, and we can't have a catholic president with Irish immigrant ancestors.
Tell that to the 32 dead and dozens more injured by this legal alien's rampage.
I fully intend to. Damn you, Einstein, for advancing physics. Damn you, Flanagan, for being one of societies rare empathetic leaders. Damn you, Kennedy's ancestors, for helping bring to this country one of the greatest leaders of our time. Your obvious plots to undermine American society through immigrating to our country has caused a series of irreversible detriments to our country.
I never had faith in a left-wing, politically correct progressive, ever.
The 2nd Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. It's not about any and every person owning any and every possible weapon.
While that may be the self-serving opinion of anon 7:13, it doesn't qualify as case law.
This does:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/03/the_second_amen.html
Next.
That's what I love about the right, finding rights in the Constitution that aren't there. Of course, it's only the rights that they might want to exercise that they find. If it's rights for others, the right wants nothing to do with it.
And for you Christians, tell me where Jesus said anything along the lines of "arm yourself so you can fight back."
To whoever said look to Japan for gun laws...
Mayor of Nagasaki in critical condition from gunshot wound. I guess a gang member, breaking the law and having a gun, shot the mayor. Looks like the criminals don't follow the gun laws, what a surprise.
Try again anon. Anomalies do not constitute trends. Overall, Japan has FAR fewer gun related crimes than we do.
That's what I love about the right, finding rights in the Constitution that aren't there...
That's what I love about anonymous commenters; you never know for sure which one's talking...
...out their ass.
If that's anon 7:13 above; you really should check the "link" I provided. If your concept of "the right" is the DC Circuit, you have, as they say these days, some reality "issues".
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
1:33 and 7:13 are different people. I'm 1:33.
I'm interested in what you would have to say about R Huse's views on the DC Circuit. He posted about it earlier on the site.
What law would stop a crazy person who wants to kill people from doing it? Laws are a choice: Follow them or don't. Obviously in this country it's easy to ignore laws. Just don't get caught.
So ban guns all you want. People who do not care about following the law will still get them, and those of us who do follow the law will be defenseless against them.
And for you Christians, tell me where Jesus said anything along the lines of "arm yourself so you can fight back."
That would be Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
I'm interested in what you would have to say about R Huse's views on the DC Circuit. He posted about it earlier on the site.
Gimme a hint - "the site" meaning Daniel's, I assume - which post, when?
Sorry. The post was "liberals define the argument."
We may not need to have a discussion about "America without guns," but we very definitely do need to have a discussion about America with guns, a serious one. Anything less would be irresponsible. Personally, I think the debate as it has traditionally played out -- gun control v. Second Amendment -- is a political cul-de-sac. One way in, no way out. It will be interesting to see if the parameters of debate can be broadened in such a way as to illuminate a path out of this madness.
Thanks, Anon 5:54.
There are actually very few people who are 100% against gun control. If you favor keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons, then you favor gun control.
The question is, what are the parameters of acceptable gun control. I have a brother-in-law who is an avid hunter, owns numerous guns, yet he's strongly in favor of strict limits on hand guns. As he sees it, a high percentage of hand guns are used for nefarious purposes.
For starters, I think a means of licensing gun owners makes sense--as with an automobile, you should be able to demonstrate that you can operate a gun safely.
Yes, I know some criminals will bypass the process, just like some do with motor vehicles. Just because some people will break the law doesn't mean the law is a bad law.
I also think there should be a serial number on every package of ammunition--if your ammunition is used in committing a crime, it would be appropriate that you're charged.
Sorry. The post was "liberals define the argument."
Sorry, no reference to the DC Circuit Court that I could find in
"Liberals Frame the Argument"
Is that the one you meant?
Again, this is my fault. It is mainly in regards to R Huse's view that supreme court law should not be viewed as the ultimate authority on the law (I think he was arguing against someone else who viewed SC law as supreme).
I can say for sure, after a year in Iraq - where everyone is packing, even the officers are polite!
Yes, it's very safe in Iraq--just ask John McCain.
Of course, not everyone can get the armed guards and helicopters.
I would love to see a regular "Stupid Rosie Comment of the Day" segment here. She says something pretty stupid every day on "the View".
Rosie---against the 2nd amendment, employs armed guards.
BTW, Va. Tech to enforce gun ban rule on recent violator....moves to expel Cho....hearing next month. L..O..L.!
You lefties are great....peace through surrender....funny, you don't LOOK french!
at 5:42 eddie said that the guns used were small caliber firearms, well i agree the .22 was. However, i dont think eddie understands ho big a 9mm is. A 9mm is a deadly bullet. It is around the same size as a 308 which is a friggin deer hunting riffle. While it is a good idea to try a jump the shooter you have the odds stacked well against you with a 9mm.
You must be crazy dude, its unbelievable how easy it is for you to say oh..lets all get some guns and be armed.. these kids weren't in irak they were at school..in their campus why should they be aware of some crazy guy who all of the sudden wants to open fire against them? why should they be armed in their campus..? in their classrooms?! why didn't the authorities who were aware of the gunman's mental illness didn't do anything?? those are the things that we should encourage to do...to take actions but not to arm a whole politechnic comunity, thats ridiculous
Ill clear it up for you - Essentially what I said was the view that the Supremes are there to decide constitutional issues is novel. It started with the Marbury decision about 100 years ago. This established the process of judicial review. In other words, it is not etched in stone that the Supremes are there to test constitutionality of congressionally passed law.
By the way, for those of you arguing that gun laws work because other countries that have them have lower gun crime rates. Nice try, but its a false comparison. The fact is a lot of those countries, England being a good example, had significantly lower gun crime rates than we did BEFORE they passed their gun laws.
This is the stupidest post ever. If students are allowed guns and trained on how to use them, potential killers are given access/training of firearms.
r huse,
Judicial review, established in the U.S. in Marbury v. Madison decision, is not a novel idea in this country.
The Marbury decision is 200, not 100, years old, having been decided iin 1803.
I also notice that conservatives hate judicial review, except when they love it.
For example, conservatives love it when federal laws are invalidated because they don't meet the interstate commerce clause.
Conservatives also tried to have the courts invalidate Oregon's assisted-suicide law.
i have heard it all now...lets blame the english department,lets blame bush,lets blame everyone BUT the person that did it,Cho Seung Hoi,WTF! people, since when are we not accountable for our actions,yes i agree that Cho was psychotic and needed help,he knew wright from wrong,in this case his acute psychosis took over and he thought he was doing the right thing which was deadly wrong, o dont forget blaming vilent video games and everyone brain washing us about death is glorified, i have been around guns all my life,*** my middle and high school even had shooting teams, i do not have the urge or a plan to go out and shoot anyone, and i agree with some other posters,if one person was armed this would have ended way earlier,i know if i am carring and someone is trying to take my life i have the right to defend myself,and i will,it seems like too many people let there guard down and BAM there cought with there pants down, in this day and age u cant take your mind off your surroundings, there are tons of ticking time bombs out there,im sure he is not the only one that has been over looked and need some serious help,i now work in an ER and there is not a night that goes by that we do not have a person that comes in saying "i feel like hurting my self or killing someone" then we treat them and if need be send them off for further treatment in a psych hospital...that is not the nurse nor doctors desission,yes the doctor signs the emergency comital form,but the crisis eval person makes the call weather this person is for real or not. how about lets blame the person that did the crime even though hes dead, OR the person that evaluated Cho at the mental instute for over looking this,im sure there is a law suit waiting for them.we send off 2 sometimes 4 a day to the state and private psych facilities, im sure its like that EVERYWHERE and in bigger cities more, i don't think this could have been prevented because no one knows when that person is going to snap and carry thru with there actions, BUT i agree it could have been stopped earlier if someone would have been armed and in a mind set that...o look this fucker has a gun and hes shooting everyone,,,HOW ABOUT LETS JUMP THIS FUCKER AND TAKE HIM DOWN when he stops to reload,is everyone really that stupid and helpless,,shit they had a 90 persent chance of getting shot...i be damned if im just gonna sit there and get shot,that fucker would have shot me while i was on my way at him with a chair or something.THINK PEOPLE, do we need to train everyone in the US,wouldnt be a bad idea being we pay taxes out tha ass and not get anything for it
Post a Comment