As I feared, the previous thread on Virginia Tech is rapidly escalating into partisan politics discussion. So I am asking that all posters on that thread restrict their commments to extending condolences or, if they actually knew Jamie (as friends typically called Christopher) share their recollections. In the meantime, feel free to use this space to discuss broader societal issues.
I think here’s what we can expect to see over the next months, as we move beyond shock and disbelief into anger.
1) Law suits filed by aggrieved families against Virginia Tech authorities for their failure to lock down the campus in the intervening two hours, while investigations are held to determine whether Virginia Tech authorites were to blame.
2) Considering the theme of parental abuse that reveals itself in the shooter’s unproduced play scripts, investigations into the shooter’s parents to determine if there was indeed child abuse present. If so, possible law suits on the basis that their abuse resulted in their son’s actions and therefore they bear responsibility.
3) Advocates of gun control holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be made stricter, considering that the shooter acquired his weapon legally.
4) Advocates of unrestricted gun ownership holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be abolished because if everyone in the college had been packing, they could have fought back. Because in a confined environment where there’s inevitably going to be drinking, partying, intense romances, and scads of young people lacking many aspects of maturity, that’s what you really want to have on a daily basis: Lots of firepower.
5) An upswing in incidents of students who write essays/poems/short stories themed around violence suddenly finding themselves tagged as potential shooters and being suspended or expelled.
PAD
• 
Hmm, one more thought:
It also brings me back to thoughts on Osama bin Laden.
I’d love to personally drag him through the streets by the sack.
But were I given the chance to actually do it, would I? Could I?
I wouldn’t know.
The same thing applies here to the notion of handing everybody a gun and telling them to defend themselves with it. You’re just going to end up with a lot more bodies due to people who aren’t prepared for those situations.
Is there any reason for semi-automatic weapons to be legal for ordinary citizens? He legally bought two guns a month apart in Virginia – a Walther .22-caliber pistol, Feb. 9 from a pawnshop, and then on March 16, he bought the second gun, a 9mm Glock 19, from Roanoke Firearms. Virginia law permits the purchase of one gun a month.
Neil
6) The victims will be blamed.
“Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn’t anyone rush the guy?… At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands.”
Or, if the victims aren’t at fault, it must be Islamic style terrorism by Asian immigrants, evolution, failure to believe in God or maybe just allowing the oddballs href=”http://ace.mu.nu/archives/223123.php”>freedom
5) An upswing in incidents of students who write essays/poems/short stories themed around violence suddenly finding themselves tagged as potential shooters and being suspended or expelled.
Sounds like Columbine’s aftermath all over again.
4) Advocates of unrestricted gun ownership holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be abolished because if everyone in the college had been packing, they could have fought back. Because in a confined environment where there’s inevitably going to be drinking, partying, intense romances, and scads of young people lacking many aspects of maturity, that’s what you really want to have on a daily basis: Lots of firepower.
Agreed. You know Christopher Bird, the guy who did the famous Civil War remixes and is currently involved in a half-serious campaign to become the new Legion of Super-Heroes writer? I was just looking at his livejournal, and here is what it says…
“A lot of people advancing the (moronic) ‘this only happened because students aren’t allowed to carry guns’ argument re: Virginia Tech have been claiming that most mass shootings happen at schools.
Via Wikipedia, deadliest mass shootings in the USA since 1960:
Virginia Tech, 2007: Campus (33)
Killeen, 1991: Luby’s (21)
San Ysidro, 1984: McDonald’s (21)
Austin, 1966: Sniper on campus tower, shooting into both the school area and surrounding commercial district (17)
Edmond, 1986: Post office (15)
Littleton, 2002: School (15)
Atlanta, 1999: Office building (13)
Jacksonville, 1990: Loan office (10)
Red Lake, 2005: Home + school (9)
Fort Worth, 1999: Church hosting Christian rock concert (8)
Honolulu, 1999: Office building (7)
Wakefield, 1999: Office bulding (7)
Seattle, 2006: Rave party (7)
Nickel Mines, 2006: Amish schoolhouse (6)
I do this just to make it clear that that particular talking point is crap.”
It occurs to me that a small population of armed folks can get along. But arm a population of 80 million people? That seems like a society on the brink of anarchy.
Take the Rodney King riots. Look how much damage a small group of rioters can do WITHOUT weapons. Imagine how much damage could have been done, in terms of life lost, if every single one of those very angry, very willing to commit violent acts people had been armed.
“Sure,” Robert Preston would say, “the non-rioting people could have defended themselves with their own weapons by SHOOTING the rioters.”
To what end? Either way, you end the day with hundreds, maybe thousands, dead. With an all-armed populace of millions, every day you run the risk of a small scale ware happening.
Hey, isn’t there a part of the world, right now, where gun control is pretty non-existant. Where you can see people with guns walking down just about every street? Someplace that starts with I, ends with Q, and has ra in the middle? And isn’t there, I dunno, like an ARMY there, not only armed to the teeth, but with tanks and stuff? I’m sure that’s the safest, most polite, peaceful place in the world right now.
You wrote”Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved. If that seems intemperate, so be it. The truth oftenasppears that way to some.”
How do you know this? How do you know that the staff and students at VT were NOT allowed, wer NOT not encouraged, to fight back?
Were you there? Do you work at VT?
How do you have all this inside information? How can you say how ANYONE else will react to extraordinary circumstances??
intemperate sir?? You’ve crossed that line a long time ago.
Again, if you take it that way, that’s your problem.
Mr. Preston, and I mean this in the same spirit of respect you claim to adhere to at all times…
Go fûçk yourself. Deeply and painfully. Ideally with one of the guns you value so highly.
Bye now.
All the best,
Tim Lynch
(Sorry about that, everyone else. Done now.)
Robert Preston: Had the staff and students at VT been allowed … to fight back
Huh? There’s some rule in the Campus Handbook that says you’re not allowed to defend yourself when someone points a gun at you?
There was some hall monitor in the classroom making sure the victims didn’t run too fast?
Dear PAD,
Why would one want to spend time in East L.A.? And if one did want to, and is properly armed, polite, and prepared, what would one have to fear?
All the best,
Robert Preston
Here’s something I forgot to mention (I know I should collect all my thoughts in a single post…sorry).
I have no fond memories of high school. It was a šhìŧŧÿ, hellish time of my life. When people say “kids are cruel” it’s not only a cliche, it’s an understatement.
I don’t have any idea why Eric Harris and Dylan Kliebold (sp?) shot people who never hassled them. I don’t understand that. But as for why they shot people who gave them a hard time, I understand it completely because in the past, when I was a teenager, I was driven to the breaking point by people like that. I so badly wanted to see them suffer and die.
I wanted to kill myself rather than go back to that gøddámņ place day after day after day for more of the same torment. But I heard these people talking at school one time. They were talking about a guy who had committed suicide. They were laughing about it and saying that it didn’t matter because he was a loser anyway. I knew that if I killed myself, those cruel møŧhërfûçkërš wouldn’t learn anything, they wouldn’t say “holy šhìŧ, I had no idea we’d hurt him that much, maybe we’d better be nicer to people.” So that’s when I thought that maybe if I took one of them out with me, THEN they’d get the message.
There was one day when I resolved to do it. But I live in Canada, where it ain’t that easy to get a gun, particularly when you have no friends who can hook you up or tell you who to call. So I took a knife to school. I hid it in my coat. I walked around looking for an opportunity to sneak up on somebody when they were alone and stab them…planning to use the knife on myself immediately afterwards.
But in the end, I chickened out. I couldn’t find anybody alone. I worried about whether I could do it or whether I’d fail. I worried about whether I’d have the willpower to stick a sharp object into my flesh hard enough to actually kill myself. So…nobody died.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if I’d had a gun, it would’ve been very different. Killing somebody by pulling the trigger of a gun is pretty much the same as pressing a button. It doesn’t take willpower. You don’t have to worry about whether you’re gonna struggle with somebody and lose. Killing yourself with a gun takes a helluva lot less willpower than actually taking a knife to yourself. Again, it’s just like pressing a button.
I may not be the happiest or most well-adjusted guy on the planet today…but I’m alive. So are the people I wanted to see dead back then. And the only reason that is so is because of Canadian gun control laws.
If human life is valuable to you, providing people with easy access to firearms will not produce the desired result of keeping people from falling victim to homicide. Not unless you can make sure that everybody treats everybody else with utmost respect and kindness and nobody has any motive whatsoever for murder.
I apologize for any discomfort these admissions may have caused among readers.
Robert Preston said:
“I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That’s a fact.”
What are you talking about? What was the Cold War about? Two nations were pointing weapons at each other to keep one another away, not to kill each other. They were threatening one another to change, not to die. Even heard of a hostage? They usually get guns pointed at them but not for the end of being a bloody corpse.
You really have no grasp of these things, do you?
Dear Mr. Lynch,
Thank you for sharing you opinion. And also for proving a point. I’ll let you know how the procedure turns out.
All the best,
Robert Preston
In addition to what Rob Brown said, I had a friend who was once very suicidal. He kept telling everyone he wanted to die, that he SHOULD be dead, but that he didn’t want to kill himself using what was available. He knew he could grab a sharp knife from the kitchen, he knew he could crash a car at 100+ mph, he knew he could stick his fingers in an electric outlet. But all he kept saying was, “I’d do it if someone could get me a gun.” He’s alive today because, thankfully, he couldn’t get áhøld of a gun.
Rob, it’s a good point you make, and it sounds like you’ve overcome those demons, or at least continue to work against them.
Robert Preston may, attitude aside, be an entirely responsible gun owner. He may take training…it may in fact be mandatory. And even if it wasn’t, maybe he’d take it anyway. He’s apparantly instilled in his son the importance of being responsible, and being prepared. And if everyone could be as responsible as that, giving a weapon to everyone wouldn’t be a big deal.
But as I said before, if you society were totally composed of responsible, respectful people, you wouldn’t need weapons. We could have them, or not.
I’ve got a son. Among other things, I hope to teach him the importance of being prepared. Of taking a few moments to be aware of his surroundings. To spend a little thought about how he might react if…something…were to happen. A car careens out of control onto a sidewalk where he’s walking. A high-rise windowpane plummets to the street. A gun-wielding student goes on a rampage near him.
Most of the time, I hope his actions allow him to defend himself…BY RUNNING AWAY. The best way to avoid danger is to… AVOID DANGER. Not shoot it before it shoots you. We say there’s a fight or flight reflex. I want to instill a flight or fight impulse. Run/avoid should be your first response. Only when you have no choice should you stick around and try to fight something deadly. Because the risk if you fail is so much greater than if you just run away.
Cowardly? Not really. It’s not like I’m trained in any realistic self-defense. I don’t consider it cowardice to try and protect my life.
We forgot a theory/spin that will probably appear soon, if indeed it hasn’t already:
6) That the whole thing was a Manchurian Candidate government conspiracy to draw attention away from the A.G. Gonzalez debacle.
As PAD said- By the writings this boy put out I suspect that someone abused him too (parent possibly since that’s who was doing the abuse in his stories)… focusing on how to stop physical, mental, verbal, and sexual abuse of children would be more valuable then fighting about whether or not we need more gun control …
Me? I hate guns, and I have no problem with tighter controls.
However I do not believe disarming citizens is a bright move. Historically, when governments disarms certain people groups- or to the extent of all citizens within their society, it hasn’t been a good thing.
Still, as the Brits are proud to condescendingly tell us- it works for them. Is it because we are now more evolved? Yeah, I’m not so sure.
Soooo, I’m on the fence as well.
From the shores of another land, arguing over gun control is redundant. You have so may guns already in circulation that you’ll never get rid of them.
Things like this will continue to happen, so long as people – abused or not, and that’s far from ‘obvious’ – will feel so wretched, so alienated, so disconnected that something like this becomes the only way they have to make a sound that people will listen to.
And – for whatever it’s worth – I’d agree that all of PAD’s list shall come to pass, to some extent or another, as people look for some simple and convenient way to put a wrapper around what happened.
Because what really happened, I don’t think any of us can really understand.
Cheers.
>I’ve been hearing Peter Gabriel’s “Family Snapshot” in my head for the last day and a half or so. Anyone else getting echoes of that one?
Not I. But I did flash back to Andrew Vachss’ short story DRESS-UP DAY.
>I think reasonable people would recognize that the first society would be safer, despite the fact that EVERYBODY could be armed in the second society.
Please explain, then, why Britain’s crime rate [violent crime included] had shot up since they all but banned private ownership of weapons? Maybe it’s as one criminal put it when interviewed in prison “well, if you’ve got a choice of where to commit a crime, where will you go? Somewhere where they can’t defend themselves? Or someplace where you know they might shoot your head off?”
>I my guess as to the reason that Switzerland has such a low murder rate is that military training and service is mandatory. Discipline, a sense of duty as a citizen, and a healthy respect for the power of their weapon probably helps discourage most citizens from using their weapons for homicide.
Very possibly. In which case, again, the gun isn’t the guilty party, it’s society as a whole. And, so long as work on gun control to the exclusion of all else, the problem isn’t going to go away. Remember McVeigh? He didn’t use a gun. Remember, too, that there was a time, not that many years ago, where an awful lot of people were murdered/injured with baseball bats, possibly as many as with guns. And why not? The club was one of the first weapons Man learned to use.
Robert Preston: At no time have I been disrespectful of anyone in this discussion.
Earlier…
Robert Preston: Your posting has got to be one of the most ignorant idiotic statements that I’ve ever read outside of Mother Jones magazine.
Hmm.
Regarding Kurt’s question:
Then, imagine a society in which the ownership of guns is mandatory. Everybody over a certain age is issued a handgun. EVERYBODY.
Being pedantic, I imagine that the death toll will depend a lot on what you set that “certain age” to be. E.g. if you make it 100 years old, there won’t be much difference from your “no guns at all” scenario. If you make it 1 year old, I’d expect a huge mortality rate from babies who have no idea what a gun is, and stick it in their mouths. Obviously these are both extreme cases, but I think there is an argument for saying that you ought to reach a certain level of maturity before being issued with a lethal weapon.
Personally, I’m on the “anti gun” side of the fence. This may be because I’ve lived in England all my life, so the only times I’ve seen guns in real life are when the army/police are carrying them. Mind you, thinking back to one of PAD’s “Young Justice storylines, I also think that there’s a romantic appeal to the idea of a bow and arrow, even though that can be an equally lethal projectile weapon. Speculating widly, I wonder how much of the “pro gun” enthusiasm comes from American cultural history, e.g. the wild west vs the middle ages?
Robert – why is it that the United States has a higher gun-death rate than “regulated” countries like Canada and the United Kingdom?
Want to know how many police officers suffered gun-related deaths in the US in 2005 alone? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 60.
Want to know how many officers in the UK have suffered gun-related deaths in the past twenty years? (It should be noted that they also very rarely carry guns while on duty). 11. About 1/6th. It’s true that the US has a larger population – and therefore, more police – but the size difference comes nowhere near explaining the considerably smaller portion of deaths by gunfire.
But don’t let the logic hit you in the ášš on the way out.
Posted by: Rene at April 18, 2007 02:05 PM
“Imagine a society in which guns are forbidden. Nobody is allowed to own a gun.”
The problem here is that you’re dealing with extreme and theoretical situations.
No you aren’t. I live in that society. Possession of firearms is outlawed in the UK.
It does somewhat trouble me that the UK’s parroting of the US coverage of this tragedy is so blatant – if we were leading our own coverage, you’d see a lot more attention brought to the fact that the man who sold this guy a gun – who failed to complete the correct security checks on him before selling him a lethal weapon – expressed that he had no regret whatsoever in selling him the gun – that it “wasn’t his fault” in the slightest. I really, truly hope he doesn’t really believe that.
It’s a shame that the coverage is all centred around psychological issues, which are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to solve… and not the rather obvious issue that a man with clear mental health problems successfully obtained a gun by lying on an application form.
(I can’t understand this “self-defence”, er, defence. You defend yourself by killing your attacker? Riiiiiight…)
Dear kurt, PAD and All,
Britain is no example of how to do ANYTHING. The government chastises, at best, and prosecutes, at worst ANYONE who fights back against criminals. In short, the British citizen is not allowed to defend themselves.
This has been my second foray into “blogging”. I’m still not impressed, but I’m not ready to give up just yet. It is always a good thing to read and keep opposing views in mind. But…
To answer all of the ridiculousness put forth here by such people as kurt, ZEEK, Tim Lynch, and Neil Ottenstein, to name a few, would take too much time. I have a pretty good idea of how most people who post here think. Not all, but most. As a parting shot, I believe many of you will agree, whether you admit it or not, that the only good to come of this insanity, is the fact that this goblin will not have a chance to breed.
All the best,
Robert Preston
“No you aren’t. I live in that society. Possession of firearms is outlawed in the UK.”
Heavily regulated is not the same as outlawed. And outlawed also is not the same as no one possessing firearms. So no, I don’t think UK society represents the gun-free society Kurt seemed to be alluding to in his comparision.
I also live in a society (Brazil) with restrictive gun control laws. But it’s so easy to acquire a gun illegaly here that this may color my views on the issue and make me skeptical about the utopian results of gun control laws.
But if I had to chose between US and UK legislations on the issue, I’d chose UK. I too think it’s ridiculous that you can legally buy a firearm in the US without a through psychological profile.
Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 05:40 PM
This has been my second foray into “blogging”. I’m still not impressed,
People like you who are without self-awareness always amuse me. You’ve made a jáçkášš of yourself yet you cling to the delusion that your opinion matters to anyone besides you.
Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 05:40 PM
but I’m not ready to give up just yet.
Of course you’re not. You need to keep going to places like this, where you’re not wanted, because you have nowhere else to go.
Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 05:40 PM
As a parting shot, I believe many of you will agree, whether you admit it or not, that the only good to come of this insanity, is the fact that this goblin will not have a chance to breed.
I’m sure that’s cold comfort to the friends and family of those who were murdered. Anyone with even the slightest ability to empathize with other human beings would realize that. In other words, anyone who is not like you.
You are a small, small person, Bobby. In your infantile self-absorption, you imagine that nothing can exist beyond your severely limited horizons. You cannot understand the thoughts of people whose horizons are not so limited, and are lashing out at what you cannot understand like a frightened child.
Again, it is not your politics that are the problem. The problem was, is, and will continue to be you and you alone. Or, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., I judge you not by your politics but by the content of your character. That content is thin and of low quality. What’s sad is that you’ll never understand that and will therefore never have the chance to grow beyond the limited little person that you are.
I grew up in a house with a gun (.22 rifle). Never even thought about touching it. In 40 years, my father used it twice, once on a rabid animal the police wouldn’t come get, and once on a bird that was attacking our cat at his dish. Owning a gun is one thing. Owning an Uzi with armor-piercing bullets is not defense, it’s offense, and offensive.
Several years ago, 60 minutes did a big story showing that 90% of illegal weapons are taken from the factories, before they even get shipped. When is Congress going to stand up to lobbyists and demand tighter accountability from the get go? That’s not anywhere near a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Please explain, then, why Britain’s crime rate [violent crime included] had shot up since they all but banned private ownership of weapons? Maybe it’s as one criminal put it when interviewed in prison “well, if you’ve got a choice of where to commit a crime, where will you go? Somewhere where they can’t defend themselves? Or someplace where you know they might shoot your head off?”
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041105.html
“Malcolm claims that because UK crooks don’t fear disarmed householders, half of burglaries there take place while someone is home, a much larger fraction than in the U.S. Not so–close analysis of the data suggests “hot” burglary rates in the two countries aren’t dramatically different.”
“Whatever Malcolm may think, there’s no direct correlation between weapons restrictions and crime. As she points out, the UK began requiring gun permits in 1920 and in 1953 prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons, even things like Mace. While a slow rise in the UK crime rate began in the mid-1950s, the rate didn’t increase sharply until the 80s. Handguns were banned altogether in 1997.”
“Rising crime in Britain surely has a lot to do with the lousy economy. From 1974 to 1999 the UK unemployment rate averaged more than 10 percent. It’s lower now, but a lot of antisocial behavior became entrenched during that time. Soccer hooliganism is one example; I’d say crime in general is another.”
Regarding an earlier comment about King’s “Bachman” book, The Long Walk, there’s another “Bachman” (title lost in the hazes of impending early senility, apparently) in which a student with a handgun takes his class hostage. King wrote the four “Bachman” books while still in college, i think. Imagine if that manuscript were to come to light on a student’s computer these days.
=====================
Posted by Robert Preston
You’re dead wrong sir. As Heinlein said,”An armed society is a polite society.” Remember that. Literally, words to live by.
It was actually said first, (about a barbarian society) i believe, by a pathological mama’s boy who wrote violent fiction and killed himself when his mother died.
Fellow name of Robert E. Howard.
=======================
The people who have mentioned songs that come to mind remind me that, whenever i hear about incidents like this, i flash on the Boomtown Rats’ “I Don’t Like Mondays” (which was written as the events it commemorates were coming in over the news wire as they did an interview in studio at the Georgia State University radio station).
=========================
Posted by Bobb Alfred
Take the Rodney King riots. Look how much damage a small group of rioters can do WITHOUT weapons. Imagine how much damage could have been done, in terms of life lost, if every single one of those very angry, very willing to commit violent acts people had been armed.
“Sure,” Robert Preston would say, “the non-rioting people could have defended themselves with their own weapons by SHOOTING the rioters.”
I saw a live, unedited satellite feed from that riot. It clearly showed people, who appeared to be shop owners, on the roofs of their barricaded and untouched shops with rifles, firing apparently at random into the crowds below.
=======================
Posted by Robert Preston
Why would one want to spend time in East L.A.?
Perhaps one lives there, for any number of reasons, including poverty and/or bigotry.
And if one did want to, and is properly armed, polite, and prepared, what would one have to fear?
Oh, i don’t know. Why don’t you ask the same question of the soldiers in Baghdad?
============================
Posted by polo
Robert Preston said:
What are you talking about? What was the Cold War about? Two nations were pointing weapons at each other to keep one another away, not to kill each other. They were threatening one another to change, not to die. Even heard of a hostage? They usually get guns pointed at them but not for the end of being a bloody corpse.
You really have no grasp of these things, do you?
Actually, on this one, i have to side with Robert.
Damon Runyon wrote, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.” You are perfectly free to assume, if you’d like, that if someone points a gun at you, he just wants you to be a nice hostage and behave. But i wouldn’t. Too dámņëd many hostages wind up dead – often by accident.
A gun is an implement for killing. It is not a magic wand that makes things work your way. Yes, some people will obey a man with a gun for fear of death (or of pain, a stronger fear in my case and in that of many others, i suspect).
But if you ever draw a gun on me (or any of a number of other people i know/know of, many of them a lot more dangerous than i), you’d better shoot it right then. Because, if i’m out of arm’s reach of you, i’ll do whatever i have to to survive… and afterward i’ll find you. But if you’re close enough to grab, one of us will likely die right there.
In real life, the only think you can actually do with a gun is shoot it.
At one time the FBI’s doctrine was “Never draw except to shoot. Never shoot except to kill.”
just because a citizen is ALLOWED to own a gun does not mean they have to be so readily available. Let’s get rid of gun shows that allow sales first. It also doesn’t mean that you should have access to all forms of weapons. So lets get rid of weapons that are cappable of high powered multiple shots. Personally, I like the buy back program initiated in Australia. Weapons SHOULD be regulated. Even many in the NRA think this.
Sorry about the typos. I have a new puppy on my lap.
Dear “Billy”,
As with all other correspondence with you, this last one is still unimpressive. The only comfort the family members of the slain have is the fact that the THING that did it is dead, and not running around loose. Perhaps if he had been caught alive, he might have gotten “Life” in prison. That would be of comfort to you and maybe them. As things stand, there is no comfort for any of us, without a willingness to stand up for what we believe.
Please, broaden my horizons. I can’t wait to see the light.
All the best,
Robert Preston
Dear Mr. Weber,
You’re incorrect. Look it up, or site your source.
All the best,
Robert Preston
Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 06:36 PM
As with all other correspondence with you, this last one is still unimpressive.
Which would be relevant if I gave a crap about impressing you. Which I don’t. So it’s not.
And it’s obvious I struck a nerve with you, Sparky. You once invited me to correspond with you via e-mail. I rejected your overture on the grounds that you’re not someone I wanna know. Now you’ve changed your tune because I hurt your widdle feelings.
You’re a troll, and completely not worth my time. This will be my last post to you, about you, or even acknowledging your existence.
Dear “Billy”,
During my first foray into blogging, I ran afoul of you. That was over some political comments made by both sides earlier, but your words did not fill me with fear as you have suggested here. Publicly. Neither do they now. If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe, then by all means, don’t give up. If you don’t stir the pudding, it gets lumpy, and then no one likes it.
But understand this. Political Correctness is not going to insert itself into what I write, to you or anyone. Perhaps PAD can hire you as an editor.
All the best,
Robert Preston
“If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe.”
Do you have any reason to doubt it?
Heck, if this wasn’t an open forum, PAD would have booted me out a long time ago. 🙂
Personally, I like the buy back program initiated in Australia.
Snopes argues both sides of the statistics cited for the Australian case, but the overall effect on crime has been statistically negligible based on the population (although glaringly higher if one takes the previously low number of crimes and compares it to the new — still quite low — number of crimes since the buyback.)
At no time have I been disrespectful of anyone in this discussion. Again, if you take it that way, that’s your problem.
That’s pretty disrespectful right there. You should be at least open to the possibility that you caused offense, even if it was unintended.
Believe me, folks, I take this problem very seriously. I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That’s a fact.
No, not really. Sometimes it’s just to get you to do what they want. They number of people threatened with guns is much smaller than the number of people killed by them.
After that, the choice is completely up to YOU. I have a 19 year old son just completing his freshman year, and I know that in the same situation as the kids at VT, he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others.
I can understand your feelings. It’s tough to have a kid who could have easily been in the same situation. Preparation is good.
That usually means killing the bad guy before he kills you or anyone else. Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved. If that seems intemperate, so be it. The truth often appears that way to some.
Even if people were allowed to have guns on campus I doubt that most would have them. The hard reality is that if someone intends to die they can do a lot of damage and not much can be done about it. A maniac with a sword on a crowded street could kill dozens–more if he chose his spot wisely.
Trying to kill the guy sound like pretty poor advise–barricade the doors.
I was a student at UNC when Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar went on a joy ride in a pedestrian commons with his SUV in a similar kind of situation. Fortunately, no one died. The only reason that wasn’t a Virginia Tech-scale massacre was because the town of Chapel Hill had more restrictive gun purchasing laws — Taheri-azar said he WANTED a gun, he just couldn’t buy one.
I’m glad you made it through that one ok but as someone who lives not far from you…getting a gun should not have been a problem. This is North Carolina. If he could not figure out how to get a gun, legally or not, there are a lot of criminals in Durham who could tell him how it’s done.
Take the Rodney King riots. Look how much damage a small group of rioters can do WITHOUT weapons. Imagine how much damage could have been done, in terms of life lost, if every single one of those very angry, very willing to commit violent acts people had been armed.
The argument would be NOT that people could shoot at the rioters but that people would be very unlikely to riot if they knew that the store owners, truck drivers, etc would be packing heat.
Don’t know if that’s a valid argument or not. It’s hard to make conclusions based on what we have here. Some places have strict gun control laws and you wouldn’t want to wak down the streets. Other places have lax rules and are safer. The statistics are all over the place and it’s hard to trust them, given the bias of those reporting them.
Why would one want to spend time in East L.A.? And if one did want to, and is properly armed, polite, and prepared, what would one have to fear?
You seem to assume that an armed person is safe. tell it to the cops killed every year. We can argue whether or not having a gun makes you safer but surely you understand it doesn’t make you invulnerable.
Most of the time, I hope his actions allow him to defend himself…BY RUNNING AWAY. The best way to avoid danger is to… AVOID DANGER. Not shoot it before it shoots you. We say there’s a fight or flight reflex. I want to instill a flight or fight impulse. Run/avoid should be your first response. Only when you have no choice should you stick around and try to fight something deadly. Because the risk if you fail is so much greater than if you just run away.
Exactly. Right on.
Now. That said, we have to acknowledge the heroism of Liviu Librescu, a holocaust survivor who kept the shooter out of the classroom at a cost of his own life.
This has been my second foray into “blogging”. I’m still not impressed,
Or too impressive, I have to say. You aren’t doing your argument any good.
Dear “Billy”,
I don’t know if Bill Myers is offended by “Billy” but most of the Bills I know, myself included, don’t mind. Now “William”…that’s usually reserved for when we screw up. When it’s followed by my middle name I know I am in serious trouble and if my wife says the whole 3 names it’s time to move to Mexico.
If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe,
In what way is that in any doubt? Have you been banned? Does open mean your words have to go unchallenged?
If you don’t stir the pudding, it gets lumpy, and then no one likes it.
We already have a couple of people who see themselves as the tools that stir the pudding. the last thing we need is another tool.
Well, at least we know our politicians will do what is needed to make sure this never happens again:
http://ibtimes.com/articles/20070417/ny-spitzer-video-games.htm
NY Gov Targets Violent Video Games
Here’s my opinion. If we have an armed society wherein all citizens are armed, how long before someone, for what ever reason, like at VT, starts shooting people in a crowd. So, how does an armed citizen avoid shooting anyone else in “defending him/herself?” If you miss, you might well hit someone else. Or you might be hit by someone trying to defend his/herself. Crossfire.
No, I don’t know what laws should be passed, but I know the ones we have are too loose and too free. If you think guns are the solution for self protection, then these words are lost on you. If you think you need protection from the government, I have news for you. The government has bigger guns than any citizens will ever be able to afford or even just possess. Find a gun in Wal-Mart that will “protect” you from a tank.
Lots of luck.
“After that, the choice is completely up to YOU. I have a 19 year old son just completing his freshman year, and I know that in the same situation as the kids at VT, he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others.”
“I can understand your feelings. It’s tough to have a kid who could have easily been in the same situation. Preparation is good.”
Short of going through military or police training, and even after such training, it is hard to know how a person will react under fire. The kind of behavior exhibited by Liviu Librescu is not the result of preparation. It’s some undefined quality that manifests itself in extreme situations.
It is hard to tell what would have happened if some of the students had guns. They could have taken him down after he killed fewer students, or they might have added to the mess, shot each other, hit bystanders.
“The argument would be NOT that people could shoot at the rioters but that people would be very unlikely to riot if they knew that the store owners, truck drivers, etc would be packing heat.”
Many store owners do, don’t they? I don’t know if such considerations affect people who are in a state of mind to riot.
—————-
Ever since the massacre I’ve been wondering why something like that doesn’t happen here in Israel. After all, at any given moment you can see soldiers with assault rifles, and maybe one person with a gun. And Israelis are certainly not less crazy than Americans. I have no answer.
I also often wonder how I would behave in a similar situation. I don’t know the answer for that either.
Ever since the massacre I’ve been wondering why something like that doesn’t happen here in Israel. After all, at any given moment you can see soldiers with assault rifles, and maybe one person with a gun. And Israelis are certainly not less crazy than Americans. I have no answer.
Israel might be an example of whaty the pro-gun folks argue for–what kind of moron would go into a cafe in Israel and wave a gun around while quoting Pulp Fiction? It would be like robbing a donut shop in America (Sorry Jerry, obligatory “cops in donut shop” joke).
How easy IS it to get a legal gun permit in Israel?
“Israel might be an example of whaty the pro-gun folks argue for–what kind of moron would go into a cafe in Israel and wave a gun around while quoting Pulp Fiction?”
I don’t think our experience fits that assumption. I don’t think our crazies refrain from going to cafes and shooting because they are afraid of being shot. But I remember only one case where someone went crazy and started shooting people that was not related to the conflict. I think in that case somebody with a gun did take him down. In jerusalem at least what would stop going into a cafe and shooting people is the security guard outside.
“How easy IS it to get a legal gun permit in Israel?”
I really don’t know.
In Israel people have guns,but they do not have the cultural associations to them that you have in the US. They are just tools that soldiers and other people who need them have. But I’m not saying that’s why things like that are less likely to happen here. I don’t even know if they are really less likely, althogh I haven’t considered them to be until now. I don’t know if the cultural differences between Israel and the US with regard to gun is the answer or even part of the answer to my question. The Palestinians also have a lot of guns, and they suffer from a lot of lawlessness. And the Swiss have had peace for centuries. Go figure.
>I saw a live, unedited satellite feed from that riot. It clearly showed people, who appeared to be shop owners, on the roofs of their barricaded and untouched shops with rifles, firing apparently at random into the crowds below.
Which is different from the draft riots in the Civil War where the authorities has Gattling guns on the roof of buildings of Wall Street to use on rioters, how, exactly? Oh, wait a minute! It’s the government so it’s OK, right?
>Personally, I like the buy back program initiated in Australia. Weapons SHOULD be regulated.
Which would be great … if it worked. Canada has had strict gun control on handguns since ’34. And what comparatively few legally-owned handguns are out there here are heavily regulated and all registered. Funny thing about that. When the government came up with their idiotic idea of registering rifles and other ‘long guns’ in the mid 90s, one paper did a bit of digging and learned that, “of the 437 handguns seized by police in Ontario in 1995, only 55 (12.5 per cent) were registered. In 1994, 752 handguns were seized, of which only 80 (10.6 per cent) were registered” proving how ineffective the whole thing is.
>No, I don’t know what laws should be passed, but I know the ones we have are too loose and too free.
We have much tighter laws, but it doesn’t help much. Even the then-Justice Minister pointed out that much of this won’t work unless there’s universal compliance. And, as subsequent events proved (which anyone with more than half a brain knew going in, but not our politicians), hard as it may be to grasp, criminals don’t tend to obey the law. Gun laws included.
>Even if people were allowed to have guns on campus I doubt that most would have them. The hard reality is that if someone intends to die they can do a lot of damage and not much can be done about it. A maniac with a sword on a crowded street could kill dozens–more if he chose his spot wisely.
All of which pales compared to what a chemistry or physics major could do if they joined the dark side. Remember how many people were killed, not to mention thousands injured in the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway? Look at McVeigh. In one attack he topped the total of several of those US gun-using mass killings put together – and with just a simple, home-made explosive.
Robert Preston:”… he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others.”
Tough talk, but highly unlikely. In my experience, the ones who most need to talk tough about themselves or about those that they’ve trained are usually the first to crumble. It’s a bit like all the chicken-hawks who ducked service talking about how great it is to fight in war.
Mike Weber: “In real life, the only think you can actually do with a gun is shoot it.
At one time the FBI’s doctrine was “Never draw except to shoot. Never shoot except to kill.””
Not true. In six years, I’ve drawn my gun twice in the line of duty. In neither of the situations did I or any other officer fire their weapon. A show of force sometimes does the job quite well.
In twenty-one years of law enforcement service, my father drew his weapon any number of times. He fired it in the line of duty twice.
Robert Preston: “… the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That’s a fact.”
Not really. There have been any number of people held up and robbed at gun point and never been shot. Even scumbags can draw a line for their behavior. I know a sheriff’s deputy who took an unloaded gun off of a robbery suspect. The guy would steal you blind, but he drew the line at killing. Stupid, but true.
Robert Preston: “Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved.”
Yeah, having potential targets run down a narrow hall AT the shooter would have been so much smarter then heading in the other direction.
The idea that more guns would have solved the problem is, quite frankly, foolish. Who would you have proposed to arm in this situation? The students? It’s not really that swift of an idea to arm large groups of 17, 18 and 19 year olds. Part of the reason that the legal age requirement is higher then that in many states is because that group tends to not show the greatest levels of discipline to begin with.
Maybe you want to arm the teachers? These would be the same people that all the conservatives spend their airtime abusing and insulting them for their liberalism. Going by that idea, you’ll either have people that won’t carry the guns or won’t use them. Not much good that.
Plus, if you did get lots of people jumping in to play, the sheer number of additional deaths would be incredible. Three reasons:
Number one: You hear gunfire, screaming and shouts. You whip out your gun and, in fine John Wayne fashion, head in that direction. You see a guy waving a gun and yell at him (if you even bother giving him the chance to shoot at you) to drop his weapon. He turns and points his weapon at you. You fire and put a round center mass, killing him.
Then you hear the real shooter shooting someone else. Or maybe you just hear another self styled Rambo killing another self styled Martin Riggs while the real shooter is somewhere else entirely.
You don’t know enough about what’s going on. No one does. Even the police aren’t working on the best information sometimes. We’ve had BOLOs come over VCIN for local robberies or shootings where the description of the suspect has changed two or three times in fifteen minutes. Sometimes they even change the race of the shooter due to conflicting first accounts. How much worse do you want to make it for first responders? How many more people do you want shot because the police are going into an active shooter situation where additional idiots are running around and waving their guns at every sound?
Number two: I’m guessing you’ve never been in a shooter situation or anything even remotely like it. I know people who have. I know trained officers who’ve been in shootings. Wanna know something? They miss more shots then they hit due to adrenaline screwing up their ability with a gun.
Even in simple training with simunitions, our accuracy drops. We train a lot more then you, your son or most any hypothetical person you may bring up, and we still don’t put every shot in the target when the adrenaline hits. There have been documented cases of groups of highly trained soldiers or officers firing fifty or more rounds at close range and only putting ten to twenty in the target.
Now add amateur Rambos to the mix. The odds of even more deaths increases significantly due to stray rounds and amateur stupidity. Again, not that great an option.
Third reason: You decide to Rambo your way in on a shooter and get shot, but not killed. Then the police arrive and you have a hostage situation to deal with. I’m sure people will think kindly of you for that.
I’m sorry, while I’m for gun ownership, but your kind of idiot bothers me and most every cop I know. The only thing that would be worse then the bad guy in most situations would be a self-styled rambo running in to save the day and tripping over himself.
The best thing the students did was to head in the opposite direction of the gunfire. That’s the direction where safety is. Beyond that, people with minimal training have no business running into danger and putting their lives, other civilians’ lives and first responders’ lives at risk.
No, there are no good reasons to back your arguments and there are no good ideas coming out of your posts. And Virginia’s gun laws pertaining to purchasing drive me nuts. It’s harder to get your drivers license renewed in this state then it is to get a gun. There’s something very wrong with that.
Micha,
I met some guys that were part of an Israeli security team while taking a class at Quantico. If they were any example of how well most of the military security units in Israel are trained, I would think most people there would be afraid to deal with them.
Their primary specialty was dealing with hostage or terrorist incidents in airports. When they started doing training drills on the firing range, even guys who can score high 90’s in their sleep on the range put their guns up for fear of looking like rank amateurs and embarrassing themselves. I mean, I’ve seen some dámņëd good shooters before, but….. Ðámņ.
“How easy IS it to get a legal gun permit in Israel?”
OK, I checked online. Not very user-friendly bureaocracy. It seems that it is quite a procedure to privately own a gun, involving also getting an OK from the department of health. It also seems that if you want a gun you have to have a good reason to own one, like being a security guard or own a jewelery store. You also have to be 21 (but I think the drinking age is 18). In short, Robert Preston would consider it hëll. But, like I said, Israelis don’t think of guns the way Americans do, yet at the same time tey are all around us, more than in the US. Strange.
I’d heard of a few cases where israeli sttlers shot back at palestinian terrorists–were they more easily granted guns because of where they were?
Oh, Robert… Your asinine comments about someone else feeling sorry for the killer’s parents?
You’re a complete ášš.
I’ve know quite a few good parents who did everything that good parents are supposed to do and they still ended up with a black sheep. Ted Kaczynski is a first class loon. His brother is, by all accounts, a good man. He even turned Teddy in. My mother is one of five children. Four of them turned out really well. My uncle is a drug using con artist and scumbag.
And there is nothing you can do if the killer is mentally ill. He may not have truly hit his breakdown point and showing any real signs until after leaving home and his parents care.
Admitting that you feel sorry for the parents of a child who went that wrong is nothing more then showing some level of decency and humanity. Your comments on the subject show off your tendencies to be an unintelligent ášš.
Robert Preston posted:
You’re incorrect. Look it up, or site your source.
Howard said “A barbarian society is a polite society”
And, since he killed himself in 1936, before RAH ever actually published anything, he certainly comes first.
Posted by Jerry Chandler
Not true. In six years, I’ve drawn my gun twice in the line of duty. In neither of the situations did I or any other officer fire their weapon. A show of force sometimes does the job quite well.
Sometimes. But Fulton County cops just shot two men in a nightclub parking lot, locally. They tried to break up a fight and the fighters turned on them. And apparently ignored the “show of force”.
In twenty-one years of law enforcement service, my father drew his weapon any number of times. He fired it in the line of duty twice
However, neither you nor he are in the FBI, either, right?
A “show of force” by a uniformed officer is a bit different from a nervous bank robber holding a gun on a hostage, or from a plain-clothes Special Agent in a tense situation facing such a guy.
And at what point are you willing to change your “show of force” into an actual shooting? How close does the guy who figures you won’t shoot going to have to get before you do? Or how many steps does the guy walking away or otherwise ignoring your orders have to take before you fire?
I re-iterate, quoting Donald Hamilton: “The only thing you can do with a gun is shoot it.” If you’re not dámņëd sure you’re willing to shoot it and you don’t think it would taste good, don’t draw it.
Number two: I’m guessing you’ve never been in a shooter situation or anything even remotely like it. I know people who have. I know trained officers who’ve been in shootings. Wanna know something? They miss more shots then they hit due to adrenaline screwing up their ability with a gun.
I have. Luckily, it turned out i didn’t have to shoot any people. (Though one idiot in Viet Nam apparently never *did* believe how close he come to being a “friendly fire” statistic when he sacred hëll out of me and my buddy about 2AM on a special guard duty…)
There was a situation in NYC (mentioned in some book Serpico, maybe?) in which a Bad Guy in court got hold of a gun somehow, took the judge hostage, and demanded to talk to someone from the DA’s office.
A cop pretending to be an assistant DA, with a hideout .32 auto strapped to his ankle went in, offering himself in exchange for the judge; the cop and the Bad Guy sat down opposite each other at a standard conference table. The cop saw his chance, grabbed for the piece, and both shot their guns empty. Across a conference table.
The cop then threw away the gun and wrestled the Bad Guy into submission.
I met some guys that were part of an Israeli security team while taking a class at Quantico. If they were any example of how well most of the military security units in Israel are trained, I would think most people there would be afraid to deal with them.
Their primary specialty was dealing with hostage or terrorist incidents in airports. When they started doing training drills on the firing range, even guys who can score high 90’s in their sleep on the range put their guns up for fear of looking like rank amateurs and embarrassing themselves. I mean, I’ve seen some dámņëd good shooters before, but….. Ðámņ.
When i was in Viet Nam, i met some Australian Air Commandos. Personally, i’d rather not be in the same war with them, much less the same firefight. Not that i think they would be likely to shoot me by mistake, but becaue of the old tenet that holds “Never share a foxhole with someone braver/crazier than yourself.”
Those just boyos didn’t *care*.
One of them looked as if he was seriously ready to show us how well his FN machine pistol worked by shooting a weathervane off a building on the Army base. Outside the Main Exchange. With two armed MPs standing right there and getting tenser by the minute…
“During my first foray into blogging, I ran afoul of you. That was over some political comments made by both sides earlier…”
I should stick by my vow to ignore you, but you’re doing something that really burns me: you’re lying. And you’re doing it in such a way that it insults the intelligence of every poster here. Because what really happened is in the blog archives for all to see. It really doesn’t make sense to lie about what you said when what you said is a matter of public record.
See, you didn’t run afoul of me over political comments. You ran afoul of me because you insulted every poster here by declaring that no one — NO ONE — who blogs here regularly would have the guts to sacrifice their life for that of another. That’s not a political comment. It’s a personal one.
“…but your words did not fill me with fear as you have suggested here. Publicly. Neither do they now.”
Again, you’re lying. I never said I scared you. I said I HURT YOUR FEELINGS. Which I clearly did. Because you inivited me to start an e-mail correspondence with you and I declined because, well, as a person you SUCK. And I said so. Publicly.
“If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe, then by all means, don’t give up.”
I haven’t given up on this forum. I’ve given up on you because you’re an obnoxious little wretch.
And this IS an open forum. If it wasn’t, Peter would’ve booted your sorry ášš out of here from the get-go. The same openness that enables you to use this blog to act like a dìçk enables me to tell you that you are a dìçk.
By the way — I don’t give a rat’s ášš about your emotional reactions to me. Be afraid, be sad, be happy, be angry, be whatever — I don’t care.
“If you don’t stir the pudding, it gets lumpy, and then no one likes it.”
Don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re serving a necessary function around here. Were you to leave now, we’d be none the poorer for your absence.
“But understand this. Political Correctness is not going to insert itself into what I write, to you or anyone.”
NO, SPARKY. YOU. UNDERSTAND. THIS:
Your politics aren’t your problem. It’s your šhìŧŧÿ personality.
I like many conservative commentators. George Will and David Brooks come immediately to mind. And there are certain conservative principles with which I agree, including the belief that “the government that governs least governs best.” Hëll, Bill Mulligan is fairly conservative, and he and I are actually friends.
I am not reacting negatively to your politics. Stop hiding behind the mantle of conservatism, because conservatism isn’t the problem. If you can cram one thought into that noggin of yours, let it be this:
I am not rejecting your politics.
I. Am. Rejecting. YOU.
Sadly, in as open an environment as your average university, if somebody wants to rack up a body count and really puts their mind to it, odds are they’ll find a way to do it. Not to make light in any way, shape, or form, but what’s the Klingon proverb? “A thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.”
While I don’t like guns very much, that’s one genie that just isn’t going back into the bottle. Training and education are the key, as well as background checks. Testing and liscensing are required to practice medicine in any capacity, drive a car, hëll, to be a bartender. But any weekend warrior with an itchy trigger finger who can’t hit the broad side of a barn can legally get his hands on enough firepower to lay seige to a small town? Something’s just not right with that equation.
Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 03:36 PM
I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That’s a fact.
Oh, šhìŧ. That means I actually died about 12 years ago.
*Disappears in a puff of logic*