|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 18, 2007 2:12:28 GMT -4
But there's something fishy about the whole thing. For starters, why were the students warned by email? The only people who would receive the warning would be those who had their computers turned on and were checking their email. Not very effective. It's a lot easier to contact large numbers of people via email than it is by phone. The initial emails were sent when it was believed to be an isolated incident, they couldn't have known it was the beginning of a mass murder. First of all, prove me that such a system was actually in place and isn't just an assumption on your part. From what I understand the campus is quite large and spread out among many buildings, so a public address system could be impractical. Even if it does exist it would only warn the people inside the campus buildings, not those still at home or enroute. Where I work they do let us know about potential dangers over the PA system. But I've also driven all the way to work in a blizzard only to find out they were sending me home and shutting down during the storm. An email would have been nice so I wouldn't have had to risk my life driving all the way there and back home again. Without knowing the logistics of such a plan I can't say whether it would have been possible or not. Maybe there were road blocks and the only people killed were people who were already in the building when it started. ...and some people on this forum believe the authorities are really that evil. I don't. Really? How many? How many police officers were already in the building when the shooting started? Or is this another one of your assumptions? I find it more likely that they fumbled during a chaotic situation than that they were behind the whole thing. We all make mistakes, especially when under stress, no matter how much training and preparation we have had. No amount of training will cover every possible situation.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 18, 2007 2:26:27 GMT -4
Just some points. There was a public adress system, and it was used, but only after the shooting started. Why? Because until then no one knew what was about to happen.
The email was sent when the situation was believed to be under control and a suspect in the original shooting was in custody. That person turned out to be innocent.
A second email was sent at the same time as the public adress system was being used.
The campus is over 2600 acres in size and has over 100 buildings. There are 35 officers there. How are 35 officers supposted to set up roadbloacks to block the entire campus, especially when they are heading to deal with the situation?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 18, 2007 2:29:25 GMT -4
A note here, I don't believe it was a fumble either, I believe that they did everything they could given the situation. There was no reason to believe that the situation was greater than the original murders and they had a person of interest already. As such there was no need to cancel classes or do anything other than alerting the students to what had occured. Using 20/20 hindsight to claim that they should have known what was coming and acted to stop it is simply ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 18, 2007 8:28:07 GMT -4
One thing to remember is that a college campus is like a small city. I have heard some say that they should have closed down the entire campus after the first incident but why? Think about it. If a shooter had been at a mall in the morning, what reason would there be to assume he would then go to a grocery store some distance away later and continue shooting? This is very similar. They had no reason to think at first that the incident was not isolated. Plus, shutting down the campus is a huge logistics problem. You suddenly have tens of thousands of students and faculty trying to leave at the same time instead of random times like they normally would. Traffic would be a nightmare and more people would be outside and exposed.
As for increased gun control, I really don't think that will do anything. If one is determined to kill a lot of people then making it harder to legally obtain a gun will not stop that person.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 18, 2007 9:52:41 GMT -4
Presumably each building has its own PA system, but that would require relevant people in each building to be informed.
At my college, a regional campus jointly administered by two large public universities, few, if any, buildings have PA systems. In fact, the library has to use the fire alarm system as an alert prior to closing.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Apr 18, 2007 10:20:49 GMT -4
A note here, I don't believe it was a fumble either, I believe that they did everything they could given the situation. There was no reason to believe that the situation was greater than the original murders and they had a person of interest already. As such there was no need to cancel classes or do anything other than alerting the students to what had occured. Using 20/20 hindsight to claim that they should have known what was coming and acted to stop it is simply ridiculous. I was going to say something similar to this earlier. I'm not at all surprised that they decided to keep the university open. After the first shooting, they had no reason to believe that the shooter would show up somewhere else on campus and start killing more people. Prior to this incident, if I'd heard about a shooting at another residence on my campus, and it didn't directly involve someone I knew, I likely would've still gone to class. Even now, I might think twice about it, but I'd probably still go. That or use it as an excuse to stay home and play video games
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 18, 2007 10:51:20 GMT -4
Frankly, I don't really like this "just heard on the news about the shootings. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm sure it's a government conspiracy" attitude.
EDIT: I was going to add more, but meh. I don't want to waste my time debating over tragics like these. The 'other side' just doesn't deserve my time.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 18, 2007 17:16:42 GMT -4
When the news broke I had a hunch that the government was staging another mass murder in its ongoing efforts to disarm private citizens and the first reports tend to bolster a conspiracy theory. What excuses will be made for the incompetence of the police and college administration? Oddly enough, the television news stations aren't interrupting programming with reports. I reckon they need time to get their bullsh*t stories straight. infowars.com/articles/us/va_tech_massacre_another_gov_black_op.htmThis is a particularly stupid theory even by the standards of Alex Jones and the people who take him seriously. The two most obvious problems are that a) Details of what exactly happened are still sketchy at this point and were even sketchier were the article was written. b) The “Government” if it is referring to (as is normally understood) the executive branch of the federal government, is dead set against gun control. Jones and Watson’s evidence is as we’ve come to expect quite risible. They complain that the police acted poorly as if that indicates a conspiracy, they are suggesting of course that the Va. Tech. Police and local sheriffs were in on it just as they suggested the NYFD was in on the demolition of 7 WTC. We don’t know enough at this point to be sure but it could be that knowing what they did at the time police or University officials should have locked down the campus but then again that might not be the case. They believed the first two shootings were ordinary homicides and not the acts of a Columbine style suicidal spree killer, they even were questioning a “person of interest” at the time of the later shootings. If I’m not mistaken individual homicides on campuses are not that uncommon thus until yesterday shutting an entire campus down would not have been called for. Even if one disagrees with my previous sentence such a mistake makes more sense as a case of failed rather than conspiracy. If the guy was some sort off Manchurian Candidate programmed by the evil NOW/PTB/MIBH/MIC/WZC etc to have gone on a shooting spree and cooperation of the police arranged why would they have him kill two people in the morning stop for a few hours and then start up again? As for increased gun control, I really don't think that will do anything. If one is determined to kill a lot of people then making it harder to legally obtain a gun will not stop that person. I disagree, the harder it is to get something the less likely it is to be used. One problem in the US is the variance of gun laws from one state to another. NY has the among the strictest gun law in the country Va. has among the loosest. In this case all the killer had to do is go to a near by store. But even in NY getting a gun isn’t that difficult because it’s only a few hours drive from Va. any New Yorker with a friend or relative in VA who will buy guns for him or better yet let them use their VA address so they can get a driver’s license in that state can easily obtain rapid-fire automatic weapons. The drive roundtrip from NYC to Northern Va. can probably done in under 6 hours if the driver avoids traffic. I don’t remember the numbers but years ago an NYPD study showed that most guns recovered from criminals had been purchased in Va. and other states with similarly lax laws. Obviously except for weapons smuggled into the country all illegally obtained guns we obtained legally at some point. As for the second amendment it is ambiguous and is perhaps the worst written sentence in the Constitution. It reads: 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. The first clause seems to make “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” conditional on participation in “a well regulated militia” but the second clause makes the right seem absolute. IMO reasonable gun control would include: A ban on the sale of automatic weapons or guns easily converted into automatic weapons, silencers and “cop-killer” (bullet proof vest penetrating) bullets to private citizens. Strict punishment (fines, jail time, life time ban on selling guns) for dealers who intentionally circumvent gun control laws and slightly less strict penalties for dealers who carelessly violate such laws. Strict punishment for people who buy on the behalf of people who would not pass background checks or from out of state and for people who “lend’ their addresses to people from out of state Strict limits on who can buy own or carry concealable weapons. Restrictions on private gun sales by unlicensed sellers and require the seller to carry out a federal background checks. End the background check for gun shows. Private sales account for about 40% of gun purchases. www.slate.com/id/2164373/fr/rss/ Gun control is not the same as disarming the population although the latter is probably a good idea as well. Recently Brazil implemented a voluntary turn in of guns, people we’re paid to turn in their guns no questions asked, in conjunction a law that limited the right to carry guns and buy ammunition to police, soldiers, security guards and others in high-risk professions over the age of 25 and placed other restrictions on the sale and possession of guns and ammunition. The law went into effect in December 2003. In 2004 there was an 8% drop in deaths from gun shot wounds, the first such drop in 13 years. Unfortunately after heavy lobbing from the gun lobby the ban failed to pass a referendum and was repealed. www.iansa.org/regions/samerica/brazil-pr241005.htm It has been argued that having a gun in the US decreases the safety of the household because it is more likely to be used in a suicide, argument or crime of passion than to repel criminals. Breakins to occupied houses are relatively rare occurrences in the US and cases were armed home owners who confronted thieves ending up getting shot are not rare. Many criminals guns were obtained through the burglary of homes with licensed weapons. I have anecdotal evidence to support such a theory in Brazil: - A friend of mine was in a bus hold-up, a gun-totting passenger shot one of the criminals but his partners shot back the would be hero and another passenger were killed in the crossfire, I’ve heard similar stories on the news by contrast bus hold ups rarely turn violent when there are no armed passengers - A pharmacy near my in-laws was held-up the owner pulled his gun but was killed before he could shoot, - An off-duty policeman who married a friend of why wife was held up while pulling into his apartment building. He was shot and killed either while trying to pull out his gun or when the criminals saw his gun and thought he was going to pull it. - I was in the parking lot of a bar when a transvestite or transsexual joking ‘hit-on’ a drunk who promptly pulled out his gun yelling (in Portuguese of course) “a man is a man and woman is woman you disgrace” and got off a few shots which luckily didn’t anything but a wall and a coconut tree before being calmed down by his friends. By contrast I only know of one case of someone defending himself with a gun it was a off-duty cop (presumably better trained than most civilian gun owners) who told me he scared off some would be burglars who even he thinks probably would have come gone with out hurting anyone if he’d been asleep.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 18, 2007 18:37:30 GMT -4
I disagree, the harder it is to get something the less likely it is to be used.
But if one subscribes to the balance of power argument, then this merely tips the scales in favor of the unscrupulous. Despite the relative ease with which an American can obtain an ordinary firearm, many still opt to seek for illegal ones. It's therefore suspicious that any tighter restrictions will impede those determined to have the upper hand in firepower.
One problem in the US is the variance of gun laws from one state to another.
Yes, and this is a problem for more than just firearms. For example there are many things that are forbidden in Utah (or at least heavily regulated) that are allowed in neighboring Wyoming and Nevada. Hence the frequent trips some Utahns make to Evanston for liquor and pornography, and to Wendover for gambling and prostitution. Vive la difference, I suppose.
Silly as it seems in this context, that's how the United States was designed. Broken-as-designed, if you will, but the sovereignty of each state is a feature of the U.S. form of government, not a bug.
The first clause seems to make “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” conditional on participation in “a well regulated militia” but the second clause makes the right seem absolute.
Many essays could be and have been written on what this means and how it came to be written that way. There are multiple concepts (militia service, the keeping of firearms, and the right to self-defense) embodied in it, and not every participant in the debate agrees on the degree to which the concepts overlap.
It would seem the United States could justifiably restrict gun ownership to any who does not belong to a "well-regulated milita," but in fact that term is not as clear-cut as that, and the context is murky. The terms under which a concealed-carry permit is (or ideally should be) granted generally constitute appropriate regulation of a militia. The segment of the population thus certified to carry and operate firearms safely constitute one body of that state's militia. Members of that militia would be expected to provide ad hoc armed defense against a threat, including against shooting sprees.
The Federalists, as I mentioned earlier, argued strongly that the citizenry should not be disarmed (although not necessarily allowed to arm themselves without restriction) precisely because it was their duty to repel, with armed resistance if necessary, such things as a military coup. This thinking demands that the regulation of the militia occur under an auspice other than that of the state.
IMO reasonable gun control would include:
I doubt the Federalists (i.e., the NRA of the post-Revolutionary period) would have objected to much of that. Before we go about setting the bar higher, I think the U.S. should make a better effort to clear the bar as it now stands. The proper enforcement of existing weapons laws might achieve much of what we hope to see in an orderly society without infringing upon the historic right to bear arms. In addition, I would like to see concealed-carry permit holders undergo some sort of proficiency training that certifies their ability actually to act in the capacity of a militia.
Gun control is not the same as disarming the population although the latter is probably a good idea as well.
The latter is one of the questions that make this a Great Debate.
American democracy is founded upon the principal that government by its nature cannot be trusted. It is innimical to that philosophy to allow only the government to bear arms. Whether that's a quaint and provincial philosophy remains to be determined.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 18, 2007 20:47:24 GMT -4
As for increased gun control, I really don't think that will do anything. If one is determined to kill a lot of people then making it harder to legally obtain a gun will not stop that person. I disagree, the harder it is to get something the less likely it is to be used. One problem in the US is the variance of gun laws from one state to another. NY has the among the strictest gun law in the country Va. has among the loosest. In this case all the killer had to do is go to a near by store. But even in NY getting a gun isn’t that difficult because it’s only a few hours drive from Va. any New Yorker with a friend or relative in VA who will buy guns for him or better yet let them use their VA address so they can get a driver’s license in that state can easily obtain rapid-fire automatic weapons. The drive roundtrip from NYC to Northern Va. can probably done in under 6 hours if the driver avoids traffic. I don’t remember the numbers but years ago an NYPD study showed that most guns recovered from criminals had been purchased in Va. and other states with similarly lax laws. Obviously except for weapons smuggled into the country all illegally obtained guns we obtained legally at some point. That is why I bolded the word legally. But it doesn't even have to be a gun. Someone that is determined to kill a lot of people can do so by other methods. Gun control will not stop random acts of violence such as this.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Apr 19, 2007 0:26:28 GMT -4
From JayUtah: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- American democracy is founded upon the principal that government by its nature cannot be trusted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (bolding mine)
Can I get one of those t-shirts people are always talking about, or does it need to be more substantive?
;D
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 19, 2007 0:43:15 GMT -4
You should demand one on principle. I beat Gillian.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 19, 2007 2:06:42 GMT -4
I disagree, the harder it is to get something the less likely it is to be used...Obviously except for weapons smuggled into the country all illegally obtained guns we obtained legally at some point. That is why I bolded the word legally. But it doesn't even have to be a gun. Someone that is determined to kill a lot of people can do so by other methods. Gun control will not stop random acts of violence such as this. But it can certainly reduce the effect of the violence. Back in 1987, Australia experienced two mass shootings, in which about 6 or 7 people were killed by one man with one or more firearms. Naturally, the stories dominated the media at the time, and there were many calls to tighten gun ownership laws. A year or so later, I remember reading a story about 5 centimetres long in the News in Brief section of the local newspaper. It described how a man had gone on a rampage with a machete in a shopping mall somewhere in Australia, injuring seven people before he could be disarmed. Imagine what sort of carnage he could have inflicted if he'd had a firearm instead of a machete. The point I'm slowly making my way towards is that guns have the ability to kill and wound at ranges of hundreds of metres, which makes them uniquely dangerous among weapons which are moderately easy to obtain. That's one reason why I strongly support their tight control. The idea that limiting gun ownership among law-abiding citizens makes it easier for criminals is, in my opinion, a red herring. The appropriate response to crime is for the state to deal with the causes of crime. Allowing citizens to arm themselves in response to crime is like dealing with bad roads by putting up signs warning drivers of the bad roads, instead of repairing the roads.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 19, 2007 3:43:29 GMT -4
You should demand one on principle. I beat Gillian. Gillian is deemed ineligible for a T-shirt for grammar or spelling corrections. (Okay, I legitimately didn't notice it. Fair enough. I think Jay's posts fit the same slot in my head as my own--I read what they're supposed to say, if not what they actually do say.)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 9:29:23 GMT -4
Ugh, that's sad -- I'm quite aware of the difference between principal and principle. Sometimes my fingers don't do what my brain says.
I thought the previous ruling was that spelling and grammar don't count for a T-shirt.
Research shows, oddly enough, that people write from a phonetic stream. That is, they "play" the words as sounds in their minds when they write. This often leads to some creative misspellings as well as perpetual confusion between homonyms such as they're, their, and there.
Now the Utah accent, among other things, slackens its vowels. So feel is pronounced closer to fill. This sometimes spills over into spelling. I've seen Utahns write about their fillings in a context that suggests feelings was the word.
|
|