|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 11:43:18 GMT -4
Would Cho have still chosen Virginia Tech campus as the site of his rampage if he didn't know that no law-abiding citizen could legally have a gun there? He was trying to maximize the number of people he took with him, and he chose a target that forbade guns. Would Cho have still been able to go on a rampage if he hadn't been able to obtain a gun so easily?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 27, 2007 11:52:53 GMT -4
We can only guess.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 13:16:34 GMT -4
Let's put it this way... friendly fire is an all too common occurrence in the US military (not to single them out, I'm sure it happens in other countries' military as well) despite their training and technological advantages. They wear uniforms to identify themselves, they keep their central command informed of their locations and movements, and they even have devices (radios etc.) that help identify themselves as friendlies to other soldiers. But even all of that doesn't prevent friendly fire incidents from happening.
So how can anyone honestly believe that arming more students at Virginia Tech would have guaranteed fewer deaths? The students receive far less firearms training than the police or military, and they don't have any obvious means to identify friends from foes.
Another thing the majority of students lacked that Cho had was a desire to kill. Cho had no conscience holding him back, he was less likely to hesitate to pull the trigger than any of the other students.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 27, 2007 13:42:31 GMT -4
I still don't believe that having more guns in the school would have resulted in fewer deaths, and I can just as easily see it resulting in more. I'd have to agree with that. Further, on a campus full of 18-25 year olds (not an age group renowned for self-restraint), routinely carrying weapons, it wouldn't necessarily take the deliberate actions of a psychopath to set off a disastrously lethal chain of events.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 27, 2007 15:45:59 GMT -4
Let's put it this way... friendly fire is an all too common occurrence in the US military (not to single them out, I'm sure it happens in other countries' military as well) despite their training and technological advantages. They wear uniforms to identify themselves, they keep their central command informed of their locations and movements, and they even have devices (radios etc.) that help identify themselves as friendlies to other soldiers. But even all of that doesn't prevent friendly fire incidents from happening. Are you talking about confusion during war time ?I remember some cases during night time operations.And a US pilot jet fighter shooting friendly Canadians by mistake during mission in Iraq and Afganistan So how can anyone honestly believe that arming more students at Virginia Tech would have guaranteed fewer deaths? The students receive far less firearms training than the police or military, and they don't have any obvious means to identify friends from foes. Someone starting shooting at peoples is not a friendly action.(ironic). Another thing the majority of students lacked that Cho had was a desire to kill. Cho had no conscience holding him back, he was less likely to hesitate to pull the trigger than any of the other students. Do you think Cho would have even started his massacre operation knowing that he may face armed students on his way? He knew that he faced totally unarmed peoples that his why he have no hesitation carrying his massacre operation.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 27, 2007 15:49:26 GMT -4
I still don't believe that having more guns in the school would have resulted in fewer deaths, and I can just as easily see it resulting in more. I'd have to agree with that. Further, on a campus full of 18-25 year olds (not an age group renowned for self-restraint), routinely carrying weapons, it wouldn't necessarily take the deliberate actions of a psychopath to set off a disastrously lethal chain of events. Maybe this could result in one shooting occasionally but nothing comparable to the work made by those psychopath. Remember than ordinary peoples fear justice and don't have the desire of killing themselve.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 16:11:18 GMT -4
Are you talking about confusion during war time ?I remember some cases during night time operation.And a jet fighter shooting friendly Canadians by mistake during mission in Iraq and Afganistan That is probably the most famous example here in Canada, but it happens probably more often than the military would like us to believe. Confusion is one cause of it... now imagine this alternate Virginia Tech scenario to get an idea of what kind of confusion could arise: You're a student at VT and you hear a gunshot in another classroom. You're armed so you rush out to investigate. You see another student pointing a gun, but you don't see what he's aiming at. You draw your gun and yell at the other person to drop his, but instead he fires at his unseen target. What do you do next? Shoot him, or wait to see what happens next? If you shoot you risk shooting another heroic gun owner who may have gotten to the actual criminal first, but if you hesitate you risk being shot yourself which would leave the gunman free to continue his rampage (after adding your gun to his collection). I think whoever coined the term "friendly fire" was going for irony. Who knows? He was insane and I have no idea what it would have taken to deter him from doing what he did. For all we know the thought of there being other gunmen might have even excited him. Deterrents don't always work. The possibility of going to prison doesn't stop criminals, especially the insane variety. Even the thought of being executed for their crimes doesn't concern them. If they intend to commit suicide anyway, what difference does it make if there is armed resistance?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 27, 2007 16:24:36 GMT -4
I think whoever coined the term "friendly fire" was going for irony. I agree. The only form of "friendly fire" comes from candles.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 27, 2007 16:36:33 GMT -4
Do you think Cho would have even started his massacre operation knowing that he may face armed students on his way? Yes, actually. Some people are just determined that way. I could cite you examples, but I doubt you'd believe them. And Bert, I can name several other kinds of friendly fire. A fire in a fireplace. A campfire. But, as they say, friendly fire isn't. (Actually, Stonewall Jackson himself was killed by friendly fire, after instructing his soldiers to shoot first and ask questions later.)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 27, 2007 17:20:21 GMT -4
Yes having armed people about increases the possibility of accidents and friendly fire. However, aboslutely forbidding arms guarantees that the only people with weapons will be the bad guys - those who disregard the law anyway. There have been incidents where violence on a campus has been stopped by students who were able to use their own firearms (usually by going to their cars to retrive them).
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 27, 2007 17:36:27 GMT -4
Or there's the scenario where two young men get into a dispute over the affections of a young woman (or another young man). Anywhere else, the matter might come to an end in an unpleasant bout of fisticuffs, but both of these guys have guns...
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Apr 27, 2007 20:18:13 GMT -4
Returning to the Virginia case topic. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY ‘ONE CIVILIAN’ WITH A WEAPON TO STOP THE MADMAN. THIS IS WHY GUN CONTROL SUCKS! Let's consider the Concordia University massacre (still in MontrĂ©al) this time. Valery Fabrikant was overpowered by his 2 unarmed hostages: a teacher and an unarmed security guard. So unarmed civilians can also stop a madman, although I have to admit they need a fair amount of luck
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 22:32:32 GMT -4
Would Cho have still chosen Virginia Tech campus as the site of his rampage if he didn't know that no law-abiding citizen could legally have a gun there? He was trying to maximize the number of people he took with him, and he chose a target that forbade guns. I want to point out that Cho was wearing a bullet proof vest, so it appears he was expecting a gunfight. Whether the shots were coming from other students or the police is irrelevant, he clearly wasn't deterred by the idea that people would eventually begin shooting back. And I believe he chose VT as his target because that's where his anger formed. If he had some kind of insane grievance against Wal-Mart he probably would have targeted them instead. However, aboslutely forbidding arms guarantees that the only people with weapons will be the bad guys - those who disregard the law anyway. But if you make guns illegal you make them much more expensive and difficult to obtain. Cho wasn't a member of a criminal organization with easy access to the black market, he was an individual. Yes, he maybe still could have obtained the guns, but it would have been much more difficult than visiting a pawn shop and filling out a form.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 28, 2007 0:29:39 GMT -4
Would Cho have still chosen Virginia Tech campus as the site of his rampage if he didn't know that no law-abiding citizen could legally have a gun there? He was trying to maximize the number of people he took with him, and he chose a target that forbade guns. I want to point out that Cho was wearing a bullet proof vest, Where did he buy his bullet proof vest? However, aboslutely forbidding arms guarantees that the only people with weapons will be the bad guys - those who disregard the law anyway. But if you make guns illegal you make them much more expensive and difficult to obtain. Cho wasn't a member of a criminal organization with easy access to the black market, he was an individual. Hmm! He seem to have a military background.Or the US Marines uniform is a copy.(simili) [ Yes, he maybe still could have obtained the guns, but it would have been much more difficult than visiting a pawn shop and filling out a form. Did he find the bullet proof vest and the guns also in a pawn shop?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 28, 2007 3:09:58 GMT -4
Where did he buy his bullet proof vest? Well, I remember it was reported at the time that the gunman was wearing a bullet-proof vest, but since I now can't find any reliable references to it I will withdraw the claim. The only references that I can find now are from early reports about the rampage and therefore could be false. Assuming that's really Cho, I would suggest the possibility that he could have bought the military fatigues through an army surplus store.
|
|