Third anniversary

imported post

As you probably know, today is the third anniversary of the mass murder at Virginia Tech.

Many friends and acquaintances are marking this day to remember the victims and their families. I would like to join them, but not by hand-wringing and merely "wishing" it hadn't happened.

Does anyone have a link to a good essay that remembers these victims, but that also calls into question why we still require our college campuses to be large free-target zones?

TFred

imported post

I'm going to start you off here: http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/

It's not an essay as such. Just a note on what happened.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

John Connors' response to the Tech shootings best exemplifies how I feel.

It is not gentle and goes straight to the heart of the matter.

Read it and see what you think.

http://www.gunsmagazine.com/Odd0907.html

Yata hey

imported post

Thanks, Grape. Good read.

imported post

I haven't yet found a link URL but Noon news on WABC AM77 NY mentioned a report that school mass shootings continue to increase, often due to broken hearts, and mentioned 281 school shooting deaths.

As usual the controllers are dancing in the blood of innocents.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

John Connors' response to the Tech shootings best exemplifies how I feel.

It is not gentle and goes straight to the heart of the matter.

Read it and see what you think.

http://www.gunsmagazine.com/Odd0907.html

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Did anyone else have trouble with non-printing characters in that link?

I found a copy here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_9_53/ai_n27320077/

TFred

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

I haven't yet found a link URL but Noon news on WABC AM77 NY mentioned a report that school mass shootings continue to increase, often due to broken hearts, and mentioned 281 school shooting deaths.

As usual the controllers are dancing in the blood of innocents.

Click to expand...

I do not think this is complete, but it is fairly extensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks

Yata hey

imported post

That list is almost as long as the number of wars our government has initiated!

imported post

3 years since the gun ban was shown to be a victim disarmament zone, and the Commonwealth legislature has still failed to direct that state universities and colleges allow students to defend themselves.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

3 years since the gun ban was shown to be a victim disarmament zone, and the Commonwealth legislature has still failed to direct that state universities and colleges allow students to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

That is the real crux of the problem.

Yata hey

imported post

I was discussing this with a guy the other night. He said allowing students to be armed would kill innocents????????????

Typical libtard strawman arguements. He argued that allowing guns may not have prevented the killings. I retorted that banning weapons for self defense sure did not help any of the victims. At least they would have had a chance.

One thing is very certain: the defenseless victim zone (GFZ) did not save anyone.

imported post

riverrat10k wrote:

I was discussing this with a guy the other night. He said allowing students to be armed would kill innocents????????????

Typical libtard strawman arguements. He argued that allowing guns may not have prevented the killings. I retorted that banning weapons for self defense sure did not help any of the victims. At least they would have had a chance.

One thing is very certain: the defenseless victim zone (GFZ) did not save anyone.

Click to expand...

I feel very strongly about this and think that I have shocked a few into thinking for themselves. Their reply to my "one defensive gun could have made such a difference," is "You don't know that." Always done with a scowl and a sideways shake of the head dismissing my radical thought.

You're right, but the absence guaranteed that that they would not see another beautiful sunrise.

There are a litany of other reasons we hear about why guns don't belong here or there - I cannot but lay the blame on those that would guarantee the outcome when things go bad.

Always have and always will fault the Va.Tech administration and our GA equally for permitting this guarantee to be in place.

Yata hey

imported post

Lori Haas (VT)v Suzanna Hupp (Luby's), each seeking different solutions to the same problem, to wit, how to best protect a gathering of innocents againstindiscriminant slaughterby a gun wielding attacker.

Rules prohibitng weapons have only limited effectiveness, as they will usually only be honored by law-abiding individuals. To discourage others, more draconian measures are needed.

Unless each and every individual seeking access to the gathering place is searched for weapons,the attacker can gain legitimate access to the gathering,creating an internal threat, for whichthere is no premptive defense. (Sometimes, even physical barriers are insufficient.)

The only effectivedefense is reactive, anditmust come from within the gathering,such asfrom armed security staff person(s) (LEO, etc) and/or armed member(s) of the gathering. Any response must be immediatelydirected at the attacker with the intent of neutralizing the threat. Clearly, the identification of the attacker(s) within the midst of a confused, panicked crowd will be difficult, and there is risk that one or more defenders will mistake another defender as an attacker, which may result in "friendly fire" casualties.

But we already know the alternatives.

imported post

2a4all wrote:

(snip) Clearly, the identification of the attacker(s) within the midst of a confused, panicked crowd will be difficult, and there is risk that one or more defenders will mistake another defender as an attacker, which may result in "friendly fire" casualties.

But we already know the alternatives.

Click to expand...

I would disagree with your over-generalized assertion above. "Most" of those who would carry for their personal defense will be aware of the elemental Rules of Engagement and the "4 Rules" to the point of waiting for a clear and clean shot. "Some" who have availed themselves of "advanced" training and are willing to rush the attacker will (hopefully) be seen by the rest as not another attacker but someone dynamically responsing to the attack(er). And all that is said with the knowledge that my statements are as over-generalized as yours. It's just that no one can know how a dynamic situation will play out.

Anybody want to set up a large-scale Force-on-Force exercise and play through a few rounds of the basic scenario? At least then we could critique what took place rather than speculating based on nothing but guesses.

As for "But we already know the alternatives" - Amen, brother! Amen! Gun Free Zone = Victim Disarmament Zone = Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms. wish they had signs like that posted.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

As for "But we already know the alternatives" - Amen, brother! Amen! Gun Free Zone = Victim Disarmament Zone = Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms. wish they had signs like that posted.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

+ Enter At Your Own Risk

Might give pause to those whose head is otherwise deeply embedded.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

skidmark wrote:

As for "But we already know the alternatives" - Amen, brother! Amen! Gun Free Zone = Victim Disarmament Zone = Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms. wish they had signs like that posted.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

+ Enter At Your Own Risk

Might give pause to those whose head is otherwise deeply embedded.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Firearms(regardless of who has them) "Beyond This Point..." would make posting "Enter At Your Own Risk" signs a mandate for both sides.


If this has a familiar ring, the exact same arguments were madeabout firearms carry in Nat'l Parks. "Bringing guns into the park makes it unsafe." vs "We need to bring our guns because there's danger in there." At least now (post 2/22/2010)we can make our own choices when entering one of these venues.

18th v 21st amendments, anyone?:banghead:

imported post

2a4all wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

skidmark wrote:

As for "But we already know the alternatives" - Amen, brother! Amen! Gun Free Zone = Victim Disarmament Zone = Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms. wish they had signs like that posted.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

+ Enter At Your Own Risk

Might give pause to those whose head is otherwise deeply embedded.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Firearms(regardless of who has them) "Beyond This Point..." would make posting "Enter At Your Own Risk" signs a mandate for both sides.


If this has a familiar ring, the exact same arguments were madeabout firearms carry in Nat'l Parks. "Bringing guns into the park makes it unsafe." vs "We need to bring our guns because there's danger in there." At least now (post 2/22/2010)we can make our own choices when entering one of these venues.

18th v 21st amendments, anyone?:banghead:

Click to expand...

Reference to
[align=center]Gun Free Zone
Victim Disarmament Zone
[/align][align=center]Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms
Enter At Your Own Risk
[/align]
was, I thought, an obviously intended warning to unarmed potential victims and not to any notion otherwise.

Yata hey

imported post

My prof. cancelled class Fri. so I ended up making a trip to Blacksburg this weekend. Apr. 16 I OC'd like I always do everyday. OC'd at Walmart with no issues (the one I remember reading someone got asked to leave at) as well as Dicks Sporting Goods (again, no issues). OC'd everywhere else I went too. I didn't spend much time on campus though, a few of the roads there were closed Fri anyways.

All I can say is driving past Montgomery Regional Hospital yesterday brought back some bad memories of 3 years ago...

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

2a4all wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

skidmark wrote:

As for "But we already know the alternatives" - Amen, brother! Amen! Gun Free Zone = Victim Disarmament Zone = Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms. wish they had signs like that posted.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

+ Enter At Your Own Risk

Might give pause to those whose head is otherwise deeply embedded.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Firearms(regardless of who has them) "Beyond This Point..." would make posting "Enter At Your Own Risk" signs a mandate for both sides.


If this has a familiar ring, the exact same arguments were madeabout firearms carry in Nat'l Parks. "Bringing guns into the park makes it unsafe." vs "We need to bring our guns because there's danger in there." At least now (post 2/22/2010)we can make our own choices when entering one of these venues.

18th v 21st amendments, anyone?:banghead:

Click to expand...

Reference to


[align=center]Gun Free Zone
Victim Disarmament Zone
[/align]

[align=center]Beyond This Point Only Criminals Have Firearms
Enter At Your Own Risk
[/align]
was, I thought, an obviously intended warning to unarmed potential victims and not to any notion otherwise.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Andit would be nice ifthe Anti's sign also allowed for personal responsibility for one's own safety.


[align=center]Gun Free Zone
No Weapons Allowed
[/align]
[align=center]Enter At Your Own Risk[/align]
[align=left]like the signs posted at beaches & swimming pools[/align]
[align=center]No Lifeguard On Duty[/align]
[align=center]Swim At Your Own Risk[/align]