This doesn't seem good at all.

[riverrat10k]

imported post

Just want to thank NaClH2OHokie for his contributions to this board and his committment to OC and personal rights in general.

I hope your studies have not suffered too much due to the tragic distractions the last coupla years.

And I'm with Grapeshot. What a fraud a safeor no weopons zone is. I hope we can all find some time in our busy lives to continue to advocate for persosnal protection from the bad guys.



riverrat

 

[hsmith]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

The policies at my children's schools mandate punishment for all parties EVEN IF YOU OFFER NO RESISTANCE against the attack.

When I read that, I was ready to charge up to the schools and light them up with righteous fury. I decided to wait based on my wife's request to hear them out at an upcoming meeting.

Went to the meeting and it only confirmed my worst suspicions. Should someone attack any of my daughters in any sort of altercation, my daughters regardless of innocence or guilt will be punished equally with the aggressor.

We explained this to our daughters, particularly the eldest that if they get into a fight even if someone else starts it for no reason, they will be punished by the school. They immediately told us "But that'sNOT FAIR! What if we didn't start it? We didn't do anything wrong!"

I agreed with them. I also said should you be involved in a fight, I have every expectation they will fight back and comport themselves appropriately. My eldest responded with "But Dad, it's against the rules to fight."

I told her "Yes, it is against the rules to fight. But the rules don't specifically state it's against the rules to fight back or defend one's self. No school rule can take away your fundamental right to be free or safe in your own person. I fully expect you to fight back and make the other person stop. Why? Well, why not? The school is already going to punish you being a victim. You may as well make it worth your while; earn that punishment they are already going to give you."

The school administrators don't like me. Apparently I don't fight fair because I'll use someone's rules to hoist them up like a circus display.

i like the advice you impart on your child.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

snip........but I am against this attitude that sometime prevails on this board that unless you are armed with a .45 you are helpless. As someone pointed out that in this case it was a knife and a chair can make a good defensive weapon against a knife. A gun would be better but dangit we aren't helpless without one as some keep trying to say.In this case if she had time to pull a gun for her defense or the bystanders had time to assess the situation and pull their guns then she also had time to run away from him. I don't get any indication from the articles that he ran her down to kill her.

Helpless w/o a gun - no. Much better equipped w/gun- yes.

In this case the young lady was apparently caught unaware. All concerned had mere fractions of seconds to effectively respond and all failed miserably. Time is not the question here - means, method & opportunity is.

Training (including mindset) in defense with or against a gun, knife, chair, book et al have their place but nothing crosses a room as quickly nor as decisively as a well aimed ballistic projectile.

Your argument would have validity opposing excessive use of force but I cannot imagine that you are suggesting that a .45 would have been excessive in this instance.

Yata hey

 

[SaltH2OHokie]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

PT111 wrote:

snip........but I am against this attitude that sometime prevails on this board that unless you are armed with a .45 you are helpless. As someone pointed out that in this case it was a knife and a chair can make a good defensive weapon against a knife. A gun would be better but dangit we aren't helpless without one as some keep trying to say.In this case if she had time to pull a gun for her defense or the bystanders had time to assess the situation and pull their guns then she also had time to run away from him. I don't get any indication from the articles that he ran her down to kill her.

Helpless w/o a gun - no. Much better equipped w/gun- yes.

In this case the young lady was apparently caught unaware. All concerned had mere fractions of seconds to effectively respond and all failed miserably. Time is not the question here - means, method & opportunity is.

Training (including mindset) in defense with or against a gun, knife, chair, book et al have their place but nothing crosses a room as quickly nor as decisively as a well aimed ballistic projectile.

Your argument would have validity opposing excessive use of force but I cannot imagine that you are suggesting that a .45 would have been excessive in this instance.

Yata hey

I think the argument isn't that a gun isn't a proper tool but more that "just because you don't have a gun, doesn't make you helpless." At least that's how I read it.

-Ryan

 

[TFred]

imported post

darthmord wrote:

The policies at my children's schools mandate punishment for all parties EVEN IF YOU OFFER NO RESISTANCE against the attack.

When I read that, I was ready to charge up to the schools and light them up with righteous fury. I decided to wait based on my wife's request to hear them out at an upcoming meeting.

Went to the meeting and it only confirmed my worst suspicions. Should someone attack any of my daughters in any sort of altercation, my daughters regardless of innocence or guilt will be punished equally with the aggressor.

We explained this to our daughters, particularly the eldest that if they get into a fight even if someone else starts it for no reason, they will be punished by the school. They immediately told us "But that'sNOT FAIR! What if we didn't start it? We didn't do anything wrong!"

I agreed with them. I also said should you be involved in a fight, I have every expectation they will fight back and comport themselves appropriately. My eldest responded with "But Dad, it's against the rules to fight."

I told her "Yes, it is against the rules to fight. But the rules don't specifically state it's against the rules to fight back or defend one's self. No school rule can take away your fundamental right to be free or safe in your own person. I fully expect you to fight back and make the other person stop. Why? Well, why not? The school is already going to punish you being a victim. You may as well make it worth your while; earn that punishment they are already going to give you."

The school administrators don't like me. Apparently I don't fight fair because I'll use someone's rules to hoist them up like a circus display.

Wow. Just wow. I have no children, so this uniquely qualifies me to speak on how to handle school issues...

My first concern is, if they get this issue so wrong, what else are they teaching these kids?

Is there no avenue for protest or appeal here? You need a letter writing campaign to other parents and newspapers. Punishment for being a victim is not what we need to be teaching kids. At a very minimum, this teaches them to not report any bullying or harassment, and certainly not reporting any assault. This clearly gives the bullies a significant advantage in the nooks and crannies that are out of eye shot, especially a restroom. "I'm gonna beat you up, and you better not rat, cause you'll get in just as much trouble as me!"

This policy is training up a whole new generation of potential Harris and Klebolds, who finally took their revenge for a life of unresolved harassment and bullying.

What kind of monsters do we have teaching our kids?

TFred

 

[wylde007]

imported post

TFred wrote:

My first concern is, if they get this issue so wrong, what else are they teaching these kids?

You have no idea. No Child Left Behind? Heck, ANY government (particularly at the federal level) interfering with and mandating education is not only Unconstitutional it is highly immoral.

School districts eliminating class "Valedictorian", creating "no zero" policies, teaching manufactured and/or revisionist history... punishing success and rewarding failure, just like the Feds do it. Is it any surprise we've fallen behind almost every other civilized society as our kids are continuously dumbed-down and teachers are forced to "teach to the test" in order to maintain accreditation and get that gummint money.

It's like everything has to be "Everybody Gets a Trophy Day" so nobody feels insecure or self-conscious. Guess what:

Just another in a long stream of excellent arguments for home schooling... and I'm married to a career educator.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

My kids WILL NEVER GOTO VA TECH EVEN WITH FULL SCHOLARSHIPS as long as they have no way to defend themselves. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

You definitely don't want them going to VCU then!:lol:

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Totally off topic, but....

wylde007 wrote:

:lol:

 

[PT111]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

PT111 wrote:

snip........but I am against this attitude that sometime prevails on this board that unless you are armed with a .45 you are helpless. As someone pointed out that in this case it was a knife and a chair can make a good defensive weapon against a knife. A gun would be better but dangit we aren't helpless without one as some keep trying to say.In this case if she had time to pull a gun for her defense or the bystanders had time to assess the situation and pull their guns then she also had time to run away from him. I don't get any indication from the articles that he ran her down to kill her.

Helpless w/o a gun - no. Much better equipped w/gun- yes.

In this case the young lady was apparently caught unaware. All concerned had mere fractions of seconds to effectively respond and all failed miserably. Time is not the question here - means, method & opportunity is.

Training (including mindset) in defense with or against a gun, knife, chair, book et al have their place but nothing crosses a room as quickly nor as decisively as a well aimed ballistic projectile.

Your argument would have validity opposing excessive use of force but I cannot imagine that you are suggesting that a .45 would have been excessive in this instance.

Yata hey

Not at all, just that because you don't have a .45 on you, you aren't helpless. Just read how many posts proclaim that without a gun someone is completely defenseless. One poster told about how he would have introduced the killer to the history of Belgium. That is wonderful if you have a gun with you but also seems to infer that if he didn't have his gun with him then he would be just like the rest of those standing around. :cuss: Part of awareness is when you don't feel easy about some place then avoid it even if you are armed. It always irks me when I hear someone say that they are going to get a gun for protection. I ask them if they are going to make a suit of armor out of it because that is the only way a gun will protect you. :what:

 

[essayons]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

To both of you gentlemen who responded to my above post, thank you. As a father of two daughters, both now grown, and one of whom graduated from Tech, I just cannot imagine how I would feel about this had it been one of mine. The refusal of so many people across our nation to believe that there are truly evil people out there who have no compunction about injuring, maiming, and killing innocent victims is amazing to me. While we don't know now, and may never know, what led up the this horrible event, the fact remains that a brutal, heinous murder was committed in our state. For others to stand around and let this happen, is unconscionable at best, and morally reprehensible for certain.

God rest her soul.

I have three daughters and the youngest is a college student right now. I suppose that the part that upsets me about this incident is than no one did anything to help. I have offered my daughters a gun to carry but so far they have not gotten the courage to do that. However they do carry pepper spray and a tazer device. They can also fight back with their hands. In no way am I against the carrying of guns by students but I am against this attitude that sometime prrvails on this board thay unless you are armed with a .45 you are helpless. As someone pointed out that in this case it was a knife and a chair can make a good defensive weapon against a knife. A gun would be better but dangit we aren't helpless without one as some keep trying to say.In this case if she had time to pull a gun for her defense or the bystanders had time to assess the situation and pull their guns then she also had time to run away from him. I don't get any indication from the articles that he ran her down to kill her.

Your daughters would face student judicial activity or arrest if they attended Va Tech. The policy is not merely against firearms, its against weapons. The administration thinks that since they apparently legislated away crime, they can also legislate away weapons.

2.2 Prohibition of Weapons
The university’s employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting, entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building, dining facility, or residence hall, are further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual’s job, or in accordance with the relevant University Policies for Student Life. Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or an employee disciplinary action and/or arrest.

http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf

You are mistaken if you believe the members of this forum are against the concept of unarmed self defense. We support the right to defend ourselves with the best weapons that are available, whether it be gun, pepper spray, taser, or even chairs and grapefruits.

What causes me heartburn is when an administration (at any level) strips me and those around me of tools that are helpful in self-defense.

Weapons, regardless of type, are universal equalizers.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

I know of an incident sometime back here in Virginia where a student witnessed a fight breaking out in the hallway and someone pulled a knife. He managed to get the knife away from the girl who pulled it and approached a vice-principal to hand it to him. For his troubles, HE was suspended because he "had a knife"! This is how idiotic these a--holes have gotten.

If he were my kid, perhaps Imight tell him the next time you see something like this, just let them stab each other. It's not worth getting in trouble for being the good guy.

Idiots.

 

[wylde007]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Totally off topic, but...

Totally awesome, nonetheless. I needed that moment of levity today.

 

[Bill in VA]

imported post

.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Bill in VA wrote:

.

Is that a "bump?'

I don't get your point.

Yata hey

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Bill in VA wrote:

.

Well put Bill and it echos my feelings about VT's policy. What I'm NOT saying could fill volumes.

Did I ever mention that concealed means NOT SEEN.

Did I ever mention that if someone carries a weapon in the woods and no one sees it. It didn't happen.

Did I ever mention that lots get said between the lines.