Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AquaShrimp on April 18, 2007, 08:59:00 AM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c45_1176890967
One the very few people to survive in one of the rooms, this guy talks about what happened. He says the gunman was able to reload his 22 weapon within a matter of 2 seconds after he ran out of rounds executing the people.
I think this guy probably served in the military, as he refers to the parts of the weapon as "magazines" and "rounds", not clips and bullets. Perhaps his training helped him survive, as he took cover as soon as it began.
-
I have already heard of two people that survived the rampage who owned firearms but were not carrying them because they were obeying campus rules prohibiting the carrying of firearms on campus. And so the story goes eh.....
Too bad there was no security perons in the building who were armed during the shooting. Might have saved many lives.
-
Yea but Yeager, any college student will tell you, especially at a place like VT, prior to this, no one would have ever imagined this would happen, sort of like 9/11 in regards to having armed security in buildings. Hell, places like Yale which are downtown watermelon hole New Haven don't even have armed security guards in the buildings....And to be honest. I don't think i'd want to go to a University where I have to walk past some dude with a gun every time I go to ENG 217 or PSC 430
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Yea but Yeager, any college student will tell you, especially at a place like VT, prior to this, no one would have ever imagined this would happen, sort of like 9/11 in regards to having armed security in buildings. Hell, places like Yale which are downtown watermelon hole New Haven don't even have armed security guards in the buildings....And to be honest. I don't think i'd want to go to a University where I have to walk past some dude with a gun every time I go to ENG 217 or PSC 430
You're forgetting about what happened at Penn State.
Roughly 10 years ago a whacked out coward sat in the bushes on the HUB lawn on a nice day and started shooting at people. She shot 2, killing one. Penn State STUDENTS rushed her and stopped her before she could do any more damage.
-
Didn't even know that happened at Penn State, however, i'm not suprised about the students rushing the gunmen. I think at the college level, that is more inherently likely to happen. However, I still don't think its grounds to have armed security in every building on campus. And as a current college student, i'm holding my grounds on that one. There is no way in hell I want to go to a school where I walk past these guys every single day. Whats next? Metal detectors? X-ray machines for Soc 100? I have confidence that this was an extremely isolated issue, and 99.9% of college students will never personally experience an attack on their school like this during their academic career...It's a tough situation though, and I can understand where all sides are coming from.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You're forgetting about what happened at Penn State.
Roughly 10 years ago a whacked out coward sat in the bushes on the HUB lawn on a nice day and started shooting at people. She shot 2, killing one. Penn State STUDENTS rushed her and stopped her before she could do any more damage.
<--- Penn State grad..I remember that. But it did not grab headlines so the story was forgotten.
In fact I went to Penn State with one of the VT vics. I knew him, not that well, but I knew him. Jeremy Herbstritt. He was a good guy.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/04/04-18-07tdc/04-18-07dnews-04.asp
-Sp0t
-
Originally posted by BBBB
<--- Penn State grad..I remember that. But it did not grab headlines so the story was forgotten.
In fact I went to Penn State with one of the VT vics. I knew him, not that well, but I knew him. Jeremy Herbstritt. He was a good guy.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/04/04-18-07tdc/04-18-07dnews-04.asp
-Sp0t
I guess a killing rampage is only noteworthy if it breaks 10 kills.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I have already heard of two people that survived the rampage who owned firearms but were not carrying them because they were obeying campus rules prohibiting the carrying of firearms on campus. And so the story goes eh.....
Too bad there was no security perons in the building who were armed during the shooting. Might have saved many lives.
This is the exact reason I carry with a concealed permit and I feel it is every Americans duty to protect their "life" and property with deadly force if neccessary! Too many democrats and tree hugger anti gun morons screaming about gun controll and keeping guns out of Law Abiding citizens hands are exactly what led to 30+ people being killed in this tragedy. I do feel that if 1 or 2 students or teachers with concealed weapons and permits allowing them to do so could have neutralized or at least deterred this psycho from killing as many people as he did.
Just my 2 cents!
-
The police have no obligation to protect you, if you rely on them in an emergency you're as good as dead. Very very rarely are uniformed officers close enough to be effective. Even as they respond, they know much less than than the actual victims and will take valuable time to make sure they know who's who while being tactical... because we don't want the cops summarily shooting people they "think" are armed suspects.
The end result here is 30+ dead folks, but don't worry LONG after the fact there will be 100s of cops dressed like commandos standing around for hours.
In a situation like this a potential victim, who's armed, with "eyes on" the shooter is in a better position to take life saving action than the police are.
BTW have you seen some of the 'over the shoulder video' on the news of a few of those officers who were obviously too FAT waddling down the sidewalk out of breath while carrying AR-15s?, that's embarrassing.
Raise you hand if you want your life in the hands of some fatass who is physically incapable of running to save you..
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
The police have no obligation to protect you.
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot..over? Does the term "To serve and PROTECT" ring any bells? The primary job of a police officer is to protect the public..even from themselves..hence speeding tickets. Man some of you guys have really lost touch with reality.
-Sp0t
-
This who incident is not about carrying weapons. CCW permit is a *reactive* measure. The incident is about letting a troubled boy slip through the cracks. The U.S. is in the forefront of psychological therapy and psychiatric medicine, and the best anyone could do for this kid was to prescribe him a simple anti-depressant? Thats garbage. We as Americans are supposed to look out for each other. Everyone saw the signs, his roommates, his professors, the girls he was stalking.
One psychiatrist said that this kid was a paranoid psychotic, and he could tell from looking at his writings that his mental health had been degrading for over a year and a half. Just the mere fact that this kid wouldn't ever speak, along with never having a meaningful relationship with anyone, is extremely unhealthy. Someone should have admitted him just for that problem alone (avoidant personality). Unfortunately the stresses of school, and seeing everyone else succeed where he had failed lead to his mental health degradation and he became suicidal and homicidal.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot..over? Does the term "To serve and PROTECT" ring any bells? The primary job of a police officer is to protect the public..even from themselves..hence speeding tickets. Man some of you guys have really lost touch with reality.
-Sp0t
What he said happens to be true. A citizen does not have a reasonable expectation of individual security through the Police. It has already gone through the courts. The Officer serves the "public" in general, not an individual specifically. Besides under the system the Police cannot act until a "bad act" has been committed. Even in traffic a violation must occur before the car is stopped and a ticket issued.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
This who incident is not about carrying weapons. CCW permit is a *reactive* measure. The incident is about letting a troubled boy slip through the cracks. The U.S. is in the forefront of psychological therapy and psychiatric medicine, and the best anyone could do for this kid was to prescribe him a simple anti-depressant? Thats garbage. We as Americans are supposed to look out for each other. Everyone saw the signs, his roommates, his professors, the girls he was stalking.
One psychiatrist said that this kid was a paranoid psychotic, and he could tell from looking at his writings that his mental health had been degrading for over a year and a half. Just the mere fact that this kid wouldn't ever speak, along with never having a meaningful relationship with anyone, is extremely unhealthy. Someone should have admitted him just for that problem alone (avoidant personality). Unfortunately the stresses of school, and seeing everyone else succeed where he had failed lead to his mental health degradation and he became suicidal and homicidal.
Interesting take you have there.
Question tho.....
How are you supposed to admit him for help? Ask him to come with the butterfly net guys? Ask Nicley? Drive him to the place and just MAKE him go?
He wasn't hurting anyone other than making em feel creepy or scared somewhat. The crime of starting that fire was looked into. What some percieve as stalking of the women could have been percieved by others as persistance possibly.
I'm just wondering where this line is that would have to be crossed to admit him to help? Basically making him do it.
Any Idea?
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot..over? Does the term "To serve and PROTECT" ring any bells? The primary job of a police officer is to protect the public..even from themselves..hence speeding tickets. Man some of you guys have really lost touch with reality.
-Sp0t
Look it up, there is case law on the subject. I spent 6 years pushing a holstein sled, you cant sue or otherwise hold the police responsible for failing to protect you.
Every Dept has a catchy slogan on their cars, it's not legally binding.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Interesting take you have there.
Question tho.....
How are you supposed to admit him for help? Ask him to come with the butterfly net guys? Ask Nicley? Drive him to the place and just MAKE him go?
He wasn't hurting anyone other than making em feel creepy or scared somewhat. The crime of starting that fire was looked into. What some percieve as stalking of the women could have been percieved by others as persistance possibly.
I'm just wondering where this line is that would have to be crossed to admit him to help? Basically making him do it.
Any Idea?
Actually, it just came out that the Virginia Court ruled him mentally ill and "an imminent danger to himself or others" in 2005. A psychiatrist recommended that he be hospitalised for treatment. Yet he wasnt.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Actually, it just came out that the Virginia Court ruled him mentally ill and "an imminent danger to himself or others" in 2005. A psychiatrist recommended that he be hospitalised for treatment. Yet he wasnt.
Hadn't read that or heard that. Interesting.
But...back to my question....
How do we as americans , make people get help? Which is basically what you mean right?
And before we go any further here I am just asking. No looking to argue or get all uptight.
-
According to the news report the court indicated that he could be treated as an outpatient rather than as involuntary commitment. Possible screw up by the psychiatrist in not listing him as needing commitment.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Hadn't read that or heard that. Interesting.
But...back to my question....
How do we as americans , make people get help? Which is basically what you mean right?
And before we go any further here I am just asking. No looking to argue or get all uptight.
There is a process for getting an individual evaluated. It has to be ordered by a court and must be severe to get an involuntary commitment. If it's voluntary they can't prevent the patient from leaving during treatment. In Cho's case the court indicated he could get treatment as an outpatient. Keep in mind that this was over a year ago. There was no info in the article I saw regarding follow up visits or court action to require treatment after the first evaluation.
This court order for evaluation and treatment should have flagged him and denied the gun purchase during his records check.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
The police have no obligation to protect you, if you rely on them in an emergency you're as good as dead. Very very rarely are uniformed officers close enough to be effective. Even as they respond, they know much less than than the actual victims and will take valuable time to make sure they know who's who while being tactical... because we don't want the cops summarily shooting people they "think" are armed suspects.
Every dead stalked woman would agree with you...except they're dead because the cops couldn't do anything until the stalker did something and after the stalker did something then there's nothing left to do.
-
OT: for anyone who thinks the police are obligated to protect 'you', here's some case law info... in some states the police don't even have to respond if you call them.
I'm not ragging on the cops here (except the fat dudes, but that's my issue).. they did exactly as they were trained, and over 30 people are dead. IMO its too bad at least a few students were not legally allowed to protect themselves... having a phone at a gun fight is a losing proposition.
http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp
"It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”[5]
In the especially gruesome landmark case the “no-duty” rule got ugly. Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.
The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.
The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed."
-
your risk of death by gun goes up when you go into "gun free zones"
If you were in those classrooms... who would you rather have in there with you... a concealed carry guy with a .45 or the guy who passed the "gun free zone" ordinance?
lazs
-
Don't forget that the weapon free zones mean edged and other weapons as well. If you are in a school, outside of the cafeteria or PE storage locker, there will be no weapons. That means no knives, bats, hockey sticks to use as a means of defense in the case of another school rampage. The cell phones won't stop the attacker either.
-
Is there a case here vs. VT for violation of 2nd Amendment rights? It's public grounds, and students were prohibited by the institution from defending themselves. Adult students and teachers were basically threatened with 'punishment' up to and including expulsion if they carried legal firearms on the school grounds.
One armed off-duty cop or ex-military person going to classes that day where this happened could have saved alot of lives...
-
I have always felt that the NRA needs to keep a database on people who have been turned down for concealed carry permits or who live in "gun free zones" who were killed by criminals.
They could then have the surviving relatives enter into a lawsuit against the agencies who disarmed their now deceased relatives.
lazs
-
IF ONLY. If only this....If only that......Give me a break. Take off your kevlar vest and helmet, and wake up. Whats next? Will I go to PSC 545 tomorrow, and see the top of an RPG sticking out from my professors deck? But what happens when that isn't enough? I can just see it now. People on this board crying "If only we could have had an M1 Abrahams tank in the class room, this could have all been avoided. give me a break.
-
you don't need a RPG or a M1 Abrahams, just a small gun in a concealed holster.
-
I would be willing to allow people with CCW permits to carry weapons on school campuses if the training was rigorous. I certainly don't want a bullet richochetting off the floor and hitting me in the head because someone was holstering a weapon with a round in the chamber, the hammer cocked, and the safety off.
Make each person who wants a CCW permit pass a 40 hour training course, with a comprehensive written exam along with a field exam, and I'll go along with it.
-
Was listening to an actual civilized debate on the radio the other day between John Lott and some affable anti-gun puke...when the question was asked to both about whether gun sales ought not be allowed to non-citizens, the ffable anti-gun puke was perplexed: a good commie-lib wants to ban ANYone from owning guns, but ALSO a good commie-lib wants illegal aliens, all the way up to green-card-holders, to have all the same rights we have. He never did give an answer.
(Note: any non-citizen up TO a green-card holder cannot legally buy a gun in the US--alas, our nutberger was a green-card holder with a valid driver's license and no criminal record)
-
Here in Tulsa we have a police tatical call (I forgot the name) but if there was a school shooting all officers would be notified and the first cop on the scene is ordered to gear up and enter the building the locate the shooters. Then two teams form up. One goes for the shooter/s and the other team goes room to room and gets everyone out.
This team was used when a man went into a building filled with people, walked to his X-wifes office, and shot her 2min later. The police were already called, and within minutes there were officers storming the building locating the killer (who at this point shot himself) Another team went in and got everyone out.
-
If you don't have guns.... this **** doesn't happen.
Prevention is better than a cure, as they say.
I'm not 'anti-gun' so to speak, but I am Australian and the thought of having guns in the city or populated areas (such as schools and suburbs etc) is completely alien to me. Guns are very rare in most places and where they're not particularly rare, they're just used by farmers for killing foxes and rabbits.
Take a leaf from our book and not have this happen?
Although, the guns won't disappear if you change your laws, they'll still be there, so perhaps you're all ****ed either way?
I think America has 'shot itself in the foot' with its gun laws.
-
Xasthur, if you think guns are the cause of this, quickly ask yourself something.
Currently in Baghdad, what is the weapon which kills the most?
Once you answer that you'll realize that anything can be used as a weapon. Just ask your own citizens in the Bali Bombing. You may need to visit a cemetary though, and the reply might be a little quiet.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
I think America has 'shot itself in the foot' with its gun laws.
Tell that to the British, circa 1775... and many time after that, in peace and wars, when social conditions weren't favorable to psychos as they are today; as they are pretty much everywhere else too.
-
Originally posted by Xasthur
If you don't have guns.... this **** doesn't happen.
Lol...
For the time period of 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.
The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
========
Enjoy not being able to defend yourself. It looks like aussie criminals sure are...
Of course, they're the ones with guns now, since all the lawful types turned theirs in.
Heck, reading the newspapers there seems to justify the increase in immigration to New Zealand, which has fewer firearms restrictions and a much lower violent crime rate.
========
Heh, some interesting newspaper articles in Australia after the anti-gun nuts went crazy using the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 to justify their crusade:
"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws."
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever.
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
=======
Too many pommies in your government man...