Talk about jumping to wild conclusions, Mr. Fimian says the massacre at VA Tech would not have happened at all if Cho had thought someone might have had a gun there.
That is not that much of a far-fetched possibility. Most of your active shooters are cowards. They want their victims helpless. That is why most of these nutjobs surrender to someone with a gun, or, if faced with the possibility of a fight, will take their own life.
I admire Mr. Fimian's being able to read minds, which is echoed by FWM. On the other hand, this ignores the fact that during the Columbine shootings at approximately 11:24 a.m., a Jefferson County deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and began shooting at Harris and Klebold, distracting them from the injured Brian Anderson.
It will be interesting to see what will happen if there are armed civilians at the next school shooting. Personally, I would prefer not to be in that situation.
Weer'd is sure of what was in Cho's mind, and FWM seems to be too. It's funny how your mind reading skills perfectly support the rest of your theories about guns and gun control.
It's funny how mass shootings almost always happen in victim disarmament zones, aka "Gun Free Zones." Once or twice might be a coincidence, but we're WAY past that possibility now. I'd say that someone looking to end as many lives as possible wouldn't have to be too intelligent or too lucid to figure out the safest place for them to commit maximum carnage, but I'm not a mind reader as a couple of you have so astutely pointed out already.
Laci, we've already seen what happens when there AREN'T armed civilians present when some lunatic decides to go on a killing spree. At VA Tech, people cowered helplessly in classrooms while Cho shot them, several times even through the doors that they were trying to hold closed against him. You'd have to be crazy to NOT "prefer not to be in that situation." NONE of us really have any control over when such an attack might occur again, but SOME of us would prefer to have the option of armed self defense available as an alternative to waiting to be shot while hoping the shooter decides to kill himself and/or the police arrive.
Mike, before you snidely try to say that more gun control laws would accomplish the same end, let me remind you that closing the infamous "Gun Show Loophole" wouldn't have stopped the Columbine shooters (the girlfriend was quite capable of passing a background check, and straw purchasing is already illegal), and your unconstitutional registration and licensing scheme wouldn't have stopped Cho, since he purchased the guns legally. Virginia has already addressed the issue of mental health records for people wanting to purchase a gun, which is the only logical, common sense response to that tragedy. What else have you got?
No mind reading is necessary, just read the accounts and they nearly all tell you the same thing.
"On the other hand, this ignores the fact that during the Columbine shootings at approximately 11:24 a.m., a Jefferson County deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and began shooting at Harris and Klebold, distracting them from the injured Brian Anderson."
No, it does not ignore any facts put proves it out. The idiots at Columbine only ceased their spree when confronted by the deputy.
That is why police are now trained differently to handle an active shooter. They no longer wait for backup but the first responder possible is to engage. Most times in an active shooter scenario the nutjob will kill himself or surrender if any resistance is encountered.
Can I try to simplify? If we allow fewer people to be armed by raising the bar about 10%, eliminating from gun ownership the mental cases, the violent misdemeanor guys, depressives and the addicts, the accident prone, etc., all the serious and responsible gun owners will continue, business as usual, but many of the problems will be averted.
MikeB: “…all the serious and responsible gun owners will continue, business as usual, but many of the problems will be averted.”
Not all of them. Some serious and responsible people will be misdiagnosed as “accident prone”, or denied because they took medication at one point, or an innocent person who plea bargained themselves down to a misdemeanor to avoid any chance of a felony conviction, etc… There would naturally be a percentage of these that you personally would have to reconcile as being a necessity for your cause. What do you think that percentage would be?
The first big problem with Fimian's supposition is assuming that Mr. Cho actually had the sanity to actually rationally think about his act.
ReplyDeleteNext?
That is not that much of a far-fetched possibility. Most of your active shooters are cowards. They want their victims helpless. That is why most of these nutjobs surrender to someone with a gun, or, if faced with the possibility of a fight, will take their own life.
ReplyDeletehe did kill himself (with ammo to spare, and survivors galore) as soon as the police breached the doors he had chained.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'm sure he was fully aware of the campus rules about guns.
I admire Mr. Fimian's being able to read minds, which is echoed by FWM. On the other hand, this ignores the fact that during the Columbine shootings at approximately 11:24 a.m., a Jefferson County deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and began shooting at Harris and Klebold, distracting them from the injured Brian Anderson.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see what will happen if there are armed civilians at the next school shooting. Personally, I would prefer not to be in that situation.
Weer'd is sure of what was in Cho's mind, and FWM seems to be too. It's funny how your mind reading skills perfectly support the rest of your theories about guns and gun control.
ReplyDeleteHow is it funny? That's what has happened in a majority of the "gun-free" zone spree shootings.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how mass shootings almost always happen in victim disarmament zones, aka "Gun Free Zones." Once or twice might be a coincidence, but we're WAY past that possibility now. I'd say that someone looking to end as many lives as possible wouldn't have to be too intelligent or too lucid to figure out the safest place for them to commit maximum carnage, but I'm not a mind reader as a couple of you have so astutely pointed out already.
ReplyDeleteLaci, we've already seen what happens when there AREN'T armed civilians present when some lunatic decides to go on a killing spree. At VA Tech, people cowered helplessly in classrooms while Cho shot them, several times even through the doors that they were trying to hold closed against him. You'd have to be crazy to NOT "prefer not to be in that situation." NONE of us really have any control over when such an attack might occur again, but SOME of us would prefer to have the option of armed self defense available as an alternative to waiting to be shot while hoping the shooter decides to kill himself and/or the police arrive.
Mike, before you snidely try to say that more gun control laws would accomplish the same end, let me remind you that closing the infamous "Gun Show Loophole" wouldn't have stopped the Columbine shooters (the girlfriend was quite capable of passing a background check, and straw purchasing is already illegal), and your unconstitutional registration and licensing scheme wouldn't have stopped Cho, since he purchased the guns legally. Virginia has already addressed the issue of mental health records for people wanting to purchase a gun, which is the only logical, common sense response to that tragedy. What else have you got?
No mind reading is necessary, just read the accounts and they nearly all tell you the same thing.
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, this ignores the fact that during the Columbine shootings at approximately 11:24 a.m., a Jefferson County deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and began shooting at Harris and Klebold, distracting them from the injured Brian Anderson."
No, it does not ignore any facts put proves it out. The idiots at Columbine only ceased their spree when confronted by the deputy.
That is why police are now trained differently to handle an active shooter. They no longer wait for backup but the first responder possible is to engage. Most times in an active shooter scenario the nutjob will kill himself or surrender if any resistance is encountered.
Can I try to simplify? If we allow fewer people to be armed by raising the bar about 10%, eliminating from gun ownership the mental cases, the violent misdemeanor guys, depressives and the addicts, the accident prone, etc., all the serious and responsible gun owners will continue, business as usual, but many of the problems will be averted.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “…all the serious and responsible gun owners will continue, business as usual, but many of the problems will be averted.”
ReplyDeleteNot all of them. Some serious and responsible people will be misdiagnosed as “accident prone”, or denied because they took medication at one point, or an innocent person who plea bargained themselves down to a misdemeanor to avoid any chance of a felony conviction, etc… There would naturally be a percentage of these that you personally would have to reconcile as being a necessity for your cause. What do you think that percentage would be?
TS, You're right, but it would be a good trade off.
ReplyDeleteI know you don't agree with that.