DBabsJr
Member
Paula Zahn will be debating this on her show tonight at 8PM ET. I don't know...between Dobbs and Cafferty, CNN doesn't seem too bad lately on firearms.
CNN: Could allowing students to pack heat have prevented the Va Tech massacre?
- Thread starter DBabsJr
- Start date
- Status
politicalgeek
Member
It wasn't a bad piece, but you could easily tell CNN's bent.
I did like that they interviewed the one student's professor, who had no idea said student carried till the news crew showed up, and mentioned that it did make him feel safer.
I did like that they interviewed the one student's professor, who had no idea said student carried till the news crew showed up, and mentioned that it did make him feel safer.
The first report was good. The interview though was the same tired argument that people being armed with a CCW would make things “worse”. Paula clearly seemed to be in agreement with the anti-gun person, despite the evidence showed earlier in the segment about it working okay in Utah.
The other thing that bothers me is the clearly false information from the anti-gun people, such as “it was completely at the discretion of the gun store owner to the sell Cho the gun”, he passed the federally mandated background check! You would think that if the anti-gun crowd had such a good argument they would be able to stick to the facts instead of always trying to distort reality.
The other thing that bothers me is the clearly false information from the anti-gun people, such as “it was completely at the discretion of the gun store owner to the sell Cho the gun”, he passed the federally mandated background check! You would think that if the anti-gun crowd had such a good argument they would be able to stick to the facts instead of always trying to distort reality.
my take...
I saw the professor that said that she is scared about students carrying concealed weapons. Her name was Dr. Barbara Nash. I decided to look up her email address on the university of utah's website and send her a little email. Before I post my email, I would like to share with you something. She is a professor of GEOLOGY!!!! Evidentally this gives her the "expertise" to comment on the safety of the university. Anyway, here's the email I sent her.
I saw the professor that said that she is scared about students carrying concealed weapons. Her name was Dr. Barbara Nash. I decided to look up her email address on the university of utah's website and send her a little email. Before I post my email, I would like to share with you something. She is a professor of GEOLOGY!!!! Evidentally this gives her the "expertise" to comment on the safety of the university. Anyway, here's the email I sent her.
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
oobray, you might want to remove your telephone number from the message you posted.
ConfuseUs
Member
Yes, some of us have free long distance and are up late at night. Oh, and trolls might call you too.
Skibane
Member
These debates and polls are almost always framed within the premise that CCW has to completely eliminate the threat in order to be useful. Nobody ever asks, "Could allowing students to carry firearms have reduced the scope of the VT massacre, or brought it to a quicker end?"
Also, note how the question is never phrased so that it also includes members of the faculty carrying firearms. This omission helps reinforce the idea that only (presumably young, irresponsible) people will be armed on campus.
Finally, the "packing heat" reference is another common way of pre-loading the question. Typically, this is further embellished with other 30's era movie slang, such as a "shootout at the OK corral", "ventilating some coppers", etc...
Sylvan-Forge
Member
Good analysis, Skibane.
Well said, Skibane.
I've been posting on the various news forums in an attempt to spread some actual truth and logic about firearms, and it seems the argument against CCW by the ignorant public is that (1) it's too hard to stop a surprise attacker with CCW, that (2) CCWers will start randomly shooting with no regard for the safety of others (the four rules), that (3) CCW is not going to stop 100% of shootings, and that (4) shooting is the only way to utilize a CCW for defense. These things are all false.
1) Proper training can allow just about anyone to draw and fire two rounds to center of mass in one second. Many shooting classes get even novice students to this point very quickly.
2) Placing a gun in one's hand does not suddenly make it start firing. CCW holders are trained and highly responsible. They've undergone extensive background checks, fingerprinting, etc. We don't just start shooting at the first sign of trouble.
3) None of us is arguing that CCW would stop 100% of all crimes. Some CCW holders will flee. Others might fail in attempts to stop the shooting. What matters is that people have a RIGHT and a CHANCE to defend themselves. Whether they exercise that right is up to them.
4) CCWs are used for self-defense in many ways, including telling a would-be criminal that you're carrying, showing a would-be criminal that you're carrying, pointing the gun at a criminal to stop him or hold him until police arrive, firing a warning shot to ward off a criminal, or shooting a criminal. The ignorant public seems to think we all start shooting first and asking questions later. We are a logical, intelligent, and rational group of people, but we are labelled as "gun nuts" and "red necks" despite our diverse backgrounds.
I've been posting on the various news forums in an attempt to spread some actual truth and logic about firearms, and it seems the argument against CCW by the ignorant public is that (1) it's too hard to stop a surprise attacker with CCW, that (2) CCWers will start randomly shooting with no regard for the safety of others (the four rules), that (3) CCW is not going to stop 100% of shootings, and that (4) shooting is the only way to utilize a CCW for defense. These things are all false.
1) Proper training can allow just about anyone to draw and fire two rounds to center of mass in one second. Many shooting classes get even novice students to this point very quickly.
2) Placing a gun in one's hand does not suddenly make it start firing. CCW holders are trained and highly responsible. They've undergone extensive background checks, fingerprinting, etc. We don't just start shooting at the first sign of trouble.
3) None of us is arguing that CCW would stop 100% of all crimes. Some CCW holders will flee. Others might fail in attempts to stop the shooting. What matters is that people have a RIGHT and a CHANCE to defend themselves. Whether they exercise that right is up to them.
4) CCWs are used for self-defense in many ways, including telling a would-be criminal that you're carrying, showing a would-be criminal that you're carrying, pointing the gun at a criminal to stop him or hold him until police arrive, firing a warning shot to ward off a criminal, or shooting a criminal. The ignorant public seems to think we all start shooting first and asking questions later. We are a logical, intelligent, and rational group of people, but we are labelled as "gun nuts" and "red necks" despite our diverse backgrounds.
tulsamal
Member
True enough. I taught at OU in Norman and RSC in Claremore. I would have been happy to have carried at the same time.
And I've been _trying_ to get a teaching job in primary or secondary schools around where I live. I have an OK teaching certificate but so far I didn't go to high school with anybody's kid sister or something. But if I was teaching high school, same thing, I would be happy to put my OK CCW to use. The law in OK needs to be changed! I've already written some letters and I'm planning to write some more.
Gregg
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I watched it last night. Paula Zahn was obviously leaning toward the antis' side. Cudos to the Texas lady. What was her name, something like Suzzane Hudd?
Beachmaster
Member
I would point out that even if a person with a concealed weapon didn't stop an attacker bent on mass murder, they probably could have saved their own life or the lives of some of those around them.
I'm sure if somebody in a classroom at VT had barricaded the door and defended their classroom against the attacker, lives would have been saved, even if the attack had continued on down the hall.
I'm sure if somebody in a classroom at VT had barricaded the door and defended their classroom against the attacker, lives would have been saved, even if the attack had continued on down the hall.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Suzanna Hupp is her name I believe, she is a great spokesman for our 2nd Amendment rights . She is one of those that had tremendous doings in getting CCW passed in Texas. She had a good reason, she was at the Luby's in Killeen and watched her parents get killed.
. She is one of those that had tremendous doings in getting CCW passed in Texas. She had a good reason, she was at the Luby's in Killeen and watched her parents get killed.Sam Adams
Member
Skibane
Correct. Also, those who pose such questions NEVER, EVER consider 3 other things:
1) Would the knowledge that other students and/or faculty were carrying have made the massacre less likely to have occurred in the first place? This is a variation on the question of "How many massacres take place at gun shows?"
2) Would the fact of someone shooting at the perpetrator of a massacre throw him off balance (even without any hits) - i.e. distract him from the defenseless, thereby giving them more time to escape and thereby saving lives? Even if a CCH/CHL holder draws, shoots and is then shot him/her self, other innocents would be able to escape who otherwise wouldn't have had the chance.
3) Would the fact of someone pulling out a gun to defend against such a massacre inspire others to resistance (throwing chairs, desks, books, rushing the nut while he was changing magazines, etc.), thereby shortening the time that a shooter had to murder defenseless people?
These questions are never asked, for 2 reasons. Primarily, those asking such questions are so ill-educated regarding self-defense that these questions never occur to them. Second, even if they know to ask, they are biased and know that the answers will be very "inconvenient" for their editorial masquerading as a factual story.
Correct. Also, those who pose such questions NEVER, EVER consider 3 other things:
1) Would the knowledge that other students and/or faculty were carrying have made the massacre less likely to have occurred in the first place? This is a variation on the question of "How many massacres take place at gun shows?"
2) Would the fact of someone shooting at the perpetrator of a massacre throw him off balance (even without any hits) - i.e. distract him from the defenseless, thereby giving them more time to escape and thereby saving lives? Even if a CCH/CHL holder draws, shoots and is then shot him/her self, other innocents would be able to escape who otherwise wouldn't have had the chance.
3) Would the fact of someone pulling out a gun to defend against such a massacre inspire others to resistance (throwing chairs, desks, books, rushing the nut while he was changing magazines, etc.), thereby shortening the time that a shooter had to murder defenseless people?
These questions are never asked, for 2 reasons. Primarily, those asking such questions are so ill-educated regarding self-defense that these questions never occur to them. Second, even if they know to ask, they are biased and know that the answers will be very "inconvenient" for their editorial masquerading as a factual story.
RealGun
Member
I don't believe a person like Cho would feel very powerful and punishing if he thought he was going up against potentially armed students and faculty. It is less a question of being able to stop him than whether the incident would have happened at all.
I don't buy the argument that any person bent on mass murder would consider whether or not the people were armed. That would make his/her choice a rational one, which it is not. Rather I think that if someone in that class room returned fire (even without hitting Cho) that he would have run away. The number would not be 33, it might be 2 or 4 instead.
crazed_ss
Member
I understand what you're saying, but I think evern though these people are committing irrational acts, they're complete thought process is not irrational. It's clear Cho wanted to make a statement and that's why he planned out this whole thing with the videos and pictures and everything.
He would have never gone on a rampage at a police station or shooting range as he'd be quickly stopped without making his statement.
Skibane
Member
Bingo.
"I may be crazy, but I'm NOT stupid!"
LawBot5000
Member
Crazy people occaisionally attack police stations because they arent rational or dont care that they will die. You will note that there has never been a massacre at a police station.* The killer shows up, wounds or kills a few people and is immediately turned into a collander.
*there have been several vicious fights at police stations when large groups of heavily armed people showed up and tried to kill them. See NYC Police Riots, Battle of Athens TN, etc. But never a massacre.
The moral is that people with guns get ambushed and have gun battles with their attackers. Sheep get massacred. Yes, gun battles are more violent than massacres because both sides are shooting. And it is a good thing.
*there have been several vicious fights at police stations when large groups of heavily armed people showed up and tried to kill them. See NYC Police Riots, Battle of Athens TN, etc. But never a massacre.
The moral is that people with guns get ambushed and have gun battles with their attackers. Sheep get massacred. Yes, gun battles are more violent than massacres because both sides are shooting. And it is a good thing.
romma
Member
Is there a link for this anywhere?
El Tejon
Member
Did not a crazy person attack a police station in Virginia?
I believe someone attacked a DEA office in DC or Maryland years ago as well.
I believe someone attacked a DEA office in DC or Maryland years ago as well.
Rev. DeadCorpse
Member
How far did they get? 2, maybe 3 shots off? Before being riddled with holes? As it should be everywhere. Police stations, engineering labs, daycare centers, and yes... college campus'.
Walking into a public place with murder on your mind should be one of the nastier ways to commit suicide. It shouldn't be a "free fire zone" for potato-heads like Cho.
Dr. Barbara Nash is even more interesting.
Hello oobray,
I read your letter to Dr. Barbara Nash (from University of Utah), and I commend you on challenging her garbage.
I just saw Dr. Nash being interviewed on the History Channel, and something didn't seem quite right about her. I looked her up to discover that...
It turns out that "Barbara" used to be "Bill".
Check this out:
http://qsaltlake.com/2005/12/feature.shtml
...and do a search for "Nash" on that page. Enlightening? Yikes. And he/she was spewing out garbage about guns on the news.
Hello oobray,
I read your letter to Dr. Barbara Nash (from University of Utah), and I commend you on challenging her garbage.
I just saw Dr. Nash being interviewed on the History Channel, and something didn't seem quite right about her. I looked her up to discover that...
It turns out that "Barbara" used to be "Bill".
Check this out:
http://qsaltlake.com/2005/12/feature.shtml
...and do a search for "Nash" on that page. Enlightening? Yikes. And he/she was spewing out garbage about guns on the news.
These questions are always biased.
They word the questions in a biased way trying to appear nuetral when asking for opinions. They then intend to re-enforce that legal guns would have been worse in thier story's details.
The question and desired image it invokes is of young presumably irresponsible "children" given guns to carry and to shoot on campus. They intentionaly give the image of all students armed. Like the difference would suddenly be drastic.
This ignores a few key laws already in place. Most handguns are purchased by those 21 and over, that is a federal requirement for FFLs. Concealed carry licenses ususaly require someone to be 21 to apply.
Assuming the student started college at 18 that means only those already in school for 3 years would even be able to carry. Even then only those who took it upon themselves to go out and get a permit, which would be a minority of them.
So the majority of the student body could not carry even if CCW was allowed.
It would primarily be students who have attended for 3+ years and older adults taking classes along with the faculty that would have the ability to carry.
Yet almost every single poll or news story is designed to give the impression that if allowed suddenly all freshmen would be bringing thier pistols to class.
This is CNN, want to take a guess on the intention?
They word the questions in a biased way trying to appear nuetral when asking for opinions. They then intend to re-enforce that legal guns would have been worse in thier story's details.
The question and desired image it invokes is of young presumably irresponsible "children" given guns to carry and to shoot on campus. They intentionaly give the image of all students armed. Like the difference would suddenly be drastic.
This ignores a few key laws already in place. Most handguns are purchased by those 21 and over, that is a federal requirement for FFLs. Concealed carry licenses ususaly require someone to be 21 to apply.
Assuming the student started college at 18 that means only those already in school for 3 years would even be able to carry. Even then only those who took it upon themselves to go out and get a permit, which would be a minority of them.
So the majority of the student body could not carry even if CCW was allowed.
It would primarily be students who have attended for 3+ years and older adults taking classes along with the faculty that would have the ability to carry.
Yet almost every single poll or news story is designed to give the impression that if allowed suddenly all freshmen would be bringing thier pistols to class.
This is CNN, want to take a guess on the intention?
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
After the shooting, I did what physicists do and estimated the number of people with a gun on campus if CCW holders were permitted to carry on campus.
I considered permit rates in Virginia, number of people on campus, number of people at least twenty-one years old, that people under 40 are less inclined to have a permit, likelihood of actually having a gun if allowed, etc.
I figured at least 20 people would have had a gun on the campus.
Did not have enough info to estimate how many of them would have been in the building.
I considered permit rates in Virginia, number of people on campus, number of people at least twenty-one years old, that people under 40 are less inclined to have a permit, likelihood of actually having a gun if allowed, etc.
I figured at least 20 people would have had a gun on the campus.
Did not have enough info to estimate how many of them would have been in the building.
- Status
Similar threads
