Glen Beck Hit it right on the nose.

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glock22

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
331
Location
Idaho
I caught the end of Glen beck today and he was said how people are blaming everyone and everything except the person that perpetrated this great tragedy at Virginia Tech. He is completely right, just watching the news for 5 minutes shows how no one is addressing the issue of the shooter just something terrible must have happened in his life to make him do the unthinkable act of being a handgun.
 
We have 32 people dead plus the shooter. What is to talk about? Everyone knows he was a wacho and he broke the law. Even worse, he killed people. The news people just want to do the blame game until something sticks. So far it has not stuck on the University President, VT Police Chief, or any law enforcement official. But of course, we all know it is Bush's fault. I plan on watching the second showing of his show.
 
Re:

This guy was going to do what he did regardless. It is inconceivable that anything the Police or administrators did that morning would have prevented loss of life.

The question is if one of the students or faculty had been carrying would they have been able to make a difference?

I am not advocating arming a bunch of college kids, but I was recently in college and on a college campus. We had no protection except from a few barney fife immitators that drove around the campus checking out the chix on campus walking around.

I am in full support of colege students 21 and over after being licensed to carry being able to. I am also in full support of more stringent licensing for concealed carry. It should atleast involve a written test and basic accuracy test.

I am in Florida and took it upon myself to train and research, but all I needed for the carry permit was $$$ and passing a basic handgun safety class.

The more stringent licensing requirements would help to ensure those who obain the permit would be less likely to screw up in the real world, thus making all of us who carry responsibly look better.

Just my .02.

May the shooter rot in hell and the victims bask in the light of the Lord.

SC
 
The more stringent licensing requirements would help to ensure those who obain the permit would be less likely to screw up in the real world, thus making all of us who carry responsibly look better.
Click to expand...

Based on what?

Statistically, aren't CCW holders less likely screw up in the real world than the general public?

I hate this kind of thinking because it gives credence to the idea that a safety class or some minimum number of hours behind a firearm is going to drastically reduce the chances of an accident or crime. What utter garbage. People who want to be safe will be safe, with or without mandated fluff. And people who take it won't be safe if they don't listen and don't care.

It's feel good legislation for the sheeple, pure and simple.
 
It would be a pretty boring news cycle if blame was laid on the shooter, then the story dropped.

Frenzied, cheesed-off people become glued to news broadcasts and publications, generating higher ratings, and subsequently, revenue. News organizations have to keep the pot stirred, you know.

Gotta make a buck, somehow.
 
SaltwaterCowboy,

First, welcome to THR.

Second, CCW holders don't have any higher accident rates in states with no or minimal requirements for granting permits than those states adjacent to them that have one and two day courses and proficiency tests.

It’s not uncommon to make the assumption that training equates to a beneficial effect when it comes to issuing carry permits, but it’s just not borne out in the data collected by the CDC and DOJ. Extensive training requirements do not result in lower accidental shooting rates even though it would seem "logical" that it would.
 
The more stringent licensing requirements ...
Click to expand...

Hello? Schools and Universities are GUN FREE ZONES. You are not supposed to pack, licensed or not. That's what needs to be changed - the stupid GUN FREE ZONE idiocy.
 
I will say this: the shooter was long gone by the time anyone got to him for help. And he is repsponsible for his actions.

That said most of these people (mass shooters) are bullied when they are young (now I was bullied until about 8th grade as well, and never have been violent, etc.) and he was seriously mentally disturbed. I liken it to a rabid dog, he had to be put down, but in a way it is sad that he didn't recieve mental treatment earlier, and if assessed to be untreatable sent to an institution.

Also, even though it is no excuse, we do need to talk to our kids about the seriousness of the mistreatment of their peers. Murders have been occuring at the hands of those who were picked on when they were younger as long as this has been studied (there were incidents that happened as far back as the 50s that I have seen accounts of in my studies, I am studying political science (pre-law)). If we were to treat each other better when we were younger a sick dog like this kid may have been in mental health treatment instead of shooting up the school. That being said, many kids are picked on and very few lash out, but maybe some of this may be able to be prevented. I'm just saying this kid was obviously sick, and personally I don't believe in holding hatred in my heart, and I do believe he is responsible but it doesn't stop the possibility that this may have been prevented.

Just my opinion, and I do agree that Glenn Beck went way too far, but usually there is some truth on both sides of the debate. I know this post will bring on probably many posts that heavily disagree with me, and I just want to say I respect all of your opinions and am looking forward to discussing this issue with all of you.
 
HEY! A fellow Sarasota denizen!

First of all, welcome!

I disagree with the "more stringent requirements" clause you introduce as far as CCW. To me, the fact that we have to have state permits that curtail our 2A rights as soon as we leave the political boundaries of the state where we receive our mail is inexcusable. The 2A should be unrestricted.

However, that is not soon to be the case - if ever. So, I have to agree with you on the idea that a valid CCW holder should be legally allowed to keep and carry firearms on campus. If this had been the case, I suspect that fewer people might have been murdered by this psychopath.
 
errrrr, don't forget that the aftermath of the event has people screaming for guns (pro and anti) and WE are all glued to the tube... The more ANTI the converage, the more we are glued....

Advertising revenues increase...
 
My only fear about carrying on campus would be this: picture you hear shots fired down the hall from two guns, or maybe more. Now someone comes over to your classroom armed, what do you do? they could be the shooter or they could be someone trying to help defend others fearing their could be multiple shooters (like at Columbine). Or this scenarion, you hear shots fired, then when you look in the direction of the shot you see two students shooting at each other? Or what if more than two students are involved in the firefight? who do you shoot?

And remember, not that many people have CCW permits (and they currently can't carry them to school) where I go to school (MA) and most classrooms will not have someone too defend it. So if you try to save other students you may have to try to move to another classroom, you see someone else walking down the hallway armed, how do you know if they are the aggressor?

The best defense would be plenty of armed officers around the campus, I feel.

This is not to knock CCW permits, but in certain situations they may result in confusion and masses of bullets flying everywhere at anyone who is armed. They are best, I feel, for the much more common occurance when someone tries to mug you etc.
 
This is not to knock CCW permits, but in certain situations they may result in confusion and masses of bullets flying everywhere at anyone who is armed.
Click to expand...

As opposed to confusion and masses of bullets while a man stands on a pile of bodies shooting everyone around him?

Sorry I have to disagree with your position as this is right back to the "crossfire" argument. Sure someone -might- get hit mistakenly in a crossfire but we currently have 30+ bodies to show us what DOES happen when there isn't any return fire.
 
It seems to me that if you're in a class room and someone starts shooting at students, that carefull observation might show the difference in some one going down a hall with a gun in hand, and some one fireing at students in a class room. One of the first things I learned when I started shooting was know your target. You should have common sense and good judgement before you carry a gun. Of course I'm old and maybe that idea has gone out of fashion now.
 
I see what your saying, but not everyone has been in a firefight, they may not recognize the target of someone walking down the hall; or in the heat of the moment want to get the drop before they recieve fire. If there were alot of armed people the firefight could have gone on non-stop until there was a large police presence to stop it. It could have a chain reaction where people are freaking out and simply unloading on anyone they see firing. It could have also resulted in a high body count, but probably a lower one. But I still think that a uniformed officer, as well as having the professors be allowed to carry, would have been able to stop it with the lowest count. I know that at the school I attend there is an armed officer at the desk of every dorm, and officers, both plain clothes and uniformed visable within every hall. And they all have weapons more powerful than pistols in their cars (being a state university campus we have what is actually a wing of the state troopers on campus) either shotguns or ARs. I think this, beefed up more, would result in the lowest body count. Also the officers seem (at least in my experience) to have built up a good relationship with the students (I know one gaurd who greets me and all the other students when they arrive, and by helping students who are drinking, even if they are underage, get back to their dorms safely they have instilled that they are there to protect us from the real serious stuff) and built up their trust.
 
correction of typo, visable from every hall (and by hall I mean building) and there is at least a team of two around in these areas.
 
I heard an intersting take on the calls for more gun control. Choosing the gun to focus on is jsut a knee jerk reaction, so we could also go with any of these knee jerk reactions, each as silly as the next--

*ban guns, then this won't happen again
*ban Koreans, then this won't happen again
*ban Virginia Tech, then this won't happen again
*ban chains, then this won't happen again
*ban girlfriends, then this won't happen again
*ban NBC, then this won't happen again
 
The weirdest nut case was the woman who called for the police to just execute anyone even suspected of owning a gun. She said that was the only way to prevent violence and killing. Don't you just love the bloodthirstiness of the non-violent?

Jim
 
No, Dark Harvest far from it. I don't feel they have the right to search you w/o a warrant, or interfere with you in any other way unless you committ a crime. Hell, I'm anti-gun control, against the laws against prostitution, against the war on drugs (although of course intoxication and guns don't mix), against the patriot act, against almost any abridgement on freedom of speech, against police surveying private property in any way w/o a warrant, etc. I just don't feel that having them present in a crowded public place is wrong, so long as they don't hassle anyone. I feel that is far from a police state.
 
and to clarify the only abridgenment of freedom of speech should be yelling fire in a crowded theater type of thing.
 
Sure someone -might- get hit mistakenly in a crossfire but we currently have 30+ bodies to show us what DOES happen when there isn't any return fire.
Click to expand...

Yup. Makes sense to me.
Seems to me the only time these things end up with a relatively low body count is when someone already on scene stops the shooter early.

If that's a cop, great. If it's "just folks" - also great.

-K
 
I hear ya on restrictions etc. Even though stats may not agree, I do not think it is a bad thing for people who carry a gun to hve to do more than what is going on now.

My .02.

Everything I have learned all reverts back to training and practice. Most of which did not involve a range or firing the weapon.

Thanks for the warm welcome. I look forward to throwing in my newbie contents where applicable.

JM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top