<!--quoteo(post=1621359:date=Apr 16 2007, 03:45 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Apr 16 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]1621359[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It stops more firearms being available?
I'll have to wait to see how old the person who did the shooting in this was, but look at Columbine. Teenagers, under 21, had guns. What did your lax gun laws do? Nothing. They still obtained them from people who brought the guns legally. However, with stricter gun laws they probably wouldn't of been able to get their firearms. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, because I'm sure that would make it much harder to find guns. I mean, now that they've outlawed drugs, those are IMPOSSIBLE to get.
Seriously, taking away our Second Ammendment rights would do nothing to stop determined people from getting guns. And even if it did, they would just find other ways to kill people, like building bombs.
<!--quoteo(post=1621362:date=Apr 16 2007, 07:30 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Apr 16 2007, 07:30 PM) [snapback]1621362[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> new info: shooter had an automatic weapon, and is an asian male it seems the police did a pathetic job here. if you watch the cell phone video you see them standing around behind trees as 30 shots are fired off in the distance... it seems they prefer unarmed students deal with the gunman than take any risk wrinkling their new flak jackets. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
seriously... I really want to know what proceedure is in a case like this. I get the impression that this was at least partially avoidable. There was considerable time passing between each gunshot too so had they converged on that possition as quickly as possible I imagine some lives could've been saved.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1621362:date=Apr 16 2007, 07:30 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Apr 16 2007, 07:30 PM) [snapback]1621362[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> new info: shooter had an automatic weapon, and is an asian male it seems the police did a pathetic job here. if you watch the cell phone video you see them standing around behind trees as 30 shots are fired off in the distance... it seems they prefer unarmed students deal with the gunman than take any risk wrinkling their new flak jackets. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow That was a typical civilian "i dont know anything except for what I see on TV" statement.
When you dont know exactly where the shots are coming from, how many suspects there are, or how what type of weapons they have you dont just go rushing in all over the place rambo style.
You pull up on scene, people are running and screaming everywhere most likely panicing, and many of them them simply running away b/c they hear shots fired and they see others running away. Most of them probably are just trying to get the heck out of the area. Its unlikely a police officer is going to be able to just grab someone who will be like.
"Oh yea, There is one asian guy wearing a white shirt blue jeans, a baseball hat, he's about 5 foot seven inches, 145 pounds, armed with 9mm pistol, yea hes over on the second floor of building A in room 203."
More likely you will get "OMG someone said there is someone shooting over there i dont knoww where I just heard screaming and gunshots so I ran."
Gunshots sounding off of other buildings in an urban area it can be hard to locate where they are coming from.
911 dispatchers are probably getting the most basic of information from people trying to call in. And from expirience, most people who call 911 in a panic or severe emergency either dont know where they are, where the exact emergency is, dont want to ID themselves, or say something basic like. " Im at the college. Someone is shooting I dont know where.", they get disconnected or hang up.
Dispatchers have to deal with these types of reporting problems for even stupid little things like an animal complaint, or a small fight, so I can imagine a massive shooting to be no better. Then the dispatchers have to relay what they can to the police officers on scene.
In a situation where u have very little intel you first wait until you get more units or resources. If the gunman comes out out shooting or if an officer can see where he is and he can safely engage the suspect without risking the lives of other civilians who might be running all around the place then they would most likely act if it is safe to do so.
Bad guys dont have to play by the rules and account for where every bullet they fire goes. Police do.
If not, your going to set up a peremeter, contain the situation, and try to get as much intel on who, what, and where as possible. Then you can proceed in with a plan, with backup and the nessicary resources to combat the threat.
Runnig in like john rambo is the equivalant of the noob cs players who go running off and do their own thing in a classic NS game. No organization, no communication, if you get in trouble you may be cut off.
An active shooter barricaded in a building like this probably requires to call out your tactical team, whether it be SWAT, SRT, QRT, whatever it may be called. Your tac team just doesnt run in guns a blazing. Everyone seems to have this vision of swat teams storming some building with flashbangs and all that.
SWAT operations are very deliberate, very planned, and very organized. That doesnt neccisarily mean slow, but it means you go in when your ready and when you have neough manpower on scene to handle what may still be an unknown situation other than you hear shots fired.
Running into a situation with very little intel and support only leads to the officer becoming another casualty. And whos going to come to rescue the rescuers? no one.
<!--quoteo(post=1621364:date=Apr 17 2007, 01:06 AM:name=Mantrid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mantrid @ Apr 17 2007, 01:06 AM) [snapback]1621364[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Seriously, taking away our Second Ammendment rights would do nothing to stop determined people from getting guns. And even if it did, they would just find other ways to kill people, like building bombs. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... That happened at Columbine! Through exploiting your rights! God bless America!
What the ###### did your Second Amendment do then? Help. What'd it do in this situation? Probably not help if Juice is right about him using an automatic. So should you legalise people carrying automatic rifles around with them to stop other people with automatic rifles? Of course the ###### not.
I'm sure glad Virginia state doesn't allow firearms on campus....
oh wait. I guess, as it turns out, if you're willing to break the law by murdering someone, breaking another law by bringing a gun on campus to do it isn't going to phase you even a little.
Be careful when clicking this link, there be irony here.
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." - VTech Spokemasn Larry Hincker
Gun control is the answer! At least according to the guy who stabbed more than 30 people outside a train station in Berlin. Must have been using one of those full auto assault knives...
Sarcasm aside, So far, that I know of, it never occured to anyone in a position of power that
<i>Hey, if the university allowed students who are trained and legally allowed by the state to carry firearms could carry them on campus too, someone, ANYONE, might have put a stop to this before more than 30 people died.</i>
Instead, initial reaction is almost universally "we clearly need stricter gun laws to prevent this"
The media isn't helping either. From initial indications, the firearms used were pistols. However, according to Fox different times, the shooter was using "Automatic Weapons", "High Power Weapons", "Capable of holding 19 rounds which the average shooter could empty in 3 or 4 seconds and reload in 2. Let me repeat, an AVERAGE shooter, not a good one".
When did what we believe to be news organizations turn into tabloids that are willing to sensationalize everything and blurt out the first RUMINT they hear without any sort of calm, rational coverage and analysis? If you're not sure, tell them you're not sure, don't guess, blurt out whatever rumors come in as they come in, and scare people.
What are they thinking? The same thing democrats are thinking, the same thing republicans are thinking, the same thing the brady campaign is thinking, and the NRA, and everyone else with an opinion they'd like to share -- this "unfortunate tragedy" is an excellent opportunity for them to pimp their agenda, say "I told you so", and generally exploit and milk what happened to it's fullest to draw attention to whatever message they'd like to send. A fine race...
The long routine reports of soldiers being killed overseas will temporarily be replaced by heated discussion over the next few weeks over what should be done to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future. Just like every other school shooting that's ever happened ever. Just like what will happen the next time it happens. There will be a new run of gun control bills and general handwaving so that our leaders we look to in times of crisis don't appear to be as helpless as they in fact are. Try as they might, all the power as has been bestowed upon them is not nearly enough to thwart a single insane person wiling to do insane things... but those who are able will do the only thing they can do - look busy trying. At least until the news shifts again to "celebrities do the darndest things"
I dunno... it's depressing and I'm digressing. Not trying to start a heated debate, those were just the few observations I wished to share on the matter.
fair enough - though I think you're blowing what he said way out of proportion. He wasn't suggesting they run in there "rambo cs noob style" it did however seem like they had a pretty vague "perimeter" around a giant building.
You can call this "typical civilian response" as well if you like:
If they spend 20 minutes at the scene and still dont have verification of the exact location of the perp (who obviously is moving around the building anyway) and they don't know what weapons he has or whatever other "intel" they require are they seriously just going to sit back and wait while gunshots are ringing out all the while?
if the answer is yes there's either something I'm missing or the police force operates in a way that seems contrary to their first response nature.
Obviously we're not talking about a 20 minute window however, it was more like a couple of minutes. They did however already have the building surrounded so you have to wonder how long they knew he was in there. I then have to wonder just how much time they can afford to take in a situation like this.
I'm mostly put off by the fact that there was already 2 people (I think 2) dead on campus earlier in the day and then this happened afterwards.
<!--quoteo(post=1621369:date=Apr 17 2007, 01:59 AM:name=Burncycle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Burncycle @ Apr 17 2007, 01:59 AM) [snapback]1621369[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sure glad Virginia state doesn't allow firearms on campus....
oh wait. I guess, as it turns out, if you're willing to break the law by murdering someone, breaking another law by bringing a gun on campus to do it isn't going to phase you even a little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about if you just stop giving out guns to people? Sure, they can obtain them illegally, they may even resort to another method of murder, but it helps prevent them as much as you can.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited April 2007
-to enForcer
When you can figure out where he is, assuming you cant visually see him then you can form a plan and move in. Im not quite sure what you mean by 20 minuets later.
under a situation like this i dont think it would take that long to find out after units get on scene in the immediate area. I dont know how much time has passed between officers arriving on scene and when that cell phone video was recorded.
Then when you have enough officers for a containment permeter and enough to move inside to clear the building and locate the suspect you can go in.
As they are are right this very second saying on the news as they show that video, they are saying they cannot tell who is shooting, the gunman, the police, or both. Its possible there are police units already engaging the suspect when this video was recorded.
just because the student filming with his cell phone and the officers in the cell phone video dont happen to be the ones directly in front of the supect doesnt mean they are just standing around with their thumbs up their ###### "trying to not wrinkle their flak jackets".
There were police everywhere, securing parts of the campus to form a perimeter or moving trying to secure new areas or locate and engage the suspects.
I utterly fail to understand the logic of "If everyone had guns, we'd be safer from people with guns."
God I hate americans sometimes. All having a gun means is that you've upped the ante. Shooters that are going to break the law are going to know that everyone will have a gun and he'll come prepared with bigger guns, armor, grenades and what have you.
Ban handguns.
Yes, for a while there would be an imbalance between handgun owners, skewed towards the illegal end of the scale, but eventually they'd filter out of the system. Handguns exist for no reason other than killing humans. You don't hunt with them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kittamaru+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kittamaru)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->YOU FAIL! Banning firearms from LEGITIMATE citizens does nothing!
Actually, it does. It means those who get their weapons illegaly can now SAFELY assault and raid houses without fear of reprisal! I like the fact that, should someone break into my house with a gun, I can put a baseball sized hole in his leg with my 1911 Colt .45 and, if he keeps moving, do the same to his chest. He's on MY land, in MY house, threatening MY family. He's DEAD. period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Typical american kneejerk reaction. If someone breaks into your house with a gun and the intent to kill, you're going to be dead on the floor before you can think to reach for your key to your gun locker. Because that's where all responsible gun owners keep their guns right?
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1621372:date=Apr 16 2007, 06:13 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Apr 16 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]1621372[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How about if you just stop giving out guns to people? Sure, they can obtain them illegally, they may even resort to another method of murder, but it helps prevent them as much as you can. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd put my money down on most incidents like this happen with illegal firearms, so either way it doesn't help.
as some one from the great state of va, who has a few buddies in blacksburg, all of whom as far as i know who are ok. Let me say that first of all the blacks burg police department is, in my opinion of course, NOT supposed to have to deal with this sort of thing. the town with students is 33 thousand, that means that there are perhaps 10 thousand full time residents. the city only boasts housing for 13k.
If you are going to criticize to blacksburg police, you may as well go ahead an point to that the building in question is between the corps of cadets barracks and their drill field.
Which, of course i my way of point out that that's really stupid. the cops really aren't prepared for the situation, particularly that he starts executing students.
I can't blame them at all.
Some idiot with a gun? yeah.
As to gun control, as every one keeps pointing out, great idea. Frankly if you are willing to shoot 30 odd innocent people, i, for one, don't think the legality of your weapon is going to make a whole lot of difference. and while i understand the idea behind bringing it up, i think that the discussion will make little headway.
in closing, why would any one shoot 40+ innocent people?
The problem when carrying a gun is that if it's there, you're more likely to use it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Who here can say that in the heat of the moment, when you're anger is tip-top, you for sure, absolutely, would never pull that gun out and start shooting if you had it?
I know there've been some times in my life when I was so enraged I lost track of a few seconds of my life- not enough time to reach the person I was mad at, or if so not enough time to do anything harmful. But surely if I'd had a gun and managed to pull it, I may be in jail right now.
Not to say that I'm some kinda raging psycho-path - getting angry is part of being a human. But, just like how you won't be tempted to eat those candy bars if you don't buy them, you'll never shoot someone if you never carry a weapon.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
As far as this topic is heading, we have had gun control debates many a time over the course of the forums history, usually they end up with people enraged at each other, which then leads to the inevitable flame fest and relationships are destroyed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> oh and the topic gets locked.
Both pro and anti gun control sides can have very reasonable points to make and both sides can bring up all the statistics they want to support their side.
A lot of the comments people have made about gun control seem very opinionated or over encompassing. Just because you feel that way doesn’t mean someone else does. Im not saying Im not guilty of it either.
Anyhoo I think we have kinda gone off the topic.
So with that, my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims families.
I vote to just create a topic in the discussion forum if you want to debate gun control there. B/c just from going by past expirience this thread is only going to go downhill from here if this continues.
<!--quoteo(post=1621390:date=Apr 17 2007, 04:17 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Apr 17 2007, 04:17 AM) [snapback]1621390[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I know there've been some times in my life when I was so enraged I lost track of a few seconds of my life- not enough time to reach the person I was mad at, or if so not enough time to do anything harmful. But surely if I'd had a gun and managed to pull it, I may be in jail right now.
Not to say that I'm some kinda raging psycho-path - getting angry is part of being a human. But, just like how you won't be tempted to eat those candy bars if you don't buy them, you'll never shoot someone if you never carry a weapon. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To add to that, you could find countries with stricter firearms laws to have more homocides by stabbing? As quite obviously knives, bottles etc. are much more widely available. Incidentally there is a different psychology between standing back and pulling a trigger from distance and point black stabbing someone. The main difference being a lot cleaner and easier to pull a trigger will make it more attractive to someone in the heat of the moment to pull a gun out.
America may well keep their relaxed gun law although I'm sure when you see someone in town waving a gun around you won't be as relaxed as you would be knowing you could make it possible to change a law and know you don't risk the high probability of being shot on your way to the shop in the morning <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
EDIT:
Something that's come to my attention from a discussion in IRC, <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> (04:09:01) (`traceur) tbh i kinda place some of the blame on the number of deaths on the victims (04:09:18) (`traceur) he had a beretta 9mm pistol from what i've heard, and he shot 30+ people (04:09:35) (`traceur) that means he had to reload more than once <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Traceur is pro-gun and believes in the relaxed laws and he blames the victims for getting shot? Make your own mind up about those that will protect their precious gun law over preventing law obiding people from being murdered. Although if you are a law obiding citizen with a firearm, you will have no problem obtaining a license and practicing your shooting on a firing range using the same firearms laws of those countries who are much stricter.
<!--quoteo(post=1621367:date=Apr 16 2007, 08:44 PM:name=CplDavis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CplDavis @ Apr 16 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]1621367[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> wow That was a typical civilian "i dont know anything except for what I see on TV" statement. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1621373:date=Apr 16 2007, 09:24 PM:name=CplDavis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CplDavis @ Apr 16 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]1621373[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Then when you have enough officers for a containment permeter and enough to move inside to clear the building and locate the suspect you can go in. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Active shooter" policy for law enforcement ACTUALLY demands that once you have at least 3 officers, you move in immediately and engage the shooter. It applies in a situation like this when the shooter has access to additional victims and perceived motivation to pursue them. This is discussed in school shooting literature for law enforcement as well as in special training seminars.
"The article further reported that street officers were increasingly being armed with rifles, and issued heavy body armor and ballistic helmets, items traditionally associated with SWAT units. The idea is to train and equip street officers to make a rapid response to so-called active-shooter situations. In these situations, it was no longer acceptable to simply set up a perimeter, wait for SWAT, and prevent an escape of the killer(s)."
It did seem odd that they would just yell "shots fired" and chillax outside while the murderer rampages on inside.
<!--quoteo(post=1621352:date=Apr 16 2007, 11:09 PM:name=Kittamaru)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kittamaru @ Apr 16 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1621352[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> YOU FAIL! Banning firearms from LEGITIMATE citizens does nothing!
Actually, it does. It means those who get their weapons illegaly can now SAFELY assault and raid houses without fear of reprisal! I like the fact that, should someone break into my house with a gun, I can put a baseball sized hole in his leg with my 1911 Colt .45 and, if he keeps moving, do the same to his chest. He's on MY land, in MY house, threatening MY family. He's DEAD. period.
Ban guns, and all the "law abiding" citizens are now helpless... remember, this happened in the United Kingdom... worst mistake they ever made! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guess why so many people own weapons illegaly... Because there are soo many available, that someone could simply buy two and then give one to his 16 year old boy. I seriously think that the whole US weapon debate is just hilarious. Every nutjob over there own a gun, which of course lends the good citicens to believe, that they need guns to protect themselve from these nutjobs, while the actual reason that most nutjobs have guns, is the fact that weapons are easily accesible because the good citisens need to be able to purchase guns to protect them from the nutjobs. We call this kind of situation "Teufelskreis" which roughly translates to "devils circle".
Btw: What makes you believe, that you actually wake up right in time to shoot the robber/thief? And what makes you believe, that shooting him is just that easy? As you are certainly aware of: Every nutjob has a gun, including said thief. He could just easily shoot you and he will most likely will, cause he knows that everyone in the house is a thread to him, because guns are commonly found in american households. The fact that you most likely lack proper training does also not contribute to your overall performance with a gun.
You are woken up by loud noises, grab your gun and go down into the kitchen. First of all you are most likely not 100% awake cause most burglars strike during your sleeping time. Secondly its is unlikely that you manage to get up, grab your gun, load it and then silently move into the kitchen. It is also quite natural to turn on the lights in your own house, which means that you are coming from the light having to stare and aim into the dark, which constricted lences. Then there is of course the psychological barrier when it comes to shooting a real living person instead of a training target.
Overall I would say, if the thief/robber is armed as well and you have not specifically trained such situations you are pretty much screwed. In order to give you the upper hand it might be a good idea to buy night vision goggles as long as you remeber tp NOT turn the lights on. A reasonable assault weapon or even better a pdw might come in handy aswell, so you better stock up onto something with at least 30 bullets per mag and a reflex-sight (forget the fancy laster attachments, they blow) A heavy assault suit, featuring either full boy kevlar or nomax might be a good idea as well, but unless you sleep in it it will be hard to put it on just in time.
Just face it: Assuming you are both equally equipped you are still screwed, because you have just woken up 5 minutes ago and are not yet fully operational where the robber should be fully awake.
Sadly, I dont think anything could have been done to prevent this. AS both sides of the gun control have pointed out, even a ban would not have prevented him from getting a gun, only made it more difficult, and arming everyone would have just forced him to use bigger guns. As for other preventive tactics, such as guards and metal detectors have a work great if the person wants to get out alive. But since he was going to kill im self, he would have been ready for the gaurds, so they would have been killed, and with out guards metal detectors are useless. And it does not take long to shoot people, so even with the police on campus, by the time they got there it was all over. Short of having the military present guarding each building on every campus, there is no definate way to stop a suicidal gunman
<!--quoteo(post=1621315:date=Apr 16 2007, 02:47 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Apr 16 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]1621315[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> no, there is not much that can be done to prevent this type of event.
Sure, there are ways, but they are so invasive/expensive that they are no longer feasible.
[...]
sigh. These types of situations can only be prevented by catching them before they happen. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you are smarter than the news stations' "experts". That is very true as sad as that is.
I think it's more that we stop treating each other like people. When you deny yourself and demonize all others it's not that hard to go on a killing rampage.
What about simply denieing civilians the right to bear and purchase arms?
You know, a massacre is usually extremely hard to pull off, when all you have is a sword instead of a 900rpm assault rifle with a drum-mag of 100 rounds capacity. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would have been ended real fast if another student had a gun if you put it that way, he wanted to kill so he would of found a gun regardless of laws. Europe is a good example, look at their nice high crime rate and how the police hassle everyone with a pocket knife. Here in the US only places you cant really have a gun is on government ground (schools and such), thus making your want to rob something should be lower knowing that the store clerk might be packing a mossberg under the table when you turn to run.
<!--quoteo(post=1621369:date=Apr 17 2007, 02:59 AM:name=Burncycle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Burncycle @ Apr 17 2007, 02:59 AM) [snapback]1621369[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Gun control is the answer! At least according to the guy who stabbed more than 30 people outside a train station in Berlin. Must have been using one of those full auto assault knives... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just imagine he had a pistol or even worse a fully automatic assault rifle.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Eine Jugendkammer des Berliner Landgerichts verurteilte den 17-Jährigen am Freitag wegen versuchten Totschlags in 33 Fällen sowie gefährlicher Körperverletzung.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/berlin_aid_51532.html" target="_blank">http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/berlin_aid_51532.html</a>
He has been convicted for ATTEMPTED manslaughter. Meaning that although alot of people got injured he did not manage to kill a single one. If he had a firearm this would have much likely ended up with about 40-50 dead!
To bring up some numbers:
There have been apperantly 19 school massacres in the last 10 years in the USA.
There are also 200 MILLION [200.000.000] registered firearms in the USA. I am not shure, how big your population is, but according the wiki it's around 300 MILLION [300.000.000]. Add the estimated number of illigal, unregistered weapons and you have 2 guns for every adult american.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1621399:date=Apr 17 2007, 12:38 AM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Apr 17 2007, 12:38 AM) [snapback]1621399[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> "Active shooter" policy for law enforcement ACTUALLY demands that once you have at least 3 officers, you move in immediately and engage the shooter. It applies in a situation like this when the shooter has access to additional victims and perceived motivation to pursue them. This is discussed in school shooting literature for law enforcement as well as in special training seminars. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also goes on to qoute
"noted this approach is not without controversy. Apparently, many agencies have not implemented the training due to the cost of training, and equipping individual officers with new weapons and armor. In a nation that annually spends millions of dollars protecting school age students from fires in schools, very little is spent training and equipping police officers for Immediate Action Rapid Deployment for their protection. There has not been a single death in an American school due to fire in over 25 years. As a glaring comparison, during calendar years 1999 to 2005, over 200 children have been murdered in American schools. (These fire/shooting statistical comparisons were originally generated by Dave Grossman, authority on school shootings and author of "Killology.")"
I think I have a little expirience here considering im ACTUALLY a police officer.. and not just google searching random topics off the internet.
policy for these situations are not broadly set and defined as you may believe based of fof this wiki article, and every departments response policy will vary. Active shooter responses can be very different based on the department. In my previous post i referred to an "active shooter" specificially for what it is, a suspect firing a weapon, I wasnt referring to any policy that may have the same name. Im not familiar with the VA tech police Department but something tells me that due to their small size of only 30 some officers they dont get the funding to send their officers to this type of specialised training.
I think you misunderstood me earlier. Getting officers on scene to sending others into the building in teams doesnt take some huge amount of time to do. It can be done within minuets or even seconds, as soon everyone shows up. Which in this case would be pretty fast imo considering there were already units from multiple jurisdictions looking for the shooter from the previous incident.
That is why everything can be so varied between differnt departments. Imagine a school shooting in a heavily populated city where you have more officers and a quick response time vs a smaller college in the country where you have only a couple officers working in the town or maybe a couple state police 40 minuets away. You cant impliment some broad policy across the entire board of law enforcement. Everything must be done based around the resources and capibilities of the responding dept.
If this incident happened where I work (we dont have a college but we have a large civic center) First units would get on scene, response time in my area is very fast. Several officers would be in area within 2 min. They would then begin searching area for suspects. Our dept has patrol carbines that can be utiilsed in some of the cars. Others would form up on outside of building or head in to search for suspects.
As for heavyier weapons and armour and helmet for all patrol officers, i wish we did. Maybe you guys could come over and help convince the City Council and taxpayers to give us the funding for them. lol
As for the video, we still dont know who was shooting, the gunman, or the police or both. Its entirely possible police units were already engaging the suspect when that video was taken. We wont know till they release more info.
In anycase we cant hear what was happening on the police radios etc. But just b/c we see some offiers standing behind cover desont mean they arnt doing anything.
If i want to critize anything that happened with the college and emergency response today is why there wasnt a warning to lock down the campus after the first shooint incident happened and police were looking for the gunman then.
secondly... Faskalia, about the burlgar in your house
<!--quoteo(post=1621429:date=Apr 17 2007, 09:27 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Apr 17 2007, 09:27 AM) [snapback]1621429[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Would have been ended real fast if another student had a gun if you put it that way, he wanted to kill so he would of found a gun regardless of laws. Europe is a good example, look at their nice high crime rate and how the police hassle everyone with a pocket knife. Here in the US only places you cant really have a gun is on government ground (schools and such), thus making your want to rob something should be lower knowing that the store clerk might be packing a mossberg under the table when you turn to run. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if I wanted to rob a store in the USA, I would just shoot the clerk straight ahead, cause I know that he is most likely packing a gun under his desk and thus posing a thread to myself. Speaking of europe: I have yet to actually see a police officers hasseling people because they are carrying pocket knifes with them. It is also a matter of fact, that the police does not just simply shoot you, cause you are reaching in your gloove compardment. The fact the a police officer can safely assume that 99,9% of people he is dealing with has no guns with them or near them also adds to the security of the citizens, cause you are much less likely to get shot when making a sudden move.
It really hurts my faith in mankind, when people just dont understand why some nations are handing out fully automatic weapons to their "normal" police officers while other nations reserve this kind of equipment for specialized units. Take england for example: I really liked the fact, that Bobbys did not have any firearms with them. Just batons and pepperspray. It made them really sympathic. Unfortunately this pretty much changed and you are seeing more and more armed officers (especially in London)
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1621435:date=Apr 17 2007, 03:52 AM:name=Faskalia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faskalia @ Apr 17 2007, 03:52 AM) [snapback]1621435[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well if I wanted to rob a store in the USA, I would just shoot the clerk straight ahead, cause I know that he is most likely packing a gun under his desk and thus posing a thread to myself. Speaking of europe: I have yet to actually see a police officers hasseling people because they are carrying pocket knifes with them. It is also a matter of fact, that the police does not just simply shoot you, cause you are reaching in your gloove compardment. The fact the a police officer can safely assume that 99,9% of people he is dealing with has no guns with them or near them also adds to the security of the citizens, cause you are much less likely to get shot when making a sudden move.
It really hurts my faith in mankind, when people just dont understand why some nations are handing out fully automatic weapons to their "normal" police officers while other nations reserve this kind of equipment for specialized units. Take england for example: I really liked the fact, that Bobbys did not have any firearms with them. Just batons and pepperspray. It made them really sympathic. Unfortunately this pretty much changed and you are seeing more and more armed officers (especially in London) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
have u ever traveled to europe? espeically france, germany, italy or spain?
They have assault weapons all over the place. As for the UK, The London metro police have a special firearms unit, which is called out several thousand times a year.
<!--quoteo(post=1621362:date=Apr 16 2007, 11:30 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Apr 16 2007, 11:30 PM) [snapback]1621362[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> it seems the police did a pathetic job here. if you watch the cell phone video you see them standing around behind trees as 30 shots are fired off in the distance... it seems they prefer unarmed students deal with the gunman than take any risk wrinkling their new flak jackets. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing I'm a bit confused about is how he managed to cause such damage with the second shooting. I thought there would be some patrolling and such when there's a gunman running around. Of course its a huge campus ( some 20000+ student uni?), but I'd still believe the authorities are quite careful after the school shootouts like Columbine.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1621438:date=Apr 17 2007, 04:08 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Apr 17 2007, 04:08 AM) [snapback]1621438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The thing I'm a bit confused about is how he managed to cause such damage with the second shooting. I thought there would be some patrolling and such when there's a gunman running around. Of course its a huge campus ( some 20000+ student uni?), but I'd still believe the authorities are quite careful after the school shootouts like Columbine. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was devious enough to barricade the doors shut at the two main entrances/exits. he chained htem shot i believe and locked them. Then he started shooting.
im sure there are other exits but in the mass panic that probably ensued who knows what people did. From the news it apears that many tried to lock themsleves in a room and try to hide.
<!--quoteo(post=1621437:date=Apr 17 2007, 10:03 AM:name=CplDavis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CplDavis @ Apr 17 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]1621437[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> have u ever traveled to europe? espeically france, germany, italy or spain?
They have assault weapons all over the place. As for the UK, The London metro police have a special firearms unit, which is called out several thousand times a year. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been to france spain italy swiss austria poland england scottland netherlands and belgium. And i live in germany. So yep, I have been to europe!
And I dont argue that the police has fully automatic weapons available, but you just wont see them that much during your everyday stroll through a ctiy. Of course you will see them at airports or military compounds or certain borderspassages but guess what: My last trip to London is about 6 months past (it was the some weekend the made a reall fuss about the liquid bombing incident). I went to frankfurt airport I did not see a single police officer armed with fully automatic weapons. Then I boarded a plane to London heathrow and saw a handfull of officers armed with fully automatic weapons. This is what I was just pointing out: A few years agao you did only see bobbies on the streets. Now you are seeing police crawling everywhere and they are all armed. This does not make me feel safe. All I feel is that there are now even more people around me who potentially could kill me from 50 meters away.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
edited April 2007
at least it wont be the police <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
where in germany do u live? I have friends from Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
but yea, there is definetly an arms race between the police and the bad guys,
most police in US went from .38+P to 9mm, to .40SW, now many are going to .45ACP and getting rifles to combat bad guys with body armour.
<!--quoteo(post=1621364:date=Apr 17 2007, 02:06 AM:name=Mantrid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mantrid @ Apr 17 2007, 02:06 AM) [snapback]1621364[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yeah, because I'm sure that would make it much harder to find guns. I mean, now that they've outlawed drugs, those are IMPOSSIBLE to get. Seriously, taking away our Second Amendment rights would do nothing to stop determined people from getting guns. And even if it did, they would just find other ways to kill people, like building bombs. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would at least stop the non-determined ones who just blow a fuse one day and notice they have a gun lying around without properly thinking of the consequences.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1621312:date=Apr 16 2007, 08:42 PM:name=Kittamaru)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kittamaru @ Apr 16 2007, 08:42 PM) [snapback]1621312[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Are you kidding? Our schools are PATHETIC.
My college has a security guard with a taser, batton, and mace[...] martial arts training, just basic self defense (I've talked with her) [...] Personally, I think all public schools should REQUIRE metal detectors, at least TWO stationed officers who are packing, and reinforced doors/walls that are at least bullet resistant.
Expensive, I know, but worth it for the safety of our student. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow... Our schools here in denmark doesn't even consider taking these measurements. Armed officers at a school? Unthinkable...
Comments
It stops more firearms being available?
I'll have to wait to see how old the person who did the shooting in this was, but look at Columbine. Teenagers, under 21, had guns. What did your lax gun laws do? Nothing. They still obtained them from people who brought the guns legally. However, with stricter gun laws they probably wouldn't of been able to get their firearms.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, because I'm sure that would make it much harder to find guns. I mean, now that they've outlawed drugs, those are IMPOSSIBLE to get.
Seriously, taking away our Second Ammendment rights would do nothing to stop determined people from getting guns. And even if it did, they would just find other ways to kill people, like building bombs.
new info: shooter had an automatic weapon, and is an asian male
it seems the police did a pathetic job here. if you watch the cell phone video you see them standing around behind trees as 30 shots are fired off in the distance... it seems they prefer unarmed students deal with the gunman than take any risk wrinkling their new flak jackets.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
seriously... I really want to know what proceedure is in a case like this. I get the impression that this was at least partially avoidable. There was considerable time passing between each gunshot too so had they converged on that possition as quickly as possible I imagine some lives could've been saved.
new info: shooter had an automatic weapon, and is an asian male
it seems the police did a pathetic job here. if you watch the cell phone video you see them standing around behind trees as 30 shots are fired off in the distance... it seems they prefer unarmed students deal with the gunman than take any risk wrinkling their new flak jackets.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow That was a typical civilian "i dont know anything except for what I see on TV" statement.
When you dont know exactly where the shots are coming from, how many suspects there are, or how what type of weapons they have you dont just go rushing in all over the place rambo style.
You pull up on scene, people are running and screaming everywhere most likely panicing, and many of them them simply running away b/c they hear shots fired and they see others running away. Most of them probably are just trying to get the heck out of the area. Its unlikely a police officer is going to be able to just grab someone who will be like.
"Oh yea, There is one asian guy wearing a white shirt blue jeans, a baseball hat, he's about 5 foot seven inches, 145 pounds, armed with 9mm pistol, yea hes over on the second floor of building A in room 203."
More likely you will get "OMG someone said there is someone shooting over there i dont knoww where I just heard screaming and gunshots so I ran."
Gunshots sounding off of other buildings in an urban area it can be hard to locate where they are coming from.
911 dispatchers are probably getting the most basic of information from people trying to call in. And from expirience, most people who call 911 in a panic or severe emergency either dont know where they are, where the exact emergency is, dont want to ID themselves, or say something basic like. " Im at the college. Someone is shooting I dont know where.", they get disconnected or hang up.
Dispatchers have to deal with these types of reporting problems for even stupid little things like an animal complaint, or a small fight, so I can imagine a massive shooting to be no better.
Then the dispatchers have to relay what they can to the police officers on scene.
In a situation where u have very little intel you first wait until you get more units or resources. If the gunman comes out out shooting or if an officer can see where he is and he can safely engage the suspect without risking the lives of other civilians who might be running all around the place then they would most likely act if it is safe to do so.
Bad guys dont have to play by the rules and account for where every bullet they fire goes. Police do.
If not, your going to set up a peremeter, contain the situation, and try to get as much intel on who, what, and where as possible. Then you can proceed in with a plan, with backup and the nessicary resources to combat the threat.
Runnig in like john rambo is the equivalant of the noob cs players who go running off and do their own thing in a classic NS game. No organization, no communication, if you get in trouble you may be cut off.
An active shooter barricaded in a building like this probably requires to call out your tactical team, whether it be SWAT, SRT, QRT, whatever it may be called. Your tac team just doesnt run in guns a blazing. Everyone seems to have this vision of swat teams storming some building with flashbangs and all that.
SWAT operations are very deliberate, very planned, and very organized. That doesnt neccisarily mean slow, but it means you go in when your ready and when you have neough manpower on scene to handle what may still be an unknown situation other than you hear shots fired.
Running into a situation with very little intel and support only leads to the officer becoming another casualty. And whos going to come to rescue the rescuers? no one.
Seriously, taking away our Second Ammendment rights would do nothing to stop determined people from getting guns. And even if it did, they would just find other ways to kill people, like building bombs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... That happened at Columbine! Through exploiting your rights! God bless America!
What the ###### did your Second Amendment do then? Help. What'd it do in this situation? Probably not help if Juice is right about him using an automatic. So should you legalise people carrying automatic rifles around with them to stop other people with automatic rifles? Of course the ###### not.
(This post makes no sense.)
oh wait. I guess, as it turns out, if you're willing to break the law by murdering someone, breaking another law by bringing a gun on campus to do it isn't going to phase you even a little.
Be careful when clicking this link, there be irony here.
<a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:P19IaTCRMxoJ:www.roanoke.com/news/nrv%255C21770.html+http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us" target="_blank">http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:P19Ia...;cd=1&gl=us</a>
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear." - VTech Spokemasn Larry Hincker
Gun control is the answer! At least according to the guy who stabbed more than 30 people outside a train station in Berlin. Must have been using one of those full auto assault knives...
Sarcasm aside, So far, that I know of, it never occured to anyone in a position of power that
<i>Hey, if the university allowed students who are trained and legally allowed by the state to carry firearms could carry them on campus too, someone, ANYONE, might have put a stop to this before more than 30 people died.</i>
Instead, initial reaction is almost universally "we clearly need stricter gun laws to prevent this"
The media isn't helping either. From initial indications, the firearms used were pistols. However, according to Fox different times, the shooter was using "Automatic Weapons", "High Power Weapons", "Capable of holding 19 rounds which the average shooter could empty in 3 or 4 seconds and reload in 2. Let me repeat, an AVERAGE shooter, not a good one".
When did what we believe to be news organizations turn into tabloids that are willing to sensationalize everything and blurt out the first RUMINT they hear without any sort of calm, rational coverage and analysis? If you're not sure, tell them you're not sure, don't guess, blurt out whatever rumors come in as they come in, and scare people.
What are they thinking? The same thing democrats are thinking, the same thing republicans are thinking, the same thing the brady campaign is thinking, and the NRA, and everyone else with an opinion they'd like to share -- this "unfortunate tragedy" is an excellent opportunity for them to pimp their agenda, say "I told you so", and generally exploit and milk what happened to it's fullest to draw attention to whatever message they'd like to send. A fine race...
The long routine reports of soldiers being killed overseas will temporarily be replaced by heated discussion over the next few weeks over what should be done to prevent this kind of thing happening in the future. Just like every other school shooting that's ever happened ever. Just like what will happen the next time it happens. There will be a new run of gun control bills and general handwaving so that our leaders we look to in times of crisis don't appear to be as helpless as they in fact are. Try as they might, all the power as has been bestowed upon them is not nearly enough to thwart a single insane person wiling to do insane things... but those who are able will do the only thing they can do - look busy trying. At least until the news shifts again to "celebrities do the darndest things"
I dunno... it's depressing and I'm digressing. Not trying to start a heated debate, those were just the few observations I wished to share on the matter.
fair enough - though I think you're blowing what he said way out of proportion. He wasn't suggesting they run in there "rambo cs noob style" it did however seem like they had a pretty vague "perimeter" around a giant building.
You can call this "typical civilian response" as well if you like:
If they spend 20 minutes at the scene and still dont have verification of the exact location of the perp (who obviously is moving around the building anyway) and they don't know what weapons he has or whatever other "intel" they require are they seriously just going to sit back and wait while gunshots are ringing out all the while?
if the answer is yes there's either something I'm missing or the police force operates in a way that seems contrary to their first response nature.
Obviously we're not talking about a 20 minute window however, it was more like a couple of minutes. They did however already have the building surrounded so you have to wonder how long they knew he was in there. I then have to wonder just how much time they can afford to take in a situation like this.
I'm mostly put off by the fact that there was already 2 people (I think 2) dead on campus earlier in the day and then this happened afterwards.
oh wait. I guess, as it turns out, if you're willing to break the law by murdering someone, breaking another law by bringing a gun on campus to do it isn't going to phase you even a little.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about if you just stop giving out guns to people? Sure, they can obtain them illegally, they may even resort to another method of murder, but it helps prevent them as much as you can.
When you can figure out where he is, assuming you cant visually see him then you can form a plan and move in.
Im not quite sure what you mean by 20 minuets later.
under a situation like this i dont think it would take that long to find out after units get on scene in the immediate area. I dont know how much time has passed between officers arriving on scene and when that cell phone video was recorded.
Then when you have enough officers for a containment permeter and enough to move inside to clear the building and locate the suspect you can go in.
As they are are right this very second saying on the news as they show that video, they are saying they cannot tell who is shooting, the gunman, the police, or both. Its possible there are police units already engaging the suspect when this video was recorded.
just because the student filming with his cell phone and the officers in the cell phone video dont happen to be the ones directly in front of the supect doesnt mean they are just standing around with their thumbs up their ###### "trying to not wrinkle their flak jackets".
There were police everywhere, securing parts of the campus to form a perimeter or moving trying to secure new areas or locate and engage the suspects.
God I hate americans sometimes. All having a gun means is that you've upped the ante. Shooters that are going to break the law are going to know that everyone will have a gun and he'll come prepared with bigger guns, armor, grenades and what have you.
Ban handguns.
Yes, for a while there would be an imbalance between handgun owners, skewed towards the illegal end of the scale, but eventually they'd filter out of the system. Handguns exist for no reason other than killing humans. You don't hunt with them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kittamaru+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kittamaru)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->YOU FAIL! Banning firearms from LEGITIMATE citizens does nothing!
Actually, it does. It means those who get their weapons illegaly can now SAFELY assault and raid houses without fear of reprisal! I like the fact that, should someone break into my house with a gun, I can put a baseball sized hole in his leg with my 1911 Colt .45 and, if he keeps moving, do the same to his chest. He's on MY land, in MY house, threatening MY family. He's DEAD. period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Typical american kneejerk reaction. If someone breaks into your house with a gun and the intent to kill, you're going to be dead on the floor before you can think to reach for your key to your gun locker. Because that's where all responsible gun owners keep their guns right?
--Scythe--
How about if you just stop giving out guns to people? Sure, they can obtain them illegally, they may even resort to another method of murder, but it helps prevent them as much as you can.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd put my money down on most incidents like this happen with illegal firearms, so either way it doesn't help.
as some one from the great state of va, who has a few buddies in blacksburg, all of whom as far as i know who are ok. Let me say that first of all the blacks burg police department is, in my opinion of course, NOT supposed to have to deal with this sort of thing. the town with students is 33 thousand, that means that there are perhaps 10 thousand full time residents. the city only boasts housing for 13k.
If you are going to criticize to blacksburg police, you may as well go ahead an point to that the building in question is between the corps of cadets barracks and their drill field.
Which, of course i my way of point out that that's really stupid. the cops really aren't prepared for the situation, particularly that he starts executing students.
I can't blame them at all.
Some idiot with a gun? yeah.
As to gun control, as every one keeps pointing out, great idea. Frankly if you are willing to shoot 30 odd innocent people, i, for one, don't think the legality of your weapon is going to make a whole lot of difference. and while i understand the idea behind bringing it up, i think that the discussion will make little headway.
in closing, why would any one shoot 40+ innocent people?
Who here can say that in the heat of the moment, when you're anger is tip-top, you for sure, absolutely, would never pull that gun out and start shooting if you had it?
I know there've been some times in my life when I was so enraged I lost track of a few seconds of my life- not enough time to reach the person I was mad at, or if so not enough time to do anything harmful. But surely if I'd had a gun and managed to pull it, I may be in jail right now.
Not to say that I'm some kinda raging psycho-path - getting angry is part of being a human. But, just like how you won't be tempted to eat those candy bars if you don't buy them, you'll never shoot someone if you never carry a weapon.
Both pro and anti gun control sides can have very reasonable points to make and both sides can bring up all the statistics they want to support their side.
A lot of the comments people have made about gun control seem very opinionated or over encompassing. Just because you feel that way doesn’t mean someone else does. Im not saying Im not guilty of it either.
Anyhoo I think we have kinda gone off the topic.
So with that, my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims families.
I vote to just create a topic in the discussion forum if you want to debate gun control there.
B/c just from going by past expirience this thread is only going to go downhill from here if this continues.
I know there've been some times in my life when I was so enraged I lost track of a few seconds of my life- not enough time to reach the person I was mad at, or if so not enough time to do anything harmful. But surely if I'd had a gun and managed to pull it, I may be in jail right now.
Not to say that I'm some kinda raging psycho-path - getting angry is part of being a human. But, just like how you won't be tempted to eat those candy bars if you don't buy them, you'll never shoot someone if you never carry a weapon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To add to that, you could find countries with stricter firearms laws to have more homocides by stabbing? As quite obviously knives, bottles etc. are much more widely available. Incidentally there is a different psychology between standing back and pulling a trigger from distance and point black stabbing someone. The main difference being a lot cleaner and easier to pull a trigger will make it more attractive to someone in the heat of the moment to pull a gun out.
America may well keep their relaxed gun law although I'm sure when you see someone in town waving a gun around you won't be as relaxed as you would be knowing you could make it possible to change a law and know you don't risk the high probability of being shot on your way to the shop in the morning <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
EDIT:
Something that's come to my attention from a discussion in IRC,
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
(04:09:01) (`traceur) tbh i kinda place some of the blame on the number of deaths on the victims
(04:09:18) (`traceur) he had a beretta 9mm pistol from what i've heard, and he shot 30+ people
(04:09:35) (`traceur) that means he had to reload more than once
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Traceur is pro-gun and believes in the relaxed laws and he blames the victims for getting shot? Make your own mind up about those that will protect their precious gun law over preventing law obiding people from being murdered. Although if you are a law obiding citizen with a firearm, you will have no problem obtaining a license and practicing your shooting on a firing range using the same firearms laws of those countries who are much stricter.
wow That was a typical civilian "i dont know anything except for what I see on TV" statement.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1621373:date=Apr 16 2007, 09:24 PM:name=CplDavis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CplDavis @ Apr 16 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]1621373[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Then when you have enough officers for a containment permeter and enough to move inside to clear the building and locate the suspect you can go in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Active shooter" policy for law enforcement ACTUALLY demands that once you have at least 3 officers, you move in immediately and engage the shooter. It applies in a situation like this when the shooter has access to additional victims and perceived motivation to pursue them. This is discussed in school shooting literature for law enforcement as well as in special training seminars.
it's an interesting read on wikipedia
"The article further reported that street officers were increasingly being armed with rifles, and issued heavy body armor and ballistic helmets, items traditionally associated with SWAT units. The idea is to train and equip street officers to make a rapid response to so-called active-shooter situations. In these situations, it was no longer acceptable to simply set up a perimeter, wait for SWAT, and prevent an escape of the killer(s)."
It did seem odd that they would just yell "shots fired" and chillax outside while the murderer rampages on inside.
YOU FAIL! Banning firearms from LEGITIMATE citizens does nothing!
Actually, it does. It means those who get their weapons illegaly can now SAFELY assault and raid houses without fear of reprisal! I like the fact that, should someone break into my house with a gun, I can put a baseball sized hole in his leg with my 1911 Colt .45 and, if he keeps moving, do the same to his chest. He's on MY land, in MY house, threatening MY family. He's DEAD. period.
Ban guns, and all the "law abiding" citizens are now helpless... remember, this happened in the United Kingdom... worst mistake they ever made!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guess why so many people own weapons illegaly...
Because there are soo many available, that someone could simply buy two and then give one to his 16 year old boy.
I seriously think that the whole US weapon debate is just hilarious. Every nutjob over there own a gun, which of course lends the good citicens to believe, that they need guns to protect themselve from these nutjobs, while the actual reason that most nutjobs have guns, is the fact that weapons are easily accesible because the good citisens need to be able to purchase guns to protect them from the nutjobs. We call this kind of situation "Teufelskreis" which roughly translates to "devils circle".
Btw: What makes you believe, that you actually wake up right in time to shoot the robber/thief?
And what makes you believe, that shooting him is just that easy? As you are certainly aware of: Every nutjob has a gun, including said thief. He could just easily shoot you and he will most likely will, cause he knows that everyone in the house is a thread to him, because guns are commonly found in american households. The fact that you most likely lack proper training does also not contribute to your overall performance with a gun.
You are woken up by loud noises, grab your gun and go down into the kitchen. First of all you are most likely not 100% awake cause most burglars strike during your sleeping time. Secondly its is unlikely that you manage to get up, grab your gun, load it and then silently move into the kitchen. It is also quite natural to turn on the lights in your own house, which means that you are coming from the light having to stare and aim into the dark, which constricted lences. Then there is of course the psychological barrier when it comes to shooting a real living person instead of a training target.
Overall I would say, if the thief/robber is armed as well and you have not specifically trained such situations you are pretty much screwed. In order to give you the upper hand it might be a good idea to buy night vision goggles as long as you remeber tp NOT turn the lights on. A reasonable assault weapon or even better a pdw might come in handy aswell, so you better stock up onto something with at least 30 bullets per mag and a reflex-sight (forget the fancy laster attachments, they blow) A heavy assault suit, featuring either full boy kevlar or nomax might be a good idea as well, but unless you sleep in it it will be hard to put it on just in time.
Just face it: Assuming you are both equally equipped you are still screwed, because you have just woken up 5 minutes ago and are not yet fully operational where the robber should be fully awake.
no, there is not much that can be done to prevent this type of event.
Sure, there are ways, but they are so invasive/expensive that they are no longer feasible.
[...]
sigh.
These types of situations can only be prevented by catching them before they happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are smarter than the news stations' "experts". That is very true as sad as that is.
I think it's more that we stop treating each other like people. When you deny yourself and demonize all others it's not that hard to go on a killing rampage.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
oO
What about simply denieing civilians the right to bear and purchase arms?
You know, a massacre is usually extremely hard to pull off, when all you have is a sword instead of a 900rpm assault rifle with a drum-mag of 100 rounds capacity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would have been ended real fast if another student had a gun if you put it that way, he wanted to kill so he would of found a gun regardless of laws. Europe is a good example, look at their nice high crime rate and how the police hassle everyone with a pocket knife. Here in the US only places you cant really have a gun is on government ground (schools and such), thus making your want to rob something should be lower knowing that the store clerk might be packing a mossberg under the table when you turn to run.
Gun control is the answer! At least according to the guy who stabbed more than 30 people outside a train station in Berlin. Must have been using one of those full auto assault knives...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just imagine he had a pistol or even worse a fully automatic assault rifle.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Eine Jugendkammer des Berliner Landgerichts verurteilte den 17-Jährigen am Freitag wegen versuchten Totschlags in 33 Fällen sowie gefährlicher Körperverletzung.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/berlin_aid_51532.html" target="_blank">http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/berlin_aid_51532.html</a>
He has been convicted for ATTEMPTED manslaughter. Meaning that although alot of people got injured he did not manage to kill a single one. If he had a firearm this would have much likely ended up with about 40-50 dead!
To bring up some numbers:
There have been apperantly 19 school massacres in the last 10 years in the USA.
There are also 200 MILLION [200.000.000] registered firearms in the USA. I am not shure, how big your population is, but according the wiki it's around 300 MILLION [300.000.000]. Add the estimated number of illigal, unregistered weapons and you have 2 guns for every adult american.
"Active shooter" policy for law enforcement ACTUALLY demands that once you have at least 3 officers, you move in immediately and engage the shooter. It applies in a situation like this when the shooter has access to additional victims and perceived motivation to pursue them. This is discussed in school shooting literature for law enforcement as well as in special training seminars.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also goes on to qoute
"noted this approach is not without controversy. Apparently, many agencies have not implemented the training due to the cost of training, and equipping individual officers with new weapons and armor. In a nation that annually spends millions of dollars protecting school age students from fires in schools, very little is spent training and equipping police officers for Immediate Action Rapid Deployment for their protection. There has not been a single death in an American school due to fire in over 25 years. As a glaring comparison, during calendar years 1999 to 2005, over 200 children have been murdered in American schools. (These fire/shooting statistical comparisons were originally generated by Dave Grossman, authority on school shootings and author of "Killology.")"
I think I have a little expirience here considering im ACTUALLY a police officer.. and not just google searching random topics off the internet.
policy for these situations are not broadly set and defined as you may believe based of fof this wiki article, and every departments response policy will vary. Active shooter responses can be very different based on the department. In my previous post i referred to an "active shooter" specificially for what it is, a suspect firing a weapon, I wasnt referring to any policy that may have the same name.
Im not familiar with the VA tech police Department but something tells me that due to their small size of only 30 some officers they dont get the funding to send their officers to this type of specialised training.
I think you misunderstood me earlier. Getting officers on scene to sending others into the building in teams doesnt take some huge amount of time to do. It can be done within minuets or even seconds, as soon everyone shows up. Which in this case would be pretty fast imo considering there were already units from multiple jurisdictions looking for the shooter from the previous incident.
That is why everything can be so varied between differnt departments. Imagine a school shooting in a heavily populated city where you have more officers and a quick response time vs a smaller college in the country where you have only a couple officers working in the town or maybe a couple state police 40 minuets away. You cant impliment some broad policy across the entire board of law enforcement. Everything must be done based around the resources and capibilities of the responding dept.
If this incident happened where I work (we dont have a college but we have a large civic center)
First units would get on scene, response time in my area is very fast. Several officers would be in area within 2 min. They would then begin searching area for suspects. Our dept has patrol carbines that can be utiilsed in some of the cars. Others would form up on outside of building or head in to search for suspects.
As for heavyier weapons and armour and helmet for all patrol officers, i wish we did. Maybe you guys could come over and help convince the City Council and taxpayers to give us the funding for them. lol
As for the video, we still dont know who was shooting, the gunman, or the police or both. Its entirely possible police units were already engaging the suspect when that video was taken. We wont know till they release more info.
In anycase we cant hear what was happening on the police radios etc. But just b/c we see some offiers standing behind cover desont mean they arnt doing anything.
If i want to critize anything that happened with the college and emergency response today is why there wasnt a warning to lock down the campus after the first shooint incident happened and police were looking for the gunman then.
secondly... Faskalia, about the burlgar in your house
....lol?
Would have been ended real fast if another student had a gun if you put it that way, he wanted to kill so he would of found a gun regardless of laws. Europe is a good example, look at their nice high crime rate and how the police hassle everyone with a pocket knife. Here in the US only places you cant really have a gun is on government ground (schools and such), thus making your want to rob something should be lower knowing that the store clerk might be packing a mossberg under the table when you turn to run.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if I wanted to rob a store in the USA, I would just shoot the clerk straight ahead, cause I know that he is most likely packing a gun under his desk and thus posing a thread to myself. Speaking of europe: I have yet to actually see a police officers hasseling people because they are carrying pocket knifes with them. It is also a matter of fact, that the police does not just simply shoot you, cause you are reaching in your gloove compardment. The fact the a police officer can safely assume that 99,9% of people he is dealing with has no guns with them or near them also adds to the security of the citizens, cause you are much less likely to get shot when making a sudden move.
It really hurts my faith in mankind, when people just dont understand why some nations are handing out fully automatic weapons to their "normal" police officers while other nations reserve this kind of equipment for specialized units. Take england for example: I really liked the fact, that Bobbys did not have any firearms with them. Just batons and pepperspray. It made them really sympathic. Unfortunately this pretty much changed and you are seeing more and more armed officers (especially in London)
Well if I wanted to rob a store in the USA, I would just shoot the clerk straight ahead, cause I know that he is most likely packing a gun under his desk and thus posing a thread to myself. Speaking of europe: I have yet to actually see a police officers hasseling people because they are carrying pocket knifes with them. It is also a matter of fact, that the police does not just simply shoot you, cause you are reaching in your gloove compardment. The fact the a police officer can safely assume that 99,9% of people he is dealing with has no guns with them or near them also adds to the security of the citizens, cause you are much less likely to get shot when making a sudden move.
It really hurts my faith in mankind, when people just dont understand why some nations are handing out fully automatic weapons to their "normal" police officers while other nations reserve this kind of equipment for specialized units. Take england for example: I really liked the fact, that Bobbys did not have any firearms with them. Just batons and pepperspray. It made them really sympathic. Unfortunately this pretty much changed and you are seeing more and more armed officers (especially in London)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
have u ever traveled to europe? espeically france, germany, italy or spain?
They have assault weapons all over the place.
As for the UK, The London metro police have a special firearms unit, which is called out several thousand times a year.
it seems the police did a pathetic job here. if you watch the cell phone video you see them standing around behind trees as 30 shots are fired off in the distance... it seems they prefer unarmed students deal with the gunman than take any risk wrinkling their new flak jackets.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing I'm a bit confused about is how he managed to cause such damage with the second shooting. I thought there would be some patrolling and such when there's a gunman running around. Of course its a huge campus ( some 20000+ student uni?), but I'd still believe the authorities are quite careful after the school shootouts like Columbine.
The thing I'm a bit confused about is how he managed to cause such damage with the second shooting. I thought there would be some patrolling and such when there's a gunman running around. Of course its a huge campus ( some 20000+ student uni?), but I'd still believe the authorities are quite careful after the school shootouts like Columbine.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was devious enough to barricade the doors shut at the two main entrances/exits. he chained htem shot i believe and locked them. Then he started shooting.
im sure there are other exits but in the mass panic that probably ensued who knows what people did. From the news it apears that many tried to lock themsleves in a room and try to hide.
have u ever traveled to europe? espeically france, germany, italy or spain?
They have assault weapons all over the place.
As for the UK, The London metro police have a special firearms unit, which is called out several thousand times a year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been to france spain italy swiss austria poland england scottland netherlands and belgium.
And i live in germany. So yep, I have been to europe!
And I dont argue that the police has fully automatic weapons available, but you just wont see them that much during your everyday stroll through a ctiy. Of course you will see them at airports or military compounds or certain borderspassages but guess what:
My last trip to London is about 6 months past (it was the some weekend the made a reall fuss about the liquid bombing incident). I went to frankfurt airport I did not see a single police officer armed with fully automatic weapons. Then I boarded a plane to London heathrow and saw a handfull of officers armed with fully automatic weapons. This is what I was just pointing out: A few years agao you did only see bobbies on the streets. Now you are seeing police crawling everywhere and they are all armed. This does not make me feel safe. All I feel is that there are now even more people around me who potentially could kill me from 50 meters away.
where in germany do u live?
I have friends from Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
but yea, there is definetly an arms race between the police and the bad guys,
most police in US went from .38+P to 9mm, to .40SW, now many are going to .45ACP and getting rifles to combat bad guys with body armour.
Yeah, because I'm sure that would make it much harder to find guns. I mean, now that they've outlawed drugs, those are IMPOSSIBLE to get.
Seriously, taking away our Second Amendment rights would do nothing to stop determined people from getting guns. And even if it did, they would just find other ways to kill people, like building bombs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would at least stop the non-determined ones who just blow a fuse one day and notice they have a gun lying around without properly thinking of the consequences.
Are you kidding? Our schools are PATHETIC.
My college has a security guard with a taser, batton, and mace[...] martial arts training, just basic self defense (I've talked with her)
[...]
Personally, I think all public schools should REQUIRE metal detectors, at least TWO stationed officers who are packing, and reinforced doors/walls that are at least bullet resistant.
Expensive, I know, but worth it for the safety of our student.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow... Our schools here in denmark doesn't even consider taking these measurements. Armed officers at a school? Unthinkable...
Really shows some difference huh?