2:1 kill ratio! Who was this guy??

Even in the first Gulf War, I was amazed at the injuries that people live through. Human beings are tough. We saw guys (Iraqi's) who'd been shot in places that I would be sure would kill. The one guy who sticks out as the exception was a guy who was dead after being shot in the leg. We surmised he likely was hit in the femoral artery.

You can't stop a nutjob from doing folks in. You can have a response planned which should always include limiting the body count. This whole episode is an (or THE) arguement for CCW.

I can only imagine the aguish of parents who've lost a child who was on the cusp of becoming independant. The bitterness of investing so much of your life in another human being, and just when they are nearly emancipated and will soon prove you did the right thing as parents; they are senselessly murdered.

It happened on this campus when the bonfire stack collapsed in 1999. What does a University President say to a grieving parent? What's worse is that they must also account for stopping a law that could have prevented some of this but not all.

In the analysis, a University will always opt for not letting kids carry on campus. If a CCW kills somebody, then somebody made an affirmative decision to allow it. Easy pickin's for a lawyer. However- if a mad man walks in a kills a score of kids, then you can blame the madman. All the incentive is for them to prohibit CCW nomatter what the logic of CCW may suggest.

There are a lot of broken lives out there tonight. Regardless of the legal and political ramifications- pray for those who must endure the rest of life with one fewer family member at Christmas. The pain will never completely go away.
 
I think after he wounded them and they were lying on the ground he shot several more times. I heard one report that most of them were shot at least 3 times.
Click to expand...

Maybe you read that in a quote up in post #9?

----


Sorry about the "Glock 36 days" confusion. How about, "He bought a Glock about 5 weeks before the shooting."
 
I don't know about 9mm balistics, but it seems to me that if he was using ball ammo, the damage of shooting into a group of people would be pretty significant with bullets overpenetrating. Since the media isn't freaking out about hollow points I would guess that he probably did use ball ammo.
 
I really fear that a lot of his targets simply watched him and offered no resistance. It seems he shot quite a few several times.
Click to expand...

This is a symptom of our times. Children are taught NOT to defend themselves do not attempt to resist a BG. The police will come a save you.
 
FWIW, on the Charlie Rose show this evening, one of the people commenting on this shooting was Brian Williams, who offered something about "mandatory waiting periods". Sounds similar to the line Sarah Brady tries to sell for years about how John Hinkley would have been prevented from obtaining the handgun he used to shoot Reagan and Mr. Brady if The Brady Law had been in effect.

Interestingly, Hinkley had zero in the way of a criminal record, and as for waiting periods, how long a wait would the Sainted Sarah have offered, for Mr. Hinkley bought the handgun he used 6 months prior to his having shot anyone.

I might be "strange" or stuffy, but I find such questions interesting.
 
Interestingly, Hinkley had zero in the way of a criminal record, and as for waiting periods, how long a wait would the Sainted Sarah have offered, for Mr. Hinkley bought the handgun he used 6 months prior to his having shot anyone.
Click to expand...

For the VT shooting, they had the gunstore owner that sold this kid the Glock on FOX News. He bought the gun 36 days ago from today. He also said this kid had a perfectly clean record and mentioned that he went through twice as much scrutiny as anybody else trying to buy a gun because of his resident alien status.
 
Right, so there was NO reason not to sell the guns to the shooter at the time of the purchases (the Walther P22 being purchased within the last week, but at least 30 days after the purchase of the Glock 19 as per VT law) as known by the gun store or the background check process. Things looked no more amiss than if anyone with a clean record had made the purchase.
 
I gotta be honest, I also feel the original topic/title is borderline poor taste. Not so much as it's not worth considering from a tactical standpoint, but you have to remember, not everyone who comes on here has that kind of mindset. This is one of those threads that seems like it has the potential to be taken out of context. Not accusing the poster of any ill will, it's just a sad fact that the gun boards are one of the few places where I would encourage people to be PC, as it can be fuel for the fire of those unethical enough to misconstrue what is being said.

That said, I also agree with those who said this guy wasn't special in any way, shape or form. Mind you, he'd only owned the Glock for five weeks. You're not going to to be an IPSC ace in that amount of time. It was the circumstances that made him deadly. Given that, while it's a terrible tragedy that anyone ends up hurt, it's almost amazing that more weren't.

My girlfriend works at a middle school - actually taking a new job at the end of the school year - but she agrees with me on the circumstances. While considerably more moderate than I, she understands the importance of providing for one's own defense. She said that she and several of the faculty there have noted how foolish the "huddle in a corner" lockdown policy is in the event of a crisis. My grandfather broke a bathroom lock once a long time ago and we cut a hole in the door with a pocket knife and a drill bit. So is a classroom door really going to keep out a determined attacker?

People must proactively provide for their own care. There's the story at VT of students holding a desk against the door to prevent the shooter from getting in. He emptied a mag and then gave up. They didn't need to rush him and tackle him, just do the most basic thing possible to resist - and no one there was hurt. In a number of fairly recent tragedies, following the normal procedures has proven to cause terrible consequences. More procedures and laws will be no remedy; people must be more adaptive than "lockdown" and "compliance" responses, and when necessary allowed to provide for their own defense. Soft targets must be hardened, because we'll never soften those who wish to do harm.
 
People must proactively provide for their own care. There's the story at VT of students holding a desk against the door to prevent the shooter from getting in. He emptied a mag and then gave up. They didn't need to rush him and tackle him, just do the most basic thing possible to resist - and no one there was hurt.
Click to expand...

...except all the other people he killed an injured.

Yes, some of those not yet attacked may have had a chance to barricade, but not everyone has the opportunity to barricade before the attack starts.

In another case, he shot through the door and killed a Holocaust survivor who was holding the door shut while directing his students out the windows.

In another case, students were only able to barricade the door AFTER he had been in the room and shot up several people. They held the door closed with their feet and his subsequent shots through the door did not hit them.
 
Seems as if the young Korean-American who had purchased the handguns did NOT comply with Virginia law, having concealed his involuntary comitment to a mental hospital, which would have amounted to a disqualifying circumstance re firearms purchase.

The background check, required by Virginia and or Federal law failed to pick this factor up, it seems.
 
Most cheap digital cameras work fine on a tripod. Additionally, I've seen many DV camcorders that take pictures about that crappy, though obviously they don't have a flash (much like cellphones). Or it could have been a webcam. Basically, it would not have been hard for him to take the picture himself.
 
Tripods tripods...

Raise your hand if you own a tripod. Especially those of you who are recluse college undergrads.

It's a lot harder than you think to rest a camera on anything besides a tripod. You have to have the right height and the right angle, consistently. Also, a lot of digicams don't have tripod mounts.

I dearly hope nobody else was in on this tragedy, and this person was alone, all alone. It's just that there enough evidence for reasonable doubt. Webcams, cellphones, and camcorders don't come with flashes.
 
Short range shots, unarmed victims with no body armor, no training, no place to go. No fear of interference nor any sense of being rushed (he chained the doors of the building).

I'm surprised he didn't do better. There was one case (can't recall the particulars) where a kid in a school shooting had nearly a 100% kill ratio due to using primarily headshots. He had absolutely NO firearms experience but had a good deal of video game experience.
 
Raise your hand if you own a tripod. Especially those of you who are recluse college undergrads.
Click to expand...

*raises hand*

Not a "pro" quality tripod, mind you. Just the little kind that cost a few bucks and are good for taking pictures on a timer. The exact kind he could have used to take those pictures.

Also, I own two digital cameras (one was pricey at the time, one cheap) and a digital camcorder. All three have tripod mounts. Every digital camera owned by anybody I know has had had a tripod mount. Just the little screw-thingy at the bottom...but still, exactly what you'd use to mount on a tripod.

And if I was planning on recording some sort of manifesto, I'd probably invest a few bucks in a cheap tripod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top