Virginia Tech Consequences?

Rella-

I have a very good friend at Virginia Tech who is a computer science student. The building where many of the shootings took place was the Science & Engineering building. I've been trying to get ahold of him and have so far been unable.

That said, this isn't about politics. Perhaps I chose the wrong thread (or rather, the discussion on appropriateness is in the wrong thread--initial question was simple consequences), and for that I apologize. This is about freedom. I am sorry for those that have been hurt, but I remain eternally vigiliant when it comes to my rights. I recognize there are very bad people out there that will stop at nothing, will use any excuse, to take away guns and/or to harm the gun community, for no other reason that they a) don't like guns b) don't like the type of person who likes guns.

I appreciate your input, and believe part of it is accurately aimed. Looking at this for spin control is distasteful to me. Looking at this for potential consequences does not seem to be. If a terrorist attack occurs, my first question will be about the political and military consequences in the Middle East. I will do so and talk about the issue without referring to a brother in the Army, because that isn't relevant. This realism, the leaving of my feelings and emotions behind and looking at possible outcomes rationally does not seem distasteful.

Again, if you find it so, I apologize, but I think this is more a question of aesthetics rather than common mores.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I see your point of view even if I don't agree with it. To me I don't view people who are anti gun as evil bad people. I think that they believe differently than I do but that there is nothing inherently evil about them.

I guess in the end my post is a gut reaction to something that is not just on the news for me. I know people there. I know people who might or might not have been shot today. That is a more pressing issue then where I can and can't carry my gun or what gun can I own. I think that people outside the area with no real connection to the event reducing 32 deaths to a personal discussion about what guns they will or will not be able to buy in the future is callous to those who have a very real and very emotional stake in what has happened.

Callous: Emotionally hardened; unfeeling: a callous indifference to the suffering of others.
 
Our objective should be to take the emotion out of the arguments. To face the brutal facts.
Click to expand...

That is how we have always fought and it is wrong. The bottom line is only about 25% of the population really depend on cold logic to make a decision. In the remaining 75% people either blend in emotion or depend totally on it for their decision. There have been plenty of studies and books on this.

Focusing on logic alone will loose unless you have an audience that only depends on logic. We do not, whe have all of the United States.

Emotion must have as much to do with our position as logic if we are going to win the largest amount of popular support. The passage of CCW in Texas had plenty of logic behind it but it got nowhere until Lubby's and the woman who cried out that here parents before her eyes died because she obeyed the law and left her gun in her car. That is emotion and that is what won.

Pilots are allowed to carry on airplanes now not because of logic but because the public cryied out for it from fear. Emotion again.

People may not like it but our enemy uses emotion much better than we do. For me the emotion of loving my family and not wanting them to wait for death helplessly is a viable attack to use against those who would disarm us. The emotional impact of those poor students and teacher who had their ability to lawfully defend themselves stripped away by a government that left them to die on the floors of that school is a valid emotional argument.

Logical people shy away from using emotion. My degree is in Engineering and I too left emotion out of my arguments for a long time. Not knowing it this limited my ability to suceed in many aspects of life. To succeed in sales, even techincal sales where I eventually wound up, I found that I needed to accept that emotion plays a part in the decision process of most people.

Whether is is buying a custom machined component or deciding on legislation we need to acknowledge that emotion is a very important part of the decision. We have an advantage in that our opponent has NO logical grounds to their argument. This means they automatically loose 25% of the audience if they can be educated. They have no more of a moral high ground to the emotional side than we do; we have just ignored it for so long they think they own it. Use emotion, especially in tragedy, and we can be successful.

Never forget, the goal of our success is not to inflict our will upon others as is the goal of our enemy. Our goal is to allow people to stand up for themselves and decide how to defend themselves. The deaths today are tragic. Nothing will comfort the families. If we can at least use their unfortunate deaths to help other not to meet the same fate then I see nothing ignoble in it.
 
To say it is wrong to use the VT tragedy to point out the errors of the left is similar to saying it would be wrong to use the tragedy of Pearl Harbor to advocate war with Japan.

We can't change what happenned but we can give others the opportunity to prevent it in the future.
 
There's nothing more real than the life of my student son's ability to defend himself. I'm not doing anything except making a few taps on my keyboard. What exactly are you doing, besides misspelling "losing?"
Click to expand...

Well to tell you the truth I am trying to find out if any of my friends are dead or have been shot. Thanks for asking.

I am not saying that your son's well being isn't an important issue but in the end it is not the issue of the day. 32 dead people in VA is.

Criticizing my spelling is the best you can do? An ad hominem attack on my typing skills is all you can muster? That is a pretty poor example of civil debate and discourse. :(
 
Rellascout,

I hope your friends are alright.

That being said there is nothing wrong with my statements advocating the right of individuals to defend themselves and the wrongness of the assertion that legally armed citizens in this case would have been as likely to increase the tragedy as reduce it.

Somebody throws out the horse pucky statement that it would be an out of control shoot out with CCW holders shooting at each other and police shooting at them. I come out and opose that with reasons why that is not and has not in the past been the normal case.

I advocate the citizen who would otherwise be allowed to CCW being allowed to make the choice to do so a VT rather than be disarmed if they wish to obey the law.

Having a legal CCW may have helped someone.

Not having a CCW 100% did not help anyone.
 
You're right, OBIWAN. Hers's one example from Applachian Law School in Grundy, VA.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/3-5-04.html
3/05/04
The Washington Post Finally Concedes What Really Happened at the Appalachian Law School Attack

This last Saturday's Washington Post:

The Washington Post

February 28, 2004 Saturday

Final Edition SECTION: Metro; B03

LENGTH: 561 words

HEADLINE: Law School Shooter Pleads Guilty; Former Student Avoids Death Penalty in Deal on Va. Slayings

BYLINE: Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:

. . . Odighizuwa accepted responsibility for the shootings that began after school officials told him that he was failing out of the program. On Jan. 16, 2002, he took a .380-caliber pistol to the offices of Dean L. Anthony Sutin and Prof. Thomas Blackwell and killed them before opening fire on a crowd, killing student Angela Dales, 33, and wounding three others. Odighizuwa was subdued without incident by armed students.

Two additional pieces of evidence have come out since the story first was written on by the Post. 1) Mikael Gross, one of the two students who had their guns, was used by the prosecutors as a witness during the preliminary hearing. 2) Odighizuwa had to make a public statement about the events and describe exactly what happened in making a plea bargain. For a summary of past discussions on the Appalachian Law School Attack see my earlier posts.
Click to expand...

badbob
 
Rellascout,

I hope your friends are alright.

That being said there is nothing wrong with my statements advocating the right of individuals to defend themselves and the wrongness of the assertion that legally armed citizens in this case would have been as likely to increase the tragedy as reduce it.

Somebody throws out the horse pucky statement that it would be an out of control shoot out with CCW holders shooting at each other and police shooting at them. I come out and opose that with reasons why that is not and has not in the past been the normal case.

I advocate the citizen who would otherwise be allowed to CCW being allowed to make the choice to do so a VT rather than be disarmed if they wish to obey the law.

Having a legal CCW may have helped someone.

Not having a CCW 100% did not help anyone.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. I agree with much of what you are saying the only part I disagree with is that "not having a CCW 100% did not help anyone." That simply cannot be said at this point.
 
I also don't believe berating people on a firearms board in a thread specifically dedicated to the legal and political consequences of this tragedy will somehow soothe the victims and their families.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have bothered you buzz_knox I did not know that this section of the board was reserved for group think. Are you implying that everyone on a gun board must think the same way you do?

I have a different opinion on the legal and political consequences of the shootings at VT and voiced it. Is that not what this section of the board is for?
 
Sorry to have bothered you buzz_knox I did not know that this section of the board was reserved for group think. Are you implying that everyone on a gun board must think the same way you do?

I have a different opinion on the legal and political consequences of the shootings at VT and voiced it. Is that not what this section of the board is for?
Click to expand...

You're not discussing the consequences. You're calling people to task about discussing the consequences.
 
Rellascout - you are not the only one who lives in VA. I live here too.

I have friends that have gone to Tech, and some that live in Blacksburg. I am very concerned, but fortunately - through email - everyone seems fine at the moment.

The time to talk about legal and political ramifications - hours, days, months, years after a tragedy - the answer is - its different for everyone. Some people take a lifetime to get over a tragedy. Others take but a moment. So when is the best time for you - you decide. When you are ready - post. If you are not ready - then let others discuss. Nothing wrong with that.

I do not think they are taking advantage of the situation to talk about potential ramifications.

I will add one point to a bone of contention that is going on:

Israel - Teachers and students are allowed to carry guns. ZERO successful attacks on their schools. Because the BGs know - if they try - they will die. In fact - they are in more danger than we are. Under constant terrorist threat. No just from crazies (typical case here in America).

So I suggest we stand up for CCW in schools. (With proper training of course) Its the right thing to do. A CCW permit holder could have returned fire and stopped this tragedy - and maybe they did. Who knows until the facts come out.
 
1-31-06 The Roanoke Times

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
 
rellascout said:
I have a different opinion on the legal and political consequences of the shootings at VT and voiced it. Is that not what this section of the board is for?
Click to expand...
buzz_knox said:
You're not discussing the consequences. You're calling people to task about discussing the consequences.
Click to expand...
rellascout said:
I am discussing if this is the time to be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
No sir, you are not. You are castigating anyone and everyone who is trying to discuss the consequences of this tragedy.

You sir, are letting your emotions override your good sense.

I highly suggest you refrain from such comments until you gain control of yourself.

The anti-gun people are already parading the bodies, yet you have the audacity to call us callous? They are using this as political capital, while we are still in a discussion stage. Now is exactly the time to be discussing this. Now is exactly the time to begin to do something about the probable political consequences of this tragedy.

If not now, when? After H.R. 1022 passes later this week? (hyperbole)

Now, on a brighter note, this exemplifies the ruling in Parker. That we have the individual right keep and bear arms to protect ourselves. And not just in our homes.
 
I am of the opinion that this issue be....

...very well thought out by us 2nd Amendment folk, and if commentary is necessary, that it come with a dignity befitting a disciplined scholar and warrior; the anti-gun folk, as already stated, are using this incident as their new mantra, and I find their behaviors to be the height of bad taste and insensitivity. The families of the victims have not yet fully accepted the realities of this tragedy, and yet, the politico's in waiting are already passing judgement...it's almost as if they are saying "...I told you so...(sic)". I am sure there will be a lot of anti-gun talk in the news for weeks to come, but a dignified response to all attacks is necessary if we hope to maintain the gains made over the past few decades. Just my dos centavos.
 
You can bet that the Brady/VPC pukes in the enemy camp is mustering for an offensive. Playing nice and compromise is what gets us campus massacres because of exclusion areas set up within right-to-carry laws.

Everyone here is saddened and angry about the murders in VA. Everytime one occurrs the anti's rejoice because they feel vindicated. We are all sorry for the loss of life, but if we don't counter-attack, the Brady/VPC pukes will set the stage for the next massacre through onerous legislation just like they did for this one.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top