Virginia Tech Consequences?

I'd like to see the survey that produced these statistics. The outcome of the survey is highly influenced by how, when and where the survey is conducted as well as how the questions are worded.
Click to expand...

The question was right there in the link I provided, as was the methodology.
 
Gee that would be like suing gun manufacturers ....

WildnoteverythinginlifeisactionableAlaska
Click to expand...

should have qauntified that I was not talking about monetary damages.

The recourse that I would be looking for is a violation of basic rights to be stopped. The State of Virginia and VT have no legal duty to protect me as an individual.

The state has by legal default made me responsible for my self defense.
I agree that there needs to be laws that provide regulation and requirements
for individuals. They should not prohibit the right of self defense to no choice as Virignia has done for students on campus.
 
I think Kenneth Arrow definitvely set out whether or not an election can be such a quantification to me quite well, in the negatory.
Click to expand...

I appluad Mr. Arrow for his theory, its still doesnt change the fact that elected officials make the laws we live by.
 
(I would set out that he was correct for his stipulated conditions. Wouldn't be correct to call it a "theory", as it is based on no empirical evidence. (For the same reason we don't call mathematical theorems "theories". Note that I'm a nitpicker here.)) I always found Arrow's Impossibility Theorem fascinating, I couldn't help but bring it up.

But to the point, I agree, it doesn't change the fact that politicans make the laws, but it does speak to the point of whether or not there was a "good way to quantify the will of the masses", and whether or not our elected officials that we get through our electoral system are just such a good way.
 
Gee that would be like suing gun manufacturers ....

WildnoteverythinginlifeisactionableAlaska
Click to expand...

No it would not.

The university system takes responsiblilty for providing some basic forms of safety on their grounds. While the dean cannot be expected to throw himself at a crazed gunman in these times of rampage schol shootings it is entirely reasonable to have a plan for the securing of dorms, cancelling of classes, and dispersion of the student body in a time of immediate danger.

That plan does not exist. The notification that there had been a double homicide in the dorms on school grounds and the gunman was at large was not even sent out until AFTER the second attack took place two hours later.

Next the school actively prohibited the students and faculty from possesing firearms, even when permitted to do so by the state. The reason for this was specificaly stated to be THE SAFETY OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY.

By not acting in a responsible and timely manner they allowed victims to congregate on univesity grounds unaware of any danger.

By disarming them and telling them this was for the safety of the community they accept a higher level of responsiblity for their safety.

Damn Straight they need to be held liable!!!
 
2nd Amendment wrote:
What it means is exactly what he said, *NOW* is not the time. After a victory in '08 and a consolidation of power, *THEN* will be the time.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. The Dems spent twelve years without control of Congress and they didn't like it. I strikes me that pretending to not be interested in tightening gun control before the election, and then ramrodding it immediately after, is a great way to guarantee being massacred in the 2010 mid-terms, and a single-term presidency. And I doubt the Dems haven't thought of that.
 
But the Dems also need to pay off the lunatic fringe that funds their party and they do that by championing lunatic causes.

When Hollyweird, Soros and the rest of that ilk come looking for pay back the DNC will have to deliver and it will be with legislation that is far to the left.
 
Gee that would be like suing gun manufacturers
Click to expand...

Not really. Gun manufacturers do not deny residents of their property the ability to protect themselves, nor fail to take reasonable actions to provide for a secure environment. VT did both.

This is one area where the case law does not allow for a supervening criminal act to allow someone to escape from liability, as it is does with manufacturers.
 
I'm not so sure. The Dems spent twelve years without control of Congress and they didn't like it. I strikes me that pretending to not be interested in tightening gun control before the election, and then ramrodding it immediately after, is a great way to guarantee being massacred in the 2010 mid-terms, and a single-term presidency. And I doubt the Dems haven't thought of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kinda what I was thinking. Gun control is a huge loser for the Democrats as a whole. Basically the second they start really pushing it, they lose the next election. And yeah, I'm pretty sure they know this.

I think we'll continue to hear even more noise from the usual suspects (because it makes the votes back in their districts happy), while at the same time seeing little to no action.
 
OK guys let me get to the nitty gritty.

There is no liability on the part of a governmental entity or quasi governmental entity for prohibiting guns where an intervening criminal act occurs that may, may, may, have resulted in a different outcome.

Period.

Under no legal theory.

Dream on and debate how wonderful it would be if that occurred, then think further as to the consequences of such an expansion of tort law.

WildletsgetbacktorealityAlaska
 
Musketeer said:
But the Dems also need to pay off the lunatic fringe that funds their party and they do that by championing lunatic causes.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not so sure; look where being beholden to fringe interests got them in 2002 and 2004. I think the Democratic leadership is in a position to tell their backers "gun control hurts the party's prospects; if you insist we push through such measures, you might want to reconcile yourself with living under a Republican-controlled legislature and executive; maybe not after the next election, but almost certainly after the one following."
 
The reality is also that the governmental entity failed to take necessary and appropriate actions to inform students of the initial shooting, which a trier of fact could reasonably believe led to said students being placed in otherwise avoidable danger.
 
Wild,

If the University failed to maintain smoke alarms and sprinklers in the dorms, provided for no evacualtion plan, and an arsonist set a fire that killed 32 people would the school have any liability?
 
If the University failed to maintain smoke alarms and sprinklers in the dorms, provided for no evacualtion plan, and an arsonist set a fire that killed 32 people would the school have any liability?
Click to expand...

It depends on the state law and particular facts. Did the University violate its own policies or a state law? Was the University aware of an arsonist's activities prior to the fatal fire? What extent is immunity granted by state law?
 
The reality is also that the governmental entity failed to take necessary and appropriate actions to inform students of the initial shooting, which a trier of fact could reasonably believe led to said students being placed in otherwise avoidable danger.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that statement entirely. The campus of VT is over 2600 acres. There are over 9,000 students on campus but almost 20,000 commuters. Then add to that staff. All of which come and go by different mean throughout the day. How were they supposed to notify everyone immediately?

Hind sight is 20/20. At first it looked like a isolated murder. If someone is murdered on your street should the city lock down the entire town. Should everyone within the surrounding 2600 acres be notified immediately?

99.99999% on the time an innocent like this ends with only 2 murders.
 
I'll agree with Rellascout there. Depending on what they knew and expected. If there were eyewitnesses saying this guy was scared and running after what he did, then fine, I don't think he'll be a threat. I do think information about the incident itself would be valuable to analyze. That said, if someone is killed or mugged in what seems to be a domestic dispute, it is impractical to shut down a campus there. A president that did so would, I posit, be quickly ousted. That said, I really think its up to, or should be up to, law enforcement to issue recommendations to the University, because they're better able to analyze the situation.
 
Rememeber that just a couple weeks/months earlier they DID manage to lock down this entire campus because of the POSSIBILITY ofa n escaped criminal being in the area.

So they can lock down the campus for the possibility that there is a person who may be a danger in the area but they cannot lock it down when they KNOW there was a double homicide on the grounds and don't know where the killer is... I am sorry but the logic doesn't hold.
 
Just put in an order for 6 30-round AR-15 magazines and 3 13-round Hi Power magazines.

I'll probably be buying more in the coming weeks as well.

Over reacting?

I don't know. But I got caught flat footed in 1994 for a number of reasons. I won't get caught again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top