Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007, 03:32 pm Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 08:36 pm (UTC)

badkalla Right on. Right on. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 08:41 pm (UTC)

dd_b Although the vast majority of college students are under 21. Yeah, I'd favor changing that age limit to 18, or removing it entirely, too.

Although the vast majority of college students are under 21. Yeah, I'd favor changing that age limit to 18, or removing it entirely, too. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 09:51 pm (UTC)

(Anonymous) Agreed, but even under current law a faculty member, staff member, or janitor could have been packing. Also, there are plenty of students who are 21 or older.



Now I wonder if there will be any lawsuits over this: The school has a rule against self defense, which, it is unarguable, gave the perpetrator a massive advantage, resulting in mass death. If you removed all seatbelts or fire extinguishers, and the result was increased injury in a traffic accident, or a house lost to fire, would you not be at least partially accountable? Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 08:41 pm (UTC)

ilcylic Damn. That's spot on. Damn. That's spot on. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 08:42 pm (UTC)

sam_newberry Гораздо сильнее, чем первый вариант. Очень... шокирует. В хорошем смысле слова "бьет по восприятию". Гораздо сильнее, чем первый вариант. Очень... шокирует. В хорошем смысле слова "бьет по восприятию". Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 08:57 pm (UTC)

leon_85 +1 +1 Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 09:16 pm (UTC)

(Anonymous): It's either too early or too late for this... Either way, your timing is off. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 10:56 pm (UTC)

darthzeth Fear in the hearts of good men caused this. Fear should be inspired in the hearts of bad men BY good men.



Do not be afraid to speak the truth. ever.

Fear in the hearts of good men caused this. Fear should be inspired in the hearts of bad men BY good men.Do not be afraid to speak the truth. ever. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 09:19 pm (UTC)

dd_b Further thinking -- if you change the second text to "would have helped *make* them safe", you aren't left claiming that a law change definitely would have helped (it's permissible rhetorical overstatement IMHO, but still best avoided IMHO), and the "helped" is echoing the phrasing of Hincker's statement, so it actually *increases* the rhetorical focus on "feel" vs. "make" which is the main point of this poster. Further thinking -- if you change the second text to "would have helped *make* them safe", you aren't left claiming that a law change definitely would have helped (it's permissible rhetorical overstatement IMHO, but still best avoided IMHO), and the "helped" is echoing the phrasing of Hincker's statement, so it actually *increases* the rhetorical focus on "feel" vs. "make" which is the main point of this poster. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 09:22 pm (UTC)

igorilla Убивает не оружие, убивают люди Убивает не оружие, убивают люди Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 09:26 pm (UTC)

christeos_pir Suggest making the second line "...made them be safe." Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 02:50 am (UTC)

mzmadmike THat's clunky grammar and I think passive voice as well. THat's clunky grammar and I think passive voice as well. Mon, Apr. 16th, 2007 10:53 pm (UTC)

niteshad Today's events were tragic, and I agree with Oleg and others that a gun in the hand of one of the good guys on the scene might have mitigated the death toll.



What doesn't exactly add up for me was the time-line of events. At 7:30am, this guy shoots up a dorm and kills several people. Then the students all go to class, and he's given two hours to wander around campus and find the Engineering classrooms where he shoots still more people. Then the school goes into crisis mode, locks down all of the buildings, cancels classes and tells everyone to stay inside because there's a gunman on the loose.



Why wasn't all of that done at 7:30-8:00am in the morning. The tragedy of the first shooting was unforseeable; however, the second shooting might have been avoided by prompt action on the part of the University Administration. Today's events were tragic, and I agree with Oleg and others that a gun in the hand of one of the good guys on the scene might have mitigated the death toll.What doesn't exactly add up for me was the time-line of events. At 7:30am, this guy shoots up a dorm and kills several people. Then the students all go to class, and he's given two hours to wander around campus and find the Engineering classrooms where he shoots still more people.the school goes into crisis mode, locks down all of the buildings, cancels classes and tells everyone to stay inside because there's a gunman on the loose.Why wasn't all of that done at 7:30-8:00am in the morning. The tragedy of the first shooting was unforseeable; however, the second shooting might have been avoided by prompt action on the part of the University Administration. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 12:20 am (UTC)

heypete Probably because most of the students were sleeping at 7:30am, and it's not uncommon for students to sleep through class or otherwise not attend class.



Once the school was properly "open for business" in the sense of conducting classes, the shooting would likely have raised more attention. Probably because most of the students were sleeping at 7:30am, and it's not uncommon for students to sleep through class or otherwise not attend class.Once the school was properly "open for business" in the sense of conducting classes, the shooting would likely have raised more attention. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 12:01 am (UTC)

blueingenue Today, students don't feel safe.

Some students feel shot.

Some no longer feel anything at all. Today, students don't feel safe.Some students feel shot.Some no longer feel anything at all. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 08:48 am (UTC)

retiqlum You don't sound like you feel safe at all.



You know that most of the readers of this LJ are perfectly capable of protecting you. Hell, I know of at least two (including me) who would travel large distances to make sure you're ok.



So again I ask: are you OK? You don't sound like you feel safe at all.You know that most of the readers of this LJ are perfectly capable of protecting you. Hell, I know of at least two (including me) who would travel large distances to make sure you're ok.So again I ask: are you OK? Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 12:47 am (UTC)

slamonella Oleg, I love ya, but the mere ability to carry firearms doesn't make anyone safe. If anything, the last line should read "would have given them a chance to protect themselves."



The message needs to get out, but it has to be the right message and it needs to be the truth. Otherwise we just end up looking like deluded, right wing looneys. Oleg, I love ya, but the mere ability to carry firearms doesn't make anyone safe. If anything, the last line should readThe message needs to get out, but it has to be the right message and it needs to be the truth. Otherwise we just end up looking like deluded, right wing looneys. Thu, Oct. 9th, 2008 05:39 pm (UTC)

lesliekirkpatr We don't even need to get the approval of the U. N. . We just stop meddling. It is simply a matter of recognizing what our self-interest is, and doing it. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 01:06 am (UTC)

(Anonymous): Here's that opportunity... For years, we've speculated about the ability to hold accountable those in authority who have made it unlikely, if not impossible, to defend oneself in such a situation.



By decreeing that certain methods of self-defense [as if they aren't inherently the purview of the individual!?!] are unacceptable, the "authorities" at Virginia Tech guaranteed a "gun-free" campus!



Helpless faculty, staff and students in the face of an onslaught by an armed man who ***knew*** that he would be facing only ***unarmed*** victims was the result!



In this case, the track record couldn't be clearer...and I predict the first of many lawsuits, civil ***and*** criminal, will be filed before the month closes.



Bravo! I want to see careers destroyed, fortunes forfeited, authorities bankrupted, university assets distributed to the parents, siblings, children and other parties of murdered individuals who died because they were forced to follow an outrageous violation of the most basic human right...that to survive using any means necessary in self-defense.



Set your watches now...



...Alex Wed, Apr. 18th, 2007 03:52 am (UTC)

oldcurlywolf Alex,

Absolutely the twit might never have made it out of the DORM, if the students and faculty who own and have licenses were allowed to carry on school property, odds are someone in that dorm would have been carrying. Or he would have died in the Norris building because someone was carrying and the deathtoll would have been fewer. OTOH as has been pointed out by others...if the students had fought back period the deathtoll wouldn't have been as high. There's anywhere between what? a couple dozen and 100 or better students in any given classroom. A couple dozen students, one psychotic homicidal, suicidal twit with a gun...



Wolfie Alex,Absolutely the twit might never have made it out of the DORM, if the students and faculty who own and have licenses were allowed to carry on school property, odds are someone in that dorm would have been carrying. Or he would have died in the Norris building because someone was carrying and the deathtoll would have been fewer. OTOH as has been pointed out by others...if the students had fought back period the deathtoll wouldn't have been as high. There's anywhere between what? a couple dozen and 100 or better students in any given classroom. A couple dozen students, one psychotic homicidal, suicidal twit with a gun...Wolfie Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 01:40 am (UTC)

(Anonymous): Just so you know You're an asshole. I hope you rot in hell for making a political issue out of a tragedy. Fuck you and the second ammendment. It is my sincerest wish that you become terminally ill. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 01:59 am (UTC)

tomcatshanger Wait, you're not making a political issue by saying "Fuck you and the second amendment"?



My, how hypocritical the idealists are. Wait, you're not making a political issue by saying "Fuck you and the second amendment"?My, how hypocritical the idealists are. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 01:42 am (UTC)

(Anonymous): Just so you know You're an asshole. I hope you rot in hell for making a political issue out of a tragedy. Fuck you and your propaganda. The shooter used two 9MM SIDEARM WEAPONS to kill 33 people (33 people whom you don't really give two shits about). It is my sincerest wish that you become terminally ill very soon and suffer to death. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 01:51 am (UTC)

sinanju Apparently Jack Nicholson was right. You CAN'T handle the truth.



These "crazed" killers somehow always target schools, post office buildings and other places where they're almost certainly the other person with a gun. They somehow never try this shit on gun ranges, in gun stores, or at police stations.



Perhaps you should save your ire for the assholes using this crime to promote their agenda of more gun control when guns were already banned from the campus. Yeah, that'll work. Apparently Jack Nicholson was right. You CAN'T handle the truth.These "crazed" killers somehow always target schools, post office buildings and other places where they're almost certainly the other person with a gun. They somehow never try this shit on gun ranges, in gun stores, or at police stations.Perhaps you should save your ire for the assholes using this crime to promote their agenda of more gun control when guns were already banned from the campus. Yeah, that'll work. Tue, Apr. 17th, 2007 02:14 am (UTC)

2percentright Oh hell yeah, Volk. You just went up several points on the awesomeness flowchart for this poster. Oh hell yeah, Volk. You just went up several points on the awesomeness flowchart for this poster.