[Hold My Own]

This is bound to fire some people up but the guy who owns several websites (allglock.com, gunsatcost.com, etc) sold the guns used at the VT shooting. Here is what they are doing now in response.

http://www.allglock.com/Content.aspx?ckey=Guns_at_Cost

Owner of Web-based Firearms Company that Sold to Virginia Tech and NIU Shooters to Forgo Profits to Help Prevent Future Loss of Life
TGSCOM, Inc

GREEN BAY – A regrettable tie to two mass murders on college campuses is spurring a firearms dealer to forgo profit for the sake of preventing future loss of life.

Eric Thompson’s company, TGSCOM Inc., sold Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui a Walther P22 through the Web site www.thegunsource.com. Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people at Northern Illinois University (NIU) on February 14th, received two 9mm Glock magazines and a holster he ordered from the TGSCOM Inc. Web site www.topglock.com.

Ever since the NIU shootings, Thompson has been using his unfortunate coincidence to press for changes that will make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun to protect themselves, the people they love and their neighbors.

Today, Thompson is backing up his words with actions. For the next two weeks, Thompson will not take any profit on firearms sales from any of his over 100 Web sites. Instead, Thompson will offer guns to customers for the same cost he pays for them.

“I hope and pray I will never again be in a position where I am asked questions about selling items used in a crime,” said Thompson. “The next news story I want to be involved in is how I sold a firearm to someone who helped stop a mass murderer. By forgoing a profit, I hope to help give law-abiding citizens the tools to prevent tragedy.”

By logging onto www.gunsatcost.com, law-abiding citizens will have the chance to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones. Customers will have over 5,400 different kinds of firearms from which to choose.

Since learning of the unfortunate and random twist of events that made Thompson’s company a part of both the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings, Thompson has said he has “a special responsibility to work to prevent future tragedies.”

Thompson has since launched a Web site, www.gundebate.com, to help spur a dialogue in search of solutions to stop future mass shootings and also to act as a clearing house for public safety ideas.

Thompson also announced that he plans to visit Blacksburg, Virginia on Thursday, April 24 to speak at a Virginia Tech Students for Concealed Carry on Campus event. Thompson will use the speech to highlight his support for giving law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves from criminals.

Thompson recently partnered with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to provide hundreds of holsters donated by his customers and gun manufacturers to nearly 30 colleges and universities for students to participate in the second-annual “empty-holster protest.” The purpose of the protest is to object to state laws and university policies that forbid law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons on campuses.

I'm not sure how I feel about him doing this but bottom line is I've been needing to buy a gun and I finally was able to at a good price.

[RubberMallet]

but they are qualified to vote and join the military (so they can drive 40 ton tanks or fly 80M aircraft), drive cars (2000 lb killing machines on wheels, etc...

i think you have far too low an opinion of the vast majority of your fellow citizens. 95%? there are more than 100 people on FF. which 5 would you decide are 'worthy' of carrying, and which 95 would you say are too stupid, and why? that mentality is one that says, the people are too dumb to know what they want, so we, the government, must decide for them.

well, while i feel everyone should be able to vote, i also feel very few are qualified to vote..."The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

um and you don't sign up for the military and then the next week they have you a tank and say "go get em!"....so that example is stupid...

i think you have far too high of an opinion of the vast majority of our fellow citizens...

you think my opinion of the avg citizen is low, you don't even want to know what i feel about the compnetency of our gvt. plus, i've said nothing to give even a hint of what i believe the gvt should and shouldn't decide....you seem to like to make huge broad assumptions about people just based off of things a person types...(IE he said most people aren't qualified to have guns, hes an elitist liberal commy)

[Ed Dantes]

I know all the statistics about how guns protect people and how it deters crimes, but still -- there needs to be limits. People shouldn't be allowed to own dozens and dozens of guns, or have an arsenal at home that rivals that of a small country.

[LUconn]

Why would you limit the number of guns someone can own? Isn't 1 gun just as dangerous as 50 for a single person to own?

[JDUB]

I know all the statistics about how guns protect people and how it deters crimes, but still -- there needs to be limits. People shouldn't be allowed to own dozens and dozens of guns, or have an arsenal at home that rivals that of a small country.

what a dumb statement. do you have a reason for this?

[Ed Dantes]

Why would you limit the number of guns someone can own? Isn't 1 gun just as dangerous as 50 for a single person to own?

What's the point to owning 50? Or an AK-47, for that matter? Doesn't that logic cut both ways?

[LUconn]

I can see an AK-47 or semi automatic stuff. Although I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about that. But if someone wants 50, I don't see how that's any more dangerous than one. Maybe they collect them like you collect baseball cards, or maybe they're trying to get in the guiness book of records, or maybe they use them like lincoln logs to create miniature cities. I don't think it's important why they have them because they can go on a shooting rampage either way.

[matshark]

This is bound to fire some people up but the guy who owns several websites (allglock.com, gunsatcost.com, etc) sold the guns used at the VT shooting. Here is what they are doing now in response.

http://www.allglock.com/Content.aspx?ckey=Guns_at_Cost

Owner of Web-based Firearms Company that Sold to Virginia Tech and NIU Shooters to Forgo Profits to Help Prevent Future Loss of Life
TGSCOM, Inc

GREEN BAY – A regrettable tie to two mass murders on college campuses is spurring a firearms dealer to forgo profit for the sake of preventing future loss of life.

Eric Thompson’s company, TGSCOM Inc., sold Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui a Walther P22 through the Web site www.thegunsource.com. Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people at Northern Illinois University (NIU) on February 14th, received two 9mm Glock magazines and a holster he ordered from the TGSCOM Inc. Web site www.topglock.com.

Ever since the NIU shootings, Thompson has been using his unfortunate coincidence to press for changes that will make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry a gun to protect themselves, the people they love and their neighbors.

Today, Thompson is backing up his words with actions. For the next two weeks, Thompson will not take any profit on firearms sales from any of his over 100 Web sites. Instead, Thompson will offer guns to customers for the same cost he pays for them.

“I hope and pray I will never again be in a position where I am asked questions about selling items used in a crime,” said Thompson. “The next news story I want to be involved in is how I sold a firearm to someone who helped stop a mass murderer. By forgoing a profit, I hope to help give law-abiding citizens the tools to prevent tragedy.”

By logging onto www.gunsatcost.com, law-abiding citizens will have the chance to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones. Customers will have over 5,400 different kinds of firearms from which to choose.

Since learning of the unfortunate and random twist of events that made Thompson’s company a part of both the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings, Thompson has said he has “a special responsibility to work to prevent future tragedies.”

Thompson has since launched a Web site, www.gundebate.com, to help spur a dialogue in search of solutions to stop future mass shootings and also to act as a clearing house for public safety ideas.

Thompson also announced that he plans to visit Blacksburg, Virginia on Thursday, April 24 to speak at a Virginia Tech Students for Concealed Carry on Campus event. Thompson will use the speech to highlight his support for giving law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves from criminals.

Thompson recently partnered with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus to provide hundreds of holsters donated by his customers and gun manufacturers to nearly 30 colleges and universities for students to participate in the second-annual “empty-holster protest.” The purpose of the protest is to object to state laws and university policies that forbid law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed weapons on campuses.

I'm not sure how I feel about him doing this but bottom line is I've been needing to buy a gun and I finally was able to at a good price.

i think its an excellent idea for him to do that and i hpe more people get involved.

[matshark]

but they are qualified to vote and join the military (so they can drive 40 ton tanks or fly 80M aircraft), drive cars (2000 lb killing machines on wheels, etc...

i think you have far too low an opinion of the vast majority of your fellow citizens. 95%? there are more than 100 people on FF. which 5 would you decide are 'worthy' of carrying, and which 95 would you say are too stupid, and why? that mentality is one that says, the people are too dumb to know what they want, so we, the government, must decide for them.

well, while i feel everyone should be able to vote, i also feel very few are qualified to vote..."The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

um and you don't sign up for the military and then the next week they have you a tank and say "go get em!"....so that example is stupid...

i think you have far too high of an opinion of the vast majority of our fellow citizens...

you think my opinion of the avg citizen is low, you don't even want to know what i feel about the compnetency of our gvt. plus, i've said nothing to give even a hint of what i believe the gvt should and shouldn't decide....you seem to like to make huge broad assumptions about people just based off of things a person types...(IE he said most people aren't qualified to have guns, hes an elitist liberal commy)

well im going to agree with however low your opinion is of our government. as bad as they are with taxpayer money, id HATE to see how they are with their own. (but amazingly they all seem to make money while in office...hmm)

ur right, you DONT sign up for the military and the next week they give you a tank, but they DO train you on how to properly use it. The point is that if you can train an average 18 year old kid straight out of HS how to drive a tank, you can train a 34 year old soccer mom how to use a gun. People aren't so stupid that training can't make them competent. That's what training is there for. The bottom line is that if you can take your average 18 year old male and teach them to use a tank, you can take your average person and teach them to use a firearm properly, safely and responsibly.

[matshark]

I would rather have Medic try to deter the guy with a gun to my head than fumble for a glock in my backpack.

thanks...

I think

prolly not a good idea to have a gun in your backpack (not safe - too much stuff that can snag the trigger and you cant control the direction of the barrel). holsters work much better. and id rather be able to use my weapon to help myself than to make Medic deal with a hostage situation.

[JDUB]

the problem with being fully reliant on the police is, they can't be everywhere at once. by the time they get there it is too late a lot of the time

[matshark]

I can see an AK-47 or semi automatic stuff. Although I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about that. But if someone wants 50, I don't see how that's any more dangerous than one. Maybe they collect them like you collect baseball cards, or maybe they're trying to get in the guiness book of records, or maybe they use them like lincoln logs to create miniature cities. I don't think it's important why they have them because they can go on a shooting rampage either way.

i dont care if someone has 100 or 200 guns. the number doesn't matter to me. as long as they are a law abiding citizen, i say more power to them.

here's some food for thought. I'm even for citizens being able to own all the machine guns they want. why? simple, no lawfully owned machine gun has EVER been used to commit a crime. EVER! do i think people should have to pay for tax stamps on each automatic weapon they own? ABSOLUTELY NOT! there is a process in place to do background checks on gun owners currently. the tax stamps are basically just another way to take money from citizens and give it to the government. (we had a very similar situation many many years ago that culminated in a rather famous Tea Party) Granted, that does get into the taxation without representation thing, BUT the fact is that those stamps do not provide anything for the taxpayers, nor do they serve any purpose in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, etc...

I'm perfectly fine if my neighbors have a small arsenal in their houses. (Even more so if they have a BIG arsenal!)

It's no different than if someone collects cars. They certainly can't drive all 200 cars at one time, but thats not the point. It's a free country and they are within their right to own as many cars as they want, subject to the local laws and regulations.

Let's face it, guns are just plain fun to shoot. They should be shot safely so as not to endanger anyone, but it's not hard to find enough land to do that on, or merely visiting a range will suffice. I've shot a silenced MP5 on full-auto. THAT was fun. I'm not gonna lie. I'd like to shoot a .50 cal machine gun. I'd like to OWN a .50 cal Machine gun. Why? Because i can. I've shot a S&W .500 magnum. That thing is a hand cannon. The bottom line is that the founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they said, "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Citizens owning guns accomplishes 3 things: 1. preserving a safe environment for citizens in their day to day activities. 2. helping to preserve national security in the case of attack by foreign countries. 3. preservation of personal freedoms in the case of the government attempting to take control form the people (there were many papers written on this very topic).


-------------------------------------


"Those who beat their swords into plows, will plow the fields of those still with swords.

An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington

[LUconn]

not to mention

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... cotus.html

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

[RubberMallet]

but they are qualified to vote and join the military (so they can drive 40 ton tanks or fly 80M aircraft), drive cars (2000 lb killing machines on wheels, etc...

i think you have far too low an opinion of the vast majority of your fellow citizens. 95%? there are more than 100 people on FF. which 5 would you decide are 'worthy' of carrying, and which 95 would you say are too stupid, and why? that mentality is one that says, the people are too dumb to know what they want, so we, the government, must decide for them.

well, while i feel everyone should be able to vote, i also feel very few are qualified to vote..."The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

um and you don't sign up for the military and then the next week they have you a tank and say "go get em!"....so that example is stupid...

i think you have far too high of an opinion of the vast majority of our fellow citizens...

you think my opinion of the avg citizen is low, you don't even want to know what i feel about the compnetency of our gvt. plus, i've said nothing to give even a hint of what i believe the gvt should and shouldn't decide....you seem to like to make huge broad assumptions about people just based off of things a person types...(IE he said most people aren't qualified to have guns, hes an elitist liberal commy)

well im going to agree with however low your opinion is of our government. as bad as they are with taxpayer money, id HATE to see how they are with their own. (but amazingly they all seem to make money while in office...hmm)

ur right, you DONT sign up for the military and the next week they give you a tank, but they DO train you on how to properly use it. The point is that if you can train an average 18 year old kid straight out of HS how to drive a tank, you can train a 34 year old soccer mom how to use a gun. People aren't so stupid that training can't make them competent. That's what training is there for. The bottom line is that if you can take your average 18 year old male and teach them to use a tank, you can take your average person and teach them to use a firearm properly, safely and responsibly.

i've never disagreed that training can make a person compitent....i just fail to see where 2 classes is enough to make someone competent to carry, and i fail to see the majority of people willing to put any more effort than 2 classes to do so...

[matshark]

not to mention

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... cotus.html

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

LUConn, thanks for finding this article. I actually referenced it earlier in one of my posts.

With the local PD not legally responsible for protecting us from harm, the onus falls on us to protect ourselves. Someone once said, God made man, Sam Colt made him equal. The bottom line is that there is no greater way for a woman to protect herself from those who wish to do her harm than to own and carry a gun.

[JDUB]

well, while i feel everyone should be able to vote, i also feel very few are qualified to vote..."The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. "

um and you don't sign up for the military and then the next week they have you a tank and say "go get em!"....so that example is stupid...

i think you have far too high of an opinion of the vast majority of our fellow citizens...

you think my opinion of the avg citizen is low, you don't even want to know what i feel about the compnetency of our gvt. plus, i've said nothing to give even a hint of what i believe the gvt should and shouldn't decide....you seem to like to make huge broad assumptions about people just based off of things a person types...(IE he said most people aren't qualified to have guns, hes an elitist liberal commy)

well im going to agree with however low your opinion is of our government. as bad as they are with taxpayer money, id HATE to see how they are with their own. (but amazingly they all seem to make money while in office...hmm)

ur right, you DONT sign up for the military and the next week they give you a tank, but they DO train you on how to properly use it. The point is that if you can train an average 18 year old kid straight out of HS how to drive a tank, you can train a 34 year old soccer mom how to use a gun. People aren't so stupid that training can't make them competent. That's what training is there for. The bottom line is that if you can take your average 18 year old male and teach them to use a tank, you can take your average person and teach them to use a firearm properly, safely and responsibly.

i've never disagreed that training can make a person compitent....i just fail to see where 2 classes is enough to make someone competent to carry, and i fail to see the majority of people willing to put any more effort than 2 classes to do so...

i can understand that opinion, and i can't say that the class makes you competent because i haven't taken it yet.

[matshark]

i've never disagreed that training can make a person compitent....i just fail to see where 2 classes is enough to make someone competent to carry, and i fail to see the majority of people willing to put any more effort than 2 classes to do so...

i can understand that opinion, and i can't say that the class makes you competent because i haven't taken it yet.

RM, i agree with you that some people may need more training. I'm sure you would agree that some people need more training with driving...lol I think that the more training a person gets, the more proficient they become. I don't think that more training would be bad. I simply think that everyone should go through some training so that everyone has at least a minimal level of proficiency with firearms. Unlike drivers ed though, I think that a higher level of proficiency can be reached in a shorter amount of time with firearms. That reason is one of the big reasons why I think that gun safety should be taught in schools. Even if it's only one semester, that's still 5 hrs/week for roughly 10-12 weeks. By comparison, Police Academies typically only spend ONE week on firearms.

http://teexpoliceacademy.blogspot.com/2 ... ining.html

that week is supposed to encompass everything that they are to know and be proficient in at their jobs. (see link).

they also ONLY spend one week (40 hrs) working on defensive tactics (hand-to-hand). that is simply not enough time to master the skills they need to know. (one of my good friends is a DT and firearms instructor and i get to hear him gripe about it every time he teaches at the academy)

I don't think it is a stretch to say that a HS student enrolled in a one semester class could be more proficient at the basics of firearms use, safety and marskmanship at the end of that semester than a PD cadet at the end of the Academy. (50-60 hrs on care (safety)/cleaning/marksmanship vs. 40 hrs on care (safety)/cleaning/marksmanship/tactics/multiple weapons/etc...)

further, if you look at the web site, it talks about how many of the people in the academy have NEVER fired a gun before. that doesn't give me much confidence in the police as a whole with their marksmanship. its not hard to see how many civilians are better with guns than some law enforcement officers. they simply get more practice and use them more often.

so to sum it up, yes RM i agree with you on people needing more training, and that more training is better. but i think that many people also have a false sense of security in the abilities of law enforcement, and that while LEOs do the best that they can, people need to take personal responsibilities to protect themselves as adequately as possible, and one aspect of that would be a semester long (or longer) class in school that teaches the basics on safety and marksmanship.

[ATrain]

Well, I personally think if anyone in Norris Hall...a professor, another student, anyone...had had a concealed weapon when Cho started his rampage, there is a huge chance that the casualties would've been far less. Taking guns from and denying them to law-abiding citizens empowers criminals more than anyone else. Australia is a tragic example of this when they did it.

[ToTheLeft]

Well, I personally think if anyone in Norris Hall...a professor, another student, anyone...had had a concealed weapon when Cho started his rampage, there is a huge chance that the casualties would've been far less. Taking guns from and denying them to law-abiding citizens empowers criminals more than anyone else. Australia is a tragic example of this when they did it.

So, let's just say 3 or 4 more people in there ha guns.

One stands up and fires at Cho.

Another, who had been hiding after seeing Cho come in packing heat, peaks out sees the person who had fired at Cho holding a gun, and, to "defend" himself, fires at the person who more than likely saved his life.

I just don't see how lightly trained citizens should be responsible for their safety and the safety of others in the case of a tragic attack. I would rather remove as many guns from the situation as possible and let the people who are trained to take care of this kind of situation do the best job they can.

[flameshaw]

HMO,

The gun store I went to today did not have any Glock 27's, had about every other model. Will let you know if I see one at the show this weekend.

[ATrain]

Well, I personally think if anyone in Norris Hall...a professor, another student, anyone...had had a concealed weapon when Cho started his rampage, there is a huge chance that the casualties would've been far less. Taking guns from and denying them to law-abiding citizens empowers criminals more than anyone else. Australia is a tragic example of this when they did it.

So, let's just say 3 or 4 more people in there ha guns.

One stands up and fires at Cho.

Another, who had been hiding after seeing Cho come in packing heat, peaks out sees the person who had fired at Cho holding a gun, and, to "defend" himself, fires at the person who more than likely saved his life.

I just don't see how lightly trained citizens should be responsible for their safety and the safety of others in the case of a tragic attack. I would rather remove as many guns from the situation as possible and let the people who are trained to take care of this kind of situation do the best job they can.

And the likelihood of the person firing at the person that killed Cho is slim to none...but even if your crazy scenario played out, there would probably still be less people killed. Or if Cho knew people would have guns, perhaps he wouldn't have done it in the first place. Remember, he took his own life rather than getting into a shootout with police. Removing as many guns as possible from the situation is exactly what is done with the no firearms on campuses law...and look what happened. Sometimes the best the "people who are trained to take care of this kind of situation" is not good enough.

[ATrain]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/ ... yguns.html

I think this story proves why ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Suppose the manager didn't have a gun...would the shooter have backed out of the doorway or continued firing, potentially hitting and killing someone (the shooter was a bad shot...which is why I say potentially).

[thepostman]

Well, I personally think if anyone in Norris Hall...a professor, another student, anyone...had had a concealed weapon when Cho started his rampage, there is a huge chance that the casualties would've been far less. Taking guns from and denying them to law-abiding citizens empowers criminals more than anyone else. Australia is a tragic example of this when they did it.

I have often thought that as well, but this is something i go back and forth on, because if everybody carries a gun all it takes is one stupid decision and somebody is dead...its a tough issue and its far from a black and white issue like many would like to think....

IF people want to own guns, more power to them...but SOME restrictions are probably a good idea....its tough though, because so many people interpret the 2nd amendment differently....

[matshark]

Well, I personally think if anyone in Norris Hall...a professor, another student, anyone...had had a concealed weapon when Cho started his rampage, there is a huge chance that the casualties would've been far less. Taking guns from and denying them to law-abiding citizens empowers criminals more than anyone else. Australia is a tragic example of this when they did it.

So, let's just say 3 or 4 more people in there ha guns.

One stands up and fires at Cho.

Another, who had been hiding after seeing Cho come in packing heat, peaks out sees the person who had fired at Cho holding a gun, and, to "defend" himself, fires at the person who more than likely saved his life.

I just don't see how lightly trained citizens should be responsible for their safety and the safety of others in the case of a tragic attack. I would rather remove as many guns from the situation as possible and let the people who are trained to take care of this kind of situation do the best job they can.

wow, lets just make up the actions of people you've never met, in a situation you've never been in...

as far as removing as many guns from the situation as possible, yeah that works real well. thats WHY the situation ended up the way it did....

lets recap school shootings in the US ONLY:
http://www.holology.com/shooting.html

2008
Northern Illinois University (5 dead, 16 wounded)

2007
Success Tech HS, Cleveland, OH (1 suicide, 4 wounded)
Mount Vernon Elementary, Newark, NJ (3 dead, 1 wounded) *note, guns are ILLEGAL in NJ*
Virginia Tech (32 dead+suicide)

2006
West Nickel Mines Amish School (5 dead+suicide)
Weston School, WI (1 dead)
Platte Canyon HS, CO (1 dead+killer, 6 girls held hostage and sexually assaulted)
Orange HS, NC (1 dead - prior to attack, 2 wounded)
Roseburg HS, OR (1 wounded)

2005
Campbell County HS, TN (1 dead, 2 wounded)
Red Lake HE, MN (3 dead prior to attack, 5 dead, 7 wounded) *kept shooting until police arrived and killed him - SHOT AND KILLED UNARMD SECURITY GUARD at the school*

2003
John McDonogh HS, New Orleans (1 dead, 3 wounded)
Red Lion Junior HS, PA (1 dead+suicide)
Rocori HS, MN (1 dead, 1 wounded)

2002
MLK Jr. High, Manhattan (2 wounded)
Appalachian School of Law, VA
(ironically the killer was stopped by two STUDENTS who had their guns in their cars and left, went to retrieve them, came back and THEN held the killer at gun point UNTIL THE POLICE ARRIVED. 3 dead, 3 wounded... now imagine if the students hadn't had to go all the way back to their cars to get their guns and could have accessed them immediately)
U of Arizona School of Nursing (3 dead+suicide)


1999
Heritage HS, Conyers, GA (6 wounded)
Columbine (13 dead+ 2 suicides)

1998
Lincoln County HS, Fayetteville, TN (1 dead, 18 wounded)
Thurston HS, OR (2 dead+his parents, 23 wounded)
Parker MS, Edinboro, PA (1 dead, 3 wounded - middle school dance)
Westside MS, Jonesboro, AR (5 dead, 10 wounded - ambush using fire alarm)

1997
Heath HS, Paducah, KY (5 dead, 3 wounded)
Pearl HS, Pearl, MS (2 dead, 7 wounded - Asst. Principal used gun from his car to hold shooter UNTIL POLICE ARRIVED)

---------------------------

what can we learn from these incidents?

on two occasions people retrieved guns from their cars and held the shooters at bay until the police arrived
the police ALWAYS arrive after an event takes place and people are killed
on one occasion an UNARMED security guard was killed
in the cases of the big shootings (columbine, NIU, VT, Thurston OR, Red Lake, Platte Canyon & Jonesboro AR) the damage was done before police arrived on scene AND the victims were defenseless.

OBVIOUSLY taking the guns out DOESN"T WORK. (how many stats do i have to show to make this point?) All of these places DID NOT have guns present, yet the school shooting STILL happened. WHY?

simple. it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent a determined person from carrying out a crime. they dont CARE about the rules, or the laws, or anything else. so until students (in the case of colleges) and teachers (in the case of HS) are allowed to carry firearms for protection, school shootings WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN with appalling results.

----------------------

food for thought... what if a school shooting is a terrorist act? couldn't happen you say?

Beslan, Russia
muslims demanding an end to the 2nd Chechyn War took over the school on the first day of school.
1100 adults and schoolchildren taken hostage and put into a 10mx25m gym
the women and girls were sexually assaulted
3 day stand-off until stormed by russian troops
334 hostages killed (186 children) hundreds wounded or missing (the terrorists had explosives)

weapons had been hidden in the school in advance
a sniper nest had been created on the roof
the strongest males (17) were shot and killed - to get rid of any threats
the gym and school were mined and wired with explosives

after the russian troops stormed the building, killing some of the terrorists, many of the terrorists fled with the hostages and were hidden by local muslims before escaping

(much of what i know came from reading a government report that friend showed me and was definitely NOT intended for my eyes)

also in that report was the mentioning of several incidents during which men of middle eastern descent were seen around schools, even boarding school buses. further was raised threats by terrorist factions which said that the carnage in beslan was not but a fraction of what was to come to America and that the schools would be turned into killing grounds.

the only thing that keeping law abiding citizens from carrying firearms in schools does is make them softer targets and easier victims to those that dont give a rats --- about the law.

[matshark]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/ ... yguns.html

I think this story proves why ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Suppose the manager didn't have a gun...would the shooter have backed out of the doorway or continued firing, potentially hitting and killing someone (the shooter was a bad shot...which is why I say potentially).

hmm, the man that had his gun out FIRST, fired several times and didn't hit a thing... hmm...
could it be that his adrenaline was going crazy and he had no fine motor control?

second, the two guys that pulled their guns second A. didn't get shot in the head INSTANTLY B. ended the situation without firing a shot... hmmm....

could it be the Sharky knows what hes talking about?