"Citizens are responsible for their own personal safety"...will be translated to the liberal brain to read as..."Bring your own bottle boys, there is a quick draw contest tonight at the fairgrounds, plenty of hard liquor and guns enough to go around", yada, yada, yada...

"Citizens are responsible for their own personal safety. Police protect our community through law enforcement and criminal investigation -- not personal protective services."

Yup.

An armed society is a polite society.

Anyone who wants ample evidence of this should look no further than Kennesaw, Georgia: 25 years without a single murder, because of a law passed in 1982 mandating that every homeowner possess a firearm.

If ordinary, responsible people had been allowed to carry firearms on the Virginia Tech campus, the gunman would not have gotten very far, or even considered carrying it out at all.

I'll even take it a few steps further: if we let ordinary, responsible people bring firearms aboard commercial airliners, there would be no plane hijackings.

Government can not protect you. Better protect yourself instead.

CK,

I totally agree! Last year was the first year that Virginia Tech made all of the students and professors sign a pledge that they would not carry arms on campus!

I attended Virginia Tech in the late 80's early 90's. I had several friends that "packed". These were the individuals that I felt safe around, and no they were not mentally disturbed. They were the most sane people I knew!

With the degree/level of Cho's mental illness, his reasoning capabilities were very diminished. Therefore, even had he known others may possess weapons, he would, in all likelihood, attempted his tragic quest.

As for others carrying weapons (concealed or not), I am against that. In today's society people fear enough from those who carry weapons WITHOUT a license. We should not have to fear those who do so with a license. Furthermore, who is to say that some of the students/faculty at Virginia Tech DID NOT have weapons? I dare so this was probably so! If Cho had them, what is/was to prevent another from doing likewise?

And from what I have read of the events in Norris Hall on the campus, people there did take acts to protect themselves. So, a very weak and lame argument is given to suggest that the only way one can protest one's self and/or others is with a firearm. To suggest otherwise is only opening the door for further and greater violence to possibly happen.

My question is this; What do you say when concealed weapons are allowed and a person who carries "heat" concealed and is the perpetrator of a crime similar in nature to Cho? What safety measures do you call for at that point?

It has to take a society willing to stop the violence by seeking to limit the dangerous things. It is so amazing that a great percentage of Americans are willing to let their civil liberties be removed regarding privacy, etc. Yet, when it comes to gun ownership, even those who do not own guns become the most vocal cheerleaders! Go figure!

Shalom

No where did I say that I wasn't one of those "packing".

It is a known fact that houses that have burglar alarms installed have fewer attempts at a break in than those houses that have none.

CK brought up a powerful psychological fact. "An armed society is a polite one". The criminals use their weapons as an intimidation tool. It is easy to intimidate with a gun when you KNOW that no one else has one!

A criminal would have less effect with his gun if he had the knowledge that he just might be shot back at!

Darryl,

By the way, Cho did have a gun license, so this is not part of the discussion here. The issue was that Tech banned weapons on the campus, licensed or not. Forget that the license process was flawed in that he should never have been granted a license. Tech can ban weapons on the campus, but it can't ban violence, or at least enforce it.

The point is that there never can be enough law enforcement officers to protect every individual. As it has been noted, personal protection is really our own responsibility.

If the solution is a society that is wiling to stop the violence, where do we start? That's a fairly large task, don't you think? Has there ever been a society that purged all violence? I'm not aware that one such ever has existed. In any event, how do we get there, when we have so many people that see violence as their avenue to securing everything they want?

Firearms on commercial airlines? I don't think I want bullets flying at 20,000 feet.

I believe that there was a movie not too long ago called "The Village" that addressed this very issue. The gist of the movie was that a few people who had been touched by violence in modern society created a closed society that banned ALL violence and violent weapons. BUT in the end there was a murder! No weapons involved!

My take on the movie is that it is natural for certain individuals to have violent natures. That is where the earlier quote of "we are responsible for our individual safety" comes in!

We as a society can not stop all violence. BUT, we can protect ourselves from it!

I wholeheartly agree with Michael Tellekamp!! I can not add to what he has spoken about. Thank you, Michael.
And, I want everyone to know that Michael and I have been friends for over 25 years. We go back as law enforcement officers chasing scum bags 2-legged animals to put in cages. And, to a degree, we think alike. Good to hear from you, Mike! The Dogs outa here.
Crime Dog

ORR, I addressed the gun license issue because that was a basic premise that I gleaned from the LTTE. So, it is an issue in this regard. So, with Cho having been able to obtain a firearm license, it can very clearly be seen the flaws in that system!

Regarding Virginia Tech banning weapons, I believe that many, if not all) States have laws prohibiting firearms on campus'. So, it is not just one particular school to do this. NC has a law barring same. Many other States have passed similar legislation as well.

Where do we start to help curb/stop violence in our society? The first place is to become involved/concerned citizens! Instead of not getting involved when we see potential criminal activity happening; We need to be able to give law enforcement personnel information on what we see. Today, the theory is to not get involved. Look at our educational system to see what non-involvement can do!

When "We the citizens" take back our streets/neighborhoods, then you will see a reduction in violence.

geohokie, to use violent to protect ourselves from violence creates a vicious cycle that can be most difficult to stop. The best way to stop it is to NOT begin it!

If you wish to see what a peaceful society can be, read about the Shaker communities of the 18th-20th Century. They were peace loving communities. Abraham Lincoln gave the Shakers official conscious objector status due to their convictions. If more people would become convinced of this, violence would be virtually unknown.

Shalom

Darryl,

The Shaker communities that you speak of were of a moral conviction and were fearful of the wrath of God! They followed the "laws" because they were in fear of their salvation.

This society that we live in has lost all fear of God! There is no "higher authority" governing the masses anymore!

"If ordinary, responsible people had been allowed to carry firearms on the Virginia Tech campus, the gunman would not have gotten very far, or even considered carrying it out at all."

Seems like a huge leap of logic to think that a man that shot himself in the head would be deterred by potentially armed people. May be motivated to change his strategy but deterred, I don't think so.

The main arguments run something like either "if we could only get more arms into the right sort of people" or "if we could only keep arms away from the wrong sort of people"

then everything would be peachy keen.

Everybody was armed in the wild west (& Iraq for that matter). Those sure were and are polite societies.

CK,
I'm not sure we can take Podunk, GA and make a case for the whole world or even draw a conclusion. Talk about sampling problems in a study.

Darryl: "And from what I have read of the events in Norris Hall on the campus, people there did take acts to protect themselves. So, a very weak and lame argument is given to suggest that the only way one can protest one's self and/or others is with a firearm. To suggest otherwise is only opening the door for further and greater violence to possibly happen."

Well, Darryl, apparently their "acts to protect themselves" weren't very successful.

It is neither "weak" nor "lame" to argue that one can protect oneself with a gun more effectively that with, say, a fish or a moral platitude. In fact, if you tried to attack me with a fish or a moral platitude (or both), I could easily defend myself by shooting you (if I had a gun). Conclusion: it is good to have a gun if someone is trying to kill you. Or you'll end up like the Shakers: extinct.

Brian444:

The Shakers adherence to celibacy had a lot to do with their decline.

brian, I believe you have failed with yet another weak and lame argument. It is stated, "In fact, if you tried to attack me with a fish or a moral platitude (or both), I could easily defend myself by shooting you (if I had a gun)." You see as a pacifist, I WILL NOT even seek to attack you or anyone else.

And should you find a reason for wanting to take a firearm in defense against my words, then so be it. I do not fear you or a firearm.

Shalom