And by the way when a single gun man with a gun lines up people at a wall then why don't they use their power of being more they one to over power the gunman. Flight 93 went to the ground based on that fact and look at the lives saved. Could not lives have been saved had the people lind up to die had reacted to stop this nut.
2007-04-16 08:55:31 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes, however in this case no one wanted to be first.
2007-04-16 08:58:53 · answer #1 · answered by skcs11 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Concealed carry certainly would've increased the chances that someone might have been in a position to stop him. All it takes is proper training and the nerve to close the deal if the time should ever come.
I haven't read anywhere yet that he lined anyone up. And if he did, it's possible they didn't know he was going to kill them. On United 93, those passengers came to learn of the fates of other hijacked aircraft, so they had a pretty good idea their flight was doomed too. That may not have been the case in Blacksburg, Va.
2007-04-16 09:05:03 · answer #2 · answered by Lawn Jockey 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If even one student in each and every dorm had the presence of recommendations to shoot and safeguard anybody else then the form of human beings who have been killed could have been dramatically decreased. yet that extremely is a mute element, because of the fact no you are able to have confidence a newborn with a gun now days....element shown in this bloodbath. So if a gunman gets a gun from the two criminal or unlawful ability then anybody around him are actually not something extra suitable than dumb frantic geese attempting to stay alive. What needs to ensue, is that once teenagers or adults prepare signs and indicators of intense or reasonable anti-social habit...they might desire to be removed from colleges era..until eventually they're thoroughly cautioned...documented and checked for firearms...and revoked of ever getting ahold of any firearms.. do no longer punish anybody else because of the few rotten spuds interior the batch.
2016-12-29 17:09:38 · answer #3 · answered by jun 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Presumably, more guns on campus would mean more frequent shootings, but a swifter end to large-scale shootings like this one. Whether that'd be a net savings in lives is debateable.
A lot would depend upon how the guns are introduced. If any laws or policies restricting concealed carry were simply lifted, it might be grim. If concealed carry were permitted with propper training and liscencing, it might work out well.
Still, a college doesn't sound like the ideal place to try something like that. College students may be more stable than highschool students, but they're still pretty young, and often dealing with a great deal of stress.
2007-04-16 09:02:36 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the results could have been very different. I'm not familiar with the campus or exactly how the shooting went down today, but assuming the people who were being shot at could see the gunman, someone could have got him before he went and killed more people. Sure, a few would have died, but probably not 30.
2007-04-16 08:59:21 · answer #5 · answered by Galaxie Girl 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have lots of guns myself.. but I still have to say this is a flawed argument because you could just as easily argue that more people would have died over time due to guns on campus than from this one event... we need to start asking the right questions.. like what is causing people to want to cause this kind of death and destruction.. then we may actually solve the situation.. having guns or not having guns.. either way solves nothing.
2007-04-16 09:02:08 · answer #6 · answered by pip 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know that the students having guns of their own would have helped the situation or not. I don't like "what-ifs" but I understand where you're coming from with that idea.
I just worry that students walking around with a gun on their waist/their backpack would do more harm than good, maybe more innocent peoples lives would have been jeopardized. Or what about the slightly unstable person toting a gun having a girlfriend/boyfriend break it off or cheat on them and then snapping with that said gun? I don't like guns period, end of story. Sorry....
2007-04-16 09:01:44 · answer #7 · answered by Jen 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
My father and i said the same damn thing. Theres no reason for one man being able to over take 10 people, let alone 30 or more.
2007-04-16 09:00:08 · answer #8 · answered by TJ815 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Could have -- yes. Would have -- not necessarily. A gun is a nuisance to carry around; they are heavy and bulky. Most people would probably prefer to not carry one, as being not worth the bother.
2007-04-16 09:01:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The ultimate responsibility of self protection falls on the citizen.
This debacle is just another example.
Security and the police failed to protect those poor victims.
They also denied them the right to protect themselves.
The shooter ruined many lives and now the nut job is on his way to hell where he belongs.
Unfortunately, power grabbers will use this massacre to further erode our rights as citizens.....
2007-04-16 09:13:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, but then any minor altercation would end up as a gun fight and while the few shooting sprees would stop a lot quicker you'll have a lot more people dying of gunfire.
2007-04-16 09:02:56 · answer #11 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋