Probably not, but in sometime while they are armed, some fight or argument would have blown out of control and end up in bloodshed. Repeatedly.
2007-04-17 13:19:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Could you imagine going to school with a bunch of armed students? The person who did this shooting was very disturbed. How many murderers are there in the world? How many people can be pushed to murder? How many people do you want to have access to a gun when you get into an argument with them? I don't believe the answer is to take away guns either. There needs to be better screening of people who work and attend schools, jobs, etc. If a person is of danger to himself/herself, or others, then I don't believe they should be allowed to be among the public until the problem is resolved. The schools should have more authority such as committing someone to a psychiatric unit for evaluation. The police need to take these matters seriously and do everything in their power to keep everyone safe. People should have to go through some sort of psychiatric testing before purchasing a gun legally and also any type of medicine that may alter ones mind should be able to be searched to see if itis prescribed to the individual during the time of the sale and if they are then there should be no sale. More guns or less guns is not the answer, Guns do not kill people, people do and unless we do something about the people who purchase guns this kind of stuff is going to keep happening. If guns are taken away from law abiding citizens then the criminals would still have theirs and the innocent would have no way to protect themselves. If everyone in the world carried a concealed weapon in places like schools, churches, court houses, etc. I think it would cause more accidents and even more problems. What is the real problem gun control or people control? Also for those who own guns, there needs to be a national list that should be checked to assure that no new mind altering meds have been prescribed or crimes committed.
2007-04-20 19:16:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Christine 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The gunman would have died much sooner and people would have been saved. In looking at some of the responses here, I am appalled at their absurdity. No wonder I fear people of legal age having the right to vote. Most are totally uninformed and, literally, "make things up" to support their unsubstantiated points of view.
Most gun control advocates do not have a clue.
2007-04-17 13:33:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It is NOT way out there. It is not even slightly out there. That answer is: the death toll would have been 4 to 6. The two in the dorm would still be dead. The first person shot in the class building would still be dead. The shooter would still be dead, but not by his own hand. One or two others MAY have died before return fire killed the shooter.
2007-04-17 14:27:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
My dad was complaining about this today while he was watching the news . . . He said exactly the same thing- I agree with you, if just ONE of those students had a concealed weapon on them, I guarantee that the shooter wouldn't have made it to the second building- Which I don't understand anyway- why didn't the cops LOOK for him- they had 2 HOURS before he struck again- whatever.
2007-04-17 13:20:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, I thoroughly agree. Even at UCLA the position they have college and undercover officials who're armed and educated to attend to shootings, a capturing in a dormitory ought to possibly no longer were stopped formerly quite a few threat free human beings were useless. it truly is something i theory about those days after I went decrease back to school. Firearms were as universal prohibited on the grounds, yet there have been quite a few human beings such as myself and quite a few different instructors to boot, who were veterans of the U.S. protection stress. I evaluate my oath to guard the voters of the USA to be as morally binding now because it replaced into the day I swore to it, and if allowed to carry a gun i ought to were waiting to attend to one of those situation. With firearms being prohibited on campus, i ought to somewhat were compelled to face via and look after myself, or attempt something stupid like charging an armed gunman or throwing chairs at him.
2016-12-04 05:25:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by pires 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The state has a gun carry law,however the state of virginia had the sense(joke) to make the campus "gun free zone"Some brilliant politicians will roast in hell for this one.One student with a gun could have stopped this nut.Typical liberal sh*t.
2007-04-17 13:43:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by dumbuster 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
hmmm...The WHOLE student body armed? maybe more would have been killed and wounded.
VaTech is not a wild wild west training ground, but lets just say that one student out of every class was a licensed and trained concealed and carry weapon holder AND had their gun with them that day, the body count would have been less.
2007-04-17 13:23:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by MIKE L 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
more people would be killed daily because of all the guns .. guns are not the solution .. guns where the problem here and people are trying to use guns as the answer .. no that would not have helped in the long run
if that man didnt have a gun then this wouldnt have happened
2007-04-17 13:19:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by xoooooooo 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
if they had been armed more may have been killed or wounded as they probably wouldn't have correct use of them and then have these weapons what's to say they don't loose it and do the same
what happened was tragic so i think that all weapons should be limited
there's to much violence in the world
2007-04-17 13:23:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by lee 2
·
0⤊
2⤋