The only way is to allow licensed, responsible, law abiding students and professors to carry handguns on campus. People will keep dying till someone stops the lunatics. Waiting for the police or campus security just gives them more time to kill. Why can't they ever admit that in these reports?
2007-08-30 11:56:05 · 11 answers · asked by juju 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I thought they did, they said people want security with guns because that happened. I'd say get your facts straight before you start making claims about a tragedy.
2007-08-30 11:59:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I also think lives could have been spared, had someone else had a gun that day. Dr. Phil was on tv the day after the shootings criticising the guys in those classrooms for not trying to tackle Cho. If he had waited, and gotten the story, he would have realized that people did try to stop him, but were killed or injured. It's hard to fight a guy with a gun when you're unarmed. People think arming the citizens will cause crime to go up, but Switzerland has a low crime rate, and every of age male must carry a gun. There are many responsible people out there who could have stopped the guy, if only they could have had a gun on campus.
A campus wide lock down would have done no good. Cho could have gone back to his dorm, and his suitemates would have told them to let him in, since he lived there. Then the shootings would have been in Harper Hall, not Norris. That's what the difference would have been. And the numbers could have been higher. He had almost 400 rounds on him, he could have done ALOT more damage than he did.
Bread Basket: They made him go to a mental facility to get evaluated, and he was released and ordered to go to counseling. He was a big boy, he needed to get off his butt and go do it himself. VT didn't need to hold his hand and walk him to Cook's Counseling Center. There were people willing to help, he refused to take it , though. Cho is fully responsible, no one else.
2007-09-01 16:29:29 · answer #2 · answered by .. 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that allowing people to carry weapons on campus is not a good idea. The only people that should be allowed to possess weapons is certified LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Think about it.... even if the responsible person is carrying a gun it still doesn't mean that someone can't get a hold of that weapon and commit deadly acts.
I think that the problem can be minimized by adding a poilce force to college campuses, and more presence of law enforcement officers to these agencies.
2007-08-30 19:04:29 · answer #3 · answered by pinky_lady_2006 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did you answer your own question? Increasing the number of guns and deeming someone "responsible" to use the guns is a dangerous alley to walk down. If anything people should pay attention to the warning signs and get active in people's mental health instead of intending to shoot even more people. Lunatics have alway, and will always, be part of society. The best we can do to protect ourselves is try to understand the motives of these people
2007-08-30 19:07:35 · answer #4 · answered by Christopher H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if all the teachers and students walk around with guns, there's more likely to be accidents. the only way they could have kept it to just the 2 deaths would be if they had put the entire campus under lock down immediately, which was impossible for them to do since they didn't have enough security people to cover every building.
plus if they let everyone have guns if they wanted, there's going to be more people who get angry and they'd have a gun handy, so they'd just shoot someone out of their anger.
2007-08-30 19:01:16 · answer #5 · answered by je t'♥ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
because telling people whose friends and kids were killed by an unknowingly armed mentally disturbed person, that they could have been spared if more people would have been armed doesn't make any logical sense.
Odds are that there are other disturbed children on the campus that then would have been armed too and we'd have 5 VT's instead of one.
The problem with open arms, is that even the disturbed and "bad" guys get them too. You have to commit an act in our country to be excluded.
2007-08-30 19:01:21 · answer #6 · answered by Phil M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they only show the tip of the iceberg to increase viewer raitings and also because they don't have anything else. But they tell the stories and show the pictures in a way to promote it. instead of showing the public what Cho wanted them to see, they should have shown is body lying on the ground and have a message that says "crime doesn't pay" or something.
2007-08-30 19:03:03 · answer #7 · answered by Norm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The issue is much deeper than you think.
Whenever a student thinks or acts out of line, no one is there to help. When a student has trouble, no one is there to help. People automatically blame it on guns, music, media, etc.
Even though he was extremely disturbed, Seung-Hui Cho needed help. But he didn't get help. The institutions are much too lazy to help a student in need.
Unfortunately, if no one changes their feelings towards these disturbed children, these shootings will continue happening.
Virginia Tech is fully liable.
2007-08-30 19:04:12 · answer #8 · answered by ༼ƑᏌᏟᏦ ᎩᏫᏌ༽ 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because the foundations of our great nation are crumbling.
2007-08-30 18:59:27 · answer #9 · answered by Glory 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe because YOUR "Answers" aren't the "be all & end all"- of Real answers! Could THAT be possible?! :)
2007-08-30 19:05:46 · answer #10 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋