US University Shootings

Blowfish

Manic Moran wrote:

There's a difference between doing something, and doing something useful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2642387.stm

NTM

What and not trying to do something would have been better?

Breezer wrote:

Surely it was up to the police to evacuate people, not for the university to email students about it! I mean how many of you check your inbox regularly for information about whether a murder has just taken place or not?

I don't buy the excuse that they didn't expect a second attack. It would be a logical reaction in normal circumstances, but the US has a history of this kind of thing happening. The same nation destabilised the Middle East and by extension the entire world because they thought Saddam Hussein might have weapons of mass destruction. I think the police have a lot to answer for.

How Americans can defend, and most likely continue to defend, the "right" to bear arms in the face of repeated incidents like this is beyond me.

Evacuating 26000 people because of an incident in one building? Thats the equivalent of evacuating Drogheda because of an incident that happens in one persons house there.

Why exactly would a second attack be logical? It appeared to be a domestic attack, nothing more.

And seriously WTF? Bringing Iraq into this is just ridiculous. Please try not to spout the usual anti American crap when it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

Anyway, my thoughts go out to all of the family and friends of the victims.

Sangre

Exactly what Blowfish said...

The first incident was a domestic dispute. Its not logical to assume this would result in the worst school massacre in US history 2 hours later in the Eng. building. Anyway, 2 hours from the time of the shooting to the time of them email isn't that long. They would have had to wait for the police first, decide what to do and then decide what to write. They can't risk causing mass panic in a college that size.

padser

Its not the equivalent to evacuating Drogheda.

It is the equivalent of evacuating UCD Belfield on the basis that an armed man has just shot 2 people in Belgrove and is now presumably loose on the campus.

In fact, given (and I assume sky news is correct on this) that there have been 20 similar (if on a smaller scale) shooting in US educational institutions Since columbine (in 1999). Thats over 2 per year.

I can't see how given this kind of background it would not be prudent to evacuate the university.

Blowfish

padser wrote:

It is the equivalent of evacuating UCD Belfield on the basis that an armed man has just shot 2 people in Belgrove and is now presumably loose on the campus.

In fact, given (and I assume sky news is correct on this) that there have been 20 similar (if on a smaller scale) shooting in US educational institutions Since columbine (in 1999). Thats over 2 per year.

I can't see how given this kind of background it would not be prudent to evacuate the university.

Yes, brilliant, 20 similar ones where people shot someone and *didn't* then go on a killing spree. It was assumed to be a domestic. Thats it.

Sangre

Of all those other examples how many involved a gap between the shootings rather than one prolonged killing spree?

Tbh, I think people just look for blame in these tragic situations regardless of the reality of it.

Breezer

Blowfish wrote:

Why exactly would a second attack be logical? It appeared to be a domestic attack, nothing more.

And seriously WTF? Bringing Iraq into this is just ridiculous. Please try not to spout the usual anti American crap when it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

Anyway, my thoughts go out to all of the family and friends of the victims.

Perhaps I phrased that badly. What I meant was that if this had happened in Ireland, or most countries without a history of school shootings, the logical reaction would be to presume it was a domestic attack and nothing more. The US, however, does have a history of school shootings, and a murder on campus should trigger alarm bells. The same logic has been applied in airports. Because of a large number of attacks on airplanes, passengers are now prohibited from bringing liquids and gels onto a plane. Obviously, this doesn't apply in, say, shopping centres, where there have not been as many attacks of the same nature. By this reasoning, a shooting in, for example, a park, might require a section to be cordoned off, but a shooting on campus should call for more drastic action.

My point about Iraq was merely to illustrate that on the one hand, the US authorities have no problem generating spin and mass hysteria in order to supposedly protect their citizens. On the other hand, they exercise caution in not evacuating the campus, thereby avoiding a panic, and end up with yet another campus massacre.

Anyway, I don't want this to descend into an argument about American policy; we'll leave that to the politics forum. I'll be praying for the souls of the victims and for their family and friends left behind.

cast_iron

Blowfish wrote:

What and not trying to do something would have been better?

Well if you actually read those articles, you would have seen that what they did did nothing to bring down gun crime.
So, doing nothing would not have made things better, but it would have made no difference.

Now, to have done something useful would have been a different issue altogether...

Manic Moran

What and not trying to do something would have been better?

Can't see how it could have been any worse.

padser wrote:

Its not the equivalent to evacuating Drogheda.

It is the equivalent of evacuating UCD Belfield on the basis that an armed man has just shot 2 people in Belgrove and is now presumably loose on the campus.

I can't see how given this kind of background it would not be prudent to evacuate the university.

To where? If there were a murder in Richview, why should the Engineering Building be any safer from a nutter than O' Shea's Clonskeagh House? It's not like someone was calling in a specific threat saying "There is a bomb in a UCD campus building", we're talking crimes against the random person. The whole point of an evacuation is to go from somewhere of danger to somewhere of safety. Given nobody had any idea where the shooter was, how could you define a safe place, beyond not being alone?

And if you did think it were safer to evacuate all 22,000 to Blacksburg, what would have stopped Cho from just continuing mission on main street or the local cybercafe?

NTM

Blowfish

Manic Moran wrote:

Can't see how it could have been any worse.

cast_iron wrote:

Well if you actually read those articles, you would have seen that what they did did nothing to bring down gun crime.
So, doing nothing would not have made things better, but it would have made no difference.

My point is that at least the UK is aware that it is a problem and try to do something about it, unlike the US who just turn a blind eye to it because it's a vote loser - despite human life being involved.

Sarchasm

jimi_t wrote:

You're an irish student just arrived - a stranger in a strange land. You've barely arrived and 30 people in your faculty are killed in a completely random incident. Think of the environment you'd now be living and studying in. Think of trying to make some friends, even just trying to integrate in such a climate of mourning.

they had been there for 6 months they hadnt just arrived.

Tayto2000

padser wrote:

Its not the equivalent to evacuating Drogheda.

It is the equivalent of evacuating UCD Belfield on the basis that an armed man has just shot 2 people in Belgrove and is now presumably loose on the campus.

UCD is a bit over 350 acres, which is pretty big by Dublin standards. Virginia tech is over 2,600 acres and has 100+ buildings and an airport. A roughly comparable response here would be to evacuate the campus plus Clonskeagh, Milltown, Windy Arbour, Dundrum, Goats Town, Mount Merrion, Booterstown, Ballsbridge, Donnybrook and Ranelagh in response to a shooting in Stephens Green. Where would people go? And if the location of the shooter is unknown, an evacuation is probably not the appropriate response.

Consider the ATM robbery a few months ago. Those guys had handguns but UCD wasn't evacuated. Armed robbers should lack motive to go on killing sprees. The police response in Virginia was based on the information that this was a domestic shooting, Cho had an obvious motive for killing Emily Jane Hilscher but no apparent motive for going on a killing spree.

sangre wrote:

tbh, I think people just look for blame in these tragic situations regardless of the reality of it.

Couldn't agree more.

Was listening to the radio yesterday, the NRA has already wheeled out a press response. The spokesman was arguing that if the victims had been armed, the shooter could have been stopped etc etc. Nauseating.

padser

When there was a shooting OUTSIDE the campus late last year the campus was evacuated (Irish Times today) so clearly they are both capable of, and willing to evacuate or as they tend to say 'lock down' the campus, but decided against it in this instance.

The people with handguns in UCD
a) Didnt shoot anyone
b) There was no reason to assume they were about to go on a rampage - they were after money and had made plenty of similar robberies recently.

Now someone who just 'happens' to have a gun on Campus in the US (assuming its a domestic its a well planned one), and has just shot two people - surely there is a realistic possibility that may go on a rampgage.

The 20 shootings in schools:

linked here http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

loads of them have 4/5/6+ ppl killed - they don't look (mostly) like the 'domestic' that was first assumed, in fact they look far more like the masaccare that ensued afterwards.

Many (if not all) schools in America have 'lock down' proceedures in place. Obviosuly if someone has a gun they will find someone to shoot but if you follow the proceedures the hope is that you have a smaller number of people dead. Its all very well to say where would ppl have done. But if they had either barricaded themselves into their classroooms, or got out into the open the death toll would most likely have been significantly lower.


Its not a question of looking for someone to blame, obviously the gunman takes the blame but over 60 ppl were either killed or wounded, and a proper response plan implemented after the first shooting would imo have dramatically reduced that number.

singingstranger

http://www.ucd.ie/news/apr07/041707_Virginia_Tech.html

Found this through UCD Connect this morning.

DirkVoodoo

Manic Moran, interesting articles, and it is disturbing to see an increase in gun crime. But I don't compare "incidents involving guns" which may be some guy holding up a store or rival gangs blowing the stuffing out of each other (that Ross Kemp on gangs thing on sky one) to a deeply disturbed individual going into a classroom and executing 30 other students.

Yes, it means guns are still easy to come by in the UK and Ireland if you are willing to by an illegal import. I don't think its the same as walking into a gun show and buying a gun (even an assault rifle) with no questions asked (some loop hole in US gun legislation that allows this).

"In the state of Virginia, where Monday's university shooting happened, a 12-year-old can legally buy an assault rifle, even without parental permission, every 30 days, according to the Brady Campaign. Other states have no minimum age limit for those wanting to buy rifles and shotguns in particular." - google

Manic Moran

despite human life being involved

My life could be one of the ones being involved if someone goes ape at my local mall, but oh, look.. in a country in which 200million firearms exist (With no realistic possibility of them getting off the street), the County of Santa Clara believes I should remain defenceless.

"In the state of Virginia, where Monday's university shooting happened, a 12-year-old can legally buy an assault rifle, even without parental permission, every 30 days, according to the Brady Campaign. Other states have no minimum age limit for those wanting to buy rifles and shotguns in particular." - google

What sort of utter codswallop have you been reading?

1) Assault rifles are highly restricted. I have personally not yet met anyone who owns one. In order to buy one, you need to have a federal Class III weapons permit, and each individual rifle costs tens of thousands of dollars.

2) It is illegal for a dealer to sell a weapon to someone under 18, courtesy of federal law, so a 12-year-old can't just go to WalMart and pick up a Remington semi-auto. (For the record, you need to be 21 before you can qualify for a Class III permit). A Person-to-person sale is exempt from this limitation, though you will note that the lower age limit applies solely to rifles and shotguns, which aren't very concealable. A State age limit of 18 still applies to handguns.

[ETA: Turns out the 12-year-old transfer limit applies only to immediate family members]

NTM

DirkVoodoo

Codswollop? Hardly..

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=va

EDIT: I don't mean for this to turn into a gun debate, it is clear that opinions on gun laws differ greatly between the US and Europe.

Manic Moran

With respect, the Brady Campaign is an anti-gun group, hardly neutral, and is well known for stretching/inventing definitions and laws to get its point across. Consider them the Anti-NRA. As a firearms owner, I like to think I am somewhat aware of the federal laws on the issue. One of their pet targets is what they call 'assault rifles' or 'assault weapons', but have no definition based on fact. An assault rifle is commonly defined as an intermediate-calibre, select-fire, magazine fed weapon. As such, they fall foul of the National Firearms Act 1934 and are highly restricted.

Now, here's the Virginia State Police website.

http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm

What is the legal age to purchase or possess a firearm?
A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun, you must be at least 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law

Who are you going to believe? An anti-firearms lobby group, or the State Troopers?

it is clear that opinions on gun laws differ greatly between the US and Europe.

Agreed.

NTM

Dinxminx

Gun. Control.