• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Virginia Tech Shooting: Lockdown After Two Killed, Including a Police Officer

TurtleDude said:
well we do know something: an active shooter in an environment full of unarmed victims will almost always result in MORE deaths than an active shooter in an environment full of armed potential victims.

that is beyond debate
Click to expand...
That statement is entirely too vague to be treated as an absolute. In this situation, the gunman could be called an active shooter and he was in an environment filled with unarmed people and one person died - the one who had a gun. There are plenty of other situations where an "active" shooter might be targeting a few people, but then when someone else tries to shoot at him, he kills more people than he intended to.

Again, saying, "I know that a gun would have made it better" as an end all be all response to any situation where a gun is used by a criminal is nonsensical. That as misterman's point and that's my point.
 
theplaydrive said:
That statement is entirely too vague to be treated as an absolute. In this situation, the gunman could be called an active shooter and he was in an environment filled with unarmed people and one person died - the one who had a gun. There are plenty of other situations where an "active" shooter might be targeting a few people, but then when someone else tries to shoot at him, he kills more people than he intended to.

Again, saying, "I know that a gun would have made it better" as an end all be all response to any situation where a gun is used by a criminal is nonsensical. That as misterman's point and that's my point.
Click to expand...
You really have no clue about what you speak of. You ought to spend some time listening to John Benner who is the leading expert on active shooters in this country.
 
TurtleDude said:
You really have no clue about what you speak of. You ought to spend some time listening to John Benner who is the leading expert on active shooters in this country.
Click to expand...
I'd rather not, but the fact that you can't accept that a gun can make a situation worse tells me that your take on guns is more fanatical than logical.
 
theplaydrive said:
I'd rather not, but the fact that you can't accept that a gun can make a situation worse tells me that your take on guns is more fanatical than logical.
Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am limiting my comment to an active shooter situation which I have studied rather extensively

in some cases a gun would make things worse. In an active shooter situation where the murderer already is armed and everyone else is unarmed, that is the worst possible situation.

I understand that many people fear guns and fear their own inability to use them under pressure. I just wish they wouldn't project those issues onto those of us who are properly trained and well skilled
 
TurtleDude said:
You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am limiting my comment to an active shooter situation which I have studied rather extensively

in some cases a gun would make things worse. In an active shooter situation where the murderer already is armed and everyone else is unarmed, that is the worst possible situation.
Click to expand...
Even though I'm compelled to disagree, I'll just agree that you're right about this specific "active shooter" scenario, however vague that phrase is. This has little to do with my comment and the other comments in this thread that call out the perpetual argument, "If he had a gun, less people would have died." It's a ridiculous argument because it's an absolute that does not take into account the uniqueness of a situation. THAT is the argument I'm talking about and it remains stupid as evidenced by the fact that an armed cop was shot and killed today and many more are everyday.

I understand that many people fear guns and fear their own inability to use them under pressure. I just wish they wouldn't project those issues onto those of us who are properly trained and well skilled
Click to expand...
You mean like the police officer in this case who was properly trained and well skilled? I'm sure you would love to believe that those of us who understand that a gun can make a situation worse are merely projecting our own fears onto others, but that's just not the case. Just like you have to imagine that anyone who wants higher taxes is jealous of you, you have to imagine that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is merely projecting something onto the situation.
 
theplaydrive said:
Even though I'm compelled to disagree, I'll just agree that you're right about this specific "active shooter" scenario, however vague that phrase is. This has little to do with my comment and the other comments in this thread that call out the perpetual argument, "If he had a gun, less people would have died." It's a ridiculous argument because it's an absolute that does not take into account the uniqueness of a situation. THAT is the argument I'm talking about and it remains stupid as evidenced by the fact that an armed cop was shot and killed today and many more are everyday.


You mean like the police officer in this case who was properly trained and well skilled? I'm sure you would love to believe that those of us who understand that a gun can make a situation worse are merely projecting our own fears onto others, but that's just not the case. Just like you have to imagine that anyone who wants higher taxes is jealous of you, you have to imagine that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is merely projecting something onto the situation.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe most police officers are well skilled with guns?

there are lots of reasons why people want higher taxes on others-most of those reasons are pathetic or nefarious

but its ALWAYS better to have a gun and NOT need it than not to have one and NEED ONE
 
TurtleDude said:
Do you honestly believe most police officers are well skilled with guns?
Click to expand...
Skilled enough to shoot someone sitting right in front of them, yes.

but its ALWAYS better to have a gun and NOT need it than not to have one and NEED ONE
Click to expand...
Sure. The point of contention is when a gun is needed and when a gun just makes things worse. Need is not the same thing as feeling better for having one.
 
theplaydrive said:
Skilled enough to shoot someone sitting right in front of them, yes.


Sure. The point of contention is when a gun is needed and when a gun just makes things worse. Need is not the same thing as feeling better for having one.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you demonstrate you really have almost no knowledge of gun fighting. 90% or more of all gun fights in the USA take place at ranges under 7 yards. what do you think the hit ratio is?

Here was a gunfight near where I live with State troopers who tend to be elite

 
Meh, you focus on guns too much and the next one we are going to hear about is the Virginia Tech Bombing. This isn't an issue about what is being used to kill, it is an issue about why people are continually choosing to kill.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Honestly, you demonstrate you really have almost no knowledge of gun fighting. 90% or more of all gun fights in the USA take place at ranges under 7 yards. what do you think the hit ratio is?

Here was a gunfight near where I live with State troopers who tend to be elite
Click to expand...
You're just proving the point I've been making this entire time: pretending that guns make every situation better is nonsensical. Thank you.
 
theplaydrive said:
You're just proving the point I've been making this entire time: pretending that guns make every situation better is nonsensical. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I was limiting it to the active shooter situation where I am not only correct but in agreement with the leading experts one of whom I have spent hundreds of hours training with
 
misterman said:
If only the policeman had been armed.

Oh, wait.
Click to expand...
Are campus police armed at VT?
usually campus cops are armed with a radio and some keys!!
 
TurtleDude said:
I was limiting it to the active shooter situation where I am not only correct but in agreement with the leading experts one of whom I have spent hundreds of hours training with
Click to expand...
Then that had nothing to do with the post of mine you were responding to.
 
theplaydrive said:
Then that had nothing to do with the post of mine you were responding to.
Click to expand...

interesting avoidance


I think the point has been made

don't get in a situation where you need a gun but don't have one
 
theplaydrive said:
Even though I'm compelled to disagree, I'll just agree that you're right about this specific "active shooter" scenario, however vague that phrase is. This has little to do with my comment and the other comments in this thread that call out the perpetual argument, "If he had a gun, less people would have died." It's a ridiculous argument because it's an absolute that does not take into account the uniqueness of a situation. THAT is the argument I'm talking about and it remains stupid as evidenced by the fact that an armed cop was shot and killed today and many more are everyday.


You mean like the police officer in this case who was properly trained and well skilled? I'm sure you would love to believe that those of us who understand that a gun can make a situation worse are merely projecting our own fears onto others, but that's just not the case. Just like you have to imagine that anyone who wants higher taxes is jealous of you, you have to imagine that anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is merely projecting something onto the situation.
Click to expand...

Are VT campus cops armed?
 
TurtleDude said:
interesting avoidance

I think the point has been made

don't get in a situation where you need a gun but don't have one
Click to expand...
Not an avoidance. It's the truth. My point was clear and after restating my point, you responded, "but I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about this". If you weren't talking about my point, then it had nothing to do with my post and this conversation was, as usual, as waste of time.

I'll restate it again: don't assume that having a gun will always make a situation better. The end.
 
Virginia Tech names police officer killed


BLACKSBURG, VA --
"Virginia Tech has named the campus police officer who was shot and killed.

He was 39-year-old Deriek Crouse, of Christiansburg. WSLS had learned who the officer was, but held off from reporting his name until Virginia Tech formally released it.

Crouse joined the Virginia Tech Police Department in October of 2007, and is survived by his wife, five children and step-children.

Officer Crouse was also a member of the Virginia Tech Police emergency response team, since February of this year. Crouse also won an award in 2008 for his work fighting DUI on campus.

Before joining the Virginia Tech Police Dept., Crouse worked at the New River Valley Jail, Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, and is an Army veteran."

Virginia Tech names police officer killed | WSLS 10
 
"9:08 p.m.Governor's news conference: Police dashcam video shows man found dead in "Cage" parking lot is suspected shooter of Virginia Tech police officer.
Governor's news conference also said police officer was in car when he was shot, and that the people pulled over for the traffic stop are not related to the suspected shooter."




"5:33 p.m.

Authorities stopped just short of identifying a man found dead in a parking lot on the Virginia Tech campus as the gunman who killed a police officer there earlier today.

Shortly after noon, an unidentified Virginia Tech police officer was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop in the Coliseum parking lot near McComas Hall, Deputy Chief of Police Gene Deisinger said at a press conference this afternoon.

At a late-afternoon press conference Deisinger reported witnesses saw the gunman flee along Washington Street toward a commuter parking lot known as the “cage,” near Duck Pond Drive.

Deisinger said a police officer — not a campus police officer — near the lot spotted a suspicious person around 1 p.m.

“By the time they turned around and located that person, that person was deceased,” he said.

Authorities reported a weapon was found there, but did not identify the type of weapon. Virginia State Police Sgt. Robert Carpentieri identified the deceased person only as a white male. State Police have taken the lead in the investigation at the university's request.

“I think the investigators feel confident we have located the person,” Carpentieri said when asked if the dead man was the shooter, but refused to provide absolute confirmation.

“There is no longer an active threat,” Deisinger said.

Carpentieri said the man who shot the police officer was apparently uninvolved in the traffic stop and had walked up to the officer's patrol vehicle.

"
Shootings at Virginia Tech leave two dead | WSLS 10
 
TurtleDude said:
Honestly, you demonstrate you really have almost no knowledge of gun fighting. 90% or more of all gun fights in the USA take place at ranges under 7 yards. what do you think the hit ratio is?

Here was a gunfight near where I live with State troopers who tend to be elite

Click to expand...


It goes to show that practicing on a target, and firing under extreme stress are two completely different animals...
 
misterman said:
And the other guy being unarmed is even better.

But I'm not anti-gun. I'm just disgusted with Virginia's lack of reasonable limits, not to mention its neglect of mental health care (relevant to the last Tech shooting).

And, of course, I'm mocking the standard rightwing response to shootings.
Click to expand...

Because someones death is always a great way to advance your political view.
 
Blackdog said:
Because someones death is always a great way to advance your political view.
Click to expand...
Almost any conversation about gun politics uses someone's death as an example. In fact, situations like these are what spark debates about gun safety, so whatever point you're trying to make isn't there.
 
theplaydrive said:
Almost any conversation about gun politics uses someone's death as an example. In fact, situations like these are what spark debates about gun safety, so whatever point you're trying to make isn't there.
Click to expand...

Sparking a gun debate and using it as an example is one thing, this was nothing but politically dancing on a grave.

And the other guy being unarmed is even better.

But I'm not anti-gun. I'm just disgusted with Virginia's lack of reasonable limits, not to mention its neglect of mental health care (relevant to the last Tech shooting).

And, of course, I'm mocking the standard rightwing response to shootings.

He was being sarcastic and using the deaths for furthering political ends, not as an example or any such nonsense.

So stop being a political hack and move on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom