• 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!

Horrifying Details Emerge in Hearing on Virginia Tech Murder

stevenb

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
523
Location
Gilbert, Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Horrifying Details Emerge in Hearing on Virginia Tech Murder - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com


I'm so very glad that they highlight the fact that this guy called 911...

So awesome that everyone ran or stood around while he cut her head off.

If I didn't have my gun (fat chance)... I would have beat this guy to death with a ****ing chair, or some other blunt object.. but I SURE as hell wouldn't have stood around and watched him cut her head off.


I wonder when the first lawsuit will pop up... because the school that won't let students protect themselves cannot provide adequate protections for those who are attacked will be.

I hope this little Asian girl's family sues the **** out of VT for making her another defenseless little sheep... and letting her get slaughtered.
 
Horrifying Details Emerge in Hearing on Virginia Tech Murder - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com


I'm so very glad that they highlight the fact that this guy called 911...

So awesome that everyone ran or stood around while he cut her head off.

If I didn't have my gun (fat chance)... I would have beat this guy to death with a ****ing chair, or some other blunt object.. but I SURE as hell wouldn't have stood around and watched him cut her head off.


I wonder when the first lawsuit will pop up... because the school that won't let students protect themselves cannot provide adequate protections for those who are attacked will be.

I hope this little Asian girl's family sues the **** out of VT for making her another defenseless little sheep... and letting her get slaughtered.
That's sick, what I don't get is how other people let this happen, I don't necessarily want to ever have to take down an assailant ever again, but I sure as hell would never let someone innocent be murdered right in front of me.
 
How is this the school's fault? How exactly could they have prevented the dude from stabbing her suddenly?
 
How is this the school's fault? How exactly could they have prevented the dude from stabbing her suddenly?


They forbid guns on campus, even for those with carry permits. Works wonderfully doesn't it?


Cox said he dove behind the counter and called 911 while customers and his manager ran from the coffee shop. At least twice during the call, Cox said, the dispatcher asked him to look around the shop so he could give her more information.

Each time he looked up, Cox said, Zhu was on top of Yang, who was on the floor. Zhu stared at Yang's face as he cut through her neck, Cox said.

"It wasn't really an angry face at all," Cox said. "It was just a really blank, determined look."

By the time police arrived, Zhu was holding the woman's head in his hand, an officer testified.

"I saw a body lying and I saw a gentleman walking toward me with a head in his hand," testified Nicole Irvine of the Virginia Tech Police Department.

Irvine said he dropped the head when she ordered him to put his hands in the air.


Witnesses have told police that Zhu and Yang were drinking coffee together and had not been arguing before the attack.

Irvine said she found a kitchen knife lying on a table in the cafe and Zhu told her he had knives and a hammer in his backpack.

Boy, it sure is great that there were no lawfully-carried, privately owned firearms present, since the presence of guns always makes things worse.

(/irony)

Apparently there were no testicles present, either.

G.
 
They forbid guns on campus, even for those with carry permits. Works wonderfully doesn't it?

Boy, it sure is great that there were no lawfully-carried, privately owned firearms present, since the presence of guns always makes things worse.

(/irony)

Apparently there were no testicles present, either.

G.

So is your argument that anytime anyone is killed in a place where guns are not permitted, it's the fault of the institution that restricted the guns?

I'm 99.99% sure that even if guns were permitted on campus, this girl would still be dead.
 
So is your argument that anytime anyone is killed in a place where guns are not permitted, it's the fault of the institution that restricted the guns?

It is the fault of the scumbag who committed the murder. However, I think in many cases the institution bears some responsibility for denying the most effective self-defense tools to those using it's facilities.

If, for some reason, a facility forbid me to wear safety goggles, and I suffered an eye injury in a lab accident, I would surely sue them as contributing to my injury by their ignorant policy.

I'm 99.99% sure that even if guns were permitted on campus, this girl would still be dead.

It depends. If, as I said, there were no testicles present (metaphorically speaking), then what weapons might have been handy means nothing.

If I'd been there, unarmed, I can say with assurance I would have grabbed whatever was handy and attacked the nutcase.

However, a lot of people don't have the confidence I have to engage in hand-to-hand with a guy with a knife; having a pistol and shooting skills could make a big difference in whether they'd intervene. If some law abiding permit holder had been present and armed, the guy might have been shot dead before he inflicted fatal injury on the girl.

I don't see how you can say you're 99.99% sure the girl would have died anyway. You'd have to be assuming that no one present would be armed (about 1 person in 50 carries a gun), and/or that the shooter would not respond or not respond effectively (this depends on the person, their character and training, and such speculation is difficult).

Even if we assume a 50/50 chance (if carry permits were allowed there) that someone present was armed, and a 50/50 chance that such a person would respond effectively, then that would have given the girl a 25% chance... which was better than the effectively-zero chance she got.
 
Last edited:
It is the fault of the scumbag who committed the murder. However, I think in many cases the institution bears some responsibility for denying the most effective self-defense tools to those using it's facilities.

So here is another scenario for you, the campus allows guns and a criminal goes on a shootting spree. A student fires at the criminal, but hits and kills an innocent person. Both the criminal and innocent person die.

Is the campus held responsible for allowing guns? Is the student that fired at the criminal? I would be willing to bet in a heartbeat that the family of the innocent person would sue and win.
 
The problem with the "pro-gun on campus" crowd is that they always picture the good guys shooting the bad guys, yet they don't even consider that innocent people could be killed by those carrying guns and reacting.
 
There are certain places that guns just don't belong. Churches and schools top the list to my mind.
 
So here is another scenario for you, the campus allows guns and a criminal goes on a shootting spree. A student fires at the criminal, but hits and kills an innocent person. Both the criminal and innocent person die.

Is the campus held responsible for allowing guns? Is the student that fired at the criminal? I would be willing to bet in a heartbeat that the family of the innocent person would sue and win.

You might be right. However, there are states with Good Samaritan laws protecting those who go to other's aid, even if their aid goes awry. IMO there needs to be some adjustment of liability laws in this country anyway.

Lest we forget, there has already been a mass-murder shooting, if I'm not mistaken at V-tech, and the count of dead and injured were quite large. I'd be willing to take the innocent-bystander risk for the sake of stopping the person who is deliberately killing people.

The problem with the "pro-gun on campus" crowd is that they always picture the good guys shooting the bad guys, yet they don't even consider that innocent people could be killed by those carrying guns and reacting.

Call me crazy, but I figure someone who wants to kill me is more dangerous than someone who is trying to save me.
 
Last edited:
It is the fault of the scumbag who committed the murder. However, I think in many cases the institution bears some responsibility for denying the most effective self-defense tools to those using it's facilities.

If, for some reason, a facility forbid me to wear safety goggles, and I suffered an eye injury in a lab accident, I would surely sue them as contributing to my injury by their ignorant policy.

Suffering an eye injury in a manufacturing facility is a foreseeable and rational risk of forbidding safety goggles

Getting decapitated by a crazed azn in an au bon pain is not a foreseeable and reasonable risk of banning firearms.


It depends. If, as I said, there were no testicles present (metaphorically speaking), then what weapons might have been handy means nothing.

If I'd been there, unarmed, I can say with assurance I would have grabbed whatever was handy and attacked the nutcase.

However, a lot of people don't have the confidence I have to engage in hand-to-hand with a guy with a knife; having a pistol and shooting skills could make a big difference in whether they'd intervene. If some law abiding permit holder had been present and armed, the guy might have been shot dead before he inflicted fatal injury on the girl.

I don't see how you can say you're 99.99% sure the girl would have died anyway. You'd have to be assuming that no one present would be armed (about 1 person in 50 carries a gun), and/or that the shooter would not respond or not respond effectively (this depends on the person, their character and training, and such speculation is difficult).

Even if we assume a 50/50 chance (if carry permits were allowed there) that someone present was armed, and a 50/50 chance that such a person would respond effectively, then that would have given the girl a 25% chance... which was better than the effectively-zero chance she got.

And I'm betting a policy permitting guns on a college campus would lead to more accidental deaths than the number of decapitations by azns in au bon pains that might have otherwise been prevented.

Or I'm at least assuming that that's VTech's reasoning.
 
Call me crazy, but I figure someone who wants to kill me is more dangerous than someone who is trying to save me.

Say that to a family where innocent people died to the "over-reaction" of a gunslinger student trying to take down an assailant.

The innocent death is no more right because it was done by someone trying to stop someone.
 
Call me crazy, but I figure someone who wants to kill me is more dangerous than someone who is trying to save me.

The point is that if you DO get killed, it doesn't matter what the person's intentions were.
 
Getting decapitated by a crazed azn in an au bon pain is not a foreseeable and reasonable risk of banning firearms.
.


Sir, tell that to a young lady named Xin Yang.

Oh, I'm sorry... you can't. She was decapitated at V-tech.





The Next Era said:
Say that to a family where innocent people died to the "over-reaction" of a gunslinger student trying to take down an assailant.

The innocent death is no more right because it was done by someone trying to stop someone.

According to various studies, the total number of people who die in firearm accidents annually is around 1500. Official government statistics on defensive firearm use runs from 60,000 to 200,000 per year...and other studies suggest the number is actually far higher than that due to frequent lack of reporting of incidents were no one was shot, possibly over a million annually.

This would tend to suggest that the number of probably-violent and possibly-lethal crimes prevented by private firearm carriers is at least 40 to 1, and possibly hundreds to one, vs accidental deaths.

Auto accidents kill more people annually than firearms, perhaps we should ban the wheel.

Epic fail.

G.
 
Last edited:
The point is that if you DO get killed, it doesn't matter what the person's intentions were.

You are ignoring a vital fact.

If someone is aiming at you with intent to kill, they are far more likely to actually kill you than someone who is trying to shoot the scumbag instead.

As an exercise in this fact, go to a shooting range and decide whether you wish to stand in front of the target, or off to one side, while someone shoots at it!

This is so obvious I am tempted to accuse you of willful ignorance.

G.
 
Sir, tell that to a young lady named Xin Yang.

Oh, I'm sorry... you can't. She was decapitated at V-tech.

How is that responsive to my point?

Are you saying that everything that happens even once is a reasonably foreseeable risk?

According to various studies, the total number of people who die in firearm accidents annually is around 1500. Official government statistics on defensive firearm use runs from 60,000 to 200,000 per year...and other studies suggest the number is actually far higher than that due to frequent lack of reporting of incidents were no one was shot, possibly over a million annually.

This would tend to suggest that the number of probably-violent and possibly-lethal crimes prevented by private firearm carriers is at least 40 to 1, and possibly hundreds to one, vs accidental deaths.

You're comparing the number of deaths from one cause to the number of times that a gun was used defensively in the other. The missing number is the % of that 60-200k figure that would have otherwise involved deaths.

Epic statistics fail.
 
You are ignoring a vital fact.

If someone is aiming at you with intent to kill, they are far more likely to actually kill you than someone who is trying to shoot the scumbag instead.

As an exercise in this fact, go to a shooting range and decide whether you wish to stand in front of the target, or off to one side, while someone shoots at it!

This is so obvious I am tempted to accuse you of willful ignorance.

G.

Holy ****, this is not hard.

The original point was this:

The problem with the "pro-gun on campus" crowd is that they always picture the good guys shooting the bad guys, yet they don't even consider that innocent people could be killed by those carrying guns and reacting.

We're discussing actual outcomes, not intents or probabilities.
 
Holy ****, this is not hard.

The original point was this:



We're discussing actual outcomes, not intents or probabilities.



Disingenuous. I was discussing actual outcomes in one post above, and demonstrating clearly that firearms are effectively used for defensive purposes at least 40 times more often than accidental deaths, a fact you dismissed by attempting to include a variable that cannot be determined.

Ignoring data that does not fit your point does not advance your argument.

You are arguing that it is more dangerous to allow those with permits to carry on campus, than not. I cited the previous V-tech massacre and this decapitation incident as actual outcomes. You have cited no actual outcomes, just your assumptions. I cited studies showing guns are used for defensive purposes MASSIVELY more often than accidental deaths. I have supported my argument; you have not.

G.
 
Last edited:
Disingenuous. I was discussing actual outcomes in one post above, and demonstrating clearly that firearms are effectively used for defensive purposes at least 40 times more often than accidental deaths, a fact you dismissed by attempting to include a variable that cannot be determined.

Ignoring data that does not fit your point does not advance your argument.

lol, no. I dismissed it because it's ****ty data that doesn't prove anything. It's like comparing the number of people who go bankrupt in NY to the number of people who miss a credit card payment in CA and using that to draw conclusions about which state has more bankruptcies.

You are arguing that it is more dangerous to allow those with permits to carry on campus, than not. I cited the previous V-tech massacre and this decapitation incident as actual outcomes.

My bad, I forgot that two individual incidents on one side automatically outweigh hypothetical information about a policy that doesn't actually exist, despite the total lack of evidence that said hypothetical policy would have actually impacted either event.
 
I respect the right of people to own guns in this country. With that said, this thread reminds me why gun nuts scare me.
 
There are certain places that guns just don't belong. Churches and schools top the list to my mind.

Oddly enough, guns are banned in such places for the most part...AND in the past year, schools and churches are where mass-murderers have chosen to strike.

Most mass-murders take place in citizen-disarmament zones. I personally don't want to see more mass murders in churches and schools, so I'd like to see some responsible armed citizens allowed to carry there.

G.
 
Oddly enough, guns are banned in such places for the most part...AND in the past year, schools and churches are where mass-murderers have chosen to strike.

Most mass-murders take place in citizen-disarmament zones. I personally don't want to see more mass murders in churches and schools, so I'd like to see some responsible armed citizens allowed to carry there.

G.

Oddly enough, I would rather take my chances on a mass murderer than a well intentioned gun nut.
 
I respect the right of people to own guns in this country. With that said, this thread reminds me why gun nuts scare me.

I scare you? Because I'd rather let responsible armed citizens, who have obtained the required training and jumped through all the hoops required to get a carry permit, be allowed to be armed at places like V-tech, so that things like this girl's decapitation would stand a better chance of being prevented?

I frankly don't understand your reasoning.

G.
 
Oddly enough, I would rather take my chances on a mass murderer than a well intentioned gun nut.

Sigh. There's that word again, "gun nut". I'm starting to feel about that phrase much like an African-American feels about the n-word. A label used to depict an unfair stereotype and brand someone as "out there", simply because they are different.

I can only assume that you have this viewpoint because you don't understand people who believe in armed self-defense, don't realize that many of them are reasonable people who sincerely hope they never need their guns, and who often have skills equal if not superior to the average street cop.

Forgive me, but I have this silly mental image of some nutjob holding you down sawing on your neck with a knife, like this poor girl, and you saying to me "No! Don't shoot him! I'd rather take my chances with him sawing my head off that some gun nut trying to save me!"

Pretty ludicrous, isn't it? You know, I bet SHE thought "it couldn't happen to her" a few days ago too.

I wish you well then, in trusting to luck to protect you. I'll even wish that if you ever find yourself in such need, that some "gun nut" saves you despite yourself.

G.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom