• 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!

Vt found negligent in shooting

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
just on my local news

for not warning students after the first shootings
 
craziness!!!!!!

for some odd reason, I was thinking about the Virginia Tech shooting on the way home.
 
Virginia Tech found negligent for delayed warning during '07 shooting massacre - Crimesider - CBS News

(CBS/AP) CHRISTIANSBURG, Va. - A jury has found Virginia Tech University negligent for delaying a campus warning about the first shootings in the 2007 massacre that ultimately left 33 people dead.
Jurors returned the verdict Wednesday in a wrongful death civil suit brought by the parents of two students who were killed on April 16, 2007 in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
After 3 1/2 hours of deliberation, jurors awarded $4 million to each family, but the state immediately filed a motion to reduce the award. Jurors were not told state law requires the award to be capped at $100,000.

The families of Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde said the two might be alive today if Virginia Tech police and administrators warned the campus of two shootings in a dorm 2 1/2 hours before Seung-Hui Cho ended his killing spree, then killed himself.

Perhaps the local police and administrators subscribed to the PURE GOOD or MITZVAH theory of the Second Amendment and believed that nothing bad could ever come from it? Their lack of taking fast action certainly paints them as having rose colored glasses on or being completely divorced from the harsh reality falling down upon them.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you where the true NEGLIGENCE lays..... The same place it lays in thousands of colleges and universities across the United States.....

With institutions that forbid individuals to possess the means to defend themselves and then are not required to provide ARMED and TRAINED security forces of sufficient size to deal with threats inside the Disarmed Zone.
 
Virginia Tech found negligent for delayed warning during '07 shooting massacre - Crimesider - CBS News



Perhaps the local police and administrators subscribed to the PURE GOOD or MITZVAH theory of the Second Amendment and believed that nothing bad could ever come from it? Their lack of taking fast action certainly paints them as having rose colored glasses on or being completely divorced from the harsh reality falling down upon them.


So its your learned opinion that if there was no second amendment (See Mexico, Norway, Dunblane Scotland, Australia, Russia, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya) there would be no massacres perpetrated by sickos?
 
I'll tell you where the true NEGLIGENCE lays..... The same place it lays in thousands of colleges and universities across the United States.....

With institutions that forbid individuals to possess the means to defend themselves and then are not required to provide ARMED and TRAINED security forces of sufficient size to deal with threats inside the Disarmed Zone.

very loose gun laws didn't save anybody in Texas yesterday, now did it?
 
very loose gun laws didn't save anybody in Texas yesterday, now did it?

Not sure what happened in Texas yesterday. Care to give me a SITREP real quick?

[EDIT]Just saw the story. Again, it happens in a Gun-Free Zone (a courthouse). You are not going to stop criminals from breaking the law, only law-abiding citizens. That's why places that have these restrictions need to start providing proper security. To stop things like this from happening.[/EDIT]
 
Last edited:
So its your learned opinion that if there was no second amendment (See Mexico, Norway, Dunblane Scotland, Australia, Russia, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya) there would be no massacres perpetrated by sickos?

Where did you get a silly idea like that? the very existence of millions - scores of millions - over a hundred million - firearms in America makes them more accessible and changes the odds quite a bit. However, were there no Second Amendment, there still would be killings. The question then becomes the quantity and quantity involved in the massacres and the extent to which the availability and ease of that availability plays a role in those massacres and killings. It is a factor to be considered.
 
Where did you get a silly idea like that? the very existence of millions - scores of millions - over a hundred million - firearms in America makes them more accessible and changes the odds quite a bit. However, were there no Second Amendment, there still would be killings. The question then becomes the quantity and quantity involved in the massacres and the extent to which the availability and ease of that availability plays a role in those massacres and killings. It is a factor to be considered.

Mexico doesn't have a second amendment and the rate of gun deaths is much higher there

we also have proof that honest people owning guns deters crime in this country
 
The only thing more tragic than these types of atrocities themselves, is that individuals seize the opportunity to use them as cheap political theater.
 
Mexico doesn't have a second amendment and the rate of gun deaths is much higher there

we also have proof that honest people owning guns deters crime in this country

So what does the Mexican Constitution say about guns?

Constitutional right to carry arms

Mexican constitutional rights have long included the right to carry arms. The 1857 Constitution included the right to carry arms:
Artículo 10: Todo hombre tiene derecho de poseer y portar armas para su seguridad y legítima defensa. La ley señalará cuáles son las prohibidas y la pena en que incurren los que las portaren. [1]
Article 10: Every man has the right to have and to carry arms for his security and legitimate defense. The law will indicate which arms are prohibited and the penalty for those that will carry prohibited arms.
These rights have subsequently been reduced somewhat through the gradual changing of constitutions and laws. The Constitution of 1917, the current constitution in force and heavily-amended, grants Mexican citizens (and "Inmigrados"; see below) the right to possess firearms. However, this right does not include military firearms.
The Constitution of 1917, as amended, states:
Artículo 10: Los habitantes de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos tienen derecho a poseer armas en su domicilio, para seguridad y legítima defensa, con excepción de las prohibidas por la ley federal y de las reservadas para el uso exclusivo del Ejército, Armada, Fuerza Aérea y Guardia Nacional. La ley federal determinará los casos, condiciones, requisitos y lugares en que se podrá autorizar a los habitantes la portación de armas. [2]
Article 10: The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.



Nobody is disputing that owning guns deters crime in the USA. On balance, I believe they do more good than harm. That has always been my position.
 
Last edited:
So what does the Mexican Constitution say about guns?

Constitutional right to carry arms





Nobody is disputing that owning guns deters crime in the USA. On balance, I believe they do more good than harm. That has always been my position.

what kind of guns are people allowed to own in Mexico?
 
what kind of guns are people allowed to own in Mexico?
The kind that are not:

[...] prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard.

:doh

By the way, I can't find any link to your story about Vermont
confuse.gif
 
Last edited:
I believe they fire bullets.
Showing you truly aren't knowledgeable. Without a license Mexican citizens may own a .22 rifle or smaller. They may not own shotguns, anything larger, or handguns, yet the overall murder rate and gun murder rate are higher.
 
Back
Top Bottom