Author Topic: The next target in this Va Tech mess? (Read 1956 times)

240 is Back · « **on:** April 16, 2007, 05:37:02 PM »

MSNBC is reporting the guns had the serials scratched off, "something often done by shady gun dealers".

I got $5 that says they close the gunshow loophole and the ATF puts the clamps on dealers, and the nat'l database goes through. And the 10-round clip limit is about to come back, watch.

By 2008, President Hilary will have a list of every gun in the nation.*

Remember, it was President Bill who said he'd support a national handgun ban. I'm sure Hilary is nothing like him, tho

ribonucleic · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2007, 05:43:20 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 16, 2007, 05:37:02 PM

Remember, it was President Bill who said he'd support a national handgun ban. I'm sure Hilary is nothing like him, tho

That's the part of the Hillary candidacy that doesn't get a lot of scrutiny...

When Bill was in the big chair, Hillary was having all kinds of input into all kinds of top-level shit. You don't think that dynamic would be 10 times more in effect the other way around?

A Hillary presidency would almost be tantamount to a 3rd term for Bill. And even though that would be an incalculably vast improvement over the shit we have now, they amended the Constitution to prevent that for a reason.

No to all Clintons, Bushes, and their assorted lackeys until 2100 at the earliest.

Tre · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2007, 05:52:27 PM »

But you guys do agree that a handgun 'ban' will not reduce the number of guns readily available to a person intent on obtaining a handgun, right?

body88 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:00:41 PM »

Quote from: Tre on April 16, 2007, 05:52:27 PM

But you guys do agree that a handgun 'ban' will not reduce the number of guns readily available to a person intent on obtaining a handgun, right?

I agree with you. For the short term it will further empower criminals.

Camel Jockey · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:02:40 PM »

Quote from: Tre on April 16, 2007, 05:52:27 PM

But you guys do agree that a handgun 'ban' will not reduce the number of guns readily available to a person intent on obtaining a handgun, right?

Of course, but politcians want people to believe that they're taking drastic action.

They'll brag for the first year or two and when there isn't any difference, they'll blame video games or something.

Camel Jockey · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:03:17 PM »

Quote from: body88 on April 16, 2007, 06:00:41 PM

I agree with you. For the short term it will further empower criminals.

It'll add to the already huge illegal market.

ribonucleic · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2007, 06:06:11 PM »

Quote from: Camel Jockey on April 16, 2007, 06:02:40 PM

when there isn't any difference, they'll blame video games or something.

Hillary's way ahead of you on this one.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/14/news_6129040.html

youandme · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2007, 07:05:07 PM »

does not matter if the serial numbers are scratched off, they pour acid on top of the finish and it can reveal the serial numbers. but if they are going to turn this into a political pushed motive for something...then no they won't be able to reveal the serial numbers.

blinky · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2007, 10:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Tre on April 16, 2007, 05:52:27 PM

But you guys do agree that a handgun 'ban' will not reduce the number of guns readily available to a person intent on obtaining a handgun, right?

no it really wont help.. we have one here in canada and it does nothing..people are still being shot. if criminals( or nut jobs) want a gun they will get one..plain and simple.

but maybe they should stop people from being able to carry weapons..concealed or otherwise

body88 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2007, 12:05:11 AM »

Quote from: Camel Jockey on April 16, 2007, 06:03:17 PM

It'll add to the already huge illegal market.

Yep...

240 is Back · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2007, 04:15:35 AM »

Quote from: blinky on April 16, 2007, 10:51:48 PM

but maybe they should stop people from being able to carry weapons..concealed or otherwise

concealed carry STOPS these nutjobs.

If professors had been carrying, this could have ended differently.

bmacsys · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2007, 05:35:40 AM »

Quote from: Camel Jockey on April 16, 2007, 06:03:17 PM

It'll add to the already huge illegal market.

There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in private ownership. If they were to stop selling handguns of any kind there would still never be a shortage.

BigNBloated · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2007, 05:48:51 AM »

Everytime something like this happens people call for more gun control, stiffer pentalties for people caught carrying guns illegally. For someone on a suicide mission like this, what the fuck does he care if there are stiffer penalties for him carrying a concealed weapon. Anyone who carries a gun with the intentions to kill innocent people already has no respect for the law or any appreciation for other peoples lives and could be insane. These bullshit gun control laws are written by people who live by the rules and laws of society, for the most part. They cant comprehend the concept of breaking them or the concept of anyone doing anything that could get them jail time. Bascially a bunch of fucking noobs obvlivious to how the real world works. A sentence on a peice of paper doesnt put the cops at someones door should they decide to walk out of their house with a .45 in their pants.

240 is Back · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2007, 06:02:00 AM »

they should talk about incompetent police work.

campus police found 2 dead bodies at 7:15, and there wasn't a real cop on campus yet at 9 am to look for the guy? They just assumed the kid left campus, brought in a few ambulances and a detective, and scratched their heads?
Come on...

And the kid was able to open fire at 9:30, and had 30 minutes to murder at will before police moved in?
Bullshit...

bmacsys · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2007, 01:48:54 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 17, 2007, 04:15:35 AM

concealed carry STOPS these nutjobs.

If professors had been carrying, this could have ended differently.

YUP.

bmacsys · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2007, 01:49:34 PM »

Why wasn't the campus on total lockdown after the first shootings?

bmacsys · « **Reply #16 on:** April 17, 2007, 01:51:40 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 17, 2007, 06:02:00 AM

they should talk about incompetent police work.

campus police found 2 dead bodies at 7:15, and there wasn't a real cop on campus yet at 9 am to look for the guy? They just assumed the kid left campus, brought in a few ambulances and a detective, and scratched their heads?
Come on...

And the kid was able to open fire at 9:30, and had 30 minutes to murder at will before police moved in?
Bullshit...

Looks to me like this was fucked up bigtime. Its apparent to me like this was handled by incompetent people.

240 is Back · « **Reply #17 on:** April 17, 2007, 03:20:40 PM »

Quote from: bmacsys on April 17, 2007, 01:49:34 PM

Why wasn't the campus on total lockdown after the first shootings?

There is the big question. Two and a half hours, the police knew they had two dead bodies and they never made an announcement.

They could have closed campus, emailed everyone, and locked those building doors within 30 minutes.

by the time that prick left his dorm room with all those clips filled and guns ready, the campus could have been a ghost town. 4 cop cars could have closed the entrances instantly. Campus email could have been sent out in 15 minutes. The campus bullhorn could have been telling everyone to get in their rooms and LOCK YOUR DOORS.

It would have been a ghost town with one nut taking potshots at the stragglers with his handgun. he would have been caught before 32 were dead, without a doubt.

Those police should have errored on the side of caution. If you have two dad bodies and no shooter, and you have 12,000 people on their way to that campus, you LOCK IT DOWN.

Incredibly, some of those killed were likely SLEEPING when the first shooting happened.

Oldschool Flip · « **Reply #18 on:** April 18, 2007, 05:46:03 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 17, 2007, 03:20:40 PM

There is the big question. Two and a half hours, the police knew they had two dead bodies and they never made an announcement.

They could have closed campus, emailed everyone, and locked those building doors within 30 minutes.

by the time that prick left his dorm room with all those clips filled and guns ready, the campus could have been a ghost town. 4 cop cars could have closed the entrances instantly. Campus email could have been sent out in 15 minutes. The campus bullhorn could have been telling everyone to get in their rooms and LOCK YOUR DOORS.

It would have been a ghost town with one nut taking potshots at the stragglers with his handgun. he would have been caught before 32 were dead, without a doubt.

Those police should have errored on the side of caution. If you have two dad bodies and no shooter, and you have 12,000 people on their way to that campus, you LOCK IT DOWN.

Incredibly, some of those killed were likely SLEEPING when the first shooting happened.

I agree with you Rob. Though they might say that the 1st incident was isolated and they had no idea the later shootings would occur, it was still on a campus and they had no suspect at the time which meant he/she was still on the loose. If a shooting occured near an elementary school or highschool and a suspect was still on the loose, they would lock down those schools.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2007, 05:53:30 AM »

Its always nice to hear folks say WHAT should have been done AFTER something happens. Hindsight truly is 20/20.

240 is Back · « **Reply #20 on:** April 18, 2007, 06:33:46 AM »

Quote from: Oldschool Flip on April 18, 2007, 05:46:03 AM

If a shooting occured near an elementary school or highschool and a suspect was still on the loose, they would lock down those schools.

Instantly. Especially if 2 of the dead were students there, and witnesses said the shooter was a student.

IMO, they wanted to dodge a PR backlash on recruiting - hoping to minimize the coverage and pick the kid up quietly.