Where did the shooter get his guns? Update: an answer? Update: Killer ID’d as Seung Hui Cho
posted at 11:48 pm on April 16, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
If the reports are accurate, we have a 24-year-old Chinese national in the US on a student visa as the VTech shooter. I don’t know a great deal about the process for student visa holders to obtain firearms, but I have a friend who does know quite a bit about it. So I’ll defer to an email he just sent me.
You can obtain a firearm if you are a resident alien and present proof of residency 90 days prior to a purchase. Usually a utility bill for 3 months prior to the day the RA attempts to purchase the firearm bill must match your state DL or ID address. The RA also must must fill out 4473 form and pass a background check. But on a student VISA? No way! Those guns had to be stolen or he fooled the system some how!
He sent a link to the ATF’s write-up on the Brady Law, which states:
As you may be aware, Section 121 of Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 1999, amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the transfer to and possession of firearms by aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. This definition includes, in large part, persons traveling temporarily in the United States for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a residence abroad, and certain foreign workers. Therefore, you, as a Federal firearms licensee, are prohibited from transferring firearms to aliens that fall within this category.
The site lists exceptions, none of which appear to apply to the as of yet unnamed mass murderer. So it would seem that the gunman obtained his weapons illegally, either by gaming the system or by stealing them.
Now, some are likely to react to this post by scolding me for highlighting a possible gun crime committed by a man who perpetrated the worst massacre in US history, bringing up a relatively trivial crime next to a monstrous one as though I’m equating the two. I’m not. The point of bringing it up is to discover as much as we can about how the crime occurred, and how he obtained his weapons plays a role in that.
Just so we’re all on the same page.
Update: Extreme caution–this could be a hoax. But it doesn’t ring quite hollow.
Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter’s picture. I know his name and home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought the gun?
ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with CNN, FOX, etc.
My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event 35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for 35 days. We got lucky.
By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank God.
The poster seems to own a gun shop. If he’s right, the gunman kept the receipt for the guns in his pockets…since March? But ground the serial number off one of the guns? And his name is Cho. I guess we’ll know if this is our guy soon enough.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for the catch.
Update (AP): WaPo confirms that the serial numbers were indeed removed from both guns. Hmmm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
This is exactly the wrong question to be asking. It puts the focus on the gun. The gun is, at best, an afterthought.
Everyone should assume that criminals and murderers will get guns if they want to use them. The focus should be on adequate defense – why wasn’t the school locked down, and why weren’t students permitted to defend themselves with their own weapons?
Sydney Carton on April 16, 2007 at 11:54 PM
An excellent point. We don’t know enough about this guy yet to know where he acquired the guns. Also, who is this “person of interest” being interrogated by the police? Could the guns have belonged to them? Based on the available information, the likely scenario is that the guns were taken. From who? We don’t know. I doubt they were purchased.
thedecider on April 16, 2007 at 11:54 PM
OR buying stolen guns. People break in to homes to steal guns – them sell them on the street.
Just a thought.
Topsecretk9 on April 16, 2007 at 11:57 PM
OMG!?!? Do you suggest that all the students should be packing guns?
thedecider on April 16, 2007 at 11:57 PM
It’s one question among many, none of which are wrong. Asking questions is what bloggers do. This question doesn’t put the focus on the gun, but on how premeditated this killing spree may have been.
But I can already see the comments here turning stupid fast, so let me get this out right now. You won’t find anyone more pro-2nd Amendment than me. I was raised around guns, I was in the military, I have no problem with guns at all. But I am curious how a Chinese national on a nonimmigrant visa got ahold of automatic weapons.
Bryan on April 16, 2007 at 11:57 PM
It is honestly not that hard to get a gun if you really want one…when I was younger(and dumber) my best friend who was a bit of a criminal was able to get his hands on a gun for very little money.
EnochCain on April 17, 2007 at 12:00 AM
You’ve potentially reported what might turn out to me one of the most important factors as this story turns in to gun control hysteria…
If the information stays the same, and we learn that he did obtain the guns illegally, the gun control crowd won’t have a leg to stand on. So let me go on record right now as predicting that the media will bury, if they even report at all, this important angle when the gun control hysteria really gets going.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 12:01 AM
No, Syd, you’re wrong. If this guy is a foreign student on a visa and illegally acquired his guns, it puts a damper on the breathless gun grabbers grinning and rubbing their grubby paws together at the prospect of putting their jackboots on the throats of the people. And you may think that we shouldn’t focus on that, but WE aren’t, the gun grabbers and their media allies started the drumbeat immediately, and sometimes we have to look to the future and the longterm implications to this event, especially if the left is left to do as they please. Which is ugly, but its the truth.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 12:01 AM
I firmly believe the old saying – guns don’t kill, people do.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 12:03 AM
If it turns out he acquired the guns illegally, the hysteria will only take a different direction (read: spin). It never goes away.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Bryan, please assemble all you can. The Westboro Baptist Church is already planning funeral service protests. What in the hell will it take to silence these morons? This is unconsciounable.
I have the unbelievable post here.
MsUnderestimated on April 17, 2007 at 12:09 AM
WaPo reports that the serial numbers were scratched off of both guns =
iam7545 on April 17, 2007 at 12:09 AM
OMG….
EnochCain on April 17, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Since homicidal criminals, by their very definition, will never obey laws, the laws should be attuned to defeating such lawbreakers’ murderous excesses.
Which, in cases like this, would mean that any legal citizen should be able to get a carry permit and defend themself in situations like this.
If you disarm all law-abiding people in specific settings (with no provision to protect them, as there is on airliners, with tight screening of everyone), then the criminals will know that they have the advantage.
And can kill at will.
Disarm yourself at your own risk.
profitsbeard on April 17, 2007 at 12:12 AM
I own a Walther P22, great handgun for a 22 cal, too bad one of the students didn’t have one (or 32) to stop the lunatic.
RobertCSampson on April 17, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Geraldo is such a POS. He’s about to show the non-shooter Chinese kid’s facebook page but covering his face and name… because we know it’s not him. Yes Geraldo, we do know that.. so why the hell are you showing it? Geraldo is talking about the guy’s “arsenal” and his “hateful” messages… What an ass.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Does anything from the Phelps crew surprise you guys? I’m not surprised they’re gonna try’n hold a protest.
And yes, its true the media’s gun grab agenda will not be derailed, but facts and truth that they will be forced to report will hurt their argument.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Yeah, their usual ignorance. I can’t stand these people. How does a person use the somber tragedy of a funeral for selfish, and self-righteous purposes? How does one convince themselves that interrupting a funeral for political purposes is okay? I can’t understand this mindset. I hope, one day, they have the unique privilege to attend a somber funeral of someone they deeply loved only to have it interrupted by a group of thugs who have no point to make whatsoever. Yeah – eye for an eye kind of thing but that’s just where I am right now.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Hateful messages? Why didn’t he do us all a favor and just lock himself in Al Capone’s vault?
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 12:19 AM
I know, Geraldo needs to go. He’s a disgrace.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Cho is typically not a Chinese name It’s Korean.
Egfrow on April 17, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Yep
EnochCain on April 17, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Good point. Fake name then? Or maybe the poster is full of it.
Bryan on April 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
It seems that VT did a lot to make sure its students were not armed.
Bill C on April 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Could be bogus story, or a bogus name. That said, how hard is it to get a fake ID or steal a real one, we have lots of illegal immigrants who do this daily, it wouldn’t be surprising.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Bad Candy. First. This poster is saying the ATF is investigating. It’s more likely the FBI and the CIA are taking over this one being the nature of the shooters international status.
Egfrow on April 17, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Yes. More guns, less crime. When I was younger, I carried mace with me starting in 6th grade, even though mace was illegal in my state (picked it up when out of town). I knew when I was that young that the authorities wouldn’t protect me from dangerous people. They’d only be there to pick up the pieces afterwards.
I’d advise every law abiding person to get a concealed carry permit.
Sydney Carton on April 17, 2007 at 12:35 AM
If he bought them legally from a gun shop, how did he pass the background check?
Fake name or not.
mesablue on April 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Sydney. You mean every “Rational” law abiding citizen don’t you?
Egfrow on April 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM
I wasn’t aware that concealed carry permits were given to the clinically insane.
Sydney Carton on April 17, 2007 at 12:37 AM
If the updats is true, would that mean the shooter got fake documents maybe?
Anyways I am sure totally unrelated but not hard to get:
Topsecretk9 on April 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM
maybe illegal guns? ones bought off the street with a fake receipt?
Defector01 on April 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Illegally acquired firearms? Used in a crime? Oh the irony.
A completed ATF Form 4473, plus a NICS background check for the purchaser are required for purchases of conventional arms from dealers. It’s doubtful that the residency requirements would have been met for the alleged perpetrator.
Result = (Hypothetically) No Sale.
To Bryan’s question:
Answer to Bryan: They would not; nor were they automatic weapons.
Transfer of “automatic weapons” would only be completed with the completion of ATF Form 4, the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Office (CLEO), of (your) county and the passage of an FBI criminal background check. Plus fingerprint cards, photos, payment of a transfer tax ($200.00) and a 6 to 12 month approval process.
Furthermore, only certain weapons are even eligible for civilian / private transfer. Transferable automatic weapons are those manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 1986.
It is highly unlikely that our perp went through that process while here on a ‘nonimmigrant’ visa.
On the brigher side, if you are a U.S. Citizen with verifiably clean background – verifiable by the FBI that is; with $many Dollars$ and the time to wait for the background checks to be completed, YOU can own legally transferrable machine guns (up to .50 caliber).
It’s the law,
US Citizen
Stay safe out there.
USCitizen on April 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I had a compass, the sharp kind, that I told my mother I needed to draw circles. The truth was I needed to protect me from Tolah, the 15 year old who was still in 7th grade. Tolah didn’t like white people and I was the biggest white kid in my class. He was always out for me. I am sure he is in prison.
Bill C on April 17, 2007 at 12:42 AM
And if you had any compassion, you’d pay him a visit and show him how to draw perfect circles.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Bryan… I love you man.. (in a manly sort of way);-)
But what is this about “Automatic weapons”??? As far as I know, They are still saying oficially saying that he used a Glock -19 and a Walther.22 which are SEMI-auto pistols. Please don’t fall into the media meme that anything other than a revolver or single shot firearm is an ‘automatic weapon’.
LegendHasIt on April 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM
I wrote it too quickly. It happens.
Bryan on April 17, 2007 at 12:46 AM
You know, Sydney, mace is one thing. Having every student in school pack a gun is quite another. I could agree with part of your statement; “more guns, less crime”. I keep guns in my home which I have to protect myself against intruders. I’ll be d@mned if the government will take that away from me. I have a HUGE problem thinking of every citizen packing a gun on their hip in public. In that scenario, I don’t see less “crime”. I see road rage and every other heated argument being settled with a gun fight by people who are not emotionally mature enough to accept the responsibility of what it means to own a firearm.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 12:51 AM
No way. I stay away from the Tolah’s of the world. I wish him no ill will but I went to a Chicago Public school and it wasn’t easy to get left back in the 70’s. That’s why I am sure he is in prison. I just wish we had pepper spray back then.
Bill C on April 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
thedecider,
You have to think counter Intuitive on this issue. Think UK!
Egfrow on April 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
The Soviets and the USA had MAD. Citizens will have MABC. Mutually Assured Busted Caps.
Egfrow on April 17, 2007 at 12:55 AM
semi-auto. Though I think Glock does make a fully auto pistol but very rare. Glock 19 is very popular in self-defense. It’s the same as a Glock 17 but reduced in size. Wiki says it is standard issue of NYPD .
Interesting.
There is a possibility that this Chinese fellow could have lied on his 4473 form and the NICS response was a delay. Which is a potentially 3 businness day wait so NICS can complete the background check. Sometimes insufficient info on the person on file and maybe a local state agency can not be reached and data is not complete. By the Brady law if no resolution is given during the three business day period(meaning NICS has not called the Dealer back with a “Proceed” or a “Denial”) the law does not prohibit the FFL Dealer to transfer the firearm after the three day business if they see no reason not to. Another possibility is if he had a relative who was somekind of Diplomat who fell under the exception for aliens. But I think most likely stolen since the serial numbers were removed. Usually you see a davis industries or a raven when it comes to street guns because they are so cheap. If these were the weapons he used he had nice ones. Walther is what James Bond uses Walther p99.
Drtuddle on April 17, 2007 at 12:55 AM
Not that you were saying it PB, but some wonder why the point of where the gun came from is important.
Well…because the drive by media declared immediately that more gun control is needed.
ABC’s blotter showed their agenda suggesting because a federal law lapsed on assault weapons, that it was possible the shooter had oversize “clips”, prior to knowing even the type of gun used.
Then the ABC News web site had an article, with a little sidebar box in which you could vote if you thought the shootings were grounds for more gun control.
WorldnetDaily carried an article today showing the legislation offered in Virginia last year that would have allowed concealed carry….was quashed.
Is it an important point where the guns came from? Yes. Will it be reported if he obtained them illegally? Doubtful.
91Veteran on April 17, 2007 at 12:56 AM
I think it is the Glock 18C that is fully auto.
EnochCain on April 17, 2007 at 12:57 AM
So knives, baseball bats, and roller pins should be illegal? You know better than that. Realize that all you’re really saying is that the world is unpredictable and as a result, everyone should be defenseless. You’re asking people to be sheep and the government to be the shepard. But as we know, the shepard is a fat, lazy bureaucrat that’s 2 miles away and never gets off his ass to protect us from wolves.
Sydney Carton on April 17, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Uh…the statistics in states where concealed carry is allowed do not bear this out though.
91Veteran on April 17, 2007 at 1:00 AM
LOL! Thanks for the insight! I obviously wasn’t getting it.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 1:01 AM
You know, I live in such a state and I can tell you that even one such incident is one too many.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 1:02 AM
No way. I stay away from the Tolah’s of the world. I wish him no ill will but I went to a Chicago Public school and it wasn’t easy to get left back in the 70’s. That’s why I am sure he is in prison. I just wish we had pepper spray back then.Bill C on April 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I hear ya, it was just a joke about the weapon, a compass. I hear geometry students are lethal with them.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 1:03 AM
I would agree, but then how many are dead because they have been denied this right? because someone was worried what might happen?
91Veteran on April 17, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Bryan
People are getting too critical
Like the name Cho – extremely common Han Chinese name like Cho en Lai the Prime Minister who replaced Mao and was a Han
Look, this column is right on, love it or leave it sophisticated gun laws did not prevent someone from committing a crime of hideous porportions
EricPWJohnson on April 17, 2007 at 1:05 AM
I live in a state where women have hit their husbands in the head with frying pans…stop the frying pan violence..
EnochCain on April 17, 2007 at 1:05 AM
by the way Bill C, that was supposed to be a blockquote on your comment, not a strikeout in my last comment.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Bear in mind that I’m a person who keeps firearms in my home for self-defense. However, if you cut someone off in traffic who then blows your head off because they are not emotionally mature enough to bear the responsibility of owning a firearm (don’t say it can’t happen, because it can), is it worth it to you? To your family? That’s what I’m saying. Where do you draw the line?
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 1:10 AM
91vet, you see the results on the ABC gun control poll? about 2:1 AGAINST the gun grabbers! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Take that, gun grabbers!
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
From msnbc
William Amos on April 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Why am I seeing comments about “automatic” weapons? The weapons used were SEMI-AUTOMATIC. That is a very important difference. There is nothing wrong or evil or more deadly about a semi automatic pistol or rifle. They are just guns. Heard O’Reilly make the same mistake and just cringed. Terminology, especially in this debate, is critical.
“AUTOMATIC” weapons have been rigidly controlled by the Government under the National Firearms Act since 1934. It is possible to legally obtain such, but it is a very difficult, Governemntally scrutinized process. Not something that criminals care to go through and pay for the privilege of doing so.
This guy broke multiple, EXISTING gun laws to do what he did.
1. Faked identity or documentation or utilized another person to purchase for him (straw purchase). He is in violation of mult. current gun laws.
2. Stole, or purchased stolen guns, without following the required federal procedure for the lawful transfer of such.
3. Erased or obliterated the serial numbers of a firearm
4. Carried a loaded firearm on his person without a CCW permit.
5. Using a firearm in the commission of a felony
6. Murder
* I know the last two are ridiculously obvious and painfully so but they serve an overall point CRIMINALS DONT OBEY THE LAW. MORE LAWS WILL NOT HELP THESE TRAGEDIES.
America1st on April 17, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Vote against the gun grabbers, maybe if those fools see its a total loser for them, they’ll decide to drop their agenda garbage.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Not often I get to correct you Bryan but LegendHasIt beat me too it. Darn it!
Yeah you broke the Gun Nutt cardinal rule! Also when media calls everything a ak-47 or machine gun.
Drtuddle on April 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
I understand what you are saying, but I believe those that are that unstable are unstable in other ways so as to weed themselves out of getting the permit.
91Veteran on April 17, 2007 at 1:16 AM
You buy like a $200 stamp and register the gun right? COurse probably depends on your State also
Drtuddle on April 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM
That’s what everyone said would happen here in Texas if we passed the concealed carry law, but it’s been 12 years now since the law was passed and the predicted bloodbath hasn’t happened.
forged rite on April 17, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Either way its a losing proposition for the anti 2nd amendment crowd. If it was autopistols, they’re illegal, and it shows that gun prohibitions don’t work. If its semi-autos, most people understand what they are and aren’t gonna support a ban, especially given that people see them as reasonable weapons for self defense. People are ignorant about guns, but not THAT ignorant.
God, I hate Geraldo. I hate all reporters during school shootings, but Geraldo exemplifies what I hate about them.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 1:20 AM
&
I get what both of you are saying, and, forged rite, I’m not talking about a “blood bath”. I know the statistics. For God’s sake, I was born and raised in Oklahoma. Still live here. Can you get more conservative or pro-second amendment than that? I’m just saying that even one unfortunate death from someone who is too insecure to deal with handling a gun is one too many. I’m all for keeping guns around for self defense. I just worry about a society where everyone is packing in public which seems to be what others here are advocating.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Oh and if the kids an exchange student, he shouldn’t have had any guns, so either way, there’s no need for more gun laws.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 1:24 AM
It isn’t quite that easy. Especially since 1986. Too complicated to post here.
To get it from ‘the horse’s mouth’:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm
________________________________
That’s a relief. I figured it might be something like that, but wanted to make sure.
LegendHasIt on April 17, 2007 at 1:29 AM
They are starting to release some of the identities of the murdered…GatewayPundit has it…isn’t weird they are holding back so much info like the identity of the murderer at the point?
Topsecretk9 on April 17, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I am waaay too earnest to get that joke. ;-)
Bill C on April 17, 2007 at 1:39 AM
That’s not a guarantee by any means. Rage is a funny thing. People who can seem completely normal in other ways can become quite irrational when confronted by a predicament or someone with whom they disagree. What is the litmus test for evaluating this? There is none. Can there ever be one? I don’t see how. How do you predict how anyone will act in a provided situation? That’s the problem. A background check proves whether a person has been involved in a past crime. It does not predict (nor can it predict) behavioral situations.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 1:46 AM
That was a little bit of hyperbole on my part, sorry about that. What i should have said was a lot of people had the same worries you do, but those worries now appear to be unfounded. Did a quick search and found this link if you’re interested, but it is kind of old. There’s probably a newer study out there somewhere.
forged rite on April 17, 2007 at 1:47 AM
If the shooter got a Driverse LIcense or State ID and lied on the 4473 form, the Dealer would have never known any different if he was never given a “denied” response from NICS. NICS doesn’t ask for DL or ID numbers they are just recorded on the form. NICS only ask for Name, State or Country where born,weight, height, DOB, SSN# is optional, race, WHat is your state of residency? WHat is your country of citizenship?, They ask whether the transaction is a prepawn, redemption or sale?, What type of firearm(long gun or handgun or both)? NICS doesn’t ask for make or serial number of guns but the information is recorder by dealer and filed.
Also if Virgina is like Texas you can sale a firearm from nonlicensee to nonlicensee without background check as long as you have no reason to think the person buying isn’t legal to carry a firearm.
I believe a firearm with serial number grinded off would be illegal to sale or own unless curio? Now some older firearms before 1960 something were not required to have serial numbers. But if you see an obvious serial number that has been scratched off that is a No! No! I believe it is possible to still recover the serial numbers sometimes even if numbers have been scratched off.
Drtuddle on April 17, 2007 at 1:50 AM
HAve a friend who owns a 14″ BARREL shotgun where he had to get a $200 stamp. He bought it from police I believe. Also owns like two fully autos but with the license to won them. He didn’t act like it was a big deal.
Of course he is a die-hard gun person.
Drtuddle on April 17, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Thanks forged rite! This information really confirms what I already know. That’s really not my argument. I understand that people who are informed or who are enabled to protect themselves will be better off. To me, that’s a given our founding fathers understood very well. My point is more toward what a civil society in today’s terms should look like. I think we all can agree that, given the right to pack a gun in public – in every forum – we would see more brazenness by those willing to use that firearm rather than settling their disputes rationally or civilly.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 1:58 AM
If frying pans are outlawed, only outlaws will have frying pans.
But seriously, if there was ever an incident that demonstrates the fact that gun control accomplishes nothing but leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless against criminals, it’s today’s atrocity at VT. I hope everybody that defeated the VA bill that would have given the victims back their right to self-defense is having trouble sleeping tonight.
ReubenJCogburn on April 17, 2007 at 2:05 AM
I heard a goofball on the radio first state specifically that the bad guy had two semi-automatic pistols, then in the next sentence start talking about how we need to ban assault weapons. I doesn’t take the wackos much to make a crazy jump.
I spend Monday through Friday on the campus of a large state university. There are “Weapon-free Zone” posters and stickers everywhere. Those stickers didn’t keep a crazy from shooting some professors a few years ago.
What the stickers really should read is “Defenseless Victim Zone.” Yep, creating a safe work environment for criminals. That’s so compassionate.
My kids deserve to have daddy come home each day, so I live by the rule “Practice often and carry always.”
Well, except, I don’t carry on campus. (And that’s the story I’m sticking with.)
Doghouse on April 17, 2007 at 2:10 AM
What if there was another way? What if the so-called campus security (which, so miserably failed the students and faculty today) were enabled to act on the behalf of the university students and faculty? What if they could be the “police” of the campus and defend against this mass-murderer? Wouldn’t a trained and enabled force on-campus be a better deterrent than an armed student populace?
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Am I the only one wondering how the hell this guy managed to shoot about 50 people? I know 32 were killed, but there’s approximately 20 more injured. I just can’t understand how this could have happened. I’m not attempting to speculate or imply anything, it just seems really strange, considering we’re not talking about bombs or machine guns.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
A lax on-campus security team and police officers who were looking at the first shooting as an isolated incident. By the way, those who were injured may not survive. The death toll could rise if they don’t.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 2:27 AM
” I think we all can agree that, given the right to pack a gun in public – in every forum – we would see more brazenness by those willing to use that firearm rather than settling their disputes rationally or civilly” Thedecider
With all due respect, that is ridiculously flawed reasoning. People who wish to carry lawfully value their right to bear arms, are educated, and are not about to sacrifice their ability to own and or carry to protect themselves.
The reality is that education and awareness combined with the licensing requirements like fingerprinting and maintaining current address and in some states which specific guns will be carried, do an awful lot to prevent improper reckless behaviour.
People who care enough to exercise the right to carry lawfully tend to be much slower to provoke by virtue of the fact that they carry and can use deadly force. My 2 cents
America1st on April 17, 2007 at 2:34 AM
>Am I the only one wondering how the hell this guy managed to shoot about 50 people?
Nobody. Was. Carrying. A. Gun.
A large group of defenseless people + a bad guy shooting = lots of dead and wounded people
>What if they could be the “police” of the campus and defend against this mass-murderer? Wouldn’t a trained and enabled force on-campus be a better deterrent than an armed student populace?
You would have to have police all over the place. It doesn’t take very long to kill a lot of people, if you have a lot of people in one place, and those people are completely defenseless, as were the students that were shot today. My university (a defenseless victim campus) has over 35,000 students, with thousands of faculty members and other campus workers. And it’s a large campus. So, it’s like a small city. There is no reasonable way that a police force can protect most people, whether on or off campus. The only way is to be responsible for yourself and your own family, and not expect somebody else to do it for you. It doesn’t matter how great the police force is. Most of the time they’ll still only get there in time to scrape you off the pavement and contact your family.
Why didn’t the shooter in that mall in Salt Lake City kill more people? Because somebody there had the good sense to be carrying a gun. You can’t always prevent it from starting, but you can end it earlier than the bad guy intended.
Doghouse on April 17, 2007 at 2:37 AM
Yeah, it sounds like there may have been a big screw up in that this guy was able to move from one location where he killed only 2, to another 2 hours later where he killed 30 more.. but my question is more about the students. I wasn’t there obviously, but at this point I just can’t understand how he was able to take out so many kids… I’m not claiming to be a hero, but wouldn’t some people rush him at some point? They’re risking their lives in doing so obviously, but from the sounds of it, they were just like a firing range for him anyway.
Again, not attempting to pass judgment in any way at all… This just confuses me how this went down. It’s possible we’ll learn more, but at this point it doesn’t make any sense to me.
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 2:40 AM
Go to the VA thread and read my later posts, I think what I posted can give you insight into why a shooter can do that without resistance.
Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 2:40 AM
Really? You know this for a fact? I’d like to see that for myself if you don’t mind – in how this is “ridiculously flawed reasoning”?. If this is just your opinion, that’s one thing, but if you would like to present this as actual fact, then some background would be useful.
Your “two cents”? I’ll take it that this is just your opinion until you provide otherwise.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Not to mention about the cheapest legally transferable fully-automatic weapon you will find costs about $10,000. That’s for a “fixer-upper.”
So, for a full-auto, you are looking at:
1. $10,000 – price of the weapon.
2. $200 – Excise tax.
3. 6-12 month wait for approval including:
FBI background check
mojojojo on April 17, 2007 at 2:50 AM
This is a comment responding to this Post about V-Tech circa 2006
I bet he’s shaking his head mad today…
Topsecretk9 on April 17, 2007 at 2:51 AM
Darn, hit submit too soon.
Wait for full-auto (6-12 months) will include:
Full set of fingerprints.
FBI background check.
Discretionary sign-off by county sheriff. No signature-no fully auto weapon.
In other words, this is a difficult, VERY expensive, and time-consuming process.
mojojojo on April 17, 2007 at 2:52 AM
I know what you mean. It kind of makes you think of “flight 93″ where they rushed the cabin to overtake the terrorists flying the plane. Why didn’t someone stop him? A baseball bat, or anything? I think I read of some students who blocked a doorway with their feet to prevent the killer from coming back into the classroom. Some shots were fired through the door but noone was hit. That’s heroics to me. In this case anyway.
thedecider on April 17, 2007 at 2:52 AM
ughhh…. the Greta/Geraldo/Shep coverage is reairring… I just had to endure Shep talking about the stupid facebook thing again, and now Geraldo talking about it, saying that a wave of “electricity” went through his investigative team when they received a name and looked it up on facebook, and found the kid “clutching” guns…… ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Geraldo, STFU!!!
RightWinged on April 17, 2007 at 3:11 AM
By all means, the university should have a campus police force, but as others have already pointed out, they can’t know what’s going on at all times or be everywhere at once. But the existence of a campus police force would in no way negate the fact that people have a very basic human right to self-defense–it’s hard to get much more basic than that, really. It always amazes me how easily some people–some of whom have very good intentions–can rationalize taking that right away.
As Robert Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” And gun control not only isn’t the solution, it’s part of the problem.
ReubenJCogburn on April 17, 2007 at 3:24 AM
As another piece of evidence to refute the idea that we can count on the police to protect us from bad guys, consider this comment that was quoted on Michelle’s blog:
“Also, let me say that the response from the campus, local, and state police was exemplary. Within five minutes of the first shots, police were gathering outside. In another ten minutes, the threat had been neutralized and the building was secure.”
Even with rapid response from law enforcement, a lot of people died or were wounded. When a bad guy starts shooting, you only have seconds–not minutes or hours–to stop him. The only way you’ll be able to do that is if you’re carrying a gun. Rainbows and unicorns won’t work.
Doghouse on April 17, 2007 at 3:53 AM
Decider your argument is ridiculous precisely because it is devoid of any facts. Your argument/statement is that more people carrying guns (legally) would lead to/cause more brandishing and or misuse of the firearms. That is an emotional argument not backed up by any facts. It is also basically the classic Liberal or gun grabbing argument that the guns make or cause the problems.
I can provide data regading the percentage of gun misuse in CCW Holders to prove that the percentage of people guilty of using firearms inappropriately in CCW holders is dramatically lower than that of the rest of the population. I can also provide data demonstrating that more guns and the more ccw’s correlates to lower crime rates. Both of which would shoot holes in your theory.
That being said, the process, the education in the use of force, and the potential for loss of a right that is obviously valued and considered essential is still more than enough to dispel a claim that it would be like the “wild west” if more people carried guns LAWFULLY.
America1st on April 17, 2007 at 4:02 AM
The link is broken. Looks like someone took the whole site down. Maintenance or was this leak plugged?
John on April 17, 2007 at 4:16 AM
Could that “person of interest” have purchased the firearms for the perp?
Zorro on April 17, 2007 at 6:45 AM
Okay, the perp buys the guns over the counter from a legit source, he’s planning to use them to commit murder on a mass scale, why would he bother wasting time grinding the serial#’s off the weapons? Now if theres another individual involved who did purchase them for the shooter, then it may make a little more sense but not much particularly since its pretty well known that the serial#’s can be retrieved from the weapons even after having been ground off.
Viper1 on April 17, 2007 at 7:04 AM
Shepard Smith just interviewed a student who was on the floor above the shooting, she just reported she walked over to the stairwell and saw “alot of smoke and my feet got hot” from the floor below, so apparently he had a black powder cannon, also.
Smith also just declared he has covered “some of the biggest events in the history of the US” and has never seen anything like the media feeding frenzy that has descended on Blacksburg.
B Moe on April 17, 2007 at 8:16 AM
if you cut someone off in traffic who then blows your head off because they are not emotionally mature enough to bear the responsibility of owning a firearm (don’t say it can’t happen, because it can), is it worth it to you? To your family? That’s what I’m saying. Where do you draw the line?
The lethal weapon most often used in road rage killings is… the automobile! People are far more likely to run each other off the road with their cars than shoot at each other. Obviously we should ban cars, since they kill tens of thousands of people every year!
What if there was another way? What if the so-called campus security (which, so miserably failed the students and faculty today) were enabled to act on the behalf of the university students and faculty? What if they could be the “police” of the campus and defend against this mass-murderer? Wouldn’t a trained and enabled force on-campus be a better deterrent than an armed student populace?
That campus was impossible to “defend”. Virginia Tech campus has scores of buildings spread across 2,600 acres, and there are 26,000 students enrolled there. Can you put an officer in every classroom? No. Can you put an officer and a metal detector at every door in every building? No. I don’t even think there is a good argument that the campus police “failed miserably.”
The rush to blame the school’s administration and police is a reflection of a society that believes any and all misfortune can be averted by the proper application of government will.
Lehuster on April 17, 2007 at 8:22 AM
This is why.
CrimsonFisted on April 17, 2007 at 8:26 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »