Virginia quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Virginia quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses
Tech spokesman celebrated 2006 defeat because it would help make campus safe
Posted: April 16, 2007
3:15 p.m. Eastern

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55226
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Virginia state capitol
More than one year before today's unprecedented shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, the state's General Assembly quashed a bill that would have given qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.

At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill's defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus," the Virginia Tech spokesman said.

At least 32 people were killed today at Virginia Tech in the worst campus shooting in U.S. history.

(Story continues below)

The proposal, House Bill 1572, was initiated by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

But the bill didn't make it through its first stage, the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus.

Backers of the bill wanted to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

Exceptions would have been made for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

The bill's sponsor, Gilbert, told WND that with today's tragedy still unfolding, he is uncomfortable commenting and cannot assert the university's policy in any way contributed to the shooting. But he said, nevertheless, it's clear it couldn't have stopped the attack.

"The one thing that this tragic event does illustrate is that there is not a single gun law, rule or regulation that will stop someone with this kind of evil intent from going about their business and taking life at will, if they are committed to doing that," Gilbert said.

While advocates of gun control often believe they are improving safety, they are depriving law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in dangerous situations, he contended.

"Had I been on campus today, and otherwise been entitled to carry firearms for protection and been deprived of that, I don't think words can describe how I would have felt, knowing I could have stopped something like this," Gilbert said.

People who are willing to jump through all the legal hoops necessary to get a weapons permit usually are not people society needs to worry about, he argued.

The suspect in today's shootings might have been a legal weapons holder, Gilbert said, but the law didn't prevent him from doing what he did.

In the spring of 2005, a Virginia Tech student who had a concealed handgun permit was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, the Roanoke paper reported.

Second Amendment groups questioned the university's authority, but the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police argued against guns on campus.

In June 2006, Virginia Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy that reaffirmed the school's ban.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,488 • Replies: 33

No top replies

Anybody that would trust you with a gun, Michael, would have to be out of his mind.

0 Replies

I just heard about the shootings. I am shocked. I have friends there.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Anybody that would trust you with a gun, Michael, would have to be out of his mind.

I agree with that. If there were ever a reason to ban guns (there's not), it would be michael1.

0 Replies

Michael what are you so afraid of?

Dont tell me just ask yourself the question and see if you can find the answer.

0 Replies

I'm against guns: but in a perverse kind of way, if a high proportion of people on that campus had their own gun, than the killer would probably have been able to kill three or four before he was shot.

But it's a horrible equation. Better to prevent stockpiling of guns and ammo in private hands.

There's something about guns which attracts wackos. Maybe even, the posession of a powerful firearm CAUSES some people to become wacko.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

But it's a horrible equation. Better to prevent stockpiling of guns and ammo in private hands.

And HOW would you suppose the US accomplish that. There are at least 200 million guns in the US and I've heard estimates of 400 million in North America.

And you don't need to stockpile guns/ammo to do what this kid did today. So how would have have stopped him?

0 Replies

I honestly do not know if you can stop this sort of act. To me the best way would be for others around this person to be alert to the potential he could go off the deep end. My understanding is that he posted pictures of himself on a website with guns, etc. Is there some way friends could have predicted this?

Unfortunately to live in a free society, rare things like this can happen. We would have to instill much less freedom than we currently have to prevent this and even so would it still be 100% preventable?

0 Replies

Freedom and security are conflicting values.

The more freedom there is in society, the less security there is, and vice-versa.

0 Replies

The Nazi Boy is such a multi-dimensional character, we learn so much about him with each passing day. Religious fanatic, proponent of a racist agenda, hate law opponent, and now we learn he is a gun control opponent.

What a Renaissance Man ! ! !

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

I'm against guns:
but in a perverse kind of way,
if a high proportion of people on that campus had their own gun,
than the killer would probably have been able to kill three or four before he was shot.

But it's a horrible equation.
Better to prevent stockpiling of guns and ammo in private hands.

That 's an interesting point of vu:
that even if widespread possession of guns among the victim population
would save about 30 human lives,
it is STILL BETTER to disarm the victims,
even if it costs so many additional lives.

I wonder whether those victims would have agreed with u,
or
whether their families do ?
I doubt it.

I believe that self defense is better.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That 's an interesting point of vu:
that even if widespread possession of guns among the victim population
would save about 30 human lives,
it is STILL BETTER to disarm the victims,
even if it costs so many additional lives.

This idiotic contention has been peddled more than once online. If you had had even one percent of the student body carrying fire arms on the day of the shooting, the very likely outcome would have been that not only would 30 or more people have been shot by the shooter, who was relatively calm and went about his activity in a methodical manner--but you'd have had any number of twits without experience or training, and in a semi-hysterical state, firing off rounds willy-nilly. The likeliest outcome would have been mayhem on a greater scale, without even considering how many poor idiots would have been shot dead by the police as soon as they ran out of a building waving a gun. THE STUPIDEST argument advanced by the gun nut lobby.

You know, i find it hilarious that OSD butchers the English language because he claims it is more efficient (although he often obscures the meaning of what he claims are straightforward phonetic spellings)--and yet he takes the time to bold-face and to select colors for his rants. Kind of defeats the purpose of having been, allegedly, more efficient in the first place.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Anybody that would trust you with a gun, Michael, would have to be out of his mind.

This ad hominem invective is starkly illogical.
( I think it tells us something about the mental abilities of its author. )

Its like saying that anyone who 'd trust him with a VOTE in November,
must be out of his mind.

The citizens have the rights that they HAVE,
regardless of the emotions of anyone else, including trust.

No one 's rights depend upon the TRUST of anyone else.
David

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
That 's an interesting point of vu:
that even if widespread possession of guns among the victim population
would save about 30 human lives,
it is STILL BETTER to disarm the victims,
even if it costs so many additional lives.

This idiotic contention has been peddled more than once online. If you had had even one percent of the student body carrying fire arms on the day of the shooting, the very likely outcome would have been that not only would 30 or more people have been shot by the shooter, who was relatively calm and went about his activity in a methodical manner--but you'd have had any number of twits without experience or training, and in a semi-hysterical state, firing off rounds willy-nilly. The likeliest outcome would have been mayhem on a greater scale, without even considering how many poor idiots would have been shot dead by the police as soon as they ran out of a building waving a gun. THE STUPIDEST argument advanced by the gun nut lobby.

Setanta, if I were a violent criminal,
I 'd LOVE u for your zeal to protect me on-the-job.

Do u at least ATTEMPT to control your emotions
before hurling yourself into hysteria and personal acrimony ??
or are u that way ALL the time ?

You offer only mindless gushing of your anti-freedom, pro-criminal,
naked assumptions with no objective support about defensive gunfire.

Emotional gushing cannot be logically processed, setanta.
U r like a nasty version of Gracie Allen.
Forget it.

Maybe that 's the best u can do.

David

0 Replies

You say "pro-criminal", but in this country, if you shoot a man, even if he is waving a gun, even if he has previously killed one or more people, you would find yourself on a murder charge and would be likely to be convicted.

In this country we discourage this kind of thing.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

You say "pro-criminal", but in this country,
if you shoot a man, even if he is waving a gun,
even if he has previously killed one or more people,
you would find yourself on a murder charge and would be likely to be convicted.

In this country we discourage this kind of thing.

Such evil perversity
urgently calls for overthrow of the government,
peacefully, or not.

The filosofy that u have indicated
is ANTITHETICAL to the reason for the establishment and toleration of a government.
David

0 Replies

Why? The government is the instrument of the people, in a democracy.

Look to your checks and balances, and everything should be fine, more or less.

0 Replies

Let me take a step back.
I m not entirely certain that I understood u correctly.

1. If a citizen knows that someone has murdered a few people,
that, of itself, does not justify him in killing the murderer.

2. If the murderer is merely waving a gun around,
WITHOUT threatening YOU,
then I can see an argument for leaving him alone
( unless he is threatening your mother or your child ).

Perhaps u will clarify your meaning.

McTag wrote:

Quote:
Why? The government is the instrument of the people, in a democracy.

Were " the people " or society ever granted authority,
by the individuals who created society and its henchman: government,
to strip away their individual rights ? including the right of the
individual citizen to defend his life and property ?

That seems unlikely.

What say YOU ?

David

0 Replies

In this country the concept of "appropriate force" seems to be key.

You are entitled in law to use appropriate force to apprehend or disable a criminal or someone who seeks to harm you.

This would almost never include shooting him dead. Even the police have to give a verbal warning before opening fire.
And in this country of course, only a very few people have firearms at home.

0 Replies

The Justice Department is considering a ban on the selling of guns to known or suspected terrorists.

The NRA has sued them to keep them from enforcing such a ban.

The NRA are loons.

You keep great company, David.

0 Replies

Virginia quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know