Page 1 of 3
MSNBC poll on allowing students to carry on campus
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:46 am
by Mike1951
Re: MSNBC poll on allowing students to carry on campus
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:24 pm
by Skipper5
The vote has rotated to "allowing students to carry concealed with license on campus= 56%"
to 44% "an isolated incident", but still good idea to ban guns on campus.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:29 pm
by propellerhead
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:38 pm
by pbandjelly
It's now 60/40 for.
good job, folks.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:41 pm
by HankB
I weighed in on MSNBC's "discussion" section . . . I just had to respond to some of the rhetoric there. Doubt that I'll convince a frothing-at-the-mouth anti, but here's what I wrote:
Barely a year ago, the Virginia General Assembly defeated a measure which would have allowed LICENSED individuals to carry concealed firearms on campus. At the time, a spokesman for Virginia Tech praised the measure's defeat, proclaiming that prohibiting LICENSED individuals from being armed on campus made the place safer. I wonder how he feels now about the Victim Disarmament Zone that is Virginia Tech?
What it comes down to is that the only person you can depend on to protect you - is YOU. Take Virginia Tech as an example: even though police were already on campus, in force, due to the earlier shooting, the perp was roaming the halls, murdering people in the engineering building for up to a HALF HOUR, and was NEVER confronted by law enforcement!
And they were already on campus in force!!
Cops on the scene did nothing to stop the perp . . . and the college community - including faculty - was prohibited by law from having the means to defend themselves.
Shades of Columbine . . .
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:14 pm
by Fourman
HankB,
As much as I like for all to carry, lets not start to "blame" the police for what may or may not have happened on their part. I have been a Volunteer Firefighter for a number of years and have been on many large fires, wrecks, and a few GSW's and many times even with everyone there something can be missed. With all the different departments there with possible different "rules of engagement", radios freq's, dispatches, the list goes on and on.....confusion is very possible. Ever since 911 emergency services have been working very hard to become more uniform to reduce this, but it still occurs (just not as bad).
Keep in mind that most of the time the police are one our "side" when it comes to CHL's
Brian
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:14 pm
by stevie_d_64
66% for
34% against
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:54 pm
by HankB
Fourman,
Confusion and indecision, divided command, overlapping jurisdictions, different radio frequencies, different ROEs . . . all of these were factors in the poor response at Columbine, on 9/11, and, it would seem, at Virginia Tech.
With plenty of cops (including SWAT!) already on-campus, I find it unbelieveable that the perp was able to have his way with the people in the engineering building for around a half hour without so much as being confronted by LEOs . . .
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:38 pm
by SC1903A3
It's now 69% in favor and 31% against. They'll probably wind up burying the poll since it dosen't jibe with their agenda
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:39 pm
by stroo
This morning MSNBC reported that the poll showed about 60% word not favor concealed carry on campus. Now I can't find the poll on the MSNBC site.
Edit: I just found it. Now it is 71-29 in favor of allowing concealed carry. I wonder if their news reports are still talking about this?
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:02 pm
by Geister
Fourman wrote:HankB,
As much as I like for all to carry, lets not start to "blame" the police for what may or may not have happened on their part.
Brian
I don't think anyone here is blaming the police department for doing a bad job. We are simply pointing out that they cannot be everywhere 100% of the time nor can they stop every single tragedy from ever occurring.
The real role of the police is to find those who already committed the crimes.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:25 pm
by NcongruNt
What I don't get, is that according to the MSNBC story Cho seemed to have been involuntarily admitted for psychiatric treatment by the county magistrate, and this was in 2005. This should have absolutely shown up on a background check with the FBI and he should never have been sold a firearm. The media seems to be blaming the gun shop owner for selling him a firearm. If this reporting is correct, I'd put the fault with the FBI for failing to deny his purchase of a firearm during the background check.
Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.
Any thoughts?
(edited to add quote)
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:42 pm
by Lucky45
NcongruNt wrote:
Any thoughts?
(edited to add quote)
I agree with you. I didn't read your your post til now, but I posted in another discussion and here is a copy.
Lucky45 wrote:
I think one of the new info that is coming out is that the guy has a couple mental episodes. I think that is where he kinda got through the loop hole in obtaining the guns. I think for TX CHL they have "mental episodes" as a disqualifier for obtaining a CHL. I don't know VA law, but if states could cross check people with the "NUT HOUSE" when purchasing guns or CHL then you could cut out a large percentage of these unstable people to begin with.
That could be a change they make in their procedures to have ATF cross check applicants with the NUT HOUSE.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:43 pm
by lrb111
73 > 27 will never hear a word about it.
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:55 pm
by Big_Hitter
since when do we vote on individual rights or personal freedoms?
some things transcend majority rule
this shouldn't be the subject of a poll