Shooting at Ark. university kills 2, wounds 1

Shooting at Ark. university kills 2, wounds 1

news.yahoo.com

Play Video Video: Police: Four suspects in campus shooting AP Play Video Video: Deadly Shooting in Arkansas ABC News CONWAY, Ark. – The top official of the University of Central Arkansas says the "campus is safe" after a shooting that killed two people near a dormitory but he is promising a review of the school's security measures.

Police say officers are seeking four suspects but say there is no continuing threat at the school 30 miles north of Little Rock.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.katv.com

Another university shooting. Interesting that the police are seeking four suspects but say there is no continuing threat to the school. Shouldn't they apprehend the bad guys before telling everyone not to worry?

Another article says the police officers at UCA are now trained in basic S.W.A.T. tactics and the use of AR-15 style rifles donated to the university last year. I guess in this case training didn't matter... The killers weren't the mentally insane type. Seems more like a hit and run.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Scramjet76

...The killers weren't the mentally insane type

...if this isn't the lamest quote of the day!



sorry, I had to say it.

nothing personal....

reply to post by bot3000


I guess that didn't come out right!

I meant the usual kind who come on campus and kill as many as they can before turning the gun on themselves.

I just have to add to the story, before someone starts being silly on here, this happened in a 'gun-free zone' where guns are illegal.

Just saying...

TheRedneck

This was not a "run up in the school and start popping people off" kind of shooting. This was a retaliation of sorts due to a confrontation between 4 men that followed a young student to her dorm. Never the less, that makes two school shootings for Arkansas now... I feel for everyone at that school.

reply to post by Scramjet76


Seems like a "personal problem" and not a "nut case that decided to kill as many humans as possible before he dies" type scenario.

If anyone thinks the School could have stopped that, you're ignorant.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Here we are again huh Redneck. Ok so Virginia Tech shooting was different. In this situation are you still pro-gun? The reason I ask this question is because this was a retaliation against specific individual(s). In other words, if you were a bystander you probably didn't get the barrel pointed right at you. Would you prefer a bystander (next to you), unaware that it's not a random shooting, whip his 9 out and start blasting?

reply to post by Rockpuck

If anyone thinks the School could have stopped that, you're ignorant.

True puck, but what's your feeling on the question I asked Redneck?

reply to post by Scramjet76

Yeah, Scram, I'm back for more. Call me a glutton for punishment.

In this one particular situation, as I understand it (haven't spent all day in front of the boob tube today) there is a good chance that a bystander with a gun would not have been able to stop the shooting. It might have made the investigation easier on the police if they didn't have to track the suspects down (or had a trail of blood to follow), though.

But that is not my point when it comes to gun bans being a problem. The point is that the victims were followed into a gun-free zone. Why? I think the answer is obvious. No one was around that was able to shoot back. So while this case may have been one where the shooting was unavoidable by any means (the gun ban in effect certainly wasn't effective), the very threat that a gun might be in the possession of a targeted victim or a bystander could very well have been a deterrent. We'll never know for sure, but we do know one thing for sure: this gun ban did not save anyone this time except maybe the shooter.

I think that's an important aspect to point out.

TheRedneck


[edit on 27-10-2008 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Good point Redneck. Everything is a "what if" except for the ineffectiveness of "gun free zones."

Here's the deal with me and guns. I own a 12ga shotgun and a .22 rifle. So I'm not frightened of guns. But I'm no marksman by any stretch of the imagination. Our Hollywood culture would have us believe anyone can have a 9mm in each hand and easily be able to blow multiple guys away. The truth is guns are dangerous and they are not easy to shoot for a novice or average shooter. I'm not sure I want someone pulling their gun out for protection who has only been to the firing range a handful of times. Although I agree with your point on the ineffectiveness of gun free zones, I also get nervous about novice/average shooters doing something stupid. I personally don't have a pistol so I'm gun free when I'm out and about. I took a couple years of martial arts many years ago and I would stress to folks the best protection is awareness of one's environment. Having a good "spider sense" will further minimize the already very low chance of you getting killed by joe nutcase in life. If you must pack a weapon I would vote for the trenchcoat and sawed-off shotgun like Michael Bien has in the Terminator.

The point is that the victims were followed into a gun-free zone. Why? I think the answer is obvious. No one was around that was able to shoot back.

You really give the bad guys that much credit?
I would think a campus would be one of the worst places for a shooting. A university campus is synonymous with CAMERAS and WITNESSES. Why not wait for the dude to be right next to a police station and then gun him down.....

reply to post by Scramjet76

That star came from me. That is an excellent post Scram, filled with excellent points.

Our Hollywood culture would have us believe anyone can have a 9mm in each hand and easily be able to blow multiple guys away. The truth is guns are dangerous and they are not easy to shoot for a novice or average shooter.

You just hit one of my pet peeves. Hollywood would also have us holding that 9mm sideways and somehow not jamming it or getting hit in the face with hot brass.

I worry a lot about how the movies have warped our perception of reality. I see a lot of science fiction even on these boards touted as though it were science fact. We tend to believe what we see on that big screen is somehow real. Sure, the special effects for the most part are awesome today, but we have to remember that this is still computer-generated or illusionary images on a screen. Life does not follow the same rules as Hollywood.

I would stress to folks the best protection is awareness of one's environment. Having a good "spider sense" will further minimize the already very low chance of you getting killed by joe nutcase in life.

I keep getting errors about trying to give more than one star every time I read this part. You hit the nail on the head. A gun is not a guarantee against attack, nor is it even an effective weapon against a close attacker with training. The best form of self-protection is indeed awareness, coupled with a good sense of danger.

That's not to say a gun doesn't have a use, however. I'm just saying that it is not the only weapon in an effective arsenal.

If you must pack a weapon I would vote for the trenchcoat and sawed-off shotgun like Michael Bien has in the Terminator.

Unfortunately, in the USA, such a weapon is strictly illegal. A shame really, especially since the law was based on one thing and one thing only: an attempt to curb mob violence by attacking and outlawing their preferred weapon of choice.

You really give the bad guys that much credit?

Yeah, I really do. I am sure you have seen the TV shows like "The World's Dumbest Criminals" and the Darwin Awards are famous. But here again, that is not reality. Criminals run the entire gamut from complete babbling idiot to borderline genius. They are not criminals because they are dumb; they are criminals because they have no respect for others or the law.

They also have one attribute that comes with living a criminal lifestyle: that same sense of danger that was mentioned earlier. You can call it a "spidy-sense" or street smarts or ESP, but the average criminal knows instinctively who is and is not an easy target, who is and is not a danger if attacked, and who is and is not carrying valuables. Obviously this case was more about revenge than profit, but the same rules apply. A criminal will know where to attack, or they will be a one-hit wonder in that 'career'. The ones you see on TV are the ones who got caught, either through stupidity or more commonly through a mistake in using their judgment.

Also, you should realize the difference between being caught by law enforcement and being attacked oneself. In the former case, worst case, one is sent to prison for a long time (the death penalty, while in effect, is so long and drawn out, with so many possibilities of reprieve it is essentially useless as a deterrent in its present form). Inside the cells, prisoners have everything they need given to them, including nutritious and delicious food, color TV, libraries, conjugal visits, Internet access, weight training, sports, and any vice one can imagine (right up to drugs) if they are savvy enough to work 'the system'. What to us may seem harsh to us, to them is a life of leisure, in many ways preferable to life on the streets. In contrast, the latter case can easily end in capture through the delay caused by an altercation, injury (which can result in hospital bill collections which can be actually worse than jail time for many), or death. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the less the chance of altercations with bystanders, the better chance the criminal attempt will succeed. It is also a fact that an armed bystander is much more likely to intervene than one who is defenseless themselves.

I would think a campus would be one of the worst places for a shooting. A university campus is synonymous with CAMERAS and WITNESSES. Why not wait for the dude to be right next to a police station and then gun him down.....

Cameras are not everywhere; there are plenty of blind spots. Witnesses that are required to be unarmed are also not going to want to get involved, usually for fear of reprisal (they have to be in those gun-free zones too, you know). And believe it or not, crimes next door to a police station are actually the ones which are the safest for the criminal, since most police are out on the road looking for those evil speeding tourists.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


That star came from me.

Great post!!!! Could not have said it better myself.

"gun free zone"
is that kind of like a "drug free zone" which we know students abide by so well?

reply to post by TheRedneck

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the less the chance of altercations with bystanders, the better chance the criminal attempt will succeed. It is also a fact that an armed bystander is much more likely to intervene than one who is defenseless themselves.

Very true. I gave you a star. Yet it also brings up philosophical questions in my mind. If you are a bystander during a reliatory "hit," does it make sense to bust out your .357? What if the individual getting shot deserved it, and the shooters have no intention on killing anyone but their target? Should you risk your life and the lives of other bystanders around you to open fire on someone who may be gunning down a "bad guy?"

reply to post by qmanq


C'mon qmanq! What kind of college students use drugs??

Originally posted by Scramjet76
What if the individual getting shot deserved it, and the shooters have no intention on killing anyone but their target?

Outside of fiction when does somebody 'deserve' it?

You're only justified in killing another human being for defense of property or person IMO. In some states you arent permitted to use lethal force to protect property, only person. This in itself creates situations where if defending your property with non-lethal force you get beaten or assaulted only to resort to lethal force after the damage has been done. Entirely stupid little law.

I cant imagine a case when hunting somebody down for a 'retaliatory' strike would be justified.

We still have police, as inept as they are, and such an event would be their responsibility.

First off, it's not illegal to own guns in Arkansas. As long has you obtain them using legal means. (i.e. you have a permit to carry and the weapons are registered). Secondly, ALL schools are "gun-free zones", it's common sense...not some new social-reform, how do I know these things? I'm an Arkansan, I live 40 miles west of conway. It was a senseless tragedy, yes. But not one that really requires a conspiracy-theory-forum-thread.

reply to post by Scramjet76


Great discussion guys ! Stars for both you and the Redneck Thanks for being civil and well thought out.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I cant imagine a case when hunting somebody down for a 'retaliatory' strike would be justified.

Ok as Shaq would say, "the law is the law." But philosophically how can you say this? Haven't you ever seen or read A Time to Kill?