Virginia Tech Bribes Victim's Families Not To Sue

Va. Tech Relatives Offered $100K Not To Sue

"A relative of a Virginia Tech shooting victim says the families of those killed would receive $100,000 each under a settlement designed to prevent lawsuits.
The family member received a copy of the settlement and asked Monday to remain anonymous because those involved were told not to discuss it."

If I were involved in this incident I would throw that offer back in their faces and sue the shit out of that school and it's anti gun policies.

The fact of the matter is that Virginia Tech, and many other schools, have private policies that ban students from legally carrying weapons on campus. In effect this deprives the young people from defending their and others' lives from exactly what happened a year ago. If a student was carrying a concealed pistol that day a lot of lives might have been saved. Instead all those kids are dead, their families grieve and the school is trying to buy their way out of stupid decisions.

Let's go back to two incidents, one at another school and one at V tech. In 2002:

“A student at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, who has just been told he will be suspended for failing grades, storms through the campus, clutching a handgun. As terrorized students run for their lives, they hear him say, ‘Come get me, come get me.’ But before anyone can get him, the student, a forty-two-year old immigrant from Nigeria, goes on a shooting spree, killing a dean, a professor, and a fellow student. He also shoots and wounds three other students – one in the abdomen, one in the throat, and another in the chest.

(...) The bloody incident happened on January 16, 2002, and was picked up by news organizations all over the country, almost all of which covered the story the way the Washington Post and the networks did. Which means virtually all of them left out one tiny, little fact. Two of the three students who ‘pounced on’ and ‘tackled’ and ‘overpowered’ the gunman, also had guns.”

No one knows how many other people might have been hurt because armed students ended the threat. Fast forward three years to an incident at V tech which promised that the school was going to be advertised as a soft target for homicidal psychos:

Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire

"BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.
University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus."

The only thing allowing public venues to get away with this insanity are the endlessly repeated myths about firearm carry that people erroneously believe. I carry all the time. Contrary to what the emotionally ignorant believe, I don't dwell on it. I just do it like putting on a piece of apparel. I know what I'm carrying but it isn't what I think about in social interactions. The last thing I want to do is draw that weapon but I've resolved to take on the responsibility to do just that if need be after training for a concealed carry license, which is a lot more intense than people realize. All the talk of OK corral shootouts in the streets is total garbage. Contrary to the lies being spewed about this, taking on the responsibility for being armed forces you to be more socially constrained and accountable, meaning polite.

People would be shocked to know how many of those individuals around them are armed, and that's the point. When you have a concealed carry license you can't display and you don't want anyone to know you're packing a gun. Social misfits with violent intent will steer clear of groups of people where this might be the case - they want free fire zones where victims will be easy prey because it's advertised "guns not allowed here". Sure, private property owners can put those signs up and make those restrictions, but they should also be liable if a gun free zone allows people to be harmed.