Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

E-mail to Larry Hinker, Virginia Tech

Spider7115
To: Larry Hinker, Virginia Tech

e-mail address: Hincker@vt.edu

You must be very proud of yourself, Larry. YOU gave those victims no way to defend themselves. I sincerely pray that the victims will find a way to thank YOU in the next life. I'm sure Cho was grateful to you before he began his carnage.

"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "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."

Gunman don't victimize people who have the capacity to shoot back. They victimize helpless, unarmed people like your students and faculty. I'm truly sorry for the loss of lives but you should be totally ashamed for denying licensed permit holders their legal rights - as if YOU were going to protect them. Well, YOU FAILED THEM, LARRY. Live with that. I thank God I won't have to.
0

Comments

36 comments

Date Votes
  • ripley16
    The guy has enough on his plate without your help. Do something constructive...give some cash to the fund at vt.edu or something else of helpful value.
    A rant isn't very helpful to anyone but yourself.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    I, for one, am tired of being sensitive.

    Everytime something like this happens, gun owners are demonized relentlessly.

    I'm not saying CCW on campus would have stopped this, but its a damn shame those kids weren't even given a fighting chance
    0
  • GUNFUNCO
    Here is a copy of the letter I wrote. I thought about this post for a day or so before deciding if (and what) to write.

    Larry Hincker
    Virginia Tech

    Mr Hincker,

    I don't hold any hate for you but maybe now you will understand what pro-gun people have known for some time. When things go very bad, in a big hurry, a person must be given the tools and the freedom to protect themselves. No one else will have time to go to their aid.

    An example-

    My own sister was against firearms in her home. One winter night about 16 or so years ago, she woke up with 2 men in ski masks inside her home (and bedroom). They had cut the phone wires and were burglarizing her and her husbands modest home. Upon her awakening to the man in her bedroom, she woke her husband, who chased the men out into the snowy night (in his bare feet). She tried to call police but the phone wires had been cut outside the house. She was forced to scoop up her 2 little daughters, one under each arm, and run outside and to a neighbors to call police.

    I ask you to put yourself in her position for a second. What would you do? What if you had 3 or 4 children? Which would you chose to leave behind to become a victim for those obviously not afraid of you (or the police). This was before cell phones were commonly available. A firearm would allow you to stand up for yourself and your children in spite of your opponent being physically larger than yourself.

    My sister is now a confirmed advocate for the right to carry. She has a handgun and knows how to use it. She now has 4 children and all of them know how to use a firearm. Her youngest daughter knows how to shoot a handgun and a rifle and has known how since she was about 8 years old. They will not become a victim so easily again.

    You may think the police are against the private ownership of guns. This is overwhelmingly false. I just retired after a 20 year career in law enforcement. The great majority of police understand that a person is ultimately responsible for their own safety and there are very few times when the police can actually stop a violent crime in progress.

    My own wife started to carry a firearm after a man I arrested threatened to go after my family. She was not willing to stand idle while a madman was making plans to hurt me, her and her children. She is willing to accept the fact that good people sometimes need to take action to protect themselves from the evil that exists in this world.

    You should consider doing the same. You should also refuse to be a victim again. There are copycat criminals out there as we speak....

    Sincerely,
    0
  • Iconoclast
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    "Leftists" preventing carry by pilots ?

    Fancy that..a bush supporter calling their president a 'leftist'.

    Refusal to acknowlege that the Fascists AND the Socialists require and work for the same goal changes nothing..nor does ignoring the fact that THIS administration is guilty of trying to prevent pilot carry change the facts.


    Highball, a Bush supporter by default alone - what was my alternative in 2000? Gore? 2004? Botox boy? Today? Pelosi, et. al.? I didn't vote for him in the primaries, BTW - Alan Keyes and a write-in for Tom Tancredo respectively - and I dislike much he has done. AFAIC, Dubya is barely distinguishable from the DNC, although slightly more palatable than the three RINOs leading the primary race at this time. For sure, he is no conservative except for promoting the conservative evangelical position on abortion.

    And in making that post, I was thinking specifically of that jerk who was DoT Secretary before the present one (Leon P-something). Dubya isn't a far leftist, but he's surely as short on good staff as he is conservative views.

    The only Fascists I see in this country are all voting dimowimp and screeching dimowimp propaganda. Don't forget - the "Nazi" Party is short for "National SOCIALIST" Party, the paradigm of fascism. Totalitarians have a tradition of claiming to represent "the people" when all they really represent is themselves - and one need not delve too deeply into the DNC to discern this at their core.
    0
  • dbward
    Mr. Hincker:

    How many of the 32 victims of the insane and ludicrously misnamed "Gun free zone law" you so strongly championed would be alive today if the law allowed holders of legal licenses to carry concealed weapons among the faculty, staff and student body to have weapons with them. I would venture the guess that most would be alive for the same reasons psychotic killers don't invade police stations; too many bullets would be returned. No matter how smugly correct and arrogantly moral you feel (feeling is all you have; people of your ilk don't think), the blood of the innocents is on your hands as surely as if you had pulled the trigger.

    Donald Ward

    Massacre at a Gun-Free School
    Predictably, opponents of Second Amendment rights seized opportunistically on the Virginia Tech massacre. "It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur," said a statement from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino got questions like this one in yesterday's press briefing:

    Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools--that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does [sic] there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?

    And of course the New York Times, while noting that "it is premature to draw too many lessons from this tragedy," draws one anyway:

    What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

    But there is another side to this argument. Longtime readers may recall the lead item in our Jan. 18, 2002, column, which concerned a shooting spree at another Virginia institution of higher learning, the Appalachian School of Law. The gunman, Peter Odighizuwa, killed three, and probably would have killed more but for another student's gun:

    Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said.

    "We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter," Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

    Appalachian is a private institution, Virginia Tech a public one; and Virginia law prohibits guns on campus. Early last year there was an effort in the state Legislature to change that law, but it died in committee. As the Roanoke Times reported at the time:

    Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "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."

    There are reasons one may be wary of arming academia. College students spend a lot of time drinking and carousing, and so perhaps they're better off without firearms. Academic disputes can get vicious; we wouldn't want them to get bloody. But it does not seem a stretch to think that if Cho Seung-hui had encountered someone else with a gun, fewer people would lie dead at Virginia Tech.
    0
  • Highball
    Iconoclast;
    I read enough of your stuff to know that you wake up spitting nails at certain segments of what we loosely call 'society'.
    Well deserved..garbage OUGHT to be thrown in the dump.

    All I would like to do is point out that Republicans carry their OWN brand of evil...call it what you will. Future historians will have the name down for the big business/big government incestous relationship between them...
    And history will also record the steady loss of personal freedoms under this administration.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?