In an editorial dated Sept. 5th, 2006, Larry Hincker Vice President of University Relations from... wait for it... Virginia Tech, replied to an editorial from Bradford Wiles titled "Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31. The last line of Mr. Hinckers editorial states:
Guns don't belong in the classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.
Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imagine what will happen when they are not armed.
Update: The original Unarmed and vulnerable commentary has been located.
35 comments:
Some people who were there during the University of Texas shootings in 1966 believe that the murder count was not higher because students ran back to their frat houses to get their deer rifles and shot back at Whitman. In fact most of the murders happened in the first ten or fifteen minutes of the attack. Whitman had to hide from incoming rounds once Texas boys returned fire, therefore he could only shoot through the drainage pipes, limiting his targets.
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Those gun laws kept these poor victims at Virginia Tech from defending themselves.
Well then thank god for Texas, and the men she breeds.
My first thought upon hearing of the shootings was this: suppose there was a student, maybe a coed (properly trained, mind you), near the shooter when he pulled out his gun to take his first shot. Suppose she pulled out her own (legal, registered) pistol from her purse and dropped him. He would have been the ONLY casualty of the incident.
We should try to imagine what college campuses would be like if students were allowed to carry handguns around, for then we'd realize that a certain number of students would get shot by their fellow students, mostly in alcohol-related accidents. Beer, guns and undergraduates are not a good mix. Maybe we'd be better off overall if we let students carry handguns but we should try to look at both sides of the equation here.
Instead of trying to imagine what would have happened if everybody was armed, why not try to imagine a world wherein the crazed shooter didn't have access to any guns at all. It was easy access to firearms and ammunition that set the stage for this tragedy.
why not try to imagine a world wherein the crazed shooter didn't have access to any guns at all. It was easy access to firearms and ammunition that set the stage for this tragedy.
Because you'll never see such a world. See gun violence statistics in all-guns-banned England and portions of Australia. Unless someone can magically melt every firearm on Earth and prevent anyone from making their own, you'll never see a world without guns. The only options left to us then, are 1) outlaw guns so that only outlaws have guns, or 2) allow Joe Blow to defend himself by pitting force against force, like he's always been able to, since before the Middle Ages.
Easy access to guns caused it?
OK, lets make cocaine illegal, then there will be no cocaine problems.
Oh, wait. That didn't work, did it?
I prefer the self-defense solution.
Anonymous said...
It was easy access to firearms and ammunition that set the stage for this tragedy.
Your ignorance of gun laws and the real world is astonishing. It's a painful thought that your vote is equal to mine. If you researched just a little, and based you opinions on facts and logic, your conclusions might actually be relevant.
Yes, let's even the playing field why don't we. Nukes for everyone! I want two!
You fool.
Imagine if students were armed? Well we had one student armed and 33 people died today. Now imagine the death-toll if we armed more of these emotional, stressed-out little darlings. Thanks but no thanks! I don't support gun control but I don't support stupidity neither.
I can see it now - my daughter and her classmates are in class when they hear shots ring out. They go to their backpacks, pull out their weapons, drop to their knees and shoot the guy. And of course they will be prepared for this on the offchance that some mentally deranged man is preparing to shoot up the campus.
On the other hand, my daughter and her friends are going to be drinking at a campus party, someone will get too intoxicated and pull out his/her weapon. It will go off accidentally and my daughter will die. This will happen over and over again on campuses across the nation. There will be at least one accidental death a day.
But....no matter, there are those that believe everyone has the right to bear arms (especially the NRA and all that that implies and can buy).
Are you kidding me???
You'd be singing a very different tune if, God forbid, your daughter was one of the victims today. You would then in all probability give anything to have had anyone there to prevent this tragedy.
Oh, and let's keep same drunk college kids from behind the wheel of an automobile while we're at it.
Maybe you think no one should have a car either?
Hey Anon...
Most collage students party off campus where you are actually rather likely to find firearms...
... and I don't see these daily shootings you refer to.
My kids are not afraid of firearms and use them responsibly. They won't carry them to places where they choose to be drunk. In fact, you won't find my kids drunk.
You apparantly think all college kids are drunk yayhoos who don't know which end is the business side of a 9mm.
Anon Anon
Uh no, I wouldn't be singing a different tune and I most definitely am not singing at all today. Sure I would love to have a cop in every classroom my child is in but of course that ain't gonna happen. But it's also not likely that 30 kids with guns in their backpacks are going to prevent a psycho from killing if he's made up his mind to do it. But odds are, one of those same 30 kids will be the cause of a gun accident if each one of them has one.
Oh and as far as your strawman argument - I don't know many kids that use their cars as murder weapons or those that can use a car to defend themselves. Nice try though!
anon anon,
Well aren't you just the luckiest parent alive. Your kids are the responsible college students that carry guns only when they don't drink, oops- they're the select few that never drink. I don't think all college kids are drunk yayhoos - but I do think the majority of them don't know "which end is the business side of a 9mm". Forgive me if I don't want my child rooming with yours on the off chance that someone might twist his arm and force a drink down his throat. Being the first time drinking and all, he might just forget those gun rules.
Of course, Zeus, no one is saying "arm all the college kids, hand every single one of them a gun when they register for freshman courses," so your strawman is much worse.
Do you truly believe that ONLY the police should have firearms? And that the populace should count on the police for protection in all circumstances? I carry concealed without a permit - I'd rather be an armed lawbreaker than a sitting duck, and unfortunately, my job takes me places where having a gun is a *NECESSITY.* Places where the police basically *don't* respond to 911 calls.
Why shouldn't people who've completed the steps to get a CCW permit and receive firearms training be allowed to carry wherever they'd like? All these "safe zones" create is an area where a prospective shooter *KNOWS* that he will be able to fire away without fear of in-kind reprisal - and, sorry, in-kind reprisal is the only appropriate response to someone who pulls out a gun and shoots a stranger for no reason.
Responding to your post - Zeus, NO-ONE is advocating 'arm all the college students,' yet that is the (nonexistent) situation to which you are responding. People are asking why trained gun users with CCW permits have to check their guns at the door - which, again, only creates an area where a prospective shooter knows that every lawful person is unarmed.
How do you know that students don't already carry firearms on campuses? Obviously one person did? Criminals DO NOT care if you post a no weapons allowed sign or declare an area "gun-free". Obviously that's worked so well. Why should we continue to handicap the law-abiding citizen and jeopardize our children's safety? If you are licensed and trained you should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to defend yourself and your loved ones. When my daughters go to college in the near future I hope the silly, ostrich-like liberals have finally traded their zebra stripes for tiger stripes. Just because you stick your head in the sand doesn't mean the danger disappears.
It may be right that no countries will ever succeed in completely eradicating gun crime, but to suggest that the UK has a problem on remotely the same scale as the US is highly misleading. In 2001, the latest year for which I have stats, there were 80 gun murders per 52,041,916 people in England and Wales - less than 0.2 gun murders per 100,000 population, as against 3.9 per 100,000 in the US. Go figure.
I can remember only one school massacre of the sort that seems to occur so frequently in the US - the terrible shooting of elementary schollkids by an armed nutcase in Dunblane, Scotland. After this, our gun laws were tightened still further.
Even the cops hardly ever carry guns here, and we like it that way. But no doubt that's because we're a bunch of wimps who don't uunderstand the true meaning of freedom.
Tom Scott, UK said...
It may be right that no countries will ever succeed in completely eradicating gun crime, but to suggest that the UK has a problem on remotely the same scale as the US is highly misleading.
After a quick seach I found several articles from the BBC like this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
It may be right that no countries will ever succeed in completely eradicating gun crime, but to suggest that the UK has a problem on remotely the same scale as the US is highly misleading. In 2001, the latest year for which I have stats, there were 80 gun murders per 52,041,916 people in England and Wales - less than 0.2 gun murders per 100,000 population, as against 3.9 per 100,000 in the US.
But that only counts the very limited instances where a gun is actually used to kill a fellow human being - what about violent crime that doesn't result in a death, like armed robbery, rape, and "hot burglaries" where the criminal knows full well that his victims are home when he breaks in? In a society where the deterrent effect of liberal gun ownership is conspicuously absent, criminals exhibit much more bravado and have more confidence that they'll get away with what they're perpetrating if they know they've got the force advantage. This certainly gives a different take on your numbers, doesn't it?
Violent crime rate in UK (same source, two differing figures): 2300 or 3992 per 100K.
Violent crime rate in US: 492 per 100K.
But no doubt that's because we're a bunch of wimps who don't uunderstand the true meaning of freedom.
No one ever said anything of the sort - we're just intelligently comparing and contrasting the results of two different styles of crime control. I for one haven't forgotten that the birthplace of modern freedom is the place that gave us the Magna Carta.
A lot of the comments here are pretty disconnected from reality. Hypothetical situations about drunken daughters shooting each other at parties (which overlooks the fact that many of these parties take place off campus where these firearms bans don't exist anyway) has a hell of a lot more to do with parenting skills and personal responsibility than it has to do with firearms laws. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to hand out firearms to every student in America? Of course not, but by banning firearms outright campuses become targets because it's one of the few places a would be assailant knows no one will be shooting back. Removing the ban from campuses wouldn't make them free-fire zones, they would still be covered by the laws that apply everywhere else.
Two things to consider:
A) I believe we are talking about concealed carry here, and in most states that requires a minimum age of 21 or 25, an extensive background check, and classroom and range time. We are not talking about 18 year old freshmen with .38s in their purses or .45s in their waistbands and no idea what to do with them.
B) Something is being overlooked here. Students aren't the only people on school campuses. Faculty and staff are in every building. How many of them are CCW permit holders who leave their carry firearms at home because of these types of rules? I don't know. How many would it have taken to kill this man before 32 people were murdered? One.
How many would it have taken to kill this man before 32 people were murdered? One.
Absolutely perfectly put. You, my friend, are a true American.
Couldn't agree more with Dad's post. Clearly, the solution to massacres such as these is for MORE people to carry weapons. What could go wrong? YEE HA!!
I mean, America is one of the gun-totingest countries on Earth as it is, and you hardly hear of any gun violence going on here.
Oh, and here's a bonus! Frat parties + firearms = good time!!
Your ignorance of gun laws and the real world is astonishing. It's a painful thought that your vote is equal to mine. If you researched just a little, and based you opinions on facts and logic, your conclusions might actually be relevant.
Right on! In this state, you actually need to provide a character reference such as a driver's license in order to buy a firearm. My God! That makes it insanely hard for nutjobs to get hold of a weapon.
Anonymous said...
Right on! In this state, you actually need to provide a character reference such as a driver's license in order to buy a firearm. My God! That makes it insanely hard for nutjobs to get hold of a weapon.
You think that's bad? In my state, all it takes to buy a can of gasoline and a box of matches are a few federal reserve notes.
Evil exists and laws won't stop it. Life is dangerous and the right to defend yourself and your family is one of the most basic rights of a free society.
Evil exists and laws won't stop it. Life is dangerous and the right to defend yourself and your family is one of the most basic rights of a free society.
Amen! And a gun's the only way to do it, any clear-thinking person knows that. The pros outweigh the cons. Anyone with a family should be armed at all times. It's silly that you actually need ID to buy a weapon. Pfffft. Never know when you'll come across a lunatic with a bigger gun than your own -- some people are weird, y'know. Which is why I also carry a Tazer and a jar of hydrochloric acid, just in case the gun isn't enough.
I found your comments very interesting. I don't think guns in themselves are any more evil than knives or large rocks or crossbows. Instead it is the intent of the user and in this sad case, the failure to acknowledge obvious signs of mental erosion on the part of many people. I posted on my blog and more detailed reason of why this kind of thing keeps happening, but in a nutshell, we have raised a generation to accept the abnormal as normal. It's seen as bad and wrong and discriminatory to use your gut instincts and veer away from those people who give out bad and dangerous vibes. It goes back to the PC belief in the 80's and 90's that the mentally ill need their freedom and the forced closing of many mental institutions and limits to involunatary admission. The results are that we have mentally homeless people dying under bridges because they are free not to take their meds. We have violent mentally ill criminals in our jails and prisons that get out and harm others. And we have seriously mentally ill kids that are in our classrooms, threatening students, teachers and others. Right now in my school I could point out five or six kids who are angry enough and unstable enough and alienated enough to perpetrate the same thing. And it may not be with a gun.
Oh, something I did leave out of my previous post. While I support the second amendment, I do not think that aliens of any kind, legal, resident, student, or illegal should be able to own a gun. If you stop that, they you would stop many things without impacting the rights of actual citizens. Become a citizen, you get the full menu of rights.
Gun freaks: ask yourself if you would still feel safe at work if your co-workers were all armed. If over 50% of people in a bar had a gun on them? That people argue for this is really impossible to understand when you consider these simple questions. Please try to be a little thoughtful and stop amusing yourself with fantasies of women shooting down this killer.
I'm also for witholding firearms from aliens. It's bad enough they mutilate our cattle, probe our buttocks and make circles in our corn. Giving them access to guns just seems like a bad move.
Oh, and you have to admire the Virginia guy at least a little, in that he was able to cleverly circumvent those amazingly tough gun laws, by ticking the "No" box beside the "Do you have a history of mental illness" box. I'd have never thought to do that.
The gun laws and rules worked as advertised...the law abiding were unarmed, the criminal was armed. At no time was Cho in any danger of being shot by one of those gun crazed right wingers...thank God.
Yeah, thank God the lunatic was legally armed. Puts a spanner into the amusing theory that only illegal gun-owners commit violent crime.
As it is, US citizens legally tote more guns than other average Western nations. That's working out really well for you guys. So I say YES. Give the people more guns!! What could go wrong?
As somebody who lives in the UK, it makes me chuckle to see gun-nuts point to my country as an example of how firearm control doesn't work. But these people mostly fail to make the distinction between hardened criminals and everyday people going psycho, or committing spur-of-the-moment, opportunistic offences.
Of course our gun control doesn't stop shootings which arise from organised crime. The weapons used in those circumstances are illegal and acquired from sources that the average person in the street doesn't have access to. For the most part, these weapons either do not exist, or have fallen through the net, and so cannot be controlled.
What gun control does stop, however, is the average person snapping and going on a murder-death-kill rampage with a weapon they legally own. I, for instance, cannot go next door with my legally-owned handgun, blow my neighbour away, steal his legally-owned hunting rifle, and then go down to the local nursery for a turkey shoot. I could use a knife, but I wouldn't be able to do half as much damage, and would inevitably get taken down a lot earlier. Oh, I also can't go mad with a handgun in a road-rage incident, start blowing supporters of the other team away at a football match, or get drunk in a bar and start wasting people. Nor can I suddenly choose to go and rob a service station with my legally-owned firearm. Why not? Because I don't have access to the weapon, I wouldn't know where to get one, and because I can't just go and steal one.
This idea of us having guns to protect ourselves is madness. For the most part, the average citizen isn't under threat of attack from gangsters, but rather the everyday guy who passes us in the street. If the law doesn't entitle him to the gun to 'protect himself', we don't need the gun to protect ourselves from him when he explodes. Also, if the law doesn't entitle people to carry guns, this guy can't steal one if he himself doesn't qualify. I wonder how many people get killed by their own weapons - either through negligent discharge, or by having the gun taken from them by their murderers. With all the constant warnings about the ever-present terrorist threat, it seems ludicrous to have guns circulating legally.
This idea of allowing students to carry guns is insane, too. Aside from the disastrous results that would likely occur from a cocktail or drink, drugs, the questionable mental state of young people, and firearms, consider this. If I walked into that university and killed one student with my legally-owned handgun, I would then have access to his legally-owned firearm. Now I'm dual-wielding, and my damage output is increased. When I'm out of rounds, I can pick up the ammo or weapons from the bodies of the people I've killed. Unless somebody successfully takes me down, I can do far more damage than I would have been able to do if my original gun had been the only one in the building. Because I have more rounds, I might be able to kill a few police officers, too.
The only people who should legally carry guns are the police, the military, and trained professionals whose jobs necessitate it. The average person in the street has no business having a firearm, legal or otherwise.
Post a Comment