home

Checkpoints or Guns?

It is too early to be debating these things in light of today's Virginia Tech tragedy, but I found these reactions worthy of notice. Atrios is against security checkpoints on campuses:

Without meaning to minimize the tragedy, can we stop the hysterical calls for increased security measures on college campuses. Large residential college campuses are like small cities, places where people live, work, and study. Calling for absurd things like random bag checks and metal detectors in such an environment is like calling for such things on city streets.

Glenn Reynolds is for more guns on campuses:

. . . These things do seem to take place in locations where it's not legal for people with carry permits to carry guns, though, and I believe that's the case where the Virginia Tech campus is concerned. I certainly wish that someone had been in a position to shoot this guy at the outset. Had [guns been allowed on campus], things might have turned out differently, though we'll never know now.

I leave you with your thoughts on these thoughts.

< Breaking: Virginia Tech Shootings | A Break For Gonzo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The coming weeks. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    I think this particular quote is going to be getting some serious scrutiny in the coming weeks:

    Guns don't belong in the classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same. --Larry Hincker Vice President of University Relations


    a blacksburg resident speaks (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by profmarcus on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    ignatz1138 over at daily kos lives within sight of one of the dorms at va tech where the murders took place... he provides us some insight into the community in the form of a frothing rant against glenn (instapundit) reynolds... definitely worth reading...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    oops, I also posted that below. nt (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    Prof (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    That's what we need... more frothing rants.

    Parent
    A Symptom of our "Chain Letter Society"? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Daniel DiRito on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    Read an analysis of the influences in our "Chain Letter Society" that may be precipitating events like the tragedy at Virginia Tech and how our focus on winning and being number one may be fostering a generation of children with fully inadequate coping skills who have a misguided sense of self-worth...here:

    www.thoughttheater.com


    A deeply misguided essay IMHO. n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    Jeebus, Neither Fricking One ... (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by narudy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    More handguns won't stop a guy with a semi-automatic who wants to kill others and himself.  That's like saying that we need a death penalty to stop people from committing these acts.  Jeebus, but that's stupid.

    These things happen everywhere, not just where there's no carry permit.  For goodness sake, anyone who wanted to could carry a gun in the old west and that worked out great in Tombstone.

    As for checkpoints, count me as someone who would will take the risk of being threatened by a nut with a gun instead of the risk of the government telling me what I can and can't carry around public places.

    If a nutcase wants to kill people and we have checkpoints in Place A, he will go to Place B.  Put them up in Place B, he will go to Place C.  Eventually if you cover QWERTY with checkpoints he'll wander off into the punctuation, and meanwhile we'll all have given up our freedom for illusory safety.

    This horrific event is an unstoppable aberration, and our reactions to it should be colored with that thought.  You can't stop every nutcase from doing something stupid, even if we all do want to believe that we are all powerful.  Sometimes you have to admit that you can't always be protected, and then go on and live your life.

    Very well said..... (4.20 / 5) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:39:04 PM EST
    especially the last paragraph.  Such senseless savagery is part of the cost of doing business on planet earth with our fellow human beings, I'm sorry to say.  Thank the sun god it is rare, and the vast vast majority of us could never do such a thing.

    Parent
    In fact it is stoppable. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:05:24 PM EST
    This horrific event is an unstoppable aberration, and our reactions to it should be colored with that thought.

    There is no way to keep these things from starting, but they are all quite stoppable.  In fact it did stop.  They all stop.

    It took so long to stop because no one on the scene had effective means to stop the guy earlier.  

    Contrary  to your assertion a handgun can be very effective at disabling a shooter.  Two .45acp through that hairball's ten ring would have ended the slaughter much earlier.  

    Parent

    Hmmm ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    Two .45acp through that hairball's ten ring would have ended the slaughter much earlier.  


    Parent
    well... (none / 0) (#43)
    by yetimonk on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:05:21 AM EST
    how many non-hairball's ten ring's would get shot from spur of the moment anger shootings? Have you ever spent ANY time on a college campus or in dorms? It can be a supremely frustrating environment, not to mention the hormone fueled explosive love quadrangles that go on at that age.

    It took so long to stop because no one on the scene had effective means to stop the guy earlier.

    Of course you have to ignore the armed security that was all over campus at the time to believe that.

    Parent

    Isreali experience (none / 0) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:12:52 AM EST

    Your speculation is just that, speculation.  We don't have to speculate on this.  We don't see the situation you describe even though school personnel are armed.  

    More to the point, we have never seen the situation you are so afraid of.  OTOH, there are examples of armed civilians putting a stop to school shooting rampages.

    Should not policy be reality based, rather than on groundless fears?

    Parent

    Examples (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by narudy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    OK, please give us the examples.  Remember, armed civilians.  Not off-duty police officers, military personnel, security guards, etc.

    Parent
    Pearl Miss is one. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    Pearl Mississippi

    Now, why don't you come up with an example of a few CCW permit holders going OK Coral on each other.

    Is this Reality vs Boogeyman, or reality vs reality?

    BTW, why exclude off duty cops?  I shoot about 1,000 rounds a month in the no snow months and am probably a better shot and safer gun handler than most LEO's.  

    In these cases it does not really matter who writes the paycheck of the armed individual that stops the rampage.

    Parent

    it would be exciting to watch (none / 0) (#64)
    by yetimonk on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    until the first frat party gone bad takes over as "the worst shooting in US history".

    ...even though school personnel are armed.

    That sure doesn't sound like students to me.

    Should not policy be reality based, rather than on groundless fears?

    It should be based on solid research, which has shown that more guns equals more violence here in america.

    So let me get this straight. Are you advocating a change in US policy where I live and you do not?

    Parent

    You have no idea how this works, do you? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:31:40 AM EST
    Two .45acp through that hairball's ten ring would have ended the slaughter much earlier.

    You have no idea what happens when four or five well-meaning and totally untrained citizens whip out firearms in a chaotic situation, do you?

    Remember when a couple of groups of plainclothes cops in New York took each other on a few years ago, everyone screaming, "Police! Drop your weapon!"  And those guys had lots of training.

    You hear shooting and yelling.  You come running around the corner, dragging your Glock out of your bookbag.  You see five screaming people, all holding weapons and yelling and shooting wildly.  One is a criminal, four are not.  Which one would you shoot first?

    I know how to use a firearm, and I can definitely shoot the center out of the "ten ring," but I do not own a firearm and I haven't pulled a trigger since my Army hitch ended in 1968.  I'll take my chances with being unarmed, and I hang out in places where I am the only white person because other white people are scared to go there.

    Sometimes sh!t happens, but that is the price of the Second Amendment, just like 20,000 deaths annually are the price we pay to drive automobiles.

    Bonus fact.  Anyone who refers to a pistol or a rifle as a "gun" has never served in the military.

    Parent

    Don't blame the Second Amendment. (none / 0) (#50)
    by dkmich on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:43:06 AM EST
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
     Way I read this is that people who belong to the militia have a right to keep and bear arms.  We now have a well regulated milita called the National Guard.  So even if everyone was in the militia in the old days, taint true anymore.  In order for this to apply today, one would have to belong to the National Guard.  I am a gun owner.  I don't think we need gun control, I think we need people control.  Crazy people, drunk people, violent people, stupid people should be prohibited from owning guns, knives and sharp pointy objects.

    Parent
    Not the way I read it (none / 0) (#62)
    by narudy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:39:19 AM EST
    I am for gun controls and registration, so don't take this the wrong way, but I think you read the second amendment incorrectly.

    It doesn't say "membership in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," but that the militia itself is necessary.

    At the time, the militia would be called up immediately to handle safety and security issues.  If people had not owned and used guns then they could not be expected to use them in the militia when called up.

    Yet the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't mean that all weapons are OK -- nuclear weapons, anthrax anyone? -- or that the government doesn't have a right to have them registered and tracked just like cars.

    Parent

    What is says. (none / 0) (#81)
    by dkmich on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:12 AM EST
    What I put down there is a direct quote.  It is what it says.  What it means and what you and/or I think it means are two different things, maybe 3.  

    Parent
    RePack - That's amazing (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:43:13 AM EST
    I know how to use a firearm, and I can definitely shoot the center out of the "ten ring," but I do not own a firearm and I haven't pulled a trigger since my Army hitch ended in 1968.

    You haven't fired a weapon in 39 years and you can still hit the center of the target?

    That is truly incredible retention of some difficult skills.

    Parent

    My shooting ability is not the subject here (none / 0) (#63)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    Nice try at diversion, because the subject is not my shooting ability, but what happens when everyone "carries" and pulls out their weapons in a chaotic situation.

    Did you have a comment on THAT?

    Parent

    repack (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    gee, repack. i just couldn't help but compliment someone with that much sheer ability, and you go all snarky on me.

    if you didn't want it commented on, why post it??

    as to your what happens question, the naswer is, who knows? and it depends

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sailor on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    Sailor (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:53:56 PM EST
    Wow. Two days ago you were demanding your money back and was leaving us.

    Today you are screaming about me complimenting RePack.

    Jealous?

    Parent

    Tombstone (none / 0) (#60)
    by narudy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:32:44 AM EST
    Having everyone armed really worked in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, didn't it?

    Parent
    You shouldn't found policy on the movies. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    Don't believe everything you see on TV. Gun violence, though undoubtedly present, was not as common as the spaghetti westerns and their descendant-films would have you believe.

    Parent
    Population density (none / 0) (#78)
    by narudy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:55:25 PM EST
    That said, there were plenty of lawmen who became outlaws and outlaws who became lawmen.

    And that's a pretty nice insult there, considering I was referring to a real incident.  Are you suggesting that three people weren't shot in a running gun battle on October 26, 1881 in Tombstone, AZ?

    Parent

    According to All Things Considered on NPR (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    this afternoon, a spokesperson for Virginia Tech stated the University didn't inform students or faculty etc of the early morning gun attack because everyone would be en route to class, on the road, etc.  Not a very good excuse, given e mail, the possibility of posting people on campus to warn those coming onto campus, car radios, TV etc.  An unfortunate mistake, which will be the basis for lots of lawsuits.

    Parent
    Nope that isn;t (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:51:00 PM EST
    That is a 1000 miles past a mistake.


    Parent
    They didn't know they had a (none / 0) (#51)
    by dkmich on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:45:57 AM EST
    "crazed" murderer on campus.  They thought it was like most murders, personal - done by somebody who loves you.  Could they have leapt to the assumption that this personal killer could also be berzerk?  Maybe, but it would have been a leap at that time, no?  If so, then blaming (which is what everybody does best) is not appropriate, especially not now before all the facts come out.

    Parent
    The issue, as I see it, is whether the (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    University had a duty to warn and breached that duty.  Apparently the suspect in the initial incident had not been apprehanded and the University had knowledge of this.  

    Parent
    A metal detector and a pat down.... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    at the campus gates for everyone still wouldn't stop a determined nutjob....just make all the good folks feel like suspects...or prisoners.

    As to the 2nd point, I'd think the right to carry on campus might keep the body count down in the rare mass-murder nutjob scenario like this, but would more than likely be offset by an increased number of shooting victims overall. No benefit there, imo.

    No diiferent outcome If another student had a gun (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by lilybart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    A poster at Dailykos made this point today:

     And maybe, Glenn, if you'd thought any longer than that, you would have realized that we don't live in a video game or a Clint Eastwood movie and that even a skilled and responsible gun owner who just happened to think, "Wow, maybe I'll take my gun to class just in case some crazy guy bursts in and unloads two clips into the crowd," who just happened to have that gun sitting in their lap and not packed in their bag, and who just happened to be staring directly at the door and not taking notes or listening to the lecture when some crazy guy did, in fact, burst in with both barrels blazing would still probably have been too busy hiding behind his or her desk and/or bleeding to death to do any good.

    Uhm.... (3.25 / 4) (#11)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    "I'll take my gun to [wherever] just in case..." is actually pretty common thinking among people who choose to carry.  I take my gun to the grocery store, just in case.  I'd take it to work if they'd let me.

    As for the "just happened to be staring directly at the door..." bit, irrelevant for this kind of situation.  The killer took his time.  He went door to door.  People were screaming.  An armed student would have caught on to the fact that it was a dangerous situation.

    When the killer burst into a room, everybody inside didn't instantly die as though he were wielding a magic wand instead of a machine.  There would have been a small amount of time for an armed teacher or student to respond.

    The killer didn't stop until he decided to stop.  The police didn't stop him.  Campus security didn't stop him.  He got bored with murder and decided to try suicide instead.

    A student's bullet through his spine would have ended things a lot quicker.

    Parent

    What a bunch of useless ifs (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Kitt on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:36:31 PM EST
    Are you out of your mind? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:53:19 PM EST
    It's a government responsibility to maintain law and order in society at large, not that of individual armed citizens.

    Why not just give up then on the idea that you live in any kind of social order at all? Hand over everything to the mercs. Build your armed homestead and be ready to take out anyone who looks at you cross-eyed. Kill or be killed.

    Yikes.

    Parent

    Not entirely (none / 0) (#34)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    I'm not saying that letting students carry is necessarily the right course, only countering ignorant claims that an armed victim would have had no chance whatsoever to stop the killer.

    It's a government responsibility to maintain law and order in society at large, not that of individual armed citizens.

    The government sure did a bang-up job of it today, didn't they?

    As a rule, the police only have a responsibility to protect society, not to protect individuals.  That job has always fallen to the individuals.

    Parent

    They didn't do a "bang-up" job of it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:32:43 PM EST
    because there are millions of individuals walking around thinking it's just a great idea to go carrying their guns to the grocery store, just in case. Thinking it's appropriate that they're the proper ultimate authority to decide on a moment's whim whether their fellow citizens should live or die.

    Don't want to pay taxes to have a policing system that will protect the social peace? Just let me have my gun and I'll take care of whatever comes up. I thought we got past that in the Middle Ages and then all over again in the Wild West.

    A situation that might otherwise have ended in loud voices, tears, maybe punches, instead ended with 33 people dead. For what?

    Parent

    re: (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    Are you suggesting that the millions who support gun rights are a hair's breadth from murder, or merely that the policies they support make murder easier?  It sounds like the former, which is a pretty vile and baseless conflation, but the latter might actually be worth arguing.

    Thinking it's appropriate that they're the proper ultimate authority to decide on a moment's whim whether their fellow citizens should live or die.

    There will always be predatory criminals, yes?  Muggers, murderers, and rapists, whether armed with guns or knives.  So when one of them jumps out of the bushes, who is the appropriate authority to decide the correct response?  The police, who are several minutes away if they even know they're needed, or the would-be victim?

    And only anarchists believe the individual is the ultimate authority about the decision to use force.  The government still gets involved, but they do so after the initial conflict because they typically can't get involved at the moment of.  Thus people who decide to shoot somebody on a whim, rather than a justified belief that shooting was appropriate, get arrested for murder.  Then the gun rights people who also tend to be "tough on crime" people say lock him up forever.

    Maybe that misses your point; do you think that killing in self defense is ever justified?  If not, then you and I just disagree so fundamentally that we aren't going to reach each other.

    You seem believe it is good that individual victims are unarmed, because it's good for society, and maybe it really is good for society.  I realize we all have to make concessions for society, but being easy to murder seems like a biggie.

    Parent

    Millions walking around with a gun (none / 0) (#44)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:16:36 AM EST
    because they feel they need to protect themselves is a tacit endorsement of a breakdown in social order. It's individual enforcement for each individual's good rather than enforcement by the whole society for the whole society's good.

    I'm not even talking about predatory criminals. I'm talking about mass murders by your flipped out average person - jilted boyfriend, overstressed student, upset post office worker - who turns into a rampaging gunman...because he has a gun. You know, the kind of situation that just seems to keep happening lately for some reason.

    The kind that doesn't happen in countries where everyone isn't hauling their .22 to the grocery store. If they don't have one they can't use it when they flip out. No one has the right to do that to others. It's a vicious circle from expecting to need a gun to the availability that leads to using one.

    And as for the need to have a gun to protect yourself, those people who barricaded themselves in their classrooms with desks survived just fine.  Being unarmed doesn't equal being a victim. But it does preclude being an aggressor who's armed with a gun.

    Parent

    One concession (none / 0) (#40)
    by roy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:26:09 AM EST
    A situation that might otherwise have ended in loud voices, tears, maybe punches, instead ended with 33 people dead.

    If we take at face value the story floating around that the killer wasn't anybody special until he first murdered his girlfriends this morning after a fight, I concede that strict gun control might actually have prevented him from killing so many.

    Gun control can't consistently stop career criminals from getting guns (at least not without draconian enforcement that would make the Drug War look like a pillow fight), but a typical student probably wouldn't have the knowledge needed to skirt the law on short notice.  So he might have just strangled his girlfriend to death and tried stabbing a few people before being overpowered.  It would still have been a profoundly bad day, but with a lower body count.

    I concede this because I know it's absurd to expect any policy to solve every problem that comes up.  Allowing average citizens to have access to guns has serious downsides.  So do the alternatives.

    Parent

    How romantic (none / 0) (#46)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:32:48 AM EST
    So he might have just strangled his girlfriend to death and tried stabbing a few people before being overpowered.

    Or they might have screamed at one another for a while then kissed and made up.

    Parent

    lilybart (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    and maybe he/she would have shot the guy.

    you don't know. i don't know.

    wanna play 20 guesses??


    Parent

    Frothing rant? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    Two .45acp through that hairball's ten ring would have ended the slaughter much earlier.  

    That's SO cool. Violence to solve violence.

    Works every time.

    Everyone get a nice taste of Iraq today? Cause they live this shiite every day!!!

    I have an idea. Let's take the 2nd amendment for what it actually states, not just the second half of the sentence. Let's all join the National Guard and dump any non-well-regulated-militia weapons off the Santa Monica pier.

    Of (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:38:26 PM EST
    course the members of the militia had to supply their own guns.  You need to read your history.  

    Parent
    He was stopped by a bullet (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:44:20 PM EST

    He was stopped by a bullet.  The issue is why the victims were denied effective means of self defense.

    Parent
    Easy (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:28:04 PM EST
    Cuz some people that carry guns sometimes think that the best defense is a good offense. And they ruined the gun-toting party for everybody.

    Parent
    Which (none / 0) (#77)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    people are they the criminals?  

    Parent
    The founders weren't (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:23:07 PM EST
    talking about gun ownership, or collecting, or conventions, or a 50 cal rifle. They were talking about a WELL REGULATED militia. THAT is the basis for guns in this country. The rest is cowboy BS. There is no right to OWN guns conferred by the constitution! It is the right to bear arms to protect the country. Obviously that freedom has been bastardized by us to the point of near anarchy. So deal with it.

    But permit me to paraphrase Russell Crowe from "Gladiator":

    "The founding fathers had a vision for this country.
    This is not it.
    THIS IS NOT IT!"

    Guns on Campus (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by aztrias on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    My Wife works at Stanford. I've instructed at the college level in ID, MT and CA.

    Why in God's good name would any Univ. Professor who is enagged in teaching want students or any non-secuirty to carry guns on campus?  

    Mind you, campus security is armed so anyone else should be stopped and questioned as a precaution.

    We've all seen the troubled student, the angry student and the mentally disturbed student.

    People get provoked.  I've seen professors reject PhD candidates thesis after several years of non-involvement in their development.  Peope's lives get ruined.  They're ill, upset and mad.

    Instapundit is a Professor and therefore a prime target of agression.  My goodness Stanford had a professor murdered on campus by an grad student. My wife's dept. had police on alert after threats were made against them.

    Professor Putz will be really popular on campus.  


    Bad things will always happen (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:11:17 PM EST
    I do wish though that my culture wasn't so in love with guns.  I wish that we also focused more on how being pissed at someone is transitory.  Is it me or are Americans way too serious about themselves all the damn time?  There is a time to be serious and a time to not be serious.  Maybe American children and young adults would act out less violently if screwing up sometimes was accepted in our culture, and hey, then we would all have enough energy to demand responsibility out of those who deliberately and serially screw everything up and all of us over ;).  

    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    On one hand, Virginia Tech has armed security guards too.  In fact, they're full-fledged police officers.  They didn't stop the killer.  So if you're relying on security to stop a concerted killer, you might be disappointed.

    On the other hand, Virginia's previous school shooting involved a situtation very much like what you consider.  A law student murdered three and injured six after flunking out.

    But on the third hand, that shooter was stopped by an armed student.  And on the pinky of that hand, the shooter had run out of ammunition so it might not really matter who stopped him, ...

    It's a complicated mess.

    That was supposed to be addressed to aztrias (none / 0) (#26)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:16:08 PM EST
    roy (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:53:34 AM EST
    did the state prosecute the student who killed him?

    Parent
    clarification (none / 0) (#72)
    by roy on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    The armed student who help stop the killer did so without firing his gun.  He just pointed it at the killer.  I can't say for sure because media coverage of this angle of the story was direly lacking, but since he didn't shoot anybody I doubt any Virginia prosecutor would do more than thank him.

    The story is a bit of a muddle anyway, because he media hates to report any constructive use of firearms.

    Parent

    Wile (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    the members of the militia had to supply their own guns.  You need to read your history.  

    So what? How many effing gunsssssssss do you need?

    What part of well regulated is escaping you?

    Something to read (none / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:45:04 PM EST
    The "militia" part may not have as much pratical significance as you think.  From The Commonplace Second Amendment:

    To begin with, so long as the Second Amendment seems strikingly unusual -- so long as it appears to be the only provision with a justification clause -- people will naturally wonder whether this oddity is some sort of signal:  Perhaps, for instance, the Framers were themselves so hesitant about the right that they intentionally tried to limit its force; in any event, they must have been telling us something, or else why would they have written the Amendment so strangely?

    The state provisions show that the Second Amendment is just one of many constitutional provisions that happen to be structured this way, and that the federal Bill of Rights is just one of many that contain only one or a few justification clauses.  I have seen no evidence of a correlation between the presence of a justification clause and the provision's perceived importance.

    These state provisions also remind us that early constitutions were political documents as well as legal ones.  They were meant to capture people's allegiance, both in order to get the provision approved, and to persuade future generations to adhere to it.  In this context, setting forth the justifications for a provision makes perfect rhetorical sense.  This observation doesn't dispose of the question of what legal significance should be given to the clauses once they are enacted, but it does counsel against viewing the presence of the clauses as something deeply portentous.



    Parent
    Bottom line, I guess (none / 0) (#52)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:24:22 AM EST
    you can wait for the gov't to show up to get you out of hot water (Gov't is great and huge and to be everywhere) or you can try to fix things yourself.  I'll try the latter.  Washington DC has shown for the last thirty years that gun control does not work.  

    Parent
    Wingnuts (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Baal on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    Wingnuts think we should arm kindergarten teachers, it doesn't make it a good idea.

    Also, the having a bunch of young college age kids running around armed, depressed, and in the throws of hopeless love affairs would not make me feel safer on the (Texas) campus where I work.

    Checkpoints? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:13:42 PM EST
    I don't want to live in a prison and I'm pretty sure most students feel the same way.

    If there is any justice inherent in this world (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by yetimonk on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:46:17 AM EST
    and I have my doubts, Glenn Reynolds will end up in a maximum security cell before he is able to write anything more, as absurdly dangerous for society as this is. I'm sure he could still write from there but I think it would stop people in the media from taking him seriously and amplifying his voice.

    It's quite strange, but I just finished a major academic project and multimedia presentation on school shootings. I submitted it for review last night, was completely wiped out physically and emotionally from the topic, and then woke up today to this. I lived a mile from Columbine High School when that shooting occurred and my room mates daughter was a student there.

    yetimonk (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    I lived in Denver, but not as close as you.

    The big problem there was that the deputies got there quickly, but weren't allowed to go in. As they waited, people were being killed.

    Similar thing here. As the police investigated one murder for two hours, waiting to understand what had happened, the killer came back and killed, now, 33 people.

    In both cases, prompt definitive action by the police would have saved lives.

    (I used "police" as a genereic term. Various law enforcement groups were involved.)

    When are we going to understand that the only way you can meet force is with force.

    Parent

    Jefferson count sherrif (none / 0) (#66)
    by yetimonk on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:49:52 AM EST
    was a bad word for a long time. They couldnt go save people because that wouldnt be safe. They were swat for chissakes!

    Parent
    yetimonk (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:00:22 PM EST
    Actually the deputy on scene wasn't the problem.

    It was the comand/control structure, and a commitment ti the theory that you bring in swat and then negotiate.

    Negotiations don't work with people who want to kill and then be killed.


    Parent

    Roy (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:03:46 AM EST
    Nice link.
    IANAL of course. I tend to look at the world more broadly than specific legal decisions (and the associated opinions). Maybe that's my loss. Nevertheless, I think my interpretation of the 2nd is fairly clear. I have no problem with guns in our culture. I have a problem with the uncontrolled proliferation of guns in our culture. We are spiraling into a cycle of violence, and it is enabled by our capitalist system of every one for themselves, and fed irresponsibly by a glorifying media/entertainment industry.

    I feel that using the words of the BOR to bring this rampant problem under control is a sort of going to ground approach. Unfortunately, my opinions are formed in the context of a different society than the one we live in. A society in which the constitution is still followed. That society no longer exists here. I'm not of the opinion that this process can be reversed.

    Better regulation (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by HK on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:24:11 AM EST
    has to be the key to reducing these kind of incidents.  Extensive fire arms training and relevent checks would surely have a positive impact on this type of crime.

    In 1996 there was a shocking crime committed in Dunblane, Scotland in which a lone gunman killed 16 school children and their teacher with a legally held fire arm before turning the gun on himself.  But these were not college students - these were five and six year olds.  So the question of the innocent protecting themselves did not come into play here; the debate was all about the gunman.  And what did the British government do?  Did they tighten up gun ownership laws?  Reassess how they ascertained suitability for ownership of fire arms?  No.  They instead formed a blanket ban, making it illegal for any individual to own a fire arm - a law which stands to this day.  A couple of years ago , I heard a report on gun crime in the UK.  Since handguns and weapons above a certain calibre were banned, gun crime has gone up by more than 500%

    My father owned handguns, which I remember were kept throughout my childhood in a locked metal cabinet in our home.  In 1996 I was just old enough to have been to the range a couple of times and fire some handguns.  When the law making it illegal for individuals to own guns came into effect, my father went to the local police station and handed his guns in.  However, not everybody did; a huge number went 'missing' and the government went from knowing where all legally held firearms were to having a vastly increased number of guns in unknown locations in the country.

    I guess the point of my comment is this: crimes such as this are horrific, somewhat incomprehensible and devestating to communities.  We are right to be outraged.  But this type of crime is also - thankfully - very rare.  Gut instinct, knee-jerk reactions are not helpful in responding to these sort of events.  The 'arm everybody' or 'arm nobody' solutions present more problems than they solve.

    HK (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    Wow. Well said.

    Parent
    Perfect sense (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:24:37 AM EST
    Since handguns and weapons above a certain calibre were banned, gun crime has gone up by more than 500%

    That makes perfect sense.  An illegal gun gives much more power to the holder (and is therefore much more desireable) when everyone else in the room is unarmed.  Just what we saw in Virginia.  The perp was chaining the doors to increase the length of time that his were the only firearms on the scene.

    His plan was aided by state policy.

    Parent

    Guns give me the creeps..... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    A university that allowed students and faculty to carry concealed weapons is a school I would never attend in a million years...and I don't think I'm the only one.

    They said the same things in 1991 after (none / 0) (#1)
    by JSN on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:36:41 PM EST
    the mass murder at the University of Iowa. Nobody bothered to
    comment.

    Vigrinia's gun laws (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    While the school rules and state laws are pretty restrictive about guns on campus, the state laws are pretty lax for guns everywhere else.  Regardless of whether we need more or fewer guns overall, it seems like a dangerous mix to make it easy to get guns unless you're in an obvious target area.

    (My own bias is in favor of guns)

    II don't have any objection to walking (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:25:18 PM EST
    though security devices on campus.  You need to do so in many other instances.  For example, when I went to my one and only rock concert years ago (Eric Clapto--pre Sept. 11, 01], everyone docilely submitted to "wanding," bag check, and pat down.  Pretty intrusive but not a peep.  

    A spokesperson for a public university in San Diego sd. today, we don't allow guns on campus and, besides, this was all the way across the U.S.  Of course, three professors were mowed down at SDSU about 10 years ago by a PhD candidate whose committee didn't recommend he get his degree.

    Isreali experience (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:59:48 PM EST

    There are plenty of folks that would be pleased as punch to shoot up Isreali school kids.  It seems to be much more infrequent than here.  Perhaps their armed school personnel has something to do with it.

    I'd probably shoot myself by accident. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:07:55 AM EST


    If you are not trained (none / 0) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 07:16:44 AM EST

    If you are not trained, don't carry.  

    Parent
    If I owned a gun (none / 0) (#38)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:09:04 AM EST
    but I'd certainly take lessons.

    Not in how to shoot myself, I mean. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:09:33 AM EST


    You got me (none / 0) (#47)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:37:58 AM EST
    I thought I used the word "gun" because I didn't want to write or say "pistols and rifles" all the time.

    Hand gun ownership versus rifle. There's another topic.

    Che (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    Repack is mostly likely referring to an old chant used to make the recruit call his rifle a rifle....

    "This is is your rifle, this is your gun.
    With his you fight with, with this you have fun."

    Parent

    "This is for fighting, this is for fun" (none / 0) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    Correct.  A "gun" in military parlance is a piece of artillery.

    Parent
    Universities can allow students to carry guns (none / 0) (#48)
    by annefrank on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:40:35 AM EST
    or they can employ professors, staff, and other employees.
    But they can't expect to have both.