Checkpoints or Guns?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:25:11 PM EST
Tags: Virginia Tech Shootings (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Checkpoints or Guns? | 81 comments (81 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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


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?


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.


: 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.

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?


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

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.


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.


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.


: 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.

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.


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?


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


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?

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?


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.


: 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?

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.


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.


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.


: 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.

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.


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.


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.

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.


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?


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.


: 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.

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.


: 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.

lilybart (