Everything looks like a nail
Apr 16, 2007 Americana, Lex scripta
When you’re a carpenter, of course. And when you’re a Second Amendment enthusiast — the real kind, not the mildly interested in the topic kind such as I am — every nightmare shooting is proof of how bad gun regulation is. But a smart guy like Instapundit?:
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.
. . . . And reader John Lucas, who works with a Virginia law firm, emails that Va. Tech is a “gun-free zone.” Well, for those who follow the law. There was an effort to change that but it failed: “A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.” That’s unfortunate.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn! College students are not cowboys or sharpshooters! What are you thinking? College students barely wear clothes and you want them packing heat and picking off crazed mass murderers? And professors? Give me a break!
I like the concept of “concealed carry” for streets… bars…. places where adults can get in trouble. (I’ve never touched a gun but I’m told they’re useful.) The empirical support for it as a policy is solid. But let’s not get ridiculous — implementing it here almost certainly would not have saved anyone today.*
Gun control doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
–
*Last clause added for clarity. I am not arguing for gun control. I am arguing against fantasy.
April 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
…places where adults can get in trouble
Yeah, I guess there were no adults in trouble on the VT campus.
There’s no guarantee that a gun would have helped, but the “gun-free” environment certainly didn’t.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
If the campus police are clueless about these threats, what’s your solution?
April 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Of course most college students are not cowboys or sharpshooters. Most people who carry guns on streets, bars or other places where adults can get in trouble (and certainly it seems that Virginia Tech was such a place this morning) are not sharpshooters or cowboys either. And of course some college students are sharpshooters or cowboys. Many others are soldiers or former soldiers.
While it is certainly true that people kill people, killers with guns can kill more people more easily if they are the only ones with guns.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I think the question is this: If the state of Virginia has determined that citizens over the age of 21 who meet certain criteria have the right to carry a concealed weapon, what is the rationale for specifically denying that right to individuals who would otherwise qualify simply because they’re enrolled in college? Because college students dress sloppily? It’s not doubt true that most college students “are not cowboys or sharpshooters,” but the same can be said of almost any civillian population, so I’d hate like hell to see that as a justification for denying gun rights.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
No, I am not in any way arguing for an exception to the policy that I favor, i.e., a bare minimum of gun control. I am arguing against the proposition that any difference in the law would have made a difference in this, or the vast majority, of mass murders committed by nuts usually bearing substantial firepower and, quite frequently, bullet-proof vests or body armor, against untrained, youthful and largely female (i.e., less physically courageous than a typical male) victims.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
No, it may not have made any difference in this particular case. Even if odds were 99/100 that it would that still doesn’t tell us a thing about the single case. As the saying goes, a million to one odds don’t mean squat when you’re the one.
Yes, 18-22 year olds are not a demographic that would largely take advantage of the ability to carry. But however small though, a non-zero probability of self-defence beats the hell out of a legally mandated zero probability.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/
How is possible that at least one gunman shot and killed at least 22 people and wounded 21?
What is it about our culture and society that what was once thought unthinkable, has become an epidemic, with schools becoming killing fields?
Some will blame guns, but in truth, those who do that are only concerned about their own political agenda.
Switzerland and Israel are both countries with guns in every home, because of mandatory military service and reserve duty obligation In every household in those countries, there are guns. Nevertheless, the kind of gun violence we have just witnessed at Virgian Tech, at Columbine or other places, are unheard of in those places.
The escalation of gun violence and the kind of hate to leads to that kind of violence in this country is can be attributed to one cause and one cause alone.
When violence or threats of violence are considered legitimate forms of political or social expression, inevitably violence or threats of violence will manifest themselves.Terror has becomes an accepted form of political and social expression by those who most profess to be non violent or peaceful.
The terror we see here has it’s origins in faraway places brought to our TV screens every day.
Those in this country who defend, apologize and legitimize the terror and evil committed elsewhere have facilitated the introduction of terror in this country. They will sooner defend the perpetration of evil and violence than those who would fight that evil ideology that embraces that kind of evil.
They are the most evil people, no matter how much they profess to ‘love peace.’ They are like whores, insisting that they and they alone are qualified to talk about family values.
No amount of dancing can change that reality.
April 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Actually, Masked, it usually doesn’t make any difference at all. “Non zero” can be very widdle.
By the way, there is an argument that college students — physical adults who, in most cases, have had their journeys into adulthood retarded in bizarre ways — should indeed be less entitled to carry guns than even a 15 year old farm boy.
And professors? Forget it!
April 16th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
A job for the ROTC?
April 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I don’t care how “widdle” it is when the gunman is on the other side of the door.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I agree. I’d rather have one than not have one, Masked.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I’m sure some of those students would have liked to have had one too.
Oh, but that’s right, they’re just college “kids”. They don’t count.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I think they pretty much don’t count, yeah. (You won’t intimidate me with sarcasm, Masked.) I would imagine that most or all of them would, when faced with someone with a semi-automatic pistol bent on mayhem, run — gun or not — rather than squat and assume the position. It has nothing to do with their being “kids” and everything to do with their being untrained for combat, which is exactly what this is. As I said, if you’re cornered and you have nowhere to run, yes, armed is better. But to look at this situation and posit a different outcome if the law permitted sidearms? It’s naive.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Not so naive.
April 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Okay, here comes a camel’s nose under the tent…
How about all those former GIs now taking advantage of education benefits to attend university? They’re not on the usual track, but for good cause. And they have more than a modicum of gun safety instilled in their beings.
In my own case, while not military, I took a three year hiatus between HS and starting university because I was doing other stuff in SE Asia. It’s not like I came to university as damaged goods.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
And I should mention, all those adults at bars, on the street, where adults could get into trouble aren’t anymore “trained for combat” than any of these students would be either.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Do mention it — maybe it explains why we disagree on this. You are right, but the likely situation whereby they would defend themselves with their own guns there is personal intimidation or potential theft or assault, more or less one on one and where murder is usually not the goal. That is not the case in these mass murder situations.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I don’t see anything in the 2nd Amendment limiting arms to adults. Last I looked “kids” were counted amongst the people.
Yes, college kids should be allowed to carry. As well as, especially if the students aren’t carrying, professors. I mean, why shouldn’t they? The 2nd Amendment certianly places no limit like that! Why should we? Personal defense doesn’t end at college or the workplace.
And yes, I said workplace. The whack jobs that want to light up their place of employment could give two rips about policy or law. But, you know what, they might just be less likely to go on a killing spree if they know one in two of their co-workers is packing. And if that isn’t enough to stop Johnny Itchy Trigger Finger, well, those co-workers might just keep the deaths to a minimum. If they’re lucky, it’ll be just Johnny.
CCWs are nice. I’d like to see open carry across the nation – no permit required. I want to see iron on everyone’s hip!
April 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Me neither, Kevin. Find the scoundrel who suggested otherwise and I’ll delete that nonsensical comment from my pristine blog.
For my part, I never said such a silly thing. Read carefully: I said I DON’T THINK IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE. That’s it.
Now I know how Dean feels!
April 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I am arguing against the proposition that any difference in the law would have made a difference in this..
I agree that there are very few changes in the law that could have prevented this. If this violence was the result of some emotional imbalance or jealousy, it would more closely resemble the Bronx ‘HappyLand’ social club fire, which killed 87 people. That fire was set by some idiot who was angry at his girlfriend. When idiots want to kill a lot of innocent people, they don’t need guns.
…or the vast majority, of mass murders committed by nuts usually bearing substantial firepower and, quite frequently, bullet-proof vests or body armor, against untrained, youthful and largely female (i.e., less physically courageous than a typical male) victims.
However, this analysis is completely unnecessary, also useless without proof that women are less physically courageous than a typical male. In any case, there is proof that our aim is better which would make up for any real or imagined deficiencies.
April 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
It’s almost as if I added that part to stimulate more discussion, Mary!
Your aim is better — I don’t need a link for that. There are so many variables that we’re just assuming away here, however, that to be fair I’ll just withdraw that part of my argument which, as you say, is unnecessary.
Though I do believe, based on entirely subjective experience of four decades on earth, that the typical woman is indeed physically less brave than the typical man — except when in the position of protecting her children.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Ron,
Unless this is all sarcasm, I’m seeing the following things here:
1. College students should carry guns because they are not properly trained.
2. Professors too.
And since you apparently want to keep guns out of college I can only assume you disagree with me about allowing guns into the workplace.
It seems to me I read your piece just fine. We only agree on people being allowed to have CCWs but you want them only in places where adults can get into trouble. It seems to me that this latest incident is a perfect example of another place where adults can get into trouble.
As far as CCWs go, and your willingness to let adults have them, what about the states that do not allow CCWs? What about allowing those that can legally own a firearm to be able to conceal carry without additional licenses, background checks and the other hoops one must just through to get a CCW?
What about unlimited open carry across the nation? That means everyone that can legally own a gun is legally allowed to carry it in the open without harassment from the police or other governmental authorities.
And why are you willing to place limits on the 2nd Amendment the Founder’s themselves didn’t place?
You ask what I’d want? License-free ownership of any firearm with unlimited open/conceal carry in the public.
I don’t know what you meant when you stated I didn’t read your piece, Ron. It seems to me you didn’t read mine.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I did not say, as you suggested, Kevin, that the Second Amendment did not apply to college students. See, look:
What I meant in my passage was that college students would, regardless of the law, almost certainly not carry guns, and if they did they would not likely be in much of a position to stop a marauding terror-type murderer. And whether I “like” the concept of concealed carry any old place or another, I never suggested there is a constitutional basis to limit it anywhere else. So now I’m clear, k?
April 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’m pretty much with Professor Reynolds on this one. Most people don’t bother carrying guns or getting permits but those who do generally work pretty hard at it. It’s my view that universities and businesses which have an “absolutely no weapons on the premises” policy are pretty well to blame when something like this happens because they’ve created a target rich environment. The value of concealed carry is that lunatics don’t know who’s armed and who’s not. And, it only takes one in the crowd to stop a madman like this.
The concealed carry movement got its start with an incident exactly like this, when a woman in Texas saw her family murdered by a gun nut who walked into a restaurant and just started shooting people. In the family vehicle was left a gun, because there was a no-weapons policy. She ran for the Texas legislature and began a national movement that has, so far, resulted in concealed carry becoming increasingly normal throughout the United States.
The university needs to change its policy.
Public schools should, too; teachers should be licensed to carry guns in school. The requirements might need to be rather strict, i.e. compulsory training in safe handling and whatnot.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Dean: Florida has liberal Concealed Carry permitting. It also has a ‘stand your ground’ defense. But it nevertheless bars guns from being carried at a variety of locations, including universities and stadiums. It’s not just universities that don’t quite parse the problem correctly.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
You’re all (except perhaps Mary) proving my thesis: Because a gun was used to commit a crime on a college campus, you argue, “See! No-gun zones not only don’t work, they’re an invitation for trouble!” And I’m saying this is a terroristic or mass-murder scenario, not a personal-confrontation self-defense where civilian concealed carry can make a real difference. And rather than address that question, we keep voting on whether we like no-gun zones.
We don’t. I’ll even cast a vote for “mandatory carry” (then my wife would let me bring one home!). But IT WOULDN’T HAVE HELPED HERE.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Appearently, you didn’t read my link. That was a similar, if smaller, case of mass murder, where two students (law students at that) did use guns to stop a maniac. To say that a change in law, could not change the outcome of a mass school shooting is wrong. It could, and in fact, has.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Based on your comments, Ron, I don’t think you know much about firearms at all, Ron. And certainly little about training for self-protection with firearms amd tje advosability of doing so under contemporary circumstances.
The fact is, in an emergency situation in which or more armed persons with intent to commit mass murder are roaming freely among a significant number of unarmed victims, the only thing that can stop the massacre is for one or more armed people who are not intending to kill innocent people to neutralize tho the bad folks. That almost always means shooting them dead, Ron.
More or less as we had to do in World War II. It was one thing to talk about Hitler and the Nasties. But in the end, the only thing that stopped them was by killing, seriously wounding or capturing all the armed ones and more or less destroying their base of operations.
One push comes to shove, as it certainly did on that Virginia campus, it is kill or be killed.
I sure would hate to think of the future of the State of Israel, if those folks had to be defended totally by american liberals.
April 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Arnold, you are only supporting my point. Most people are not trained. My point was that untrained students with handguns are no match for a homicidal maniac with automatic weapons. And I can hardly believe the drill sergeant who trained you would suggest otherwise.
Of course if you can defend yourself you do so. I can’t imagine why you would think I would ever suggest otherwise. What this has to do with Israel, which seems increasingly unwilling to defend itself actually, I do not understand.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
1) The maniac didn’t have automatic weapons. Reports are that he had 2 semi-automatic handguns. The same type weapons many ccw holders already carry.
2) Most homicidal maniacs aren’t trained either. They only have one thing that most others don’t. They usually don’t care if they survive or not. Which usually only means that the mass murder ends when the perp no longer survives.
3) An indiscrimate killer would be easier to engage than one dedicated to focusing on you alone, such as your street mugger. He’s not always focused on you, his distraction is your best weapon. The fact that from your perspective it is one-on-one (the same as a street mugging ) but from his it is one-on-many gives you the advantage.
The only time “training” is an issue is when you are the lone innocent with a weapon against a coordinated assault with many perps. One armed person is no good against a 5 man firesquad. But that’s not what happened here.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I will speak bluntly on this matter because I have seen many murders over my lifetime, some of this nature, and do not much care for them. I could have had a reasonable chance of getting the guy at 12 years old, provided he was not covered and I had the proper weaponry and line of sight.
Were I in college and could have reached this perp, caught him away from cover, or ambushed him I could have easily shot him and would have. In the head. In the groin. Anywhere and everywhere exposed given his particular armor profile.
The real problem is not college kid versus mass murderer, or cowboy versus maniac, but Rural versus Urban. Relatively few urban kids (with the exception of some kids in ghettos, though usually they can fire and hit by-standers far batter than shoot with any real accuracy) ever learn how to use a gun. Many rural kids do. And accurately.
Urban kids assume that the system will protect them because it is relatively speaking, close by. A well trained Rural kid would rarely make that mistake. Or await rescue when they could attack and destroy the danger for themselves.
Urban kids should be trained to adapt, survive, and react to dangerous situations, but often they are not. Urban kids often understand little about weaponry, how it operates, or how people employ it. It would be good to change both of those deficiencies.
If a rural kid can move to a city and learn to adapt to the system of urban requirements and methods, then urban kids should also learn a little bit about survival, ambush, employing weapons for self-defense, escape and evasion, etc. That would be a good place to start. Of course you have to allow people to have the tools for their own defense before they can properly employ them, but always have a plan and always be prepared. If you assume the worst and it never happens, no harm done. If you assume the bets or that it is the job of another to defend you, your family, your associates, your friends, your comrades, your fellows or even the stranger then much can go badly wrong by making such assumptions about whose duty it is to defend you and yours. I am not blaming the victims, for this is only the fault of the murderer. But he could have likely been stopped had someone been prepared to do so.
Better a lamb who can be a wolf when needed than a wolf who eating the defenseless lambs. Or put another way, let the wild wolf meet the pack of trained guard-dogs. Then you have a fight of a quite different sort.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I guess there are some empirical questions here — mainly, what would a basically trained young, and likely fit, person of either sex be able to do with a sidearm here — that perhaps could cut either way. I remain skeptical, but enlightened!
April 17th, 2007 at 8:18 am
“I guess there are some empirical questions here — mainly, what would a basically trained young, and likely fit, person of either sex be able to do with a sidearm here — that perhaps could cut either way.”
Depends on where the kid could get to and what kinda shot he could take.
The perp certainly got to where he wanted. But believe me, when a killer is intent on going about slaughtering (especially when he expects little if any opposition) and his attention is fixed and focused, that means he is vulnerable somewhere. You don’t hit a man where he is sturdiest, you hit him where he ain’t.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:15 am
[...] Posts Everything looks like a nailThe silent majorityWhy hasn’t Keith Olbermann been fired?Johnny Hart Dead at 76Floodwaters in [...]
April 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Since this is not really appropriate to the discussion on the good professor and student, and more relevant here:
You ask what could a basically trained
young, and likely fit, person of either sex be able to do with a sidearm here.Well, I’m not saying that Liviu would have carried had he been allowed, but from a tactics only perspective, we see an “untrained” senior was able to get within near point blank range of the gunman. With a sidearm, he may have been able to take the gunman with him.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:13 am
This is not aboutmore gun control, it is about the effects of gun control
April 19th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I am a retired Air Force Vet that teaches engineering in a Florida college. If I were teaching at VT I would have been in that building. And I am telling you that if the law allowed me to carry a weapon, he would have been stopped cold.
Another thought, out of all the people in the building that were close enough to make a difference, how can you be sure that one of them wouldn’t have done something. Answer is – You can’t. And it only takes one person to stop a freak.
My final though echos what other have said. Concealed weapons permits are more of a deterent that an actionable item. If the bad guy thinks that even one person is carring, he might hesitate to act.