Arming Students

April 18, 2007
7:34 AM CST

Of course, the GFWs are going to heap scorn on us for suggesting that the best way to stop massacres from happening is to arm the would-be victims. To them, passing a useless law works so much better than giving people eeevil guns.

To them, I have only one thing to say: “Pitched gun battles” (of which you are so fearful) are actually preferable to execution-style massacres. In both cases, people are going to die—but at least in the first instance, there’s a good chance that one of the dead will be the bad guy.

Here’s one opinion from a VT student, dated last year. (I can only hope that he was not among the dead in Monday’s massacre.)

And here’s one editorial writer who doesn’t have his head up his ass.

Many thanks to the several Readers who sent me both these links.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

Two options:

Magically cause all firearms to disappear ... an unattainable “perfect” solution.

Allow students to carry weapons ... a good, attainable goal that is not “perfect”, as it might result in non-goblin casualties.

Do not let perfect be the enemy of good.

Author ID: 1358 | 4/18/2007 07:49 AM CST | #87319


You can’t make guns disappear.  This is basically 13th Century technology here, easily reproducible by most of the population, if they have the will.

Remember those shootings in Beijing last year?  Guy goes wacko, kills eight people before the cops shoot him.  This happened in the capital city of the nation with the most repressive gun laws on earth.  How did he do it?  WITH HOMEMADE GUNS!!!

Author ID: 6848 | 4/18/2007 08:04 AM CST | #87322


So the MSM is saying the kid was “strange”.  Yeah, yeah I know killing people can only come from a “strange” personality.  But what is getting me cranked is the fact that we have a policy to “main stream” these types of people.  This guy showed FOR YEARS strange behaviours.  From high school on, his classmates all said they wouldn’t stay in class if he was there, they had bad feelings about him and even teachers tried to get him help.
But would anybody of authority take the bull by the horns and GET him OUT of the mainstream???

Author ID: 9270 | 4/18/2007 08:23 AM CST | #87330


Mainstreaming is only supposed to apply to the learning disabled or those with learning delays.  NOT PSYCHOTICS.  Anyone who is a danger is supposed to be segregated.

But it doesn’t really matter.  Hindsight is always plentiful in these situations.

The fact remains, that until someone does something, diagnosis is worthless in court.

Predilection is not action and only actions can be dealt with in court or insane asylums.

0 Author ID: 2 | 4/18/2007 08:32 AM CST | #87333


Funny how I haven’t read much about the Uptown Tavern shooting in the national news. Stupid f***ers forgot New Hampshire is not a gun-free zone.

Author ID: 7657 | 4/18/2007 09:03 AM CST | #87335


One issue I have not yet heard discussed in detail is:  VT has a full-time Corps of Cadets and if I understand correctly from some of the news reports, they are allowed to have weapons on campus.  Of all the students you would want carrying (in addition to permit holders), wouldn’t they be the first on your list—at least the juniors and seniors?

To generalize:  why couldn’t we extend the same idea to ROTC students on all campuses everywhere?  BTW, before someone trots out the Posse Comitatus argument, remember that the “R” in “ROTC” stands for “Reserve"…

Just some ideas to start discussion.

Disclaimer:  I have a son at FSU on a 4-year Army ROTC scholarship, and I don’t know off the top of my head if they have an armory on campus or not.  He was also offered a scholarship at VT but decided he liked the weather in Tallahassee better.

Author ID: 9587 | 4/18/2007 09:53 AM CST | #87343


It’s nice to see some sanity in this dire situation.

It is telling that no presidential candidates are offering any gun control “solutions” to the school shooting problem.

Ditto for anyone in Congress, except for Caroline McCarthy and a couple of fringe moonbats.

All we hear and see is a little whining from journalists and other media types.

But I really don’t care to hear any further upbrading on gun control from foreign countries.

They can keep their Islamized third world hell holes and wish someday that they hadn’t voluntarily disarmed.

When Billy Jeff Clinton was in office, this type of situation would have invariable led to some ridiculous Executive Order ("Stroke of the pen - law of the land.  Pretty cool.” - Paul Begalla) outlawing normal capacity mags or some other nonsense.

A week before the 2000 election, I went to a NRA rally to hear Charlton Heston (the great one) and Wayne LaPierre, and you could feel the enthusiasm and cut the air with a knife.

The traffic was so heavy getting to it that it almost created wrecks on the off ramp of the Interestate.

It was clear to me that Gore had picked the wrong campaign issue to run on.

The Democrats are avoiding gun control like it’s a radioactive issue.

Author ID: 7253 | 4/18/2007 10:01 AM CST | #87344


The overwhelming response from clear-headed observers of this most unfortunate incident, has been one of frustration at not being allowed to bring an appropriate defensive action to bear. In other words, if faculty and students were capable of reaonable means of self-protection, this incident would probably not have happened.

Effective security can only ever be reactive, not proactive. Offensive weapons (legal and illegal) will always be available to those of mal-intent. The most effective deterrent will always be at the base level of any such act of mal-intent, man against man. To deny a legal right of personal defense against any such act of mal-intent, but instead to invoke a system of “pro-active” stop-em at-the-door countermeasure, is at best, asinine.

To those nanny-headed persons crying for further and more punitive restrictions on personal firearms ("nanny" as in over-protective, not as in headwear affected by domestic servants), I am compelled to remind them that mal-intent can be just as effectively projected by “docile” means as by “hostile” means…

... ask Timothy McVey.

Author ID: 8614 | 4/18/2007 10:16 AM CST | #87347


Gateway Pundit has a photo memorial of the dead. (Why isn’t anyone talking about the wounded? They’re victims too!) Only 29 of the 32 names are on that list. Fortunately, the VT student who wrote that editorial doesn’t seem to be among them.

I wrote this in the comments at The Smallest Minority, and I think it’s appropriate to share it with you too:

If complete justice was possible in this world, those responsible for creating Virginia Tech’s disarmed victims zone would be required to personally visit the family of every one of the victims and apologize for forcing them to be defenseless in the face of such monstrous evil. Then they would be charged with accessory to murder.

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever happen even though they are actually guilty of making it possible for this madman to kill and wound so many people.

Author ID: 7909 | 4/18/2007 10:48 AM CST | #87350


Kent State effectively killed off the armed National Guard being used as an armed force in the US and ROTC is not treated any differently at most schools.

And to tell you the truth, I wouldn’t want to depend on those guys for security to the exclusion of being able to carry and deploy weapons myself. They just aren’t well trained enough and many lack sufficient motivation to act decisively in such situations. Remember, kids join the NG and in many cases ROTC not to become warriors but for finanical benefits such as college tuition waivers. Nothing wrong with that, but how much does the average NG or ROTC guy train with live weapons? And I would imagine that they train even less with pistols.

After 9/11 airport security was provided by UNARMED guardsmen. They were literally walking around the airport with empty holsters - not even guns. I guess they were supposed to use harsh language on Mohammed...should the need arise. Initially the NG’s Katrina response was hamstrung by no ammo for the guardsmen. After the Rodney King L.A. Riots, the NG had problems deploying.

Author ID: 7763 | 4/18/2007 11:23 AM CST | #87354


I’m a CCW permit holder, and today I’ve chosen to pack heat on a college campus in an undisclosed location, against the school’s policy.  Pretty much every campus in the nation has this assinine policy- and IT FEELS REAL GOOD TO VIOLATE IT.  Hope this starts a trend . . .

Author ID: 7643 | 4/18/2007 12:08 PM CST | #87357


There is a Corps—my Boy was one.

They’re not allowed weapons on campus any more than anyone else.  Even their drill (’03) rifles are modified so they can only accept specially-made blanks.

I do believe some have personal weapons, but also believe all must be “checked” with faculty and locked in a safe.

DD

Author ID: 8950 | 4/18/2007 12:13 PM CST | #87358


PS:  This is not “ROTC” in its usual appellation—this is “military school.” These kids are in uniform daily, in a program equivalent to VMI or any service academy. 

I’ve been told by several high-ranked Army, Navy and USMC Officers that the general concensus among Officers is that the VT Corps Program generally produces a higher caliber of Officer than the Academies do.  One possible reason for this is that they are a small part of the student body in an otherwise civilian school.

At the Academies, everyone is doing it.  It takes a higher sort of willpower to maintain performance when embedded among an otherwise typical college student-body.

DD

Author ID: 8950 | 4/18/2007 12:17 PM CST | #87360


In Utah, people with concealed carry permits are allowed to carry on college campuses. This should be the law in all the shall-issue states. I think it’s time to contact the TSRA and my state legislators.

Author ID: 9317 | 4/18/2007 12:17 PM CST | #87361


This is what I have to say about the matter, to both gun advocates and gun grabbers:

Whether gun laws (bans or otherwise) work is completely irrelevant.  Whether arming these victims would have saved their lives is completely irrelevant as well.

The Second Amendment guarantees each and every one of them the right and the opportunity to arm himself and try to defend himself.  Any law abridging that right in any way is ILLEGAL.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Author ID: 9950 | 4/18/2007 12:35 PM CST | #87363


My take:
http://brownvalleykingdom.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech.html

Author ID: 503 | 4/18/2007 12:48 PM CST | #87365


I work for a small University in Michigan (a state with CCW laws), and Monday afternoon we received and email reassuring us that the University takes the safety and well being of its faculty, staff, and students very seriously.  That’s it.  Nothing about examining policies or the safety situation on our various campuses.  I hate to be a cynic, but this is the last school shooting where I will consider status quo “no guns here” policies as taking anyone’s safety seriously at all.  I am drafting a letter to send to my HR department stating exactly that, I just don’t know if I’ll send it or not (I find such writing somewhat therapeutic).  I was a high school teacher when Columbine went down and I’ve watched every one of these massacres go down with nary a negative word about the no guns policies.  As long as I’m required to rely on the mall security guards that patrol the campus I work on (no they are not armed) for my safety, then I cannot take seriously my school’s statements that it takes my safety seriously.

Herding disarmed faculty, staff, and students into rooms with only one door (most offices are converted classrooms) only makes it easier for the next “loner” maniac to come in and make short work of people whose only crime was showing up for work.  At least give us the choice to carry.

Author ID: 424 | 4/18/2007 01:16 PM CST | #87366


<quote>Two options:

Magically cause all firearms to disappear ... an unattainable “perfect” solution.
</quote>

This is not an option, this is a regression to when the physically stronger, faster and more viscious could bully the weaker.

There is NO WAY, no kung fu, no ninjitsu, no krav magic, that will let a 5’4 grandmother stop a 6’5” fitness freak who means to do her wrong.

There is however a .38.

God created man, Col. Colt made them equal.

Author ID: 7760 | 4/18/2007 02:39 PM CST | #87376


“There is NO WAY, no kung fu, no ninjitsu, no krav magic, that will let a 5’4 grandmother stop a 6’5” fitness freak who means to do her wrong.”

Unless she’s had the 1-day (or was it one afternoon) restraint course my wife took.  She she and another woman were able to restrain a 300 pound man… and believes that means she can handle her students if one of them decides to do her harm (oh, and it involved training to help her see the first swing coming, too, so that she wouldn’t be taken out before she could use this great restraint training).

When I pointed out to her that there was quite simply no way she and her assistant could hope to restrain me if I actually wanted to harm them (and there’s not), she got angry and said I was being arrogant and and treating her like she was stupid.  She pointed out that guards in prisons restrain inmates, who are often bigger and stronger than anything she will face.

Now, my wife is NOT stupid; she is a person of well-above-average intelligence.  And in the classroom she is in, she will usually be bigger than her students (middle-school), though not always.  And she has the benefit of authority and expectations on her side (she’s the teacher, she has backup, and she SHOULD be able to take care of things), which has strong psychological benefits (both for her and against the student).

But those guards in prisons, just for one example (which I didn’t browbeat her with)
-have MUCH better training than her
-have better equipment than the inmates
-outnumber the inmates in most situations where restraint is used
-have firearms and more guards with firearms as backup
-STILL get injured on a fairly regular basis (especially when the don’t outnumber th inmates in question by a noticeable margin)
-AND are allowed to cause much greater harm to the inmates than she is to the students (ever heard of “slamming”?  It occasionally kills the target)

I’m quite certain the holds she learned would be quite capable of or restraining very strong people… it’s GETTING them INTO the hold that is the problem.  How do you reason with someone like this?

And our discussion about guns went only slightly better (she’s not a GFW - she actually served in the military and has more experience with firearms than I do).  Wondering about if the student might be packing makes people “feel” unsafe and is not a good learning environment.  Pointing out that A) students already bring firearms to school upon occasion, policy or not, B) how people FEEL about that is a result of how they are taught (examples of behaviour 50 years ago when kids brought their weapons to school openly), and C) FEELING safe does NO GOOD, all did no good.

I readily admitted that firearms on campuses of minors is a much more complicated thing than on campuses of adults - I even granted that only staff should b allowed to carry in those cases, for the sake of argument.  She still worried about students overpowering a teacher and taking their weapon - yes, that would indeed happen from time to time, but if it happened 10 times for every massacre prventd, w would still be coming out well ahead on the body count.  Examples of “massacres” that got stopped with body counts under (due to intervention by students with weapons) given.  None of this helps.

Now, granted, students taking something from the teacher certainly does happen and is a real issue; I don’t want to minimize that.  But it is readily apparent that cases like this (where many people are executed) are a real problem, and that they are greatly enabled by Victim Disarmament Zones.

How does one get through the liberal indoctrination?

Not that it matters, because I doubt we’ll discuss it again in the next 5-10 years (because I’m a terrible meany who always has to be right… which means that I don’t roll over and give in to her whenever she wants me to).

Author ID: 289 | 4/18/2007 03:14 PM CST | #87380


One thing we know, but it is so basic that we don’t recognize it, is the ages of the student victims means that even if CCW were not banned on campus the 18-20 year olds would not be armed. No state has any CCWs younger than 21 (some as high as 25)
Look at the ages of the victims against the CCW minimum age.

Then club everyone setting up the strawman about 2nd supporters wanting everyone armed CCW.
I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want everyone armed.
Nobody who can’t physically handle a firearm to hold it and accurately hit what they are aiming at.
Nobody who doesn’t want to take the time to find out the laws, the limitations, and when not to use a gun.
Nobody who will not invest the time and money to maintain some acceptable level of proficiency with their chosen weapon.
No Felons who have not had their right to own a firearm specifically restored by a court.
Nobody with a mental health disorder who has ever been classified as a threat and had their firearm rights removed without appropriate medical corrective treatment and a doctor personally guaranteeing that they are no undue threat.
Nobody on certain medications likely to contribute to “going psycho”.
Nobody under some age that we recognise as likely being “responsible”.
I also believe that if we leave it up to them, that government could (will?) abuse definitions and terms on the above, but if we set the definitions, that is a good start.

Author ID: 8126 | 4/18/2007 03:37 PM CST | #87382


I think we need to step back and carefully consider what could happen before we decide what kinds of laws we want to enact to protect us from the mentally ill.  Approximately 1-2 % of mentally ill people commit crimes, not all of which are violent.  What criteria do we set up to determine who will lose there right to bear arms?  People that are “weird”?  People that other people don’t like?  People that write violent stories?  Who gets to evaluate people?  Heck, I know people that think having an interest in guns is weird and anti-social.  I am sure there are people that don’t care for me .  I am lousy writer, so I don’t even attempt to write any fiction.

My point is that the hindsight is 20/20 and we need to be careful about what we ask for before we call for denying people’s rights.

Author ID: 9803 | 4/18/2007 04:24 PM CST | #87386


I still remember when my baby cousing tried to show me what she learned in women’s self-defense class.  She was taught to break a grip by working against the thumb.  While this is the correct theory, a 130 lb female simply doesn’t have the strength necessary to contest with a 200 lb male.  Try as she could, there was no way for her to break my grip.

Quite simply, unless she is a professional athlete or fighter, a female is going to lose a fight to an equally sized male because of the difference in upper body strength, much less a male who outweighs her.  Sam Colt is the only person who can make women equal to men in a fight.

Author ID: 455 | 4/18/2007 05:28 PM CST | #87388


Well, we certainly couldn’t have people going around armed! Just look at the daily gunfights in places like Arizona, where they have open carry. Blood running in the streets, all the cowboys lookin’ fer a varmint to blast. Oh wait, that’s in the alternate, GFW universe. Never mind…

Author ID: 9130 | 4/18/2007 05:47 PM CST | #87389


GOH:

Let’s not invent any more special privileged classes, eh?

Author ID: 2382 | 4/18/2007 08:15 PM CST | #87396


Part of the reason people are fearful of armed students and faculty is the media’s concerted effort over the last number of years to characterize guns as unsafe, that they “just go off.” People, knowing little about guns, some how think that if a student has a gun in their bag, it might just “go off” if they put their bag down too hard.  That’s what they fear.  Some also fear the old tired “they’ll be pulling guns out left and right...it’ll be mayhem,” but the majority are coming from the “accidental shooting” mindset.

The media know guns are used for defense, so they try to water down that information by a) not spreading it as widely as murders, and b) making people think they discharge on their own.

That’s the reason most businesses have no guns signs.  They know it won’t stop crooks, but they think that the chance of it just “going off” is higher than the chance of a person using that gun for self defense.  They are, of course, wrong; but that’s the mindset.

Author ID: 9881 | 4/18/2007 11:27 PM CST | #87398


Jnh1, You said no state has CCW younger than 21.  That’s not true.  You can get a CCW in Indiana at 18.  You can’t go buy the handgun, but someone could give one to you.

Author ID: 9881 | 4/18/2007 11:29 PM CST | #87399


Jnh1,

I must have missed the 2A clause that says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as said people have had umpteen bazillion hours of firearms training(prefferably advanced) by officially gov’t recognized trainers, and shall have absolutely no mental disorders(as to determined by the various gov’ts of the land), and shall be able to recite from memory all 20,000+++ firearms laws. Then and ONLY then may said people even look in the general direction of a firearm.”

Would you mind pointing that one out to me? I’ll even throw a PLEASE in there.

Author ID: 9172 | 4/19/2007 05:15 AM CST | #87409


Has anyone else heard anything about this?

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_5491437,00.html

I hope it passes all the way!!!

Hat tip to LC Mrs. M-ITT at the Rott.

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=510#comments

See comment #15.

Author ID: 9172 | 4/19/2007 05:41 AM CST | #87413


<quote>Two options:

Magically cause all firearms to disappear ... an unattainable “perfect” solution.
</quote>

This is not an option, this is a r ....

There was a reason I put the word “perfect” in quotes, and referred to said notion as magical. Apparently you do not deal with subtle very well.

I do not advocate victim disarmament, Billy.

Author ID: 1358 | 4/19/2007 02:07 PM CST | #87484