1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Editorial in the paper

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Jimmy Dean, Apr 17, 2008.

  1. Jimmy Dean

    Jimmy Dean New Member

    Guns won't make campus safe
    Nick Todaro, Reporter

    It never ceases to amaze what we are capable of forgetting about.

    At least in my case. I’d almost forgotten.

    Today is an anniversary of the passing of many lives — many years have seen many come and go. It is the one-year anniversary of comparatively few. Not the least or most of those few who died on April 16, 2007, were the 33 whose lives came to an abrupt halt at Virginia Tech University.
    Thirty-two teachers and students took the full force of Cho Seung-Hui’s anger at two different locations and hours apart. His life was also forfeited. The story shocked the nation, and why not? The biggest mass slaying ever in the United States had happened at an ivory-towered and ivory-walled institution of higher learning.

    There was, of course, the obligatory localization of the story. How were Virginia Tech and Louisiana Tech and Grambling State University so different that this had not happened here? What if it does? What will we do?

    Campus and education community leaders were sure not to give the story short shrift; everyone needed to know there was safety where they lived. Everyone also knew that there are no guarantees of safety from this kind of crime. No amount of planning can be made airtight enough to resist a determined man.

    This is part, I’m guessing, of why people like the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are watching HB 199 with interest. That bill, legalizing concealed weapons at the state’s educational institutions, has drawn quite a bit of attention. They believe that the chances of being able to stop someone from smuggling in a weapon are slim when there are no real screens to ensure that, and they want to feel safe.

    Decision-makers have stewed over this. How do you ensure security on a university campus, where freedom and the idea of fewer limitations rule?
    I’ll say arming students is not the way.

    It has everything to do with attacking this problem from the other direction. Healthy, happy people do not want to take lives on a massive scale and end their own in the process. I think few mental health professionals would disagree.

    Instead, our universities must have the kind of networks that work to support those who need it.

    I know, bleeding heart.

    But seriously consider the alternative: young women and men carrying pistols on their person because their confidence in their safety at school is gone. School becomes a psychological war zone. The popular home of optimism, the launch pad of youthful exuberance, is desecrated.

    Counseling works, reaching out works, and individuals must be brought along for the ride when they won’t come by themselves.

    College is a mental minefield, and counselors and mental health professionals in that situation must feel they’ve been thrown into a meat grinder. They still have to ask tough questions and help people find their track again, otherwise we’ll have more Virginia Techs. Fear breeds desperate people and pushes them into desperate actions.

    Campus community must be the answer. Involvement and inclusion are the keys to saving people from that isolation. It isn’t necessary that it be on the scale of this past weekend’s Big Event, with a positive throng more than 1,000 strong working in the community, either. Community can be quite closed-circle. A campus RA can make the grassroots effort to connect the isolated with each other, or step in and be a friend themselves.

    Otherwise, maybe it’s the guys with the guns that will win the philosophical argument. I, for one, wouldn’t feel any safer.

    End of the editorial

    Now for my little bit.

    THIS is the guy that interviewed me, and this was his response to what was said in the interview. I plan on writing a letter to the editor and hope to get in published, in rebuttal to this and things that the schools Police Chief said that I disagree with, (and should be able to get statistics to prove it....also have some wonderful quotes from his officers that prove it too)

    this guy, shoots too, so I Can't exactly call him an anti, but, hmmppphhh got work to do on this.
  2. AJM

    AJM New Member

    Where the argument for more counseling breaks down, though, is that people who are messed up don't see themselves as being messed up and needing counseling. Try to tell someone he needs counseling, and what is the reaction you get?

    Counseling works for those who are rational enough to understand that they need counseling. People who want to violently "solve" their personal problems aren't rational.
  3. another okie

    another okie New Member

    Cho had counseling.
  4. Deanimator

    Deanimator Active Member

    That's absolutely right.

    Cho was one of those relatively rare types who was both insane AND evil. He didn't want "counseling". He wanted to kill people. Barring a preemptive involuntary commitment, the only thing that was going to stop him was a bullet in the head. Too bad it didn't come from a student before 30+ people were murdered.

    But to hear the idiots tell it, everyone was better off that he was allowed to slaughter a bunch of people execution style because if somebody had shot back, somebody MIGHT have been WOUNDED in the imaginary "crossfire".
  5. rocinante

    rocinante New Member

    I am for carrying just about anywhere if you have a legal permit. The whole thing that bugs me about all this is the underlying assumption that a student with a concealed handgun will use it to defend the unarmed students. My first responsibility is for my own personal safety and unless the shooter is directly threatening me I do not think I am likely to put myself in danger. Maybe that is cowardly but who am I to disrespect the above students right to be a sitting duck? CCW is not auxiliary police. Truthfully I would suspect I would help but there are moral and legal ramifications and this implied assumption we would turn into fearless rambos ready to run into fire at a minutes notion is a little stretched.
  6. woodybrighton

    woodybrighton member

    he is right in away all those things he mentions need doing even if they don't stop a spree shooter and it would be difficult to prove they did. they are still worth doing.
    But that won't help if a non student decides to go on a rampage there is no guarantee a CCW holder could stop a spree killer. But taking somebody's rights away for achieving what.
    ccw holders do not indulge in petty gunfights
    its concealed so people wouldn't be unduly scared.
    its not arming students its allowing citizens there rights to ccw. its about liberty
  7. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    AMEN to that brother.

    I think we would not have as many of these problems if these kids now a days would get a little more wall to wall counseling.

    The problem I also see is damn how many kids in college are not upset in so way shape or form? I see it everyday I see it from myself. I am so stinking mad I work my butt off in my calculus class and I am going to have to take it again this summer. It gets kind of depressing when you spend just about every waking moment studying for and still fail. So are you going to put every kid in college into counseling? My god they would never make it out of college.
  8. chris in va

    chris in va New Member

    If Peace, Love and Happiness (and 'counseling') is the way to go, why do they still have armed campus police?

    I want to get a bumper sticker that says, "There's a difference in feeling safe, and being safe"
  9. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Active Member

    Oh dear, he is just is so right that I feel warm and fuzzy... :rolleyes:

    I mean that all of this "campus community" stuff is so politically correct... :scrutiny:

    But I have one question for ol' Nick... :uhoh:

    What he going to do if someone shows up from outside of his campus community, and doesn't read the sign that says," Gun Free Zone?" :banghead:
  10. MakAttak

    MakAttak New Member

    I love his logic.

    If we allow people to carry guns, their confidence that they are safe and nothing will happen to them is GONE!

    Someone needs to break it to him. Legalizing an action does not create the desire to do so.

    That "popular home of optimism, the launch pad of youthful exuberance" has already been desecrated. People AREN'T safe there.

    Legalizing the means of defense does not create the need.
  11. IllHunter

    IllHunter New Member

    Another solution,

    Mandatory military service after high school, learn to handle weapons and responsibility. This would really easily identify the malcontents and problem kids. Why is it in Israel, you can see sights like this and not have everyone freaking out?

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 17, 2008
  12. Deanimator

    Deanimator Active Member

    If you're in the immediate vicinity of someone committing violent murders, HE IS DIRECTLY THREATENING TO YOU. Unless the guy's handing out engraved invitiations, you're as likely a target as anyone else. Of course he may shoot YOU while trying to hit someone else. One of his shots may ricochet off of something and hit you. He may shoot THROUGH somebody and get you with a through and through.

    If you're close enough to perceive such a danger, you ARE in danger.
  13. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    No, we want to be safe.

    When Cho started shooting, did they call for counselors? No, they called for men with guns. It was not their superb training that stopped the killing when they showed up several minutes and 30 bodies later. It was their arrival with effective tools (guns) that caused Cho to choose to end his spree.

    A confusion of cause and effect. Those who would choose to take responsibility for their own safety, including by choosing to carry appropriate tools, never had "confidence in their safety at school." They have been forbidden this choice.

    At least he didn't mischaracterize the movement as wanting to "arm" teachers and students. The point is to "not disarm" those who would choose self-responsibility.
  14. TWeatherford

    TWeatherford New Member

    Well I think my campus is a safe place. But I recognize that there are some messed up people around and no counselor or police officer is going to necessarily be able to fix that, so I'd like to exercise my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I don't see what the big deal is.

    I don't understand the disconnect people have with law abiding carrying guns. They just wouldn't feel safe if CCW was legal on campus. I'd feel perfectly safe, albeit a bit ticked, if everyone but me was carrying a gun, cause i don't plan on giving anyone reason to use deadly force to stop me.
  15. misterwhipple

    misterwhipple New Member

    I believe, Sir, that you are in error. Mutual defense within the community is a solemn duty of all able citizens. It is one of the basic principles of both civilization and civility. The cowardice and foolishness of others may unjustly and unpleasantly complicate its exercise, but the duty remains. Any man who, though able, will not shoulder it is unfit to be called a man.
  16. Conqueror

    Conqueror New Member

    ^^^I cannot fully agree. If there is a shooting going on in a building 100 yards away, I am not running over there to hunt the shooter. Call me a coward if you will, but I carry to protect myself and those I love, not everyone within running distance.
  17. rocinante

    rocinante New Member

    This is the mall ninja, Red Ryder attitude I take exception to. If I am in a class where a Cho shows you better believe he would get lead coming back at him. But I am not going to strip off my shirt and have a superhero costume revealed ready to running to the rescue at the sound of distant gun fire. I am reasonably impervious to insults misterwhipple and quite comfortable with my individual concept of man. Wrap yourself up in yours. Lets all just hope you are on duty when danger rolls in. My duty has a much more concrete and personal limit.
  18. misterwhipple

    misterwhipple New Member

    To rocinante, an apology

    My careless wording offered you insult, Sir, and I ask your pardon. The cowardice and foolishness to which I referred are those of people who would criminalize the use of force in self defense and the reasonable preparations for it.

    If the remainder of my words appeared to unconditionally impugn your manhood, I apologize. I meant them to point out, respectfully but with deliberate force, that if you actually intended everything that your words implied, it would represent a grave failure of character. By rebuking you as I might a friend, rather than a stranger, I overstepped the bounds of propriety, and again I ask your pardon.

    My discourtesy notwithstanding, please allow me to persuade you.

    That is, indeed, your first responsibility, but is it your only one? Would you refuse to help dowse a neighbor's house on fire? If a woman raped in your alleyway screamed for help, would you ignore her, or call 911 then forget about it? Simply from your presence on this forum, I think well enough of you to suspect you would not.

    [emphasis added]

    As you say, Sir. Perhaps these words indicate that your conscience is in fact of nobler character than others of your words might be taken to imply.

    In fact, Sir, all citizens are obliged to assist in so far as they are able in thwarting and capturing persons who commit or attempt a felony in their presence. To say that "CCW are not auxiliary police" is exactly the reverse of reality. "The police are the public and the public are the police." (Robert Peel) Their duty differs from everyone else's in degree only, not in kind.

    In other words, the police may have no duty, as police, to protect any particular individual. All citizens, however, must protect each other from grave harm as ability and occasion may require. Lacking that, there can be no security, no liberty, and no civilization beyond that of the warlord.

    To call this sense of duty "mall ninja" or "superhero" is attacking a straw man. It is no more than acknowledging that each of us owes gratitude for everything he has, down to the breath in his body, to the protection and mutual service of the community at large that he has enjoyed since the moment of his birth (and even before). On that basis, if you were confronted with a choice between personal safety and the safety and liberty of your community, and if you were deliberately to choose your own exclusively, that would indeed be beneath the contempt that I hope and expect you do not, in fact, deserve.

    As a final thought, Sir: one who is impervious to insults generally does not offer them in return.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2008

Share This Page