ABC News Articles - Debates about CCW in general and schools relative to VT shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.

karz10

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
370
Location
NC SC somewhere between the mtns & ocean
I don't know if anyone has posted these before, but here are a couple interesting ABC articles about permits, CCW, and what not...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/guns_make_schoo.html

Guns Make Schools Safer, Gun Group Says
April 17, 2007 4:16 PM

Justin Rood Reports:

The tragic shooting at Virginia Tech underscores the need to allow weapons on campus, according to the leader of a pro-gun group, but a leading public policy expert questions that conclusion.

"The latest school shooting demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen," said Larry Pratt, executive director of the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, in a statement e-mailed to the media Tuesday.

Not so fast, says David Hemenway, a gun control policy expert, professor of health policy at Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

"There's not a lot of evidence one way or the other about gun-free zones," Hemenway told ABC News. "We do know that where there's more guns, there's lots more death. There's more homicides, more suicides, more gun death."

But the Gun Owners of America leader cited facts and statistics to back up his claim. "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun," he asserted in his statement.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

"That's just not right at all," Hemenway said and began reeling off nearly a dozen school shootings and how they ended. "Moses Lake [Washington], a 14-year-old honors student, opens fire in algebra class. He stopped when he was tackled by a teacher...West Paducah, Ky., a 14-year-old kills three students and wounds five others at a prayer group. He drops the pistol when he's approached by a principal and another student. No gun involved," said Hemenway.

And in perhaps the most infamous school shooting before yesterday, the killers at the 1999 Columbine High School massacre took their own lives with the guns they'd used to kill 25 others, hours before a SWAT team stormed the building.

But Pratt had more, "Not far from Virginia Tech, a killer was stopped at the Appalachian School of Law when two students were able to go off campus to their vehicles and get their guns which they used to subdue the killer. Sadly, not even that awkward defense was available at Virginia Tech."

Hemenway said he knew the instance well. "That's the one they always talk about, it's interesting," he told ABC News. In that case, Hemenway said, the killer stopped shooting because he ran out of ammo. The two men who subdued him were off-duty policemen who grabbed not only their guns, but bulletproof vests and handcuffs.

What about examples where allowing guns on campus seems to work? "Isn't it interesting that Utah and Oregon are the only two states that allows faculty to carry guns on campus," Pratt said in his statement, "[and] you haven't read about any school or university shootings in Utah or Oregon?"

Perhaps, Hemenway said. On the other hand, "I don't know of any school shootings in Massachussets, where we have strict gun control laws."

School shootings are -- thankfully -- rare, noted Hemenway. The question public officials must ask is whether having more guns makes Americans more safe. Hemenway said statistics show that in general, firearms don't mix well with colleges, known for combustible elements like heavy drinking and romantic complications. "People get drunk, people get angry, they're going to use their guns."

Looks like they gave the anti a lot more press, but at least they posed the question we all want asked and answered, letting citizens protect themselves in more places, including educational institutions.

Karz
 
Second article:


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/congressman_fro.html

Congressman From Virginia Tech's District Pushed Concealed Weapon Expansion
April 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Justin Rood Reports:

Two months before the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history took place at Virginia Tech, the congressman for the university's district introduced a bill to expand the use of concealed weapons permits nationwide.

Rep. Rick Boucher, the Democratic congressman representing Blacksburg, Va., has received an A+ rating from the NRA as well as $60,000 in campaign contributions from the group during his time in Congress, according to the campaign finance Web site OpenSecrets.org. The NRA has endorsed his concealed weapons bill, which he co-sponsored with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.

The two lawmakers introduced The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act on Feb. 6. If enacted, it would allow concealed weapons carriers licensed by their home state to carry their weapons in other states which also grant such licenses.

THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
Blotter First Gun Bought March 13; No 'Spur of the Moment' Crime
Blotter Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips
Blotter 'I Want to Clear My Name'
Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows
Yesterday, 23-year-old Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho opened fire on students and faculty at the southern Virginia campus using a Glock 9 mm semiautomatic handgun and a .22 caliber pistol and then shot himself. Thirty-two victims have died from his rampage, and more than 20 are injured.

Virginia allows citizens to carry concealed weapons with a permit, but universities and schools such as Virginia Tech do not allow concealed weapons on campus. Boucher's bill would not allow concealed weapons on school campuses.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Neither Boucher nor the NRA immediately responded to requests for comment on the legislation.

In a statement released yesterday, Boucher said he was "deeply saddened" by the shootings. "My thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the families and friends of those who were harmed in this horrific and senseless act."

The NRA yesterday also released a brief statement to say it "joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy."

"We will not have further comment until the facts are known," the group's statement concluded.
Rep. Stearns, who has sponsored similar bills every years since 1995, said in a emailed statement that while he saw "no apparent connections" between the Virginia Tech shootings and his bill, "it has been noted that an armed murderer was stopped in 2002 by armed students" at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia.

The details of that incident have been debated. Some reports at the time noted the shooter's gun was empty, and one participant said the shooter had put down his gun before he knew the students were armed.

In Congress since 1989, Boucher has voted against bills supported by gun control advocates 90 percent of the time, a 2006 study by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence found. He twice voted for bills that would bar Americans from suing gun manufacturers when their products are misused.

Jake Tapper contributed to this story. This post has been revised.

FWIW

Karz
 
And I don't remember the two law students being police either.
 
One of them was off duty (Gross), which is why he also had handcuffs in his car. Bridges was just a student. I don't remember either of them having bullet proof vests though.
 
Jake Tapper contributed to this story. This post has been revised.

Do a quick search on "Jake Tapper" here at THR. He is a former Handgun Control Inc. flunky who is now a reporter at ABC News. I can see that our complaints about letting Tapper cover gun related issues had absolutely no impact on ABC.

Always nice to see a major network just wear their bias openly :rolleyes:
 
"Always nice to see a major network just wear their bias openly."

They aren't as bias as they are business smart. If they side with the CCWers then shootings will become extremley rare. No gun control court cases to report, no school shootings to exploit to the point where people are rediculously tired of hearing about them, and no Million Mom protest marches to report either.
 
Being realistic, CCW on campus is not any guarantee that these incidents will be minimized any more than gun prohibition guarantees safety.

What gun prohibition does guarantee is there is less chance of overcoming a bad guy than if a few random people are armed for defense and present.

I would be much more comfortable for my grandchildren if at least teachers and support staff were CCW at the grammar school/high school level, and there were no prohibitions against carry at Universities.
 
Interesting, ABC edited my comments on the first linked story. Here is what they posted:

I think the columnist gave too much time to Hemenway's thoughts, by comparison Mr. Pratt.
This is common sense to me. If you're a criminal, particularly a cowardly one, ready to prey on children and the defensless, not wanting to face a formidable opponent, where are you going to go to do your damage? Somewhere that you know you will face the least resistance, like 'gun free zone schools'
If you know that the of-age-legal students, older adult students, faculty, peripheral staff, all are unarmed, then you figure you can go for awhile with little resistance.


But here is my entire post:

I think the columnist gave too much time to Hemenway's thoughts, by comparison Mr. Pratt.

This is common sense to me. If you're a criminal, particularly a cowardly one, ready to prey on children and the defensless, not wanting to face a formidable opponent, where are you going to go to do your damage? Somewhere that you know you will face the least resistance, like 'gun free zone schools'

If you know that the of-age-legal students, older adult students, faculty, peripheral staff, all are unarmed, then you figure you can go for awhile with little resistance.

Whereas, if there was a fear that they may face resitance by an armed citizen, it would likely deter many criminals, and if it did not, then at least we'd have a chance that an armed citizen may be present to defend themselves, and potentially end the threat against others. But as it stands now, we have ZERO chance that an armed citizen legally permitted to defend themselves would be able to do so, because of some state laws, or in this case, the state would have allowed someone to protect themselved, but the school's own policy forced law abidiing citizens to remain defensless.

Even an off duty policeman or US Military personnel would likely not legally be allowed to carry their weapon into most of these so called 'gun free zones' because they are law abiding citizens, but obviously it has no effect on the criminal minded, they don't care how many signs you post that guns are illegal or against policy on your property. Instead, the criminal mind likely views that as an opportunity.

I hope we see that if more are allowed to defend themselves, it would be a good thing.


The quote they posted was 13 lines long on their site, and there's another post on that page which is 45 lines long, wonder why they cut mine down?????

Karz
 
look at your post before and after the edit and see how they made the message seem less well thought out and educated.

they didn't just edit/censor your post, they attacked the credibility of your response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top