How to respond to a different "qualification" argument?

[Siderite]

In the wake of the NIU shooting, we at the Purdue Rifle and Pistol Club did a good job of writing in to support campus carry. But the paper also published an editorial against it. Unlike many other anti arguments, it seems to accept that CCWs (or LTCH in Indiana's case) would be able to shoot as well as police, but argues that CCWs wouldn't be able to "diffuse crisis situations."

What's a good way to address this? Are there any crisis management courses that one could take to address this?
Article reproduced below.

(please ignore the other holes in their arguments - as it is telling that they now are willing to sacrifice a classroom full of students to a gunman in order to save a CCW from getting shot by police)

http://purdueexponent.org/?module=article&story_id=10060

Lifting gun restrictions won't solve shootings

By Editorial Board
Publication Date: 02/21/2008

Giving targets in lecture hall shootings the opportunity to shoot back would bring more damage than protection.

The initial response from Exponent letter writers to last week's NIU shooting has proclaimed that Purdue and other schools should lift campus bans on firearms, arguing that students and faculty should be allowed to carry concealed weapons to defend themselves and others in the event of a lecture hall shooting.

There may be several convincing arguments for getting rid of gun-free zones; this isn't one of them.

Envision this scenario: A disillusioned individual carrying a handgun enters a packed lecture hall and opens fire. A lawful gun owner who happens to have a permitted firearm on his or her person feels a civic duty, returning fire. A third person, after recovering from the initial instinct to duck and cover, is pressed by the same civic duty, drawing a third weapon. This third individual likely didn't see where shots came from and now sees two people with drawn weapons. How does this person know who the threat is, or if both shooters are a threat? After a few minutes, police arrive possibly to discover several wounded and three or more people firing shots, unable to immediately determine who is who in the resulting mayhem.

"That's the same problem you have when undercover officers respond to something," said Ron Fosnaugh, a 33-year veteran of the Purdue Police Department who retired in 2003. "You have undercover officers being shot by police officers."

The difference, Fosnaugh said, is that police operations include extensive communication. He also said 99 percent of officers - across Purdue, West Lafayette, Lafayette and Tippecanoe Country departments - recognize each other, giving them a chance to know who the "good guy" is.

If officers still end up shooting each other, despite all that communication and recognition, imagine what would happen if unknown, unrecognized gun owners started responding. Police officers - and even gun owners, who may be trained to shoot well but probably not to diffuse crisis situations - would be confronted by that confusion.

This circumstance seems best avoided.

What should happen is finding a better way to balance individuals' rights with keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally distressed individuals.

Fosnaugh said one characteristic police have seen in NIU-type situations is people knowing an individual could be dangerous and not saying something.

That sounds like a better place to start.

 

[Deanimator]

It isn't a CHL holder's job to "diffuse" (sic) crisis situations. It's his duty to defend himself (and others similarly situated) within the limits of the law(s) relating to the use of deadly force.

The only way to "diffuse" a mass shooting is to shoot the person doing the shooting until he stops shooting. It's the way the police do it, and that's what they want, ISN'T it?

 

[Fly320s]

Isn't it difficult for a person to create a crisis situation if that person has multiple large-diameter holes in his vital organs?

 

[thekomet]

In another thread someone gave three examples of times citizens had stopped armed assailants with their weapons. In all three examples no one mistook the citizens for the aggressor. I would submit that in most of these situations it is obvious to all who the bad guy is, and attention will likely be drawn to him and not a citizen responding with their CCW. Also, someone with a CCW has no obligation to stop the shooter or come to another person's aid; when you draw your weapon you should recognize that you have voluntarily decided to put yourself in harm's way. I think we all recognize much better than others the total responsiblity of owning and carrying a firearm, and we are lucky that there are many who accept this risk and end up saving lives.

 

[CountGlockula]

My response to the Editor...

Editorial Board needs to cover a story on a CCW course...I doubt that will happen, perhaps when when pigs fly.

 

[AndyC]

If some nut is running around shooting folks, I'm not going to be looking at "diffusing" (I expect they mean "defusing", but n.m.) anything; if bullets are flying, I'm not going to be talking to him about his sad childhood.

 

[Standing Wolf]

What should happen is finding a better way to balance individuals' rights with keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally distressed individuals.

Whenever you hear leftist extremists talk about "balancing" rights with this, that, or sixty-thirteen other things, you may be sure the "balance" will mean the loss of rights.

Worked for Lenin. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Mussolini. Worked for Castro. Worked for Idi Amin. Worked for Pol Pot. Worked for Mao.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

How does this person know who the threat is, or if both shooters are a threat?

Is the "shooter" shooting unarmed students? If you answered yes, that person is the threat. If you command the person to drop the gun and they target you, that person is the threat.
I think CCW holders are much more likely to want to diffuse a crisis situation. If a LEO shoots someone he/she gets a couple days off paid leave and free trips to the dept shrink if it bothers him/her mentally.
If an armed citizen shoots someone he/she can be emotionally, physically, and financially ruined over the course of the next couple years in many cases EVEN if it's a good shoot and the DA doesn't press charges or the citizen is found innocent on the criminal side of the courts.

 

[Robert Hairless]

[Duplicate]

 

[Robert Hairless]

That's a more sensible article than might appear at first.

Its concerns are reasonable when CWP holders say they will do anything more than defend their own lives.

It's foolish for CWP holders to claim that they can protect everyone else.

As soon as they make such a claim, reasonable people must look at the possibility of some unknown number of secretly armed people who are untrained to handle active shooter situations and who are likely to act independently when they perceive such a crisis.

That lack of coordination alone--the inability for Bob to communicate with Jim or Harry, each of whom draws his gat and decides to be a savior--is frightening to contemplate in a classroom or lecture hall under attack. The article explains why.

There's no need to make such an overreaching claim in order to justify allowing CWP holders to retain their firearms on campus. The simple argument can be convincing: CWP holders are trusted to behave responsibly on the streets and we have the means to defend our lives there, so there's no reason to believe that we would behave irresponsibly on campus if we have the means to defend our lives there too.

There's nothing wrong with wanting the means to defend yourself, especially in places that attract people who want to murder defenseless victims. That's a reasonable and understandable drive, and that argument is reasonable too.

It's also reasonable to argue that if you successfully defend your own life against a direct attack the attacker can't go on to hurt other people. By stopping him when he has attacked you, everyone else benefits too. It's an indirect benefit for other people, most especially those who are unarmed and defenseless.

But the moment you argue that you can protect others directly the door springs open to question the reasonableness of that claim. I don't think there's any way to answer those questions reasonably. You've already said that you'll leap into action if you see someone enter a classroom and start to shoot people. Bob said so too, as did Harry and Jim, and if you're all as good as your word the bullets will start flying in all directions. You can't signal Bob, Harry, and Jim that you have a clear shot and they need to hold off: no radios, no signals, no coordinated training, no protocol, and no discipline.

Me, I'd rather take my chances with one shooter than five in that classroom.

Worse still, claims by CWP holders that they will protect other people is so untenable that it casts serious doubt on whether they are reasonable and can be trusted to behave reasonably.

By its overreaching claims the argument works against allowing CWP holders to carry on campus as they do off campus.

It's a losing argument. I'd scrap it and back away from it as fast as possible. Argue instead for your right of self defense on campus as well as off campus, for your ability to behave reasonably and responsibly, for your trustworthiness, and--at most--for the potential indirect benefit to those who either choose not to have a permit or who are unable to have one.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I agree completely with Robert. CWP holders are not cops, but they shouldn't be defenseless and in protecting themselves everyone MAY benefit. You aren't "securing the area", you are defending yourself, nothing more as far as that argument is concerned.

 

[Siderite]

After thinking things over, I have to agree with Robert Hairless. However, I feel like some benefit to the student body is necessary to convince them that, beyond being the right thing to do, concealed carry on campus is a good idea.

So what is a good way to emphasize the "indirect" benefits without over-simplifying to the "direct" benefits?

 

[strat81]

when you draw your weapon you should recognize that you have voluntarily decided to put yourself in harm's way.

Absolutely correct.

When I decided to carry a gun every day, I did it for my own safety but with the understanding that it might get me killed. While the "Wild West" shootout described in the article and by the-sky-is-falling crowd has failed to materialize, it is a remote possibility.

I'd rather die by a good person trying to do the right thing than by a bad person doing the wrong thing. I will be very upset if I don't die "on my feet."

 

[Robert Hairless]

Good. These are tough goals to achieve but there's no point in making them tougher and, besides, it's important to be honest.

Start from the right place every time. Your CWP gives you solid credentials about your background, character, and personality. Most other people on campus--not only students but also professors, administrators, and perhaps even the president--don't have.

You've passed an FBI background check and probably even checks by state and local law enforcement: how many others on campus have that distinction?

Those checks demonstrate that you and other CWP holders are not violent people, not wife beaters or domestic abusers, sexual offendesr, or have a history of emotional or mental instability: how many others can prove that?

Like all other CWP holders your behavior is monitored so that you lose your permit instantly (in some states within 24 hours) if you misbehave: how many others are checked that way? In some states even several traffic tickets within a few years is cause for permit revocation.

So you're demonstrably safer and more stable than most others on campus--not only other students but also faculty, administrators, and other employees.

You're therefore the least likely people on any college campus to run amok or do something dangerously stupid. You are a valuable asset, never a liability or risk, on campus. The CWP is in fact probably the best assurance of character and lawfulness that an ordinary citizen can produce. Colleges should be making special efforts to attract CWP holders as students--and faculty and administrators too.

So why shouldn't you be allowed the means to defend your own life on campus as you can off campus?

I would ask directly what there is about your campus that would immediately transform good, decent, lawful people in the world outside your campus into homicidal lunatics or irresponsible shooters the moment they step onto your campus. If there is such a transformation it isn't you or other CWP holders that cause it. So it must be the campus and whatever is wrong with it, and the immediate focus needs to be on fixing what's wrong. If the problem is other students who are less responsble or honest, penalize them instead of you. If it's the president and other adminstrators who are dangerous and unstable, exchange them for decent people who are competent to provide a suitable environment. Fix what's wrong, instead of trying to fix what isn't wrong.

If there's nothing wrong with the campus and since we can demonstate that there is nothing wrong with you and other CWP holders, ask what is the motive for denying you the means to defend your life. The burden really does shift from you to them. It's not a ploy or a tactic. It's a real shift that deserves real attention.

The NRA soon will hold its 137th annual convention. Those conventions are attended by gun owners but there has never been a mass murder at an NRA convention. Any day at an NRA convention is safer than at your college.

There also has never been a mass murder at a gun show or in a gun shop.

In fact there has never been a mass murder at events or in places known for the presence of ordinary citizens who have firearms there.

When it is known that there are armed citizens at place or event, criminals and the mentally deranged tend to look elsewhere for victims. They might be crazy but they're not that crazy.

And when it is public knowledge that at least some of the citizens are armed but it is not known which of them are armed, the protection spreads to those who are unarmed too. Your CWP becomes an invisible umbrella for other people because the potential killer can't know that they are unarmed unless they tell him so. Soon enough the campus becomes Russian Roulette for a criminal: can she defend herself with a gun if he tries to rape her, or is it the girl in the next dormitory or room, or could it be most or all of them?

No one necessarily needs to display a firearm to deter violence. The situation itself is a deterrence.

If you were one of the first students at Virginia Tech attacked by Cho and you stopped him, no one else would have been killed. The newspaper report would have been a minor story, not a major worldwide event.

And in fact that's probably the real story here. It's an ongoing major story about a failed policy--gun free zones, especially on college campuses--that costs innocent people their lives and creates widespred fear on campuses.

Since it hasn't worked, doesn't work, can't work, and will never work to protect people, our college adinistrators and legislators are committed to continuing it and the students applaud. There is something dreadfully wrong with them.

Say so, don't wander off into self defeating arguments, don't let yourself be maneuvered into making them, and never back down. It's a matter of life and death for everyone.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I'd rather die by a good person trying to do the right thing than by a bad person doing the wrong thing. I will be very upset if I don't die "on my feet."

There's a fatal disconnect between those two thoughts. In the first you are a bystander. In the second you are a participant. It's a serious confusion endemic to that kind of thinking.

And in fact when you are dead you won't be the least bit upset if you "died on your feet" or in your bed. If you can prove otherwise after you are dead, please correct me then and I will most certainly reconsider. I also will give you a chocolate chip cookie and we can have a nice chat.

You certainly can advocate your thoughts as a reason why CWP holders should be allowed to carry on college campuses. Please tell us if that approach works in convincing people who fear guns and are opposed to letting CWP holders carry on campus?

I don't think that many such people will be swayed by an argument that attempts to convince them that it's good for them to "die on their feet" by shots from CWP holders attempting to save their lives. "It's better if I kill you then if someone else does, because he doesn't love you the way I do" is not going to get anywhere good with me.

 

[Caimlas]

If an act of violence has already been initiated against you, the only appropriate response is violence - until said threat ceases. That is the role and purpose of a CCW, not to arrest the aggressor and get him to chill out enough to sit down and have tea and crumpets with you.

Besides, only one question needs to be asked in response to that (a rhetorical one): would conflict aversion and descelation training have helped in any of the recent (past 10 or so years) school shootings? The answer is no (feel free to provide it for them). By the time they were in the building with the guns, their minds were already decided as to what course of action they were going to take. You do not enter into such a situation lightly - there is going to be either a long period of mental preparation for such an event, severe mental disability, or both.

The use of conflict de-escalation is, as near as I can tell, largely for the psychological benefit of the officer and to help prevent unnecessary deaths due to misunderstandings. If cops had to shoot every violent person they encountered, they'd have a pretty high body count by the ends of their careers.

 

[El Tejon]

Bring me over the bridge. I'll load my pistols with sims and we'll have a member of the Exponent attack a lecture hall. I will not diffuse the situation, I will resolve it, most certainly.

Crisis Management Courses:

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/

http://www.gunsite.com/

http://www.tdiohio.com/

http://www.shootrite.org/

http://www.yfainc.com/

et al, inter alia.

 

[Caimlas]

Its concerns are reasonable when CWP holders say they will do anything more than defend their own lives.

It's foolish for CWP holders to claim that they can protect everyone else.

Proactively taking the guy with the gun in the room out, before he points it at you, is a measured and reasonable response, and certainly a case of self preservation. The fact that others' lives may have been/may be saved in the process is largely inconsequential to any motivations to act quickly.

when you draw your weapon you should recognize that you have voluntarily decided to put yourself in harm's way.

No. Absolutely incorrect.

If you are drawing your weapon, you damn well better already be in harm's way.

Sure, there are situations where you're willingly putting yourself in harm's way (ie, charging out into the hall to go look for the shooter - something that's brave/stupid/dangerous on several levels), but if you draw your weapon after baricading you and others within a classroom, you sure as hell aren't stepping into harm's way - you're preparing against harm, because it's already coming your way.

 

[JesseL]

Crisis 'diffused' with no one killed > Crisis stopped by on-scene CCW holder killing BG > BG killing people until cops arrive and stop him or he runs out of ammo

Allowing a responsible citizen to act for the defense of themselves and others is an improvement over allowing madmen to rampage unopposed, no matter how you cut it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Caimles,

this bears repeating!

If you are drawing your weapon, you damn well better already be in harm's way.

Selena

 

[Ed Ames]

There are four distinct types of incident with very different attacker/victim profiles.


1) Mass Attacks. This is your basic mall/school random shooting. The goal of the attacker is maximum harm. The profile of the victim is "anyone within line of sight." In that scenario any CCW within line of sight is the victim and responding is self defense.

2) Directed attacks in public places. This is your "got a list and if your name is on it watch out" revenge homicide where the attack takes place in public. In that case simply being present does not necessarily make you a victim in the technical sense. The problem is distinguishing between these and the first group... they don't exactly carry signs saying "don't worry I'm just after Mike, Thomas, and Susan."

3) Opportunity crimes which use guns. These can be random gang initiation violence, rapes, muggings, and so on. The victim is usually clearly identified and the CCW will be able to tell if they are the victim. This is where most of the "I'll save the day" type comments from CCW holders get fuzzy. If you are being raped it's pretty clear self defense... if someone else is being chased by someone with a gun... well, the chaser might be a rapist or a cop, you just don't know.

4) Mutual Aggression. Two people are fighting. Maybe it's road rage between strangers, maybe they are coworkers or room mates, maybe they're married, maybe they are siblings or otherwise blood relations. Here's where conflict resolution comes into play. Chances are the two sides don't want to kill each other. Chances are they're just really pissed off right at the moment. If one of the parties is a CCW holder they are buying themselves a world of hurt to be in that fight in the first place... if a CCW holder encounters such a fight... well, they aren't cops, they aren't involved, but the fear is that people won't be able to resist getting involved.

Conflict resolution is only really important for the last category... and then it's really conflict avoidance (how to walk away from a fight)... unless the CCW holder steps over the line and starts playing cop, breaking up fights between friends and strangers.

Sadly, breaking up fights between friends is a pretty common thing... I'm sure most of us have broken up a fight or two in our lives.

 

[Henry Bowman]

If there's nothing wrong with the campus and since we can demonstate that there is nothing wrong with you and other CWP holders, ask what is the motive for denying you the means to defend your life. The burden really does shift from you to them. It's not a ploy or a tactic. It's a real shift that deserves real attention.

Remember, it's not about "granting the right to pack hidden, loaded guns on campus" or "arming students and teachers," it's about restoring rights and removing bans.

 

[longrifleman]

I'd like to reinforce one of Robert's points, as I think it is the core issue here. The uncertainty of who is armed is the general benefit to the campus at large. Deterence is more important than actually shooting back.

If these nutjobs can't be sure of a high body count, maybe they'll just off themselves and leave the rest of us alone. We can hope.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Does anyone else see a difference between stating their principles to fellow members of a gun forum and attempting to persuade apprehensive people on a college campus?

If not, please go immediately to the special class being held for you in the forum's main building--the one with the ivy on it, and look for the signs directing you to the main auditorium. Please don't whistle at the virtual co-eds you see along the way. Be sure to bring your certificates of training and autographed photos of Jeff Cooper so you can show them to students you meet along the way. If the students aren't impressed or have no idea why you think they ought to be, sneer at them contemptuously and insult them for their ignorance.

And if the decision goes against CWP holders, just leave your name and contact information with the university president. Then if there's an active shooter incident you can rush right over and save everyone. You'll find conveniently located telephone booths at many locations so you can change into your Superman costume once you arrive. Be sure to cover the glass in those booths because the campus cops don't like flashers, except for Bugeyed Harry but then you have to handle him on your own.

While you're taking down the menace be sure to yell "It's my right!" a lot. The louder the better. It will impress the audience, distinguish you as someone with principles, and be a great sound bite on the 10 PM news.

If more than one of you arrive at the same time, please work out some method of ensuring that you don't shoot more than one innocent person each. Remember the bag limit. There are substantial fines for exceeding it.

 

[Caimlas]

Oh yeah, in your response, be sure to sound pretentious/pompous/erudite without being overtly offensive (but due try to retain the point and not misuse words). College campuses are full of people who use too many big words to explain fairly simple concepts. (Seriously.)