Seanwins
Member
Im going to write letter to the editor of our school newspaper, if not a full-blown article.
Will it be another Virginia Tech?
- Thread starter Seanwins
- Start date
- Status
ZeSpectre
Member
Bravo!
If you post it here first you may get some useful feedback/review before you send it to the school newspaper.
If you post it here first you may get some useful feedback/review before you send it to the school newspaper.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
And say what? Is that your attempt at working toward the goal of concealed carry on campus? It is legal to carry on campus in Washington, but simply not allowed by school rule? If so, then the paper is a start. If not, you are just spinning your wheels making an appeal to the wrong location.
Really? What criminological data says the only way to stop such a gunman is with return fire? My guess is that is a biased interpretation of the data. You must fight back to stop a gunman, not barricade and not run run, although barricading and running may save your life, it won't stop the gunman. Fighting back is the key. In fact, unarmed response has proven effective in school shootings, when it has been employed...
http://nysut.org/newyorkteacher/2003-2004/040225columbiahighschool.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loukaitis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_High_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myers_High_School_shooting
I would not want to fight back unarmed, but it has worked, albeit very dangerous. The point here is that fighting back is a key to bringing these events to an end. It would be nice to do it with guns, but if not armed, some sort of counter attack seems prudent if you wish to put an end to the attack.
Really? What criminological data says the only way to stop such a gunman is with return fire? My guess is that is a biased interpretation of the data. You must fight back to stop a gunman, not barricade and not run run, although barricading and running may save your life, it won't stop the gunman. Fighting back is the key. In fact, unarmed response has proven effective in school shootings, when it has been employed...
http://nysut.org/newyorkteacher/2003-2004/040225columbiahighschool.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Loukaitis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_High_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myers_High_School_shooting
I would not want to fight back unarmed, but it has worked, albeit very dangerous. The point here is that fighting back is a key to bringing these events to an end. It would be nice to do it with guns, but if not armed, some sort of counter attack seems prudent if you wish to put an end to the attack.
ZeSpectre
Member
Jeez DNS, at least he's said he'll try and do -something-. Let's try and -encourage-.
Zundfolge
Member
No, the debate will go on as it has now because the news reports will either call the law abiding CHL holder a "law enforcement officer", or the CHL holder's actions will be ignored and the first police on the scene will get the credit just like they have every other time an obvious mass shooting is stopped by an armed citizen.
The_Shootist
Member
Ummm
Dunno how the CHL owners actions are going to be ignored. Isn't falsifying a police report borderline felony when we are talking a fatal shooting? What would the newspapers say? That the perp tripped and felll onto 3-4 .38 cal slugs?
Dunno how the CHL owners actions are going to be ignored. Isn't falsifying a police report borderline felony when we are talking a fatal shooting? What would the newspapers say? That the perp tripped and felll onto 3-4 .38 cal slugs?
frankie_the_yankee
Member
The Shootist says......
You must be unaware of the shooting at Applachain Law School a couple of years ago. A disgruntled student about to be kicked out brought a gun to the campus and started shooting. If memory serves, he killed a Dean and a student and wounded another student.
Two other students (I think one was an off duty cop) saw what was happening and ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. Running back to the scene, they pointed their guns at the shooter and ordered them to drop his, which he did. He was then subdued by several students, including at least one of the ones who had confronted him at gunpoint.
In the many news accounts of this incident, the overwhelming majority simply reported that the shooter was "tackled" by other students without mentioning that legally carried guns were involved.
John Lott did a Lexis-Nexis search and wrote an article about this which you can probably find on his website. Out of several hundred news stories, only a handful mentioned that the guy was stopped by students wielding their own guns.
No false police report was involved. The reporters simply wrote their stories as they saw fit. One news outlet claimed that mention of the students' guns was left out due to "lack of space".
What most people don't realize is that if it happens more than a few feet away from you, and you don't hear about it from others, including newspapers, TV news, etc., as far as you know it never happened at all.
News editors take advantage of this to shape the public's perception of current events. And this goes double for any news of crimes stopped by non-LEO's legally carrying guns.
That's why a few hundred thousand crimes (some say up to 2.5 million) can be stopped by good guys with guns every year without most people ever hearing about it.
You must be unaware of the shooting at Applachain Law School a couple of years ago. A disgruntled student about to be kicked out brought a gun to the campus and started shooting. If memory serves, he killed a Dean and a student and wounded another student.
Two other students (I think one was an off duty cop) saw what was happening and ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. Running back to the scene, they pointed their guns at the shooter and ordered them to drop his, which he did. He was then subdued by several students, including at least one of the ones who had confronted him at gunpoint.
In the many news accounts of this incident, the overwhelming majority simply reported that the shooter was "tackled" by other students without mentioning that legally carried guns were involved.
John Lott did a Lexis-Nexis search and wrote an article about this which you can probably find on his website. Out of several hundred news stories, only a handful mentioned that the guy was stopped by students wielding their own guns.
No false police report was involved. The reporters simply wrote their stories as they saw fit. One news outlet claimed that mention of the students' guns was left out due to "lack of space".
What most people don't realize is that if it happens more than a few feet away from you, and you don't hear about it from others, including newspapers, TV news, etc., as far as you know it never happened at all.
News editors take advantage of this to shape the public's perception of current events. And this goes double for any news of crimes stopped by non-LEO's legally carrying guns.
That's why a few hundred thousand crimes (some say up to 2.5 million) can be stopped by good guys with guns every year without most people ever hearing about it.
carebear
Member
Think it through a little more before criticising the sarcasm (which was more directed at the concept and not you).
Several problems with metal detectors.
There has to be one at every entry point and, as you point out, it has to be monitored by someone with the capability (armed) to stop someone who sets it off or tries to go around it from getting past. Just because the unmonitored fire doors are alarmed doesn't mean they can't be rigged to allow a shooter entry, heck, if there are two of them, one goes in unarmed through the detector and oppens the obscure back fire door for the second it takes his partner to bring in the bag of guns.
Even if the shooter goes through the "detector door", why wouldn't that person, who is looking to commit homicide anyway, simply execute the guard immediately prior to entering the detector or even after it goes off? With false alarms being incredibly common the guard can't "draw down" on every alarm (think about the number of times they go off at the airport, where people have decades of knowing better than to carry metal objects).
So, in either event, the shooter will have the element of surprise on the guard.
Also, go somewhere busy (say a campus building at a class change time) and just watch how many people try to get through the doors all at once. Now go to anywhere with a metal detectopr (like a Federal building) and watch how even a small group of people back up at the security checkpoint. Now think about the line that would form in front of the campus building detector. The detector has just provided an easy clump of victims for the shooter without him having to even enter the building (though it would be worse if the detector were in the lobby leaving the students trapped between the shooter and the barrier). The armed guard on the other side of the detector wouldn't be able to react due to the crush of people between them and the shooter.
Detectors are for deterrance only, and anyone with half a brain, who's determined, will get past it with little inability to commit their crimes.
That's where the sarcasm comes from.
Elza
Member
Or else the CHL will be vilified and prosecuted. Then the perp will be depicted as some poor misguided soul who only did something bad because he had access to those evil guns. It seems to work well for the U.K.
Autolycus
Member
Tag for later.
Seanwins
Member
Carebear: You're right, I should have said metal detectors plural.
And I agree with you that they would be less than 100% effective, but what would? Possibly, full blown airport style security with armed guards x-ray machines and metal detectors with bomb-sniffing dogs? And even with all that, might not someone shoot the armed guards and the bomb-sniffing dogs after being discovered? It's possible. Even likely!
The BG could blast every person at the security checkpoint but I feel that's the problem they (the university and the state) have to solve if they want to "do what's in my best interest" and remove my ability to protect myself.
That, in fact, is the point of the thread. I desire is to be able to legally carry my handgun on campus so that I can at least defend myself, as any measures they are likely to take will be inadequate.
The thread isn't about metal detectors.
And I agree with you that they would be less than 100% effective, but what would? Possibly, full blown airport style security with armed guards x-ray machines and metal detectors with bomb-sniffing dogs? And even with all that, might not someone shoot the armed guards and the bomb-sniffing dogs after being discovered? It's possible. Even likely!
The BG could blast every person at the security checkpoint but I feel that's the problem they (the university and the state) have to solve if they want to "do what's in my best interest" and remove my ability to protect myself.
That, in fact, is the point of the thread. I desire is to be able to legally carry my handgun on campus so that I can at least defend myself, as any measures they are likely to take will be inadequate.
The thread isn't about metal detectors.
Autolycus
Member
Please post some links to this criminological data.
Autolycus
Member
Please explain how socialists have anything to do with this? As well as liberals?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Then there is the side of the story put forth by Ted Nugent of the NRA on CNN where he described those two students as legally armed average students. He failed to mention that the two armed students were NOT average at all, but that both were off duty cops. He failed to mention that not only were guns retrieved from their vehicles, but that one also put on a ballistic vest and got handcuffs. Nugent didn't bother to mention the unarmed student who assisted in the takedown. In short, the carrying guns legally students were not CCW holders, but trained law enforcement officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/com...ent/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
Colleges have "no gun" rules for 1 reason:
LIABILITY.
The college does not want to be sued.
If the college does not "prohibit" weapons on campus and just one student dies, even if the shooting was justifiable... it would cost the school millions.
School shootings by deranged lunatics are relatively rare, so they are willing to take the odds.
They administrators care not a whit if you die. It does not affect them personally in any way. Sure they get on TV and tell about the tragedy but to them you are a number that send them money every four months.
So far Cho hasn't cost VT one cent from law suits.
And I suspect that the courts will find that the school is not liable in any way for Cho's actions (and they shouldn't be, IMO).
Now if someone who had a CCW died because of the VT policy, then yes I believe they have a wrongful death suit with merit. And the college should pay. (Just like I think that every murder victim in NY, DC, LA, and Cook Co. should sue the respective cities when they die. Hey if a judge in a Gary court can say a lawsuit against firearms manufacturers can go forward, then turnabout is fair play.)
FWIW, after I got my license, I carried every day in college. That was over a dozen years ago. Nobody ever gave me a policy handbook. I never looked, or asked, if their was a weapons policy. It never even crossed my mind. Maybe I was young and naive for not asking. At the time, when I had thoughts about some loon walking though the building and shooting up classrooms, and I thought I was crazy. I guess not. But I also know that my route to and from school was one of the worst parts of town, and campus was adjacent to that part of town. I never gave it a second thought, I had a permit and I carried.
EDIT:
My apologies for the gross generalization.
LIABILITY.
The college does not want to be sued.
If the college does not "prohibit" weapons on campus and just one student dies, even if the shooting was justifiable... it would cost the school millions.
School shootings by deranged lunatics are relatively rare, so they are willing to take the odds.
They administrators care not a whit if you die. It does not affect them personally in any way. Sure they get on TV and tell about the tragedy but to them you are a number that send them money every four months.
So far Cho hasn't cost VT one cent from law suits.
And I suspect that the courts will find that the school is not liable in any way for Cho's actions (and they shouldn't be, IMO).
Now if someone who had a CCW died because of the VT policy, then yes I believe they have a wrongful death suit with merit. And the college should pay. (Just like I think that every murder victim in NY, DC, LA, and Cook Co. should sue the respective cities when they die. Hey if a judge in a Gary court can say a lawsuit against firearms manufacturers can go forward, then turnabout is fair play.)
FWIW, after I got my license, I carried every day in college. That was over a dozen years ago. Nobody ever gave me a policy handbook. I never looked, or asked, if their was a weapons policy. It never even crossed my mind. Maybe I was young and naive for not asking. At the time, when I had thoughts about some loon walking though the building and shooting up classrooms, and I thought I was crazy. I guess not. But I also know that my route to and from school was one of the worst parts of town, and campus was adjacent to that part of town. I never gave it a second thought, I had a permit and I carried.
EDIT:
My apologies for the gross generalization.
Last edited:
ZeSpectre
Member
I take STRONG exception to that statement.
tinygnat219
Member
Tell that to Liviu Lebrescu, the faculty member who used his body to protect fleeing students.
Sorry, but your post is at best ignorant. I suggest you actually read up some on what these teachers and administrators are capable of. It's the leadership at these schools that are the problem.
ZeSpectre
Member
Sad proof that lessons are NOT being learned...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3871999#post3871999
Pardon me while I go off and bang my head on a wall.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3871999#post3871999
Pardon me while I go off and bang my head on a wall.
I'm sorry, but if they cared they would give/teach them the tools and tactics needed to increase the chances of survival in these situations. Just like they would teach their teenage daughters what to do if someone tried to pull them into a car. If they can't treat their students the same as they treat their own flesh and blood then they're hypocrits and they are worried about money more than the students' lives. That's just the way I see it, and I apologize if I offended you.
Playing dead and not looking the psycopath in the eye (or whatever else the school might recommend) are non-violent means that might be effective in some situations.
I suspect there were many dead students who didn't look Cho in the eyes.
Sometimes violence is the only route to survival, and we need to trust in the fact that normal law-abiding people know the difference.
If they cared they would say, "Under some circumstances it's OK to go berzerk and kill your attacker by any means you have at hand." But they always preach non-violence with complete exclusion of acceptable violent responses.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Well gee, let's carry this further. If the parents and guardians of all those kids that were killed actually cared about their kids, they would have sent them all to survival school before sending them to college, high school, or junior high. I am fairly certain none had been to survival school, ergo, the parents are hypcrits too.
Basically, what you are saying is that virtually all school administrators and faculty who aren't involved in teaching self defense tactics and strategies to teach kids how to survive in a very rare type of event are hypocrits.
What about high rise building fires. You teach your kids what to do if trapped in a high rise that is on fire? Have you taught your kids what to do in case they are at a location of a terrorists attack, be it bombing or gunfire? Do you kids know what to do in case of an NBC attack? If not your kids, have you taught these things to all your loved ones? How about your friends?
Hypocrit...and I apologize if I have offended you.
Zundfolge
Member
The newspapers paraphrase the police reports, not quote them.
Example. The police report says "perpetrator opened fire with an SKS rifle", newspaper report says "perpetrator opened fire with a high powered assault rifle."
Most people never see the actual police report.
Colorado Springs Police post their police blotter here ... and you'd be amazed how much embellishment and alteration there is between that blotter and what shows up on the TV news.
Socialists and their intellectual brethren; liberals (as defined in the context of modern American politics) require the complete servitude and dependence of the populace to the state. Therefore most of them support disarmament of the citizenry and inadequate "non-violent" response tactics taught as a means to this end.
Instead of allowing people the right to carry weapons which they could protect themselves with the school administration and the government denies them that legal right and forbids most students from carrying weapons on campus.
Most of the hand wringing weapons related phobia comes from liberals who would like to force their beliefs and ways down the throats of the rest of us (just because they're scared of people actually exercising their freedom) and since they follow what's essentially socialism that's just watered down a little to make it taste a little better to the American public that's why I used the terms "Liberals and Socialists".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
If you read what they're about they're basically the same.
The Labour Party in the UK is a sister to the left wing of the American Democratic party.
*sigh*
I am only lamenting that only passive tactics are taught/encouraged, and that a policy maker that preaches that stuff would never tell his 17 old daughter in a rape situation "Don't make him mad, don't challenge him, talk in a calm voice, just give him what he wants and don't look him in the eye."
"Tactics" doesn't necesarily mean ninja skills. A class room full of healthy college students rushing Cho after the first shot could have ended it very quickly. Yes I'm sure some may have been injured or killed anyway, but I would rather die fighting that merely waiting my turn to be executed.
Seanwins
Member
WHAT DO YOU KNOW????? THIS HAPPENED TODAY
Too bad the teachers weren't armed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=492268&in_page_id=1811
Too bad the teachers weren't armed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=492268&in_page_id=1811
Last edited:
- Status
