Volokh and Reynolds on school shootings
Prof. Gene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds discuss them on Hugh Hewitt. Transcript here.
The opening, by Prof. Reynolds: "I certainly think so. I actually have quite a few students who have permits to carry concealed weapons. One of them, in fact, was on the Springfield Armory National Pistol Team. And if they were armed in my classroom, I would feel enormously safe. And in fact, actually, after the Virginia Tech shooting, last year, one of those students came up to me and she asked if we could have class off-campus, because she’s not allowed to carry on campus. "
The guy was a grad student in sociology...How many of those even know which end of a gun to hold? 'Nother nihilist decides nothing's worth living for and decides to inflict that decision on others. Bah...evil hateful coward. One prof or grad student in the room with a concealed carry permit could have saved lives and prevented injuries.
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at February 15, 2008 03:34 PM
Two money quotes from the NYSlimes article on it:
In recent weeks, Stephen Kazmierczak turned erratic after suspending an unidentified medication.
“I’ve worked very hard as a student,” Mr. Kazmierczak wrote. “I feel that I’m committed to social justice.”
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at February 15, 2008 03:42 PM
Sorry for the piecemeal posting...
“There were no red flags,” Mr. Grady said. Later, he told The Chicago Sun-Times, “It’s unlikely that anyone would ever have the ability to stop an incident like this from beginning.”
True, perhaps, but it could have ended a lot sooner.
John G. Peters, the university’s president, said that “we did everything we could to ensure the safety of the university.”
...except allow folks in that room the right to defend their own lives.
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at February 15, 2008 03:45 PM
Obviously this suicide attacker wasn't deterred by murder being against the law.
It's time we referred to them as "suicide attackers" ... words mean things.
Posted by: bill-tb at February 15, 2008 05:20 PM
Bill, I like the idea, but the term will be stolen and used against (gun) rights folks. They'll play the terrorism angle, and in the likely event of them taking over the country this fall is that something good?
At least there are some students who have a brain, the one asking for class off campus is one of them.
Posted by: Tom at February 15, 2008 10:00 PM
The notion that a suicide attacker can be prevented, from either obtaining the means necessary to carry out the attack or by calling the police once the attack has commenced is pure folly. There is now enough public experience with suicide attackers and the US military to know, that the only defense is either armor or immediately available overwhelming counter force at the point of attack, at the time of attack. Without this immediately available counter force to halt the attack, there is no answer. Notice I did not say prevent, their is no prevention, only mitigation of the effects of the suicicde attack. Look at all the recent school shooting examples and sort them into categories. Which were stopped before the suicide attacker committed suicide, and which were not.
It is terrorism, what do you think the purpose of mounting the suicide attack is in the first place.
I don't think the words can be used against us, I do think the public understands full well what the words mean "suicide attacker", and knows instinctively that the only response is immediately available counter force -- Because that is all you can do. Police are good at chalk lines, never have been much good at protection. Laws are generally no use at preventing suicide attackers, otherwise laws against murder, ie the gas chamber, would suffice.
It's time we went forward with this, or something like this, to counter the hysteria of "if he only had taken his pills" or "no one taking these pills can have a gun" nonsense. Life is what it is, and when a suicide attacker walks on the stage, if you are not at that instance able to bring counter force to the target, you are in big trouble -- As we have seen over and over and over again.
As the success with CCW permits has shown, when we confront the nonsense and hysteria with truth, truth will win.
Gun control is building as an issue, it's one of the few things Democrats have ever known how to do, control people, so we better suit up and get ready.
Democrats in one easy sentence -- Gun control, raise taxes, fund radical leftists social policies. Some things never change.
Posted by: bill-tb at February 16, 2008 06:46 AM
Yes, it IS a suicide attack, however, it's NOT terrorism, that is unless the shooters are working for the Joyce foundation. They have no purpose but to kill. Terrorism is a tactic, and has a goal, to implement some change through fear or the "surprise attack" that can and does occur anywhere. These are suicidal attacks, the person lashes out and then fears facing the consequences and having to answer for his actions, and offs himself. It's VERY different from a suicide attack where killing oneself is the means of the attack.
Words are constantly used against us, either throwing every "hate group" label they can or redefining the language itself. "Common sense" gun laws anyone?
Gun folks largely cannot win. We spend our time mostly talking to ourselves. We have no credible media outlets that are willing to educate the masses. When we do engage them, beyond a one on one situation the group think takes over and the anti-rights people operate on emotion, not interested or capable of understand the truth and facts. There may be some who will listen, but it's got to be a small willing group.
Gun control continues to be an issue because gun owners don;t stand up publicly in the numbers that they should. March on the capital, illegals do it and almost got away with amnesty. If you wish to relate these attacks to terrorism, then I suggest we have to fight it, and the gun control that makes is possible time and time again, with a show of overwhelming force. Numbers and bodies showing they're willing to stand up and demand their rights, not make excuses why they can't make it to a march or rally or do anything.
Honestly, it's like we've got "republican party syndrome," the only time we do anything is when we're the minority or up against a wall. We give away the hill and have to fight hole to hole just to get back to it, let alone up it.
Posted by: Tom at February 16, 2008 07:23 AM
I prefer the term 'demoniac' which the Heller brief cited from an 18th Century incident of this sort...
Posted by: Gildas at February 16, 2008 08:12 AM