« J. Neil Schulman book, free download | Main | Instapunk on Va Tech's administration »
Column by V. Tech student
"Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.
First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.
Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.
Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.
Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness."
29 Comments | Leave a comment
Doesn't Virginia have "de facto" handgun registration? I thought their system involved obtaining pistol purchase permits (albeit, rather easy to obtain) from the sheriff/county?
Virginia does not have handgun registration. It did have such a system in the 1940's but that law was removed. [URL=http://www.virginia1774.org/StallingsvWall.html]Stallings v. Wall, 235 Va. 313 (1988)[/URL] . The law and the Supreme Court ruling was overturned by Va. Code. ยง15.2-915.
Those poor people were made into sheep by the Virginia Techs anti-gun administration. How many times have we heard that the police are the only people qualified to be armed, only to see the cops standing by unable to stop this sort of thing from happening? How long will it be before the powers that be realize that the best answer to this sort of incident is an armed teacher or student who can put it to a stop? One professor stood in front of a door and gave his life to save the lives of his students. Imagine if this professor, and Israeli citizen, had been able to use a gun to shoot the perpetrator, rather than just stand there and sacrifice himself. God bless him. Bless the victims, but damn the shooter, and damn the stupid school bureaucrats who made sure that everyone on that campus was set up to be a victim.
The lessons are:
1) be armed
2) fight back
3) don't stop moving
One professor stood in front of a door and gave his life to save the lives of his students. Imagine if this professor, and Israeli citizen, had been able to use a gun to shoot the perpetrator, rather than just stand there and sacrifice himself.
That's one story I haven't heard yet. Anyone have a link I can follow with more details?
Imagine if that brave professor had a taser. Or mace. Or even a cup of clorine bleach. He could have immobilized the attacker and disarmed him. Guns are not the only answer to personal defense. They are just the strongest. They also have the most sever consequences in accidents, and mishandling.
The thing about guns is that they induce an immediate, visceral fear when you look down the barrel. That's why no one fights back. Police, SWAT teams, soldiers, are all trained to deal with this fear. They are also trained in how to use their own weapons around innocent civilians.
You are seriously putting forth the idea that using a taser on an armed, murderous madman is a good solution?
I guess it's better than nothing, but you would have to surprise him from behind or be pretty damn fast on the trigger...
Give me a 10mm slug speeding at his noggin at 1,300 feet per second.
Can you find a gun in a purse, thumb the safety off, chamber a round, aim and fire that fast?
The same problem occurs with a taser. The critical difference is that if you miss, the chances of injuring a bystander are much less than a wildly fired gun. I imagine that chances are about even that aiming a weapon, taser or gun, will trigger instant firing from an assailant.
> Can you find a gun in a purse, thumb the safety off, chamber a round, aim and fire that fast?
I can do that a lot faster than I can prepare a cup of bleach.
Most of the victims heard the guy shoot other people, minutes before.
Yes, some folks have no notice. That's no reason to deny effective self-defense measures to the vast majority who do.
My position is that people have equally effective, alternative measures of self-protection. Someone defending themselves with a taser will most likely not injure an unarmed bystander. Someone with mace or pepper gas, has just as great a chance of disarming a madman than a firearm owner. The firearm owner just has the illusion of being more secure, because he has firepower.
In a public place like a university or mall the rights of self-protection have to be limited by the need for public safety. Just as we limit the right of free speech in public settings.
My guess is that PH47F3 is an old-fashioned troll, looking for provocative comments that have been exhaustively argued over the last 10+ years elsewhere on the Internet.
A comparison today between the visceral right of self-protection versus the amorphous idea of "public safety"? As I said elsewhere, the Left knows no shame when it comes to this argument.
> My position is that people have equally effective, alternative measures of self-protection.
We're aware of your position - we're pointing out that it's wrong.
However, we are willing to let you prove that we're wrong. Disarm police and have them use these "equally effective" alternatives. If it works for them, we'll talk.
> Someone with mace or pepper gas, has just as great a chance of disarming a madman than a firearm owner.
FWIW - police disagree. (BTW - the goal isn't to disarm, it is to stop him from shooting. Disarm is merely one way to accomplish that goal.)
> Just as we limit the right of free speech in public settings.
Interestingly enough, the limits on free speech are analogous to laws against murder and assault. (There's no law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - the relevant law concerns yelling "fire" when there is no fire.)
BTW - Has PH47F3 given up on the "there's no time" argument or are we going to hear how quickly a cup of bleach can be made ready?
> the chances of injuring a bystander are much less than a wildly fired gun.
Some actual stats would be nice. It's not like there's a shortage of with-gun self-defenses, so if the above happened with any regularity, we'd know about it.
We have a lot of experience with with-gun self-defense, so we don't have to rely on imagination.
BTW - You do have to exclude police stats. Whether they're better or worse, they're not the folks under discussion. (They're actually worse, but let's let PH find that out.)
I am not looking for provocative comments. I'm looking for somewhere to explore my own thoughts on this issue. I was hoping for the calm back and forth exchange of points. For you, Poshboy, the debate may be settled to your satisfaction. I certainly know my feelings on the issue, but I could still be swayed.
There is such a thing as public safety. There are rules and regulations we all agree to follow because, by everyone following these limits we all are safer collectively. Speed limits are one example. Regulations regarding chemical purchases are another. If concealed weapons don't detract from public safety, how do they add to it?
Would criminals be less likely to rob a bank if the tellers were armed? A lot of banks already have armed security guards. That doesn't seem to stop a lot of crime.
Andy you fisked me so I'm gonna return the favor.
"Disarm police and have them use these "equally effective" alternatives." Police use firearms as a last resort, after mace, tasers and clubs. The minimum amount of violence needed to subdue assailants.
"There's no law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater..." I was mostly thinking about laws concerning incitement to riot, libel, and slander, and other ways we limit free speech in the public arena.
"how quickly a cup of bleach can be made ready." People were complaining that without guns these students were defenseless. I was simply stating that there are always measures one can take for defense. I wouldn't go stalking hallways with a cup of bleach, but I'd be ready if someone came through the classroom door. I'd also be less likely to maim someone inadvertently.
"Some actual stats would be nice." Tasers and mace are less lethal than guns. Misfired tasers and mace are also less lethal than misfired guns. The bullets don't slow down because you missed what you aimed at.
PH47F3, the Net is so poor at delivering non-verbal cues. If you are not a troll, than I apologize and welcome you to look around more on this site and others on the Internet to learn more about this fascinating and endless American argument.
"Arms and the Law" is a site used by those on the pro-gun argument side who have been involved in this issue for years. I have been following this debate for over 15 years, even at one time being employed by the NRA at its Fairfax HQ. And once you are involved in this debate for many, many years, you recognize the arguments being used on both sides. They never change.
This blog is for those who have not only heard the basic arguments--such as yours--over and over again, we can repeat them in our sleep. And that goes for the professional anti-gunners who come here as well seeking the latest legal information on our side. What is thought here can show up in a law review article or court argument.
I use this blog as the site to read the "cutting edge" of information about the legal arguments on both sides of the debate, and not to argue the debate itself. Those places exist in hundreds of other pro- and anti-gun sites, where the exchanges are as predictable as the logical constructs themselves.
If one must use an analogy about this site, "Arms and the Law" is a 5-star restaurant where all the patrons know the wine list. We came to this place once the fare at the 2- and 3-star restaurants became predicatble.
I doubt I shall be here long. The arguments are becoming personal and circular. This was just one of the first places to pop up in Google. I wanted to test my own opinions on this issue. I find them firm and unswayed. Even basic though they be they ring true for me.
@Ph47f3
"Can you find a gun in a purse, thumb the safety off, chamber a round, aim and fire that fast?"
Most CCW carriers carry their weapons loaded and in a holster.
That being said, what kind of argument is this? It simply isn't one. You seem to be thinking that because there is a POSSIBILITY of someone being unable to defend themselves with a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed to? That is patently insane. The "you can't do it in time" argument is utterly moronic in the extreme, because it presupposes that just because YOU think that someone can't do it, then they MUST be made UNABLE to do it.
"If a tool isn't perfect, it must not be used at all."
One of the most common anti-gun arguments, and seen here, too.
PH47F3,
I've tased three people (not counting dogs) and the taser was defeated once. Defeated by the weakness inherent in the weapon, not in the application. I've been on several shooting scenes and have never seen a trained shooter hurt an innocent bystander. Not saying it doesn't happen, just not in my limited experience so far...
The Taser failed to stop the actions of an aggressive attacker 33% of the time. And I'm a good shot, IMNSHO. It was defeated by circumstances common in tasings, one that can be reproduced by a trained person (IOW, there are ways to defeat the TASER that I'm not going to go into here or any other public forumn. Ask your local ex-con, they probably know. I've seen video of prisoners training with a few different techniques to minimize or eliminate the effectiveness of the TASER.
Chunk
> I was mostly thinking about laws concerning incitement to riot, libel, and slander, and other ways we limit free speech in the public arena.
Those laws also don't support PH47F3's "we restrict speech, so we should restrict guns" argument, as they concern inappropriate useage. They're not limits on speech technology. They're not permitting systems. In short, they're nothing like gun control (as PH47F3 sees it) - they're like murder and assault laws.
> "Some actual stats would be nice." Tasers and mace are less lethal than guns. Misfired tasers and mace are also less lethal than misfired guns. The bullets don't slow down because you missed what you aimed at.
True, but irrelevant to the claim PH47F3's claim that bystanders are at significant risk.
PH47F3 says that certain things will happen often enough to worry about if concealed carry is generally allowed.
It turns out that we have a lot of experience with that situation.
If there's a conflict between PH47F3's predictions and that experience, which one should we go with?
> I wanted to test my own opinions on this issue. I find them firm and unswayed. Even basic though they be they ring true for me.
I got into gun control arguments as a gun control proponent. I switched sides because I was actually interested in violence control, and gun restrictions are typically ineffective and often counter-productive wrt that goal.
My original support for gun restrictions was fact-based. I abandoned it when it turned out that I had the facts wrong, that they actually worked the other way.
Does PH47F3's position depend on any facts such that it changes if the real world turns out to be different than he assumed?
> Police use firearms as a last resort, after mace, tasers and clubs. The minimum amount of violence needed to subdue assailants.
PH47F3 doesn't understand an important difference between police and the rest of us.
For the most part, police initiate encounters with people who are trying to get away. If police actions fail, the guy gets away.
The rest of us don't have that luxury. If our measures fail, we get hurt, killed, etc.
Also, police are paid to take risks. We're paying them in part to play nice.
Perhaps PH47F3 will tell us how his position is inconsistent with being more concerned with the safety of thugs than he is with the safety of the rest of us.
PH47F3 believes certain things. Fair enough. Let's test them.
I propose that PH47F3 put up a "this residence is a gun-free zone" clearly visible from public areas. If s\he would like, said sign can include some reference to other defensive measures, no matter how vague.
If PH47F3 is correct, that sign will not negatively impact his/her safety and may well enhance it.
How about it?
> Would criminals be less likely to rob a bank if the tellers were armed? A lot of banks already have armed security guards. That doesn't seem to stop a lot of crime.
Banks have more money than 7/11s yet get robbed less. PH47F3 thinks that the difference isn't the guards. Is it the chained pens?
Note that uncertainty can be effective in certain cases, and also protects others. Which is safer from attack - a population where 10% can respond with-gun or a population where all rely on said attackers good intentions?
Ph47f3, you have to WALK UP TO THE GUY to use a taser. Good luck to you with that, hope it works for ya. Perhaps you can force your fingers down your throat and barf on him, I'm sure that will be effective also.
I'm having an email dialog with my State representative today about removing the university exception from our concealed carry code. Currently, one may carry on campus in Oklahoma, if one is a LEO or has written permission from the University President. So, the legality of carrying on campus is determined by the whim of an unelected career educational administrator.