Instapunk on Va Tech's administration

People who commit mass murder are almost by definition unbound by society's rules. What makes anyone think that the possibility of an armed student body would have dissuaded Cho Seung-Hui?

PH47F3,

You may be correct. BUT, one of those armed students would have quite effectively stopped Mr. Cho before he reached the final (at the risk of sound callous) score.

It might not have dissuaded him that is true. What allowing law abiding students to carry handguns would have done is give then a chance to defend them selves instead of waiting for the mass murder to kill himself.

Wouldn't it also slow down police response? They would have to secure each gun toting student and ascertain whether that person is the danger or not.

I also have to question whether someone with a concealed weapon can draw, aim and fire, before a man entering a room with a gun already cocked and loaded. Can someone with a concealed weapon react with such swiftness and at the same time as firing at the assailant be careful to hit no other bystanders? A gun makes the person holding the gun safer, but everyone else in the room becomes less safe when that weapon is drawn.

PH47F3,

By reading your statements,you obviously have no experience in the defensive use of firearms. All the people I know (including myself) who carry concealed practice regularly with their sidearm, and I assume that most other CCW holders do the same.

Yes this killer would have most definitley killed a few people before someone could take action, but he wouldn't have come close to killing 32 people if someone had been carring at the time. I blame the lunatic who pulled the trigger in the deaths of these 32 innocent people, but I also hold the school responsible for their policies on concealed carry. These people were at the mercy of a madman and had no way to defend themselves. The blame for that lies in the hands of the University for its policies...its a shame.

Practicing in a shooting range or other controlled setting is not anything like a life or death situation. An empty gallery where the targets are backed by a concrete wall is not the same as a classroom where a wild shot could careen through multiple barriers. A shooting range doesn't often have wild distractions like unarmed civilians scrambling for cover either. Police and other first responders are trained to deal with these situations.

I don't exculpate the university. I was surprised to learn that the building didn't have lockable steel doors to the classrooms. I was surprised that with the huge campus and small security force the university didn't have some sort of CCTV, or access monitoring system.

Ph47f3? Slow down police response? How would a person exercising their natural right to self-defense slow down the police? The situation would have been over. The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by off-duty police who had to go their car and get their guns. Did that complicate the response of the regular police force? NO. The situation was over.

I am sure the fact that they were "off-Duty" police makes some people feel good inside who can not fathom the concept of every citizen having a duty to always be armed not only for their own self-defense, but for that of the community in which they live. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties and society has the right to demand the service of the body of the people to defend the community. The Right of Self defense and the right to group self-preservation is embodied in the Va. Const. Article I, Section 13.

I teach at a public university in New Jersey and we have steel doors that can only be locked by a key because students were always locking them. Second most of our doors open out into the hall and there would be no way to block the door and keep it closed.
Third because the door open outward there is a window in the door.

Talk about a prescription for disaster

Whether or not a student should or should not carry a gun is not for me to judge. Only the student is aware of their own limitations, more so than you (Ph47f3) or I. You wonder if the situation could be made worse by the presence of guns. History responds with a resounding "NO". This is in fact the worst massacre in US history, and is further evidence that there is a negative correlation between prevalence of firearms and magnitude of violence. That is to say, there was lesser presence of firearms, more violence and subsequently more death.

I believe that Utah now allows CCW's on University Campuses ( http://volokh.com/posts/1157749021.shtml ), and ironically have not suffered a single massacre. This is further data consistent with the negative correlation between firearms and violence; in this case, increased presence of firearms results in decreased magnitude of violence.

Irrespective of the correlation of firearms to violence, the Virginia Tech massacre is evidence that public places cannot be made into Sterile Zones (i.e. Airport Terminals); where there is a reasonable expectation that no one would have a gun that is not supposed to have a gun. Then again, there were a few 20th Century dictators who did a fairly good job of sterilizing their countries from the effects of civilian owned firearms. It would probably take nothing short of a totalitarian regime or Dictator to do the same in the US. If this is what you are proposing, I believe history suggests a result of far more bloodshed, than what you hope to prevent.

The conclusion is that it is neither possible nor desirable guarantee the absence of firearms from public places. It is morally reprehensible for the University administration (or any institution for that matter) to create policies that require people to place blind faith in the omnipresence of campus security and the total absence of weapons. These will always be false assumptions, and people should never be denied their basic right to the means to fight for their own lives.

It seems to me a false correlation to say that increased gun presence on Utah's campuses deters mass murders. These events are rare, they can't be predicted and can't be controlled against. There are not continuous occurrences for similar causes. There are also few mass murderers who survive their kill spree, to explain their thinking.

If Cho Seung-Hui decided that the presence of guns on campus argued against a murder spree with handguns. He could easily have climbed to the top of a building where he'd be safe from handguns. If he had used a rifle the tragedy could have been just as great. If he decided against firearms he could have damaged a gas main and exploded the building. I don't think students carrying concealed weapons would have prevented this massacre.

Did the university hamstring the students' rights of self defense? I've already stated that I think there are alternative self-defense devices and measures that were available to the students. No one took those steps, because very few people are prepared to confront someone with a gun.

The more pertinent question is does increased concealed carry dissuade other, more common, types of violence? If more New York citizens had concealed carry permits would there be fewer purse snatchings and muggings? If more women owned guns would domestic violence incidences be reduced? As gun ownership increases so does the rate of gun accidents. Would these crime reduction benefits offset, increased accident rates?

I am sorry, but the correlation is not false, though you are entitled to disagree with the causality. There is, in fact, a difference. However, I see no evidence of correlation or causality that suggests that you are correct in your assumptions. So far, you have merely rationalized hypothetical situations. Coming from someone who is recognized as having limited knowledge of firearms usage and or laws, I find your hypotheticals very unhelpful. You forget…your plan has already been tried and tested, it did not work. The students were not allowed to have ANY meaningful form of self-defense, and they died.

I am curious if you have ever used these so-called alternative self-defense devises against and armed executioner. It takes a little more that being “prepared to confront someone with a gun” when all you have is pepper spray or a Taser. Even cops won’t do that. Furthermore, what makes you think those devises are not already banned by the existing policy? Given options, wouldn’t you choose the most effect devise? Against someone armed with a gun, the most effect devise is a gun…that is why cops have them. Perhaps you should educate yourself a little more before you start insulting the students who died.

It seems to me a true correlation to say that increased gun presence by otherwise law abiding citizens deters mass murders. A case in point is the shooting at Appalachian School of Law in 2002 where students stopped the killer with weapons from their cars. As you look at the cases in the wikipedia entry below, I think you will find a common thread - the shooter was stopped when confronted with armed resistance (of course several of these scum opted to commit suicide rather than be captured). There are by no means many of these events, but common sense tells us that resistance is preferable even when the odds of success are low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#List_of_school_shootings

Ph47f3 says that the guy could have gotten bigger weapons if he had known the students were armed. This was exactly the case in the Texas Tower Massacre. He acted as a sniper from the tower and police handguns could not reach him. But, Texas citizens brought their own long arms and helped to take him out. It is very rarely reported that one of the first people to reach the shooter was an armed citizen.

Handguns, especially, are good for self-defense. Easily carried and immediately available in an emergency. If I am in immediately danger of death or serious bodily harm from a criminal, I want a gun to protect myself. Handguns are easy to shoot and do not require strength and rigorous training to shoot effectively. Respect life and carry a handgun to protect it. That is why I want other law-abiding Citizens to carry a handgun too.