Assistant Professor Charged in University Shooting

Remove all ads!

Bingo!

 

The two are often one and the same, guys. Both also have a tendency to over-ride logic and reason.

Myself, I'd have grappled, but I'm a strong male who's good with surprises and emergency situations such as skidding on ice and imminent collisions. I can't speak to others.

 

Well, in contrast to the nice comments by Aldeth, I'm not positive how I would have reacted in that situation -- I just hope I would have acted in a manner which would have taken out the shooter ... and not pissed on myself.

 

I went to high school in rural eastern Washington (my elementary principal's wife was the teacher killed in the Moses Lake shooting listed above) which is a very redneckish area, at least when it comes to recreation. Now I was talking to some co-workers and my boss (who went to the same school) and somehow the subject of school shootings came up. Both my boss and I had about the same line of thought...

In a 120 person high school, I know of at least 10 people who had their guns in their vehicles. I even know a guy who would put his gun in a dufflebag and into his locker. I really don't know what point I'm trying to make, but I think I'll just go with the fact that guns aren't the problem, lunatics are. This is a point that has been made many times before and I realize that in America lunies have very easy access to guns...

Yeah, I don't know where I'm going with this, just suffice to say there were a lot of guns at our school and no problems

I'll note that I never had a gun nor my family and still don't.

 

ChickenIsGood, there's a point that you've alluded to here unintentionally that's worth mentioning... You mention that you known some guys who carry a gun in their vehicle or even in a dufflebag.

Every once in a while, you hear mention of a "gun free zones" for schools and colleges. However, there are many who contend that these "gun free zones" do not make things safer. Instead, they can make things less safe, since any loony intend on shooting up a school can do so with the knowledge that no one else will have a gun, at least until the police arrive (which is usually far too late to stop a shooter from killing or wounding a great many people).

When it is possible for a responsible gun owner to bring a gun to a work place, or even left in a car, that gun owner can become a first line of defense. Even the possibility that someone might have a gun may deter someone. Then again, maybe not, if the shooter is loony enough in the first place. But at least there's a chance that there'll be someone else who is armed (beside the shooter) who may be able to stop a person intent on mass murder.

 

I had a nephew at Columbine, he was in the lunchroom when the gunmen entered and the kid sitting next to him got shot in the face. No one with a gun in their car would have been able to stop the killings. I am in full support of the gun free zones. Period.

Teachers with guns would present a greater problem than the nutcases who are bent on mass murder. Far more killings are done because someone had a weapon readily available during the heat of an argument.

 

Well, about a month before the now-famous Virginia Tech shooting, there was another college shooting at a private college up the road a ways. In this case, though, two students with firearms (licenced and permitted to carry concealed) shot the man before he could kill more than three. There are also tons of cases of various crimes being stopped by citizens with concealed weapons. I'm not saying it's the norm, or at all predictable or reliable, but in a society with weapons everywhere, the only options are to allow everyone to have them or to rigidly enforce a complete ban (like some city schools do, with metal detectors and everything).

 

Unless you have a gun on your person and see a shooter pull out his gun before firing the first shot, no gun owner would be able to stop the first few killings. That's not really the point.

The real point(s?) is that the gun owner might be able to stop the shooter before he can do more damage than, let's say, a single clip of bullets in a pistol could do.

Also, I'd say that there's a considerable difference between a college/university and a local high school (or below). Depending on the actual layout of the building involved, it might be feasible to guard every door and have metal detectors for a local school. But for universities that consist of dozens of buildings, it just doesn't seem feasible, physically or economically, to try to provide this sort of security. Too many buildings, too many doors, etc.

I'm sorry, but I think that these so-called gun free zones are just another typical namby-pamby, pie-in-the-sky liberal "solution" that's borne out of a hatred for firearms, and by extension, the second amendment.

 

I don't think it's usually hate, Crucis. I think it's usually fear coupled with something of a gut reaction. Such proposals usually follow close on the heels of some violence and generally demonstrate a lack of proper thinking-through. They see guns used to kill people and immediately think taking the guns away is the solution. Unfortunately, the consequences of banning guns are more complicated than that.

 

I was thinking two specific cases, pretty sure one was in Finland and the other in Canada, but not sure. There was very specific mention to Columbine being the inspiration by the shooters.


I'm sympathetic to the let's-just-let-everyone-have-guns argument - if getting rid of all the guns isn't an option, the next best thing you can really do is hope someone sane is also carrying a gun. A gun free zone where it's trivial to bring a gun into it is unhelpful and seems counterproductive.

... but getting rid of all the guns would be a better option, ultimately. Don't think America will ever do that though - guns are too ingrained.

 

Sorry Crucis but put a bunch of young people together, with hormones out of control, first time away from home, and under considerable stress -- add guns to that mix and we have more deaths than due to 'nutcases bent on mass murder.' It's a simple equation really -- more guns = more death. Sure you may have fewer mass murders, but the number of murders will increase.

It's not just a 'democrat' thing, police forces all over are against allowing concealed weapons and support gun free zones (most areas I've lived in the police forces back republican candidates).

Gun free zones work -- especially in conjunction with an adequately trained SWAT team. Aggressive pursuit of a gunman prevents additional death, but only aggressive pursuit by trained professionals, not your average Tom, Dick and Harry with a desire to have a weapon. Most of the men I've known who packed weapons (not required for their jobs) were very self-centered individuals who wouldn't put themselves at risk to help anyone else -- often they were quite volitile and were prone to getting into fights. These are not the kind of people you want with concealed guns, but they seem to be the majority who have them ... but that's just my experience.

 

Don't get me wrong - I would love to think that I would have acted that way in that situation. I've certainly been in dangerous situations before, and have responded well. It's just that I've never had a gun pointed in my face before, so I'm not sure if other high-pressure situations would automatically make me well equipped to handle that particular situation. If I'm being honest, my first reaction probably would be to flee rather than fight.

Are you suggesting T2Bruno is a liberal? I think he would disagree.

EDIT: T2 posted as I was writing my reply.

 

T2 is a liberal gun hater. Heh.

 

Aldeth, I certainly feel the same way -- but I'm not certain my first reaction would be flee; I've found I'm pretty dense at times and rush headlong to assist in emergencies (several times in fact, most involving fire and not weapons, though). My next post after the one you quoted included:

For anyone who thinks I hate guns, just click on my profile. [Drew, that made me laugh. I would have given you a rep but I haven't been spreading enough lately ... wait ... that sounds just wrong.]

 

I don't think the statistics support that. There are plenty of private colleges that don't have gun bans on them, and they aren't the Wild West Reborn.

I know a number of police (they sing in our choir with me) and none of them support gun-free-zones. They all see them as Columbines waiting to happen.

Again, you're experiences and mine are vastly different. My father carries a gun to work (he's a psychologist). He's never used it, and he's had plenty of chances. He's actually talked people down from brandishing firearms (making himself the primary target in the process) rather than shoot them. I also know several contractors who carry on the job, and again they're quite rational, controlled, and giving people. I think you've generalized too much. Mind you, I'm not trying to do the same, I'm just presenting my experiences to counter your own.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Unless the officers think that high school teachers should be carrying the guns on them (as opposed to having them in a locker or in their car), I do not see how it's going to help. If someone starts shooting up a lunch room, it's not like you can ask them to stop while you go fetch your gun. In speaking specifically of the Columbine situation, even if you could go and retrieve your gun, you still would not have prevented the early deaths. Furthermore, you'd better be a good shot, because you might only get one chance. Remember that you're up against automatic weapons.

In terms of people licensed to carry concealed, most people I know don't really have a need to. Most people I know just like to have a gun on them. There are certainly situations where I can see why you'd want one - say you have to go to work late at night in a bad area of town - but most people I know who carry aren't in those situations. They view it as a "just in case" thing, but personally, I have never been involved in a situation where a gun would have helped, and none of the people I know who carry "just in case" have been either.

 

I don't give a rat's a$$ what the police want. The freedom to bear arms exists to allow people to have the arms to oppose an oppressive government, not to go out and shoot bambi. The first step in installing a dictatorship is to take away the peoples' guns.

So frankly, you can go tell those doughnut-chugging morons to take a flying leap!!!

 

The carrying of concealed firearms, in general, is supposed to allow for the personal safety of the person carrying the firearm, not the general public safety, although there tend to be benefits seen to the general public in that people in general are seen as less attractive potential tagets for crime because they might be carrying firearms. So personally, while I would applaud someone intervening in a situation in which they were not directly involved to save lives, I would not criticize them if they didn't. It's not their job, it's the job of the police. And some may have a lot more to lose if things don't go according to plan than others - like parents. The safest course of action is most always to flee ... assuming that's possible.

In my experience, anti-gun mentality in police organizations is mostly seen in the administrative aspect - e.g. chiefs of police will formally declare that they support gun-free zones - but the average line officer is far less likely to hold that point of view. I know a great many of them who are either gun rights supporters or who are ambivalent. Of course there are some who are anti-gun, but not all by any stretch.

Lastly, carrying a firearm (in the lawful concealed carry context, not the criminal context) tends to make you behave yourself, not turn crazy. The easy example for this is in potential road-rage scenarios: you are far less likely to escalate a situation when you know that to do so may have greater consequences than just giving or getting the finger. You have a heightened perspective of what scenarios are deserving of escalation (very, very few) and which are simply excercises in ego-stroking and should be left alone (which is what road rage usually amounts to). When is being cut off in traffic ever grounds to run someone off the road and risk serious injury or death? Never.

Yes, there are certainly those kinds of people out there, but in general they tend to get weeded out rather organically when the novelty wears off - e.g, they don't renew their licenses because they realize that lugging around a firearm tends to be kind of uncomfortable and they stopped doing it after a few months anyway, particularly when (gasp!) nothing happened and it didn't significantly alter their lives beyond the temporary ego boost. That's why when licensing standards become liberalized (in the States, I'm talking about), you initially see a spike in licenses, followed by a gradual decline in them.

 

Perhaps Crucis has been on the bad side of a few incidents with law enforcement....