This man has blood on his hands
More than one year before today's unprecedented shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, the state's General Assembly quashed a bill that would have given qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill's defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.
"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus," the Virginia Tech spokesman said.
I'm glad they felt safe. Wouldn't it have been better if they were safe?
It was a little eerie seeing the TV vans on Bellflower as I left work, knowing they were there for the "local color" part of the story. I was fortunate to have taken the Friday of Bizzy Halder's Adventure off, so I didn't twitch as much as I might have.
And then we got the "caring message" from President Eastman:
The threat of crime is one that Case Western Reserve University takes very seriously. We have been and always will be committed to doing all we can to promote the safety of our students, faculty and staff.
...except of course for altering the status of Case as a victim disarmament zone. I'm glad we have the best campus security around. I'm gladder that they finally got guns. But they can't be everywhere at once. Mr. Virginia Perp shouldn't have made it to the other side of campus, as he did.
Comments
Posted by: kishnevi
Posted on: April 16, 2007 09:12 PM
The flaw in the argument is that people aren't as ready to use guns as it requires them to be.
Did you read the email Malkin posted from a VT student.
They were so scared they had to work up enough guts just to barricade the desk with a door.
Most people are not like you. They wouldn't be able to react within any meaningful timeframe.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: April 17, 2007 08:29 AM
The argument doesn't rest on what "most people" would do; it rests on what some people could do. Most people aren't going to be motivated enough to train or to carry; hell, I'm not motivated to train. Nor is it a panacea ; at best, it would reduce fatalities in such a case, not prevent them entirely. In my personal case, it's highly unlikely that somebody would come gunning for Haydn Hall without a very specific grudge; it's just not a target-rich environment. And if they came gunning for me, personally, I would be toast, gun or no; it's a straight shot from the front door to my office door, and while both doors are in the field of my peripheral vision, it would be child's play to get the drop on me before I could grab any gun. Given the small likelihood of that vs. the virtual certainty of losing my job if found armed, it makes more sense to play by the rules.
I haven't read Malkin yet (that's what URL links are for, Jeffrey!) so I can't comment in specific, but it sounds like the same malaise affected perp and victims: no impulse control, being at the merecy of their emotions. We've had 2 generations of child rearing to thank for that (starting with mine, so I guess we're on the third now) and a spirituality that can't see beyond the flatline. "The abdication of belief makes the behavior small. Better an ignis fatuus than no illume at all."- Emily Dickinson. Personally, I think we all need practice saying the most beautiful word in the English language: NO.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: April 17, 2007 09:37 AM
I guess Andrew Sullivan thinks that it's "creepy" that I wrote this. I am SO honored!
Posted by: Ben C
Posted on: April 17, 2007 11:00 AM
On local color and coverage -
Does showing a live picture of PBL at 10PM really tell us anything pertinent to what's happening in VA? Does playing weepy songs on the radio with news sound bytes dubbed over do anything other than play on listeners emotions in order to sell more commercial time?
At least NPR did a somewhat insightful interview with Dr. Helper and a few of the relevant CWRU staff (counselors, security chief) this morning.
On other armed folks -
Even though we are talking about hypotheticals here, Kishnevi has an outstanding point. If you speak with veterans (no, I never served), many will point out that being armed doesn't cause you to immediately grow a big brass pair overnight. Additionally, from the reports coming in, it sounds like processing who is a good guy / bad guy would have been considerably more difficult if there were more people carrying.
Before you call me some sort of pinko, I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment and do occasionally take advantage of my rights within the confines of the law. I just realize that the fatality rate of attending college with a nutcase is considerably lower (32 / 15.9 million students = 0.2 per 100K population) than driving an automobile (14.66 per 100K according to FARS). Your energy would be better spent encouraging people to wear seat belts while commuting, drive safer cars, and to generally be more careful.
Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: April 19, 2007 04:29 PM
Note bene: as of today the Sullivan link leads the Malkin piece I should have linked to.
I guess I could have phrased my objection better this way:
"Concealed carry would have prevented this only if at least one TCFer was in the immediate vicinity of the attack and able to shoot at the shooter".
Basically, I think the number of people who would actually have been able to react appropriately if they had a gun with them (and were able to shoot at the shooter, as you point out) is really low--even if compared to the number of people who
would take advantage of concealed carry.
But I think the one thing that would have stopped this is simply having an administration and medical staff that would make sure that if a nutcase is found--Korean or not--that nutcase is sent to the nuthouse, and gun laws have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: April 23, 2007 08:34 AM
And a legislature that wouldn't preven universities from dealing with nut cases appropriately.