The Shotgun Blog
« Sneak preview | Main | Vice-regal target »
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Taking guns to class
Check out the CNN piece, accessed through the LA Times website here, about what's going on at the University of Utah. Apparently, upwards of 500 students are known to be packing handguns to the Salt Lake City campus. This fact shocks the sensitive types who believe that the university should ban all guns. But, of course, a level-headed assessment of the situation will lead to the conclusion that, if such a ban were in place, the only ones carrying guns into classes would be crazed gunmen.
The anti-gun crowd can't see it, but it seems clear to me that the defensive-minded, gun-toting students in Utah will ensure that there will never -- never! -- be a Virginia-Tech-type massacre at their university.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 24, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8344157fa53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taking guns to class:
Comments
As I've often said, I'd rather be penniless, sick and surrounded by muggers in downtown Salt Lake City than downtown Toronto or Manhattan. I know that I'd get the immediate assistance I need in conservative & religious Utah than in Ontario or New York - LIBERAL LANDS.
Posted by: obc | 2007-04-24 10:32:01 AM
500 armed students - no shootings.
Zero armed students - massacre.
Gee, it's just so hard to figure out!
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-04-24 11:50:11 AM
I may be mistaken but I believe Utah and Oregon are the only 2 states that allow guns on campus.
From what I understand neither state has had an incident like this on campus in over 10 years.
If those facts are correct, they speak for themselves.
Posted by: Gerry Atric | 2007-04-24 12:16:49 PM
Gerry Atric,
You are not so aged as you are so learned.
Recently, a lady in Vancouver pointed out that women would be safer if they were licensed to carry a restricted handgun.
I don't know what ever happenned to her, as she was an elected official, as a trustee on an educational board. She had one of those licenses that gave her the right to carry in thirty states. The politically correct charged that she was unworthy of sitting as a trustee.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-04-24 1:32:00 PM
"Recently, a lady in Vancouver pointed out that women would be safer if they were licensed to carry a restricted handgun."
Sure...but everyone around her would be in more danger.
The answer to gun violence in schools is not to arm everyone.If you think a couple of untrained(and guarranteed scared shitless)twenty year olds with little popguns are going to have the skill and calmness required to bring down a suicidal maniac with an AK47 intent on mass murder...think again.
In a crowded environment,they're just as likely to kill more classmates.
And since these types of maniacs are almost always suicidal...I can see no deterrence value either.
Not to mention the horrific consequences of hormone-driven kids having guns in their pockets when they find out Bobby has been f*cking their Betty-Sue.
Here's a novel idea.
As a society...why don't we put more effort into stopping the creation of these unfeeling,disconnected animals in the first place.
We seem to be doing the opposite...
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-04-24 6:17:45 PM
CO,
You raise some interesting points. There is one with which I hesitate to agree.
"And since these types of maniacs are almost always suicidal...I can see no deterrence value either."
The question continually gets raised as to why these guys DO NOT walk into a police station, army barracks, or NRA meeting and start firing...just to name a few.
They want victims before they go...(greater infamy, I guess). Hence, armed citizens are a (temporarily displaced) deterrence.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-24 6:24:39 PM
I have been to Salt Lake City and I felt very secure there. I have been invited to a private party by a person I knew for only a few minutes. It was great and people were very friendly.
In Switzerland, in order to be ready to resist any invasion, I believe evey citizen owns a weapon. Switzerland is a very peaceful country.
To equate violence with carrying a weapon is just a politically correct idea and not very appropriate. Why not give it a try? Allow students to carry guns on campus and see if things work better?
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-04-24 7:59:21 PM
h2o.
I cannot disagree too strenuously with your logic on that point.
However,wouldn't arming students just move these 'wastes of skin' on to the next soft target?
Say...daycares and nursing homes?
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-04-24 8:09:29 PM
A few more guns on campus may have helped and may not have helped in this situation. I cannot be sure either way. The reason is that the root problem is not more gun control or less gun control but more self control.
Whatever other problems this man may have had, he had an anger problem. His refusal to control his anger coupled with an intense hatred is the cause of this event at VT. Had those around him expected and demanded (in the right way) more of him, things 'may' have been different. However, had their demands and expectations had a positive effect upon him, things 'would' have been different. We would have never heard of him.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-04-24 8:32:44 PM
"I have been invited to a private party by a person I knew for only a few minutes. It was great and people were very friendly."
That, was a hooker bro.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-04-24 8:43:28 PM
CO,
"However,wouldn't arming students just move these 'wastes of skin' on to the next soft target?"
Yes. Which is why I parenthetically said temporarily displaced.
Two things stand out.
1) They attempt to jack up the body count as fast and as high as possible. This would be reduced and hence their infamy/revenge reduced if facing return fire.
2) They want to shock us in the most horrible way by going after some of the most vulnerable and defenseless...Notice how they seem to be primarily picking children and young adults.
I won't add to their target list on an open blog. You can guess the rest.
I really hate them.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-24 8:46:03 PM
CO & H2,
There will always be maniacs (period).
CO, by your logic of pushing them to another soft target... which soft target would you prefer and will you be a part of it?
I myself would rather be trained and armed.
Posted by: Mike_RoA | 2007-04-24 9:22:02 PM
Brent,
"We would have never heard of him."
Or 32 other poor souls.
Excellent post.
h2o,
I believe we both agree there are no easy answers to such a deadly phenomenom.
However,I cannot ignore the honest logic of the following....
Instead of arming these kids with guns,why don't we arm them with the interpersonal skills needed to avoid creating these social outcasts in the first place?
Have a good evening...both of you.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-04-24 9:44:43 PM
In Canada, if you carry a weapon to defend yourself and, indeed, you use that weapon to defend yourself in a life-threatening situation, you will be charged with a premeditated crime. If you had shot and killed someone like Lepine, and you just happened to be the first he aimed his friggin' gun at, you would be charged with first degree murder. However, if you had not armed yourself and had been killed, you would be a victim - with no rights at all. Lepine would have all the rights.
Posted by: dewp | 2007-04-24 9:59:00 PM
CO
Again, you ask good questions.
"Instead of arming these kids with guns,why don't we arm them with the interpersonal skills needed to avoid creating these social outcasts in the first place?"
The complexities of the human mind with organic diseases and personality disorders of which we understand little combined with the ever increasing difficulty of sustaining social relations with our subtle dance of non-verbal signals, hints, etc. virtually guarantee that there will always be troubled social outcasts.
I'm sure we can reduce their numbers but I wouldn't bet my life on finding the way.
However, it's some unfortunate children who will mostly likely pay.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-25 6:08:20 AM
CO,
The issue is role-modeling.
It is a matter of monkey see, and monkey do!
Not all violence is equal -- same -- or equitable. And rightly so.
Those engaged in the application of moral relativism, see all weapons, as the same. Thing is, it is the people, not the weapon, that kill.
In the cross debate, those for greater gun restriction, see the law as the saviour, whereas those with a pragmatic sense, see gun education, training, and right to self defence as the way to resolve the problem.
In the middle is this aspect that is avoided, which is called social responsibility.
What happens in the mix, is that people get their knickers so twisted, so deeply, that they are incapable of sitting down and discussing it with rationale. So, what happens is it becomes that which is argued about in correct or politically incorrect terms, while the problem festers, and there is no resolve.
The ratio of accidents in regards to those who have had training with weapons, in a legitimate context, is extremely low. So low, I cannot even think of an example of a person being trained with fire-arms, and killing anyone. It is so rare, because people are trained and educated in proper handling. Accidents outside legitimate training occur when people stray from the rules. But individuals who have been trained, are less likely to have accidents -- and very unlikely to do what you see in those who do what we have seen at Virginia College.
The moral training, discipline and practice, that comes through proper training, is not evident in those who commit crimes. Therefore, the solution is in that, and not in avoiding. All laws that give greater restriction do, is remove people from ever getting any education and training in the first place.
Put it this way, it would be like never giving a person any training and education in terms of driving a car, and then placing them behind the wheel. What do you expect? How much damage does the untrained person do, and how much damage does an untrained person do, when given the opportunity? And then add mental-illness to the mix? That is a formula that we see and which then ends in disaster.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-04-25 9:59:43 AM
CO: The choice is not to arm all the kids or none of the kids. Geesh, especially on a college campus you have numerous adults, whether mature students or professors, or other staff that could be authorized to carry (if they have the training). Use common sense.
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-04-25 11:29:04 AM
Markalta,
Instead of arming teachers with guns,why don't we arm them with the proper training to recognize these time bombs...before they go off.Use common sense.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-04-25 3:27:47 PM
And in which class would that training be? Then what to do once you've pegged them? Lock them up? Nice sentiment, but lousy for practical purposes!
Posted by: Markalta | 2007-04-25 3:43:35 PM
I call bullshit on most of the suggestions proffered here. Teach children the difference between right and wrong. Instill in them the duty to protect themselves and their fellow man if danger enters their lives. Honour and duty are not qualities reserved for those serving in the Armed Forces. It is incumbent on every decent citizen to do what is right and honourable in the face of danger.
Posted by: Gerry Atric | 2007-04-25 4:18:22 PM
CO
"Instead of arming teachers with guns,why don't we arm them with the proper training to recognize these time bombs...before they go off.Use common sense."
That would be nice. Great even. Now how?
The VT killer went before a judge, police investigated, counsellors intervened, teachers referred and tutored and even had code words in case of trouble, students walked away.
How does one determine which weirdo needs just TLC, guidance, restraint, or to be locked up without violating free will or personal liberties and still avoid this trauma.
Does he have Aspergers with an anger problem, schizophrenia, poor social skills and is being bullied, suffering a tumour of the brain?
I appreciate your sentiment but I disagree there is anything common sensible about it.
Our children will remain particularly vulnerable. However, I sense a change is coming as the source for the crazies shifts perceptibly.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-04-25 4:51:04 PM
Bang, on Gerry Atric.
As Remi mentione earlier, gun ownership is compulsory in Switzerland as is complusory military training.
As Ted Nugent says: If guns kill people, then my guns must be defective.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-25 5:10:44 PM
What sickens me is hearing these young adults constantly referred to as "kids" and "children".
Funny, in the real world these "kids" many of whom stopped being kids years ago, are old enough to vote, and old enough to control their own destiny in any circumstance.
Many "children" the same age, or younger are fighting and dying in foreign lands in the military.
It is time for the supposed adults in this debate to stop this ridiculous coddling.
There is absolutely no reason why any of these "kids" in a conceal/carry state should have been restricted to arm themselves.
As adults that are old enough to vote in the politicians that allow the conceal/carry permit, they should have been allowed to carry.
These were/are NOT children, but they were shot by a punk, who if knowing these people were armed would never have attempted what he did.
It's just common sense, but it is becoming more evident every day that good sense is not that common.
Your right on Gerry, check out this Steyn link if you haven't already.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-04-25 6:27:31 PM
Remi posted: In Switzerland .. I believe evey citizen owns a weapon. Switzerland is a very peaceful country.
.. no every citizen does NOT own a firearm in switzerland, there are only ~2.5 million firearms for ~7.5 million people, or about 1 firearm per 3 swiss. In america there are ~250 million firearms per 300 million people, or near 1 firearm per person. If we were to bring the american ratio down to the swiss' 1/3, we'd have to eliminate about 150 million american guns.
.. switzerland does NOT allow concealed carry, except for demonstrated need, & 'self defense' is not considered demonstrated need.
.. swiss need permits & I believe registration (in most cantons) to buy & own.
.. the state issued assault rifle is only for use when mobilized, an emergency, or to take to range, & the bullet pack (24 rds to 72) is kept in a sealed ammo container which is INSPECTED regularly (yearly maybe), & if any bullets are missing there must be a valid explanation or disciplinary action is likely.
.. switzerland is more an argument for guncontrol, than guns galore.
Posted by: seataffer | 2007-04-28 8:57:37 AM
philanthropist posts: 500 armed students - no shootings. Zero armed students - massacre. Gee, it's just so hard to figure out!
.. no it's not hard to see thru your specious reasoning; I recently read that since 1975 when guns were banned at Utah Uni, there had been only 30 minor firearm incidents in those near 30 years, or about 1 minor incident per year. Mostly minor incidents like a gun discovered in a glove comptmt, inadvertently brought on campus (giving benny of doubt).
.. but there hadn't been any mass shootings in the past 30 years either, prior to the ban lift. There hadn't been any major firearm incidents (accd'g to this source), so I would like to know how many firearm incidents have been reported on Univ of Utah campus since ccw was enabled in 2004?
.. will the campus suicide rate increase? the campus accidental wounding rate? shot out signs? lampposts? students? .. will the next time you go up the stairs a gun carrier's pistol drops out of his shoulder holster & the drop impact causes it to fire, hits you in the leg? .. you sitting on toilet & guy next to you drops his gun as he drops his trou & it fires, where?
.. you couldnt pay me enough to put young people into the university of utah.
.. Subject them to it, that is.
Posted by: seataffer | 2007-04-28 9:07:58 AM
If guns kill people, my guns must be defective.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-04-28 9:25:23 AM
setyoufree posts: If guns kill people, my guns must be defective.
.. specious platitude from ted nugent, don't know why you're so proud of his non sequitur. Guns kill people every day every hour every minute, that's what they're designed to do. We rarely drive cars 120 mph or more but the speedometers often go that high.
.. you cite Ted Nugent, nra board member aka gunnutcase extraordinaire, owns 350 guns(?) or more, thinks bush should nuke iraq (evidently seriously), made himself sick by taking drugs & other abuse so the draft board would classify him unfit for military service in vietnam, thinks gays are an abomination, an all around rightwing jerk.
.. don't know why you're so proud, to quote ted nugent.
Posted by: seataffer | 2007-04-28 12:33:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.