Inasmuch as yesterday’s thread on the merits of concealed carry permits on college campuses / in “school zones” turned into something of a cop-bashing thread instead of a more concentrated discussion on just how effective more permissive CC laws might prove to be either as a defense or a deterrent against rampage violence, I thought I’d reintroduce the question here.
Because my point was not to question the efficacy of police. Rather, it was to note that we can’t—and shouldn’t have to—rely solely on the police for protection.
In a discussion at Scribalterror on these issues, the majority of commenters believe that the pro-CC crowd is engaging in wishful thinking; not only won’t CC permits prevent rampage killings, the argument goes, but they could potentially worsen the situation—both of which assertions are technically correct, but both of which miss the point, in my opinion. That point being that CC permits can also potentially lessen the carnage, act as preemptive deterrent, and, in general, return some of the responsibility to self defense back to citizens. And so, as dorkafork puts it in a comment over there:
While the advantage would be very small, because it would rarely help, it would be non-zero. I’m having trouble seeing the disadvantages. I’m sure we could come up with some (say, a bad guy manages to steal a holder’s gun), but the likelihood of those seem to me to be even lower than that of preventing a successful school shooting.
For my money, the biggest deterrent is the fact of concealed carry weapons being legal in the first place. Might knowing that some students and professors could be armed have given Cho Seung-hui pause? Who knows. But if it is your desire to go out as a martyr—and you’ve bothered to put together a photo essay and 23-page manifesto about your victimhood—you might fear that the “legacy” you’re hoping to create for yourself could be subverted by a single armed citizen who, by stopping you dead in your tracks, is able to turn all your posturings in military gear and all your self-important press-release blather into a punchline.
If, in fact, ego is involved. Which in the case of Harris and Klebold it certainly was.
****
update: Bob Owens offers a Modest Proposal. Only without the irony.
I should note that I’m unconvinced by the argument that because college is filled with jerks, arming students would be like arming monkeys and then getting them hopped up on coke or drunk on Jaeger shots and setting them loose in the zoo.
To obtain a CC permit, one is generally quite well-trained in firearm safety. And who knows? Maybe a little firearm training might quell the need for so much macho bluster in the first place.
Proponents of gun control often say – or imply – that reducing personal liberty and even infringing a constitutional right is justified if it saves even a handful of lives. It is meaningful to see how they refuse to consider that guns may in fact save lives too.
In other words, their opposition is much more ideological than pragmatic.
I think the problem with indiscriminate conceal and carry laws are that you can’t REALLY be indiscriminate.
People in dense urban northeast environments? NYC? Newark? The cops would never go for it.
Background checks? Psych checks (or, ensuring no psych record)? I could go along with most of that but many consider that invasive as well.
If we say that gun ownership is a right, then we are downplaying any responsbility or sense of responsibility that should go with it, i.e., the obligations and duties that go with a right. We make the right conditional. Some might consider that a slippery slope.
Further, I am not myself concerned with “gun control” in the sense of background checks, waiting periods, or even records of who is buying and owns what. But, again, many 2nd Amendment types object to that as well. I see their point.
However, it might be like free speech: the answer to bad speech is more speech. The answer to bad guns is—more guns.
How many of those are the same people who like to misquote Ben Franklin in discussions of things like the Patriot Act?
I think you’re partially right – the possibility of a weapon changes the decision calculus. In law-abiding neighborhoods where gun control is in force (cough, cough, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, cough, cough), a criminal knows there’s a very low probability of a weapon being available for home defense – and he knows if it IS available, he has to act quickly to ensure the inhabitants don’t get the trigger lock off and load it – hence the prevalence of what the former, unlamented Chief of Police termed “home invasions” – basically, the storming of a house, with the avowed intention of subduing the occupants before they could arm themselves or (especially) call the police.
Throw in the chance of random gun ownership, however, and things change a bit. The odds of getting perforated multiple times may rise only slightly, but I would tend to think a slight rise exerts a comparatively greater effect on the decision calculus.
The effect on Cho-types is harder to figure out, because the possibility of resistance is harder to determine ahead of time – and because the goal appears to be the maximum possible effect, rather than a quick escape with loot. Cho wanted to die – but he wanted to die by his own hand, after he had killed as many people as possible, not by return fire within fifteen or twenty seconds of his first shot.
Good article on the subject:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31897.html
Don’t let feelings drive political decisions that threaten liberty. The truth is not that schools are more dangerous than ever before. They are not, and Jeff sited this ABC News story himself.
Don’t let fiction rule decision.
And another on the disastrous consequences of Britain’s complete ban on all guns:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
A taste:
In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.
Trolley square…..
What is needed is not more gun control laws, but more effective nut and psycho’s control laws. Take them off the street and get them back where they belong: TW: <b><i>nut house!
At the Appalachian School of Law a school shooting was stopped by CCW holders (don’t forget, CCW holders include off duty cops!)
From Wikipedia:
And don’t forget Trolley Square….
So that’s two massacres halted by people with CCWs and none halted by, um, ‘authorities’.
What’s the argument? We don’t want out massacres turning into shootouts?
I think “it is no coincidence, camrade” that it is the ‘no personal responsibility’ crowd of deconstructionist liberal academics who argue against concealed weapons…. After all, self defense is the ultimate personal responsibility.
PS, I’m sorry, in an Imus way, that I helped turn the other thread into a cop bashing.
Two of my law school classmates regularly carried to school (they had CC permits, but university rules banned guns on campus. However, the state AG and several legislators claimed the ban conflicted with state law so, pffft) and I was always glad to be in classes with them knowing these guys were ITCHING to – lived for the moment when they could – take out a would-be mass murderer.
Didn’t the gun control lobby go nuts over changes to Florida’s laws a couple of years back relating to the use of deadly force as a means of self defense away from home, but not as a last resort? Has the predicted shooting gallery effect materialized?
I dunno, Daley. Things were pretty dicey when I was down in Ft. Lauderdale a few months ago.
88-year olds drawing automatic shotguns over the last bottle of carrot juice at Publix was a bit surreal. Then I noticed they both had perfect trigger discipline, so I relaxed and went over to admire the cashier’s grouping on the shoplifter with the bag of Twix-minis.
Don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Israel has managed to avoid terrorist shootings at its schools for several decades by having armed patrols supplied by volunteers trained in the use of guns. This is clear evidence that well-armed, responsible citizens can prevent the actions of crazies. This week, we have seen the evidence of a “gun-free” environment: it’s respected by law-abiding citizens, but not by the gun-toting murderer who cares less about any law.
If any commenter believes that among the parents of students, or the members of the faculty, no one can be found to entrust with CC, then that person really has no business making decisions for larger society, nor should s/he bother to leave the house for that matter.
Police are in the business not of preventing crime, but of investigating crime and giving out tickets. They most often come in after crimes have occured. It’s not their function to prevent crime, and it is suicidal to believe otherwise. We would all be better off by realizing this fact about the Thin Blue Line, and taking more responsibility for our own security and safety. Crazies will always exist, but we deserve to be better-prepared for when we encounter them and the Blue Line is in another part of town.
“only won’t CC permits prevent rampage killings, the argument goes, but they could potentially worsen the situationâ€â€both of which assertions are technically correct, but both of which miss the point, in my opinion. That point being that CC permits can also potentially lessen the carnage, act as preemptive deterrent, and, in general, return some of the responsibility to self defense back to citizens.”
I don’t think a psychotic like Cho can be detered. I do think he could have been stopped before he got to 32.
I think we should all wear our guns on our hips, like in the old West. Seriously. CC? Not a deterrent, simply because too few people have permits. But if you’re wearing a six-gun on your hip, I’m probably not going to steal your purse.
I don’t think there’s really any way to deterr a murder, period. Casual murderers don’t care if they get caught, killers like Cho are trying to go out in a blaze of glory, passion killers aren’t thinking about consequences and pre-meditators don’t think they’re going to get caught. It’s part of the reason I’m against the death penalty, if they’s admit it was just a punishment, I’d feel better about it.
You know what? I can’t spell.
To accompany my above post, I add this from another blog mentioning a NYT artical that details the labrynth of laws that ensure that people like Cho are kept in our midst.
All the more reason we need to protect ourselves.
Techie – I can’t imagine what the fights over the last fruit compote in the dessert lines are like down there with little blue haired ladies drawing down on each other Clint Eastwood style, challenging each other to make their days.
You’re right, it could get kind of strange. I might have to rethink my vacation plans.
Well Iraq is full of people with guns and it’s not very safe.
You can’t stop an IED with a nine mm.
/alphie
Kennesaw, GA’s Mandatory Gun Law A Proven Success
Anyone ever hear about this in the MSM?
Techie, ROFL!
Although I had already graduated by then my fiance was still a student at the University of Florida when Danny Rolling came to town and started slaughtering students.
If my experience with friends and associates still in attendance is applicable to the campus at large then I can safely say gun ownership among the student body skyrocketed that year. Hell, some who weren’t old enough to legally obtain a modern pistol (21 in Florida) resorted to percussion muzzloaded revolvers ala Bill Hickock.
Gainesville did not become the wild west, nor were there drunken fratboy shoot-outs either.
If you are going to trust them with 3000 lb. of steel hurtling down the road at high speed, might as well trust them with a gun.
88-year olds drawing automatic shotguns over the last bottle of carrot juice at Publix was a bit surreal.
Automatic shotgun???? Really?
Somewhat minor perhaps, but for those interested the legal age for owning a handgun is 18 (at least in Michigan, and in line with federal law). The restriction to 21 is for purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Private party sales are not affected, so if say Dad bought a desert eagle and decided a day later he’d rather have something else, an 18 year old could offer to take it off his hands for roughly the retail price.
The gun banners do not have facts or logic on their side. That is why they have to resort to emotional appeals. Unfortunately, emotional, factless assaults can be effective; see O’Donnell, Rosie…
Someone called into Laura Ingraham this morning and said that they tried for 13 years to get her mother committed to a hospital. The family knew that she was having psychotic episodes  audio and visual hallucinations  but the law said that her mother had to admit herself to the hospital; the family’s hands were tied.
People at VTech were trying to get Cho off the streets, too, but they couldn’t have him committed because his threats weren’t specific enough. He was a ticking time bomb, everyone knew it, and all of the laws on the books prevented anyone from stopping him, including before he was armed.
Yes, the rights of psychos not to be committed or medicated against their will is a glorious move forward. Thanks ACLU!
About a decade ago, SLC had two shootings in which two paranoid schizophrenics on two separate occasions barged into public buildings (LDS Genealogical Library, KSL-TV building) and shot several people before being stopped. Schizophrenics aren’t usually harmful (they’re usually too caught up in their own torment), but a few are deadly. But the laws make it difficult to get them packed away and medicated.
Or at least packed away. I don’t care if they take their meds as long as they’re off the street.
Clayton Cramer is always a worthwhile read on gun issues. Just click and scroll.
Isn’t this CCW question essentially a parallel way of asking about the creation of the National Guard or other forms of legal militia? Essentially, the definition of a state (with one exception) is that it retains the ultimate right to grant or deny the franchise for the legal or permissible use of deadly force with intent to kill. Whether or not you’re a policeman or a soldier, you’ve been explicitly included in that franchise.
If, in the event, that the armed forces under direct control of the President are unable to meet the demands of the situation, then additional forces may be called on, from the National Guard all the way down to the individual citizen.
Is this different, essentially, from the debate on CCW versus gun control?
BRD
P.S. The exception to the rule cited above is the United States, owing to the Second Amendment.
I have no problem with CC’s in general or CC’s on college campuses in particular
HOWEVER, it’s a rather moot point until even nominal authority figures, ie Resident Advisors, are allowed the right of self-defense.
cuz in at least one CA state college, the zero-tolerance rule is quite clear
touch a dorm resident, even if you’re attacked, and you’re fired.
Don’t know how it’s done where you’re from, but in NC, you certainly have to go through a few hoops to get the permit. You gotta go through a Firearm Safety Course, then your county Sheriff has to approve you have the permit, you got a bunch of rules you must follow, and of course a background check in done. In other words, you have to really WANT the permit, and you gotta be a farily decent citizen to get it. One caveat, the law as now written says even with the permit, you can’t carry on SCHOOL GROUNDS. Don’t know if this is considered to include Colleges or not. Your State also must recognize another State’s Permit through Reciprocity. For example, Virginia recognizes NC citizen permits, the People’s Republic of Maryland does not. Another little irony, if you follow that link I gave above, it take you right to the NC Attorney General, the guy that smacked around Nifong just recently.
…for the simple fact that I can’t carry a policeman in my pocket.
Good post, btw. In the comments at CY the libs are propping up so many strawmen it’s beginning to look like a Nebraska cornfield.
Darleen,
I don’t get your point, sorry – long day. Do you mean if a resident, a student is attacked? Or a resident advisor?
It would seem likely that little violence would start with university employees, who are the only ones who can be fired. Do you mean if there is a fight, both parties are expelled?
Zero tolerance is another avoidance mechanism from taking responsibility. That’s why they are called authorities.
How come we can use the “if it saves one child” argument for banning guns, but we can’t use that argument for having guns?
I would like to see faculty and staff be allowed weapons on campus. That would be a start. At least it raises the possibility that someone will fight back.
Sorry… I’m getting to this late (work nights)
PS, I’m sorry, in an Imus way, that I helped turn the other thread into a cop bashing.
Apology accepted, to which I must add my own. To the degree I came across as a bit too strident in yesterday’s thread (never been called a “bully” before…), I likewise apologize.
What I can’t do is promise it won’t happen again. Monday-morning-quarterbacking is one of those things that lights both ends of my fuse, particularly when done in a knowledge vacuum, and directed at troops or operators who reportedly did their level best in a chaotic situation (that goes double when combined with nasty adjectives like “lazy,” “cowardly,” etc). I get Mr. Du Toit’s famed “RCOB” whenever I see it (same thing whenever I see some hair-farmer calling a Vet a “baby-killer.”).
For my own part, citizen scrutiny, insightful questions, accountability to the communities we serve (or used to serve), and constructive criticism are generally welcome. Just spare me the prototypical “have you stopped beating your wife?” questions (eg. “Why did the cops sit on their asses while kids were dying???”)
Anyway, I support citizen CCW (even on school grounds), so we have no argument on that point.
The police do not prevent crime, they deter crime. Police spend a great deal of time responding to crimes which have already been committed, and then conducting investigations to capture the criminal after the fact.
When deterrence fails, the only way to prevent a crime from occuring is to interfere with it. The best way to do that is to present a credible threat to the perpetrator such that they decide to do something else that afternoon.
Or punch his ticket if he doesn’t. It’s a simple fact that there are a lot more bad guys out there than cops.
John,
Auto shotguns do exist.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wiWvuoM5E3g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7wg1pFNwTOE
The question is, how many faculty and staff would take advantage of that ability these days? These sorts of proposals are meaningless unless the number of responsible people carrying weapons increases significantly. A few professors wouldn’t be a bad start, and I have no problem with the proposal from a rights standpoint, but imagining that it will have a significant impact on public safety is farfetched.
On my blog, I theorized that loosening the restrictions on gun ownership would only be beneficial from a safety standpoint if it increases the number of responsible gun carriers. While this is good from a rights standpoint, I believe selling it as a safety measure will prove counterproductive.
I personally suspect those motivated to seek out concealed carry permits to carry on campus will be responsible enough to know what to do with a gun. Those with this view of college students have a very ill-informed view of the average college student. The question will be, how many of them are there willing to get a permit to carry a weapon?
Personally, I support these proposals just solely based on an individual rights standpoint. I don’t think I should get a permit although I’d love to do so. I’m un-coordinated and often very absent-minded; I don’t think I could be trusted with the responsibility to carry a loaded weapon; I’m bad enough with a car as it is.
In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre and the magnificent reaction of the “Hokie Nation” to this tragedy it may strike a discordant note, but there are people who wonder at the fact that, with few exceptions, the Tech students were passive during the killer’s spree. He was not stopped. The killing stopped when he put the gun to his own head and pulled the trigger.
His thirty-two dead victims and 15 wounded means that he used at least 47 bullets. Given that handguns are not particularly accurate, my guess is that he used many more bullets than that.
Taking all the emotion away, it’s reasonable to assume that he killed himself when he ran out of ammunition.
That’s disturbing. Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia is a rural oasis and the largest University in Virginia. No effete bunch of urban liberals they. Yet the students and faculty – with a few notable and heroic examples (Professor Liviu Librescu) – were passive and panic stricken; either waiting to be shot, hiding under desks, or jumping out of windows.
Don’t get me wrong, given the choice of jumping out of a window or facing a maniac with a gun, I’ll jump out of a window every day. But in the end, the killer was not stopped. He just ran out of ammo. 32 people died and 15 were wounded while the killer’s only injury was self inflicted.
In a way, that bothers me.
There is – for those who wish to draw comparisons – a difference between the heroes of Flight 93 and the students at VT. The men of 93 knew they had nothing to lose. The VT students did not know this. Their classrooms would not crash, killing them all, and they hoped that they would survive when the shooting stopped. They were not all automatically doomed by passivity as were the passengers on the 9/11 flights. Perhaps that explains it all; a rational, mathematical decision: he can’t kill us all because he does not have enough bullets.
And if the wolf takes one of the sheep, the flock still survives. But where are the shepherds? Or did they die with the survivor of the Holocaust?
More here.
MarkD
Just getting back to the thread.
“resident” means the regular dorm
babystudent, “Resident Advisor” is usually another older student, hired tobabysitride herd on the masses.#4 daughter relates more than one story of an RA either being personally attacked or intervening to keep a resident student from beating the shit out of another RA and the RA’s being fired for “fighting back.”
Let’s just say she’s seriously considering NOT continuing to be an RA herself (this and she’s “up to here” with the political correctness she’s encountering…. well, she DID pick Frisco to attend college)
To answer someone’s question, murder and serious assaults are down significantly in Florida since the carry law was passed. In fact, states with carry laws have the lowest such rates in the nation. If you’d like more information, Google John Lott.
Slightly OT, but I think it’s weird that none of the articles about the blowback from NBC airing the psycho’s rantings mentions the single most important reason (IMO) not to air them: Encouraging other wackos who want their 15 min of fame. All the objections centered around it being hurtful to the families of the victims, or just being something we don’t need to see.
and
…pretty much combine to say that all the “hoops and hurdles” on concealed carry are utter bullshit. Any citizen of the United States (note that this excluded the VA Tech shooter) is not to be denied the right to keep and bear firearms, except those rights be removed through due process.
Why is that so freakin’ hard to grasp?
Face it, whatever you do wih your gun laws, it’s only a matter of time before your country experiences another mass shooting.
Reading the American right wing blogs it’s not hard to see why:
You ain’t too bright and you’re full of hate/rage/contempt/disgust/anger/paranoia
Sorry guys, I am not erudite enough to post here. Having said that, I love to read Goldstein and most of the commenter’s…..Just couldn’t let deano pass though. hey deano ….Fuck You….How’s that for contempt?
Stupid Beeb, eh, deano?
You BASTARDS!
Sorry for above post. Too upset to be commenting.Please delete. Thank You.
It would not have mattered if the building was surrounded by tanks. Nutbar was going to go in with guns blazing. His friends inside his head told him to. The knowledge that people inside might have guns would not have deterred this kind of lunatic. He had a mission and he was going to carry it out.
With that said, had someone with a weapon stopped him from killing even one victim, it would have been worth the presence of that weapon.
Does deano’s IP resolve to the UK?
I too apologize for the cop-bashing. In contrition I direct you to my follow-up comment on that thread where I bash everybody! I’m an equal-opportunity kind of guy, but then I’m a hair-farmer and a vet, so I can see both sides..
If you were only going to commit one crime this would be true, but career criminals make a career of committing crimes. Thus, the odds of being shot by a victim are cumulative. If one in every hundred possible victims is armed and you rob 250 people the odds of finding the one guy in a hundred get pretty high. Probably why the violent crime stats drop so fast when CC becomes easier. The smart crooks go elsewhere or take up less agressive tactics and the stupid ones get shot.
But you can carry a COP in your pocket, that’s what they’re designed for! (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Honestly, I’m terribly conflicted over this. As Dr. Helen notes: “The level of stupidity and incompetence in the area of mental health is staggering.” She ought to know, and we all know one “mental health professional” we wouldn’t want pronouncing on us, eh? Given that, I’m a bit nervous about forced medication or incarceration on the say-so of some state hospital’s Dr. Bonkus. Unfortunately, that creates the situation we’re in right now, where we pretty much have to wait until the psycho actually does something seriously anti-social. Considering how relatively rare mass shootings are, I’m not willing to argue that we should incarcerate every cuckoo who plays video games, takes pictures of girls with his cell phone, and writes bad screenplays. On the other hand, I’m not willing to argue too hard against it.
Dang it! Got so distracted actually trying to stay on-topic (well sorta anyway) that I forgot the snark I’d originally intended to post:
Okay, so we got a bit off-topic, but it was still better than having alphie highjack every thread. /Snark, back on-topic:
Painfully awkward, teased and picked-on? Jeez, that sounds like me as a freshman in high school. Good thing they didn’t lock me up though because I soon grew a foot-and-a-half, gained 70 pounds, and discovered gurlz. Pretty well ended the teasing and awkwardness, and gave me something to do other than feel sorry for myself. And hey, I turned out pretty well, didn’t I? (Okay, don’t answer that!)
My point, if I have one, is that the textbook on school shooters is pretty darn broad. With perfect hindsight, just like that being used to excoriate VT for allowing Cho to attend and not handling the shooting better, we can see all the warning signs. Unfortunately, quite a lot of us exhibit some version of those warning signs at some point.
So.. I seriously doubt that we’re going to be able to psychiatrically identify potential shooters without swinging a loop that’s going to rope in a whole lot of non-shooters who just happen to be oddballs of one sort or another, or just going through that awkward stage.
I really am convinced that we have two choices: We can dramatically hop up security everywhere—a cop on every corner, a guard on every door—or we can increase the number of people carrying concealed and remove most of the restrictions on where we can carry.
Personally, I’d also go Vermont-style and remove the licensing requirements for CC because, well, what part of “keep and bear” and “shall not be infringed” were we having trouble understanding again? But that’s neither here nor there for this discussion.
I don’t think we can long afford the sort of increased professional security forces it would take to reduce the risk. People wouldn’t pay for it, and my libertarian gene tells me we wouldn’t want to live in that sort of surveillance state if we could pay for it.
And I do mean “concealed”. It’s been suggested that we just strap on the six shooters, but consider: If I were Cho I’d shoot the guy with the pistol on his hip first. If I were a common criminal I’d just pass on the obviously armed guy and wait for easier pickings. Better to keep ‘em guessing, that’s a good part of the deterant. When the potential shooter or mugger doesn’t know who, or how many people are packing, everybody benefits from the knowledge that somebody could be, even if no one actually is.
I think it’s that effect as much as anything that cuts the crime rate when CC is legal. Sort of like a shell game except if you pick up the shell with the pea under it you get shot. You’re not going to want to play even if you know there’s a chance none of the shells has a pea. Because there’s also a chance that they all do.
Sorry for the extended rant, this is something I’ve given a good deal of thought to over the years. Obviously, I’ve also been indoctinated into the pro-gun pro-CC mindset, so take it for what it’s worth.