"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Reaping What We’ve Sown
By Greg L | 21 April 2007 | Crime | 11 Comments
Gun control advocates are coming out once again to tell us that we need yet another law passed in order to protect us from criminals such as the one who committed the recent outrage at Virginia Tech. As Jerry Fuhrman pointed out, law number 10,001 is unlikely to save us from someone who will casually disregard laws one through ten thousand. In the recent past we actually have tried to do something productive and ensure that in circumstances like this there might be a way for potential victims to protect themselves from human predators like Cho Seung-Hui. Those efforts were opposed by some university officials, who might do well to reflect on what they’ve done and consider alternatives to banning the right of citizens to defend themselves.
During the 2006 legislative session, Delegate Todd Gilbert introduced HB 1572 which would have made it unlawful for university governing bodies to adopt policies which would prohibit employees or students with concealed carry permits from exercising their rights on campus. That legislation was “passed by indefinitely” (killed) in an unrecorded vote in the House Police & Militia Committee which then consisted of Delegates Sherwood (Chairman), Griffith, Kilgore, Wright, Carrico, Lingamfelter, Nutter, Athey, Hurt, Hogan, Janis, Cline, Wittman, Gilbert, Scott, J.M., Barlow, Shuler, Lewis, Miller, P., Poisson, Tyler, and Bowling. Because that legislation failed, no professor, employee or student had the ability to defend themselves without risking being fired or expelled under Virginia Tech’s “violence prevention policy” which bans firearms from campus.
One reason this legislation failed was because of a strong effort by state universities to lobby against the bill. One of those active in opposing this bill was Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker. He was interviewed by the Roanoke Times, and had the following to say about the bill in an article that was published on January 31st, 2006:
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “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.”
Perhaps that helped make a few feel safe, but it certainly didn’t actually make them safer. Instead, it put them at risk. The previous June, Virginia Tech established a “violence prevention policy” which banned students or employees from having firearms on campus, a fig leaf that spectacularly failed less than one year later.
A few years ago another crazed predator tried to pull something like this at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. He killed three people, but one student ran to his car, retrieved a handgun, and stopped the attack with the assistance of three other students. The only times incidents like this in “gun free zones” like Virginia Tech have been stopped has been when the potential victims have found a way to employ effective measures to defend themselves.
In the aftermath of that outrage, then-Senator Leslie Byrne called for more gun control, apparently unable to grasp the real lesson from that incident. Now others are making the same calls for even more laws restricting the ability of victims to defend themselves. They’re not getting it that we’ve tried their approach, it failed miserably, and now the only responsible approach given our experience is to ensure that when evil visits us again, and unfortunately it will, good people will have more than a “violence prevention policy” to defend themselves with. Gun bans end up encouraging, rather than deterring violence.
When schools are no longer seen as soft targets by psychopaths bent on murder, and whom are unconcerned about how many laws and “violence prevention policies” they violate, maybe then we won’t have our children murdered in our schools. Even psychopaths tend to respect the ability of a victim to fight back, but they certainly don’t respect gun bans. We should reintroduce legislation similar to HB 1572 and pass it, so we can eliminate one more soft target for the criminals and hopefully provide for real protection measures to be employed by law-abiding citizens.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
11 Comments
Views: 1209
Loading ...
All i gotta say is AMEN!!
As you rant against Brady Campaign, they display ads in your google sidebar. I know you don’t have control but I find it…. amusing
Greg, the problem I have with people jumping to gun control is that they are missing the point. Look, I’m not wild about the idea of college kids having guns, especially when a college is a place that has a lot of drinking and all of that. Thats just me. But certaunly staff and faculty should be entitled.
But the real problem is that somehow the medical community did not, or could not, alert law enforcement to Cho’s past mental problems. If they had, it would have hit when the Roanoke gun store owner put hs name through the database. THAT is what needs to be fixed. Gun control’s not the answer. The fact that nobody on a college campus is allowe to cary a firearm is one of the biggest reasons the campus was so vunerable to a madman like Cho.
Hmm. On Daily Whackjob we’ve been discussing the formation of an NWD (National Whackjob Database) to prevent people with violent mental illnesses from buying guns. I think that is a good idea, but even if legislation was passed to that effect, it would probably not be carried out well enough to make a difference.
Nothing will stop a crazy person from.. well.. acting crazy. Psychopaths will do psychopathic things. There are always ways around current protection.
I agree with Chris. I do not like the idea of college students carrying guns. Two “macho” guys get drunk, get angry, and all of a sudden we have several people at a party dead. Bad idea. Professors and staffers, on the other hand, I would consider responsible enough to carry guns on campus.
I love this ranting against “macho” guys getting drunk and shooting people.
Remember, Virginia is SHALL ISSUE and college kids can get weapons at 21 just like Cho could. This permit will grant them carry privileges throughout the state including at all these parties they will get drunk and shoot it up. Very few parties involving alcohol happen on campus where administrative rule of “no weapons on campus” would “save” these “macho” kids from shooting up each other.
Next irrational argument please.
“Very few parties involving alcohol happen on campus”
Obviously not written by a Va Tech, Radford U. or JMU alumni!
I’m not, GF is, and I’ve spent enough time there (VA Tech). Every party we went to was off campus and any parties her roommates went too were off campus. I’m not sure where you liked to get down, but off campus was where everything seemed to happen. Freshman and Sophomores tended to party on campus on OCCASION but most of them aren’t old enough to have a permit anyways.
Seeing that there are likely thousands of folks in Virginia who obtained their concealed carry permits when they came of age within the past ten years, and many of them probably engage in the same type of social scene described above from time to time, how many of them have gone “macho” and decided to shoot up a place after getting drunk?
Anyone? The answer is actually pretty easy.
ZERO.
It’s a nice little scary scenario, but unfortunately for some, it just doesn’t have anything to do with reality.
Ok Thumper, you are wrong. Do not dismiss my arguments on the basis of faulty information. Virginia Tech has a WET campus. That means that alcohol is legal on campus, provided the drinker is 21.
Next idiot trying to debunk me, please…
I don’t remember saying VA Tech was dry. As Greg said earlier, and something I was trying to point out, these incidents haven’t occurred and we have been shall issue for over 10 years. I would imagine that 90% of alcohol parties are OFF CAMPUS so sample size for these parties to end in gunfire is high enough that I don’t blow zero shootings in 10 years by permit holders as statistical fluke.
As my girlfriend just said “If your trying to save lives, you really need to go on a crusade against drinking and Windows. Apparently Drinking and Windows kill more people on campus then drinking and guns do.”
First issue: I understand that the murderer was NOT an American citizen YET he was LEGALLY able to purchase a gun.
Second issue: For those arguing for outlawing guns, VT had by policy done just that in ensuring that no one on campus (save the police) were authorized to carry guns.
The First issue shows that we need to re-examine our existing laws about who owns guns, the Second issue shows that gun control does NOT work.
More damage could be done with a car and a crowd of people waiting for a bus. That being said, should we outlaw cars? DEFINITELY more damage was done with a couple airplanes (9/11). Should we outlaw airplanes???