Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shooting Rampage at Virgina Tech

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

There is no reason whatsoever for a 5 year old to be packing, and virtually no chance that the kid would be technically or tempermentally competent to be dragging around a hog leg.

That's an age-limit restriction, not a ban on an institution or locality. We were discussing restrictions on guns in places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's an age-limit restriction, not a ban on an institution or locality. We were discussing restrictions on guns in places.
No, it's a restriction on a location. I would also prohibit adults from bringing in (useable, loaded) firearms into the place on the grounds that they could be too easily be accessed by an irresponsible person. It might seem that I'm using age as a criterion for restricting firearms at a location, but that's not the case, it's just that there are certain places where immature people tend to congregate in large numbers. (I should have included video arcades as an example of a place where I wouldn't allow firearms, just to make the picture balanced). If I could think of a place typically populated by immature 40 year olds lacking the capacity to act like adults, I'd include that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it would be a good idea for schools or universities to not allow adults to carry firearms - a law to which effect is the exact cause of this disaster?
Check back a few posts earlier today and you'll see that I addressed the question of legal restrictions. As a policy restriction, one that I would likely have if I were running my own university, it might be a good idea. Since I don't run a university, it's impossible for me to judge with more precision that than.

However getting back to the main point of the thread, this atrocity did not happen because of a restriction against firearms. It happened because that person was tolerated in civilized society, and was allowed to kill. He should have been evicted from the university long ago, his "right" to be a psychotic killer notwithstanding. We can speculate about what depraved set of circumstances created this monster, but there is no question at all that the atrocity was caused by a man who did willfully and brutally murder 32 people and injure another 29. There is furthermore no question that this man was identifiably dangerous. There are many "if only" speculations that we could engage in, for example, we could speculate that if the university has posted armed guards in every hall, or if instructers had training in marksmanship and were armed this might not have happened, or if immigration laws or university admissions policies were tighter he might not have been at the university. I don't see the merit in marginal "what if" speculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However getting back to the main point of the thread, this atrocity did not happen because of a restriction against firearms. It happened because that person was tolerated in civilized society, and was allowed to kill. He should have been evicted from the university long ago, his "right" to be a psychotic killer notwithstanding.
I was discussing this very point with my wife the other night. My initial thoughts were that the school had somehow screwed up by not dealing with the problem earlier. However, if the University had actually booted him out, there would have been little to prevent this nut from coming back and doing exactly what he ended up doing. Short of incarcerating anyone who displays signs of mental illness and/or violent tendencies (literally millions of people in our society) and turning our schools in to armed camps, I don't know how you prevent this from happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check back a few posts earlier today and you'll see that I addressed the question of legal restrictions.

Check my wording - I said for schools/universities to not allow. As in, policy.

As a policy restriction, one that I would likely have if I were running my own university, it might be a good idea.

It isn't anything even close to a good idea; not even "might." There might be ideas that vaguely resemble it that might be classified as "good" if you squint real hard, but no. The law version is enforced idiocy, and the policy merely regular idiocy. Creating zones where kill crazed monsters know they will not be resisted is, to my mind, idiocy - and I stand by that statement.

You're right on causes - obviously the law didn't cause him to be a despicable monster, but among the things in the long train wreck of errors that made this specific travesty/tragedy possible is the legally enforced disarmament of the campus populace.

Short of incarcerating anyone who displays signs of mental illness and/or violent tendencies (literally millions of people in our society) and turning our schools in to armed camps, I don't know how you prevent this from happening.

It depends on what you mean by "this." If you mean some nut with a gun trying to kill people, then I agree. If you mean some nut executing dozens of people, all of whom are powerless to resist, then you can prevent it easily: do not legally disarm the populace. When nuts start shooting, you shoot back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, if the University had actually booted him out, there would have been little to prevent this nut from coming back and doing exactly what he ended up doing.
I have for a long time felt that people should have the right to live whatever eccentric lifestyle they want to as long as they don't harm other people, and I don't approve of rounding up drunks and/or the homeless, or imprisoning people for having deviant and anti-social thoughts. At the same time, if you wait until the guy actually kills somebody before you take action, then there is a good chance that the action that you'll be taking is body-removal. So the difficult question to answer is, at what point should you conclude that a person's activities are objectively threatening to others, to the point that the person should actually be incarcerated. I suggest that in this case, if he had been thrown off campus long ago, and he then returned, that that would be the objective evidence of threatening intent that would justify confinement. It's imaginable that he could have gone over the edge much earlier and could have decided to kill people at the university the very next time he showed up, but since he seems to have been building up to this over a long time, I would not assume that he would suddenly decide to go on a shooting spree in response to being expelled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I like Nugent's article, I think it's important to remember that more "gun rights" don't necessarily mean all these problems would be averted. Private property owners would (or should) still have the right to ban the carrying of firearms on to their property. It's quite likely that a university would still be a "gun free" zone, if only by means of their own rules and admissions requirements.

I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that some gun rights activists would have their right to carry firearms supercede another private property owners rights to how they would use their own property. In other words, "I have the right to carry a gun on your property regardless of what you say." I disagree with this.

You're exactly right. However, this incident shows the value of the good guys owning guns. If a university equipped itself with guns and let the teachers know where they are and how to access them, that would be helpful.

But, aside from the gun point, this killer showed many signs of being unbalanced and dangerous prior to the incident, and they could do nothing about it due to university policies.

In effect, they create an unsafe environment by coddling potentially dangerous people and then they don’t allow innocent people the means to protect themselves, a double whammy.

And then they provide 33 stones for memorials, 32 for the victims and 1 for the killer, showing you how deep their corruption is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creating zones where kill crazed monsters know they will not be resisted is, to my mind, idiocy - and I stand by that statement.
Of course I obviously do not advocate passively allowing crazed people to murder. In fact the very purpose of preventing firearms on campus and enforcing that restriction is to reduce the number of irresponsible and immature people with firearms. Things are bad enough as it is, without having students coming to class armed to the teeth and mouthing off "Yo, teach! You gotta problem wid dat? I gotta axe yo about mah grade, for shizzle". Sure, I can come to class with my Schwarzenegger pack: or I can just quit, and work somewhere where people aren't going to be constantly threatening my life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I can come to class with my Schwarzenegger pack: or I can just quit, and work somewhere where people aren't going to be constantly threatening my life.

Or threats to your life could be handled instead of ignored. (and if they are not, you can just quit) And frankly, what stops the little bastards now?

But I believe we were speaking of a blanket policy of disallowing all firearms on campus. Including yours and presumably security, if any. Not just the students. Idiocy, no? How exactly would such a policy stop any person with ill intent from ignoring it?

The effect of all such policies is to disarm only the innocent and righteous, leaving the malicious armed. The only way I could see it making any sense is if you had a robust and well armed security force and metal detectors at the door, like airports. Otherwise, any such policy - legally required or no - is moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I believe we were speaking of a blanket policy of disallowing all firearms on campus.
I see: well, then you were talking about something totally different. I know of no university where security is, by policy, unarmed (although I could imagine such a thing). A policy would only make sense if aimed at relevant people, for example students: thus, my policy would prohibit students from being armed. I might extend that to faculty if there was a need. Let me repeat my earlier point, it's not the physical location, it's the people in the location. I'd extend the no-guns policy to faculty in a New York minute if it were a good idea, i.e. if they turned out to be raving maniacs.
How exactly would such a policy stop any person with ill intent from ignoring it?
I'm not a believer in the fiction that policy can stop evil people. It allows you to clearly identify evil people -- the student with a gun -- and gives you an unquestionable basis for taking strong action, for example, dare I suggest it, shoot on sight.
Otherwise, any such policy - legally required or no - is moronic.
Are you calling me a moron? Let's get clear on what level of uncivility you're willing to pursue here. Don't you be playing word games and saying "I never uttered the words 'you are a moron'." You may clarify, you may not dance. Are we clear on that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of no university where security is, by policy, unarmed (although I could imagine such a thing).

By law, I believe that most are. Certainly in my state, the law is that nobody may have a gun on any school grounds, excepting government officers, no matter the wishes of the owners of said schools.

I'm not a believer in the fiction that policy can stop evil people. It allows you to clearly identify evil people -- the student with a gun -- and gives you an unquestionable basis for taking strong action, for example, dare I suggest it, shoot on sight

Now, this should be an obvious point, but guns are concealable. How will this policy even help you to identify evil people until they un-conceal and draw their guns - something that would be an unquestionable basis for taking strong action even if there were no policy of no-guns.

Are you calling me a moron? Let's get clear on what level of uncivility you're willing to pursue here. Don't you be playing word games and saying "I never uttered the words 'you are a moron'." You may clarify, you may not dance. Are we clear on that?

I dance not. The policy is moronic. Anyone who advocates it is being moronic. I.e., inasmuch as they advocate it they are acting as morons. That is the implication of what I said and I do not cower from it.

Did I call you a moron? Well, I didn't know what you advocated at the time, so no I was not specifically addressing you. My idea at the time was that you could not possibly advocate it. I still do not believe it; it will take some convincing, for the last time I checked, you were not a moron. But only a moron could think such a policy wisdom. You're free to disprove that, of course, as it is merely my evaluation on the matter and not a logical proof of any kind.

[edit: post continues, in next post]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd extend the no-guns policy to faculty in a New York minute if it were a good idea, i.e. if they turned out to be raving maniacs.

Anyone I wouldn't trust with a gun... I'd have a hard time of trusting him with an idea. And vice versa.

Age limits on guns I get. That makes sense. Disarming an entire campus without very strong security measures in place? On the ancient map, that one is labeled "here there be morons."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Age limits on guns I get.

:) This 12 year old, friend of the family, was playing with his fathers gun and accidentally shot off his testical!

Buying a gun should be a little like getting a liscence, certian tests should be taken, to make sure the user knows how to use the gun safely and properly. I don't know about the accuracy of lie detectors, but if they work well enough, maybe gun-buyers could take a lie detection test asking whether they intend to use the weapon in an act of violence, or just for defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) This 12 year old, friend of the family, was playing with his fathers gun and accidentally shot off his testical!

That's why the good lord gave him two. hehe

Buying a gun should be a little like getting a liscence, certian tests should be taken, to make sure the user knows how to use the gun safely and properly. I don't know about the accuracy of lie detectors, but if they work well enough, maybe gun-buyers could take a lie detection test asking whether they intend to use the weapon in an act of violence, or just for defense.

Or even better we could require licenses for people to have children who could potentially grow up to do things like this. We could have them evaluated for mental health and knowledge of proper child rearing techniques. If they fail we could have them sterilized. And I am, of course, being ironical.

Short of committing a crime, there is no justification for government involvement in the affairs of men. None of them. "an armed society is a polite society" and a safe one, I would add. If one of every ten people on that campus was carrying a firearm I believe we would be hearing about 3 people murdered in Virginia rather then 32. That's if the coward would have tried it at all. One thing these people consistently have in common is that they go on shooting sprees in places where people are known not to have guns. A lot of people hate the IRS or police and they don't get shot up. When one of these crazed people with no obvious motivation and poor rational faculties shoots up an NRA meeting I'll start believing that the known weakness(disarmed state) of the victims isn't the major part of their decision.

To start limiting the liberties of adults who have committed no crimes is something I am absolutely shocked to see recommended on an objectivist board.

David, what about college students do you think makes them unfit to own and carry weapons? Do you believe, simply, that the age should be 25 or 21 rather then 18 or is it something about people in college in particular that makes them incapable of acting responsibly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, what about college students do you think makes them unfit to own and carry weapons? Do you believe, simply, that the age should be 25 or 21 rather then 18 or is it something about people in college in particular that makes them incapable of acting responsibly?
I would simply restrict their presence on campus (guns, not students), and don't propose any statutory raising of the general age limit, an instance of the fact that I don't support any statutory limits on guns. I'd be looking for evidence of appropriate maturity and responsibility which is not, on average, present in the campus population. There are individual exceptions, so an alternative policy would be "carry if certified", but that would complicate matters by requiring there to be some kind of testing and monitoring procedure, and since there is no benefit to allowing people to carry weapons on campus (and it certainly isn't related to the function of a university), I don't see why it should be allowed. The threat posed by thousands of armed and disgruntled students is sufficient and compelling reason to disallow it. I don't entirely understand what causes the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't entirely understand what causes the problem.

The problem is that such a policy only empowers the truly disgruntled - while disarming everyone else. It is a (literally) disastrously naive idea that simply having a policy will do anything to stop them. I've already outlined an alternative to such a policy in my above posts - that any policy of no guns for students requires enforcement and a level of airtight campus security that would be impossibly expensive for any school that I know of, otherwise it is nothing more than lining up the innocent to be butchered in the exact manner that they were at Virginia Tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it would be a good idea for schools or universities to not allow adults to carry firearms - a law to which effect is the exact cause of this disaster?

Wait a second....

It's one thing to say that the presence of armed individuals may have prevented this from happening, but it's quite a different beast to say that the existence of certain gun laws is the CAUSE of the disaster. I think you are letting Cho off the hook in a major way here (not to mention a multitude of other factors).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy freakin' cow! I quit the NRA because of the scare tactics they were employing (undermining the sound reasoning that should be used) to push their agenda. Now I'm reading some similar things on here, though hopefully minus a tactic to scare people. A little perspective is needed. One of the bad things of days-on-end media coverage is that people can lose perspective. Mass shootings are still incredibly rare incidents when considered in the big picture. Yes, there were 32 victims, but this was 1 incident. Cho had it easier, but I'm not sure that it is fully recognized just how difficult it is to stop someone who will plan something out over such a long time and is committed to the DEATH to carry out their plans. There easily could have been more guns on campus and this still could have happened. What is a more significant problem than the lack of guns is the fact that such shootings are so rare. This kind of thing is so far outside a "normal" person's frame of reference that they are paralyzed and in denial as it's unfolding before their eyes. An unarmed crowd could have easily minimized the damage being done if some of the people their had the presence of mind to try ANYTHING against the attacker to protect their life.

VA Tech is NOT a dangerous environment. To my knowledge, in the entire history of the school, there has only been this one mass shooting incident. I would venture to say that there have been very few, if any, other homicides there save last year's escaped prisoner incident. Keep in mind that prisoner started unarmed in a hospital and took the armed security officer's gun from him. So much for the protective good guy's gun helping the situation. This same gun was used to kill an armed Police Officer later on as well.

Personally, I wouldn't trade the incredible remote chance of being a victim in a mass shooting incident caused by some deranged madman in a "disarmed" university for the DAILY concern of being shot by some "regular guy" who is packing and loses his temper over some small thing and decides to solve his problem with a gun. The fact that I could be armed to defend myself is of small consequence if I actually have a viable daily concern that I may actually have to do that.

I'm just not seeing the case that Universities are idiotic simply because they control or ban firearms on their property. Bettting on the mass shooting occurring at your university is probably right up there with winning the lottery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second....

It's one thing to say that the presence of armed individuals may have prevented this from happening, but it's quite a different beast to say that the existence of certain gun laws is the CAUSE of the disaster. I think you are letting Cho off the hook in a major way here (not to mention a multitude of other factors).

Yeah, you're right. I clarified that in the next post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There easily could have been more guns on campus and this still could have happened.

True; not disputing that.

What is a more significant problem than the lack of guns is the fact that such shootings are so rare. This kind of thing is so far outside a "normal" person's frame of reference that they are paralyzed and in denial as it's unfolding before their eyes.

In a way, yes. If what you are saying is that a big (bigger?) problem is that people don't have a self-defense mindset, then yes - especially given that people with that mindset do not vote for laws that strip you of the means to defend yourself.

Personally, I wouldn't trade the incredible remote chance of being a victim in a mass shooting incident caused by some deranged madman in a "disarmed" university for the DAILY concern of being shot by some "regular guy" who is packing and loses his temper over some small thing and decides to solve his problem with a gun.

Total non-sequitur. You aren't trading an inability to defend against a freak mass murderer for the "safety" from that-guy-who-will-shoot-you-if-he-carries-a-gun-but-won't-shoot-you-if-he-keeps-it-at-home. You're trading defenselessness against all criminals.

The fact that I could be armed to defend myself is of small consequence if I actually have a viable daily concern that I may actually have to do that.

You probably don't want to move to most states in the west, then, because people out here can and do legally carry weapons and so I'm sure you'd have that daily concern, especially given your line of work. Personally, I am more concerned about criminals and those who intentionally do harm than that-guy-who-will-shoot-you-if-he-carries-a-gun-but-won't-shoot-you-if-he-keeps-it-at-home-because-when-he-has-time-to-think-about-it-he's-not-really-that-mad. I could go on about how it isn't sensible or sane to treat everyone like babies because of that guy; much less how it is totally unjust. Instead, I will point out that he is more rare than you think, or at least more willing to break the law than you think, because there aren't noticeably more of him here than there were back home. I used to live in a state that didn't allow me to carry anywhere, ever. I didn't prefer it.

You're getting this amount of civility from me because you've earned it. I'm really fed up with the mentality that disarming everybody makes things safer. I didn't expect it here, of all places.

I'm just not seeing the case that Universities are idiotic simply because they control or ban firearms on their property. Bettting on the mass shooting occurring at your university is probably right up there with winning the lottery.

I illustrated several non-idiotic control policies for firearms for schools. And I gave a specific example of an idiotic one. I think you're not seeing the distinction I'm making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total non-sequitur. ... You're trading defenselessness against all criminals.

The point is quite germaine. There is a risk trade off even you don't want to recognize it.

You probably don't want to move to most states in the west

I think I'll be the judge of where I want to move and why. But thanks for dropping the context.

And by the way, as the east coast goes, Virginia has one of the most relaxed requirements for concealed carry out this way. Plenty of people carry guns around here too. And even when they don't I assume they do. But since the context I was discussing was more specific, general carrying was not at issue, and I wasn't talking about preventing that. So I take it then that Universities and schools out west allow people to carry on campus and thus these locations are safer than other universities?

You may limit your concern to criminals, but I'm concerned about anybody who can kill me. I'm not going feel better that they guy who killed me was not a "criminal" because, well, dead is dead.

You're getting this amount of civility from me because you've earned it. I'm really fed up with the mentality that disarming everybody makes things safer. I didn't expect it here, of all places.

And even if it's the next guy instead of me, you would be better served (within the context of this forum) to keep that civility out of respect for the rules of this forum. I'm not really concerned with what you are fed up with, least of all when it's not what I said. I'm fed up with people on both sides whose fervent ideology causes them to lose all perspective in the wake of these incredibly rare atrocious events.

I never talked about "disarming everybody". But the notion that carrying guns all the time will make things "safer" is just as whacked as the notion that "disarming everyone" all the time is safer. In difference to the world of Inspector, there are places in this country that are quite safe without a proliferation of guns. VA Tech is one of those places.

However, one of the points I was making about gun "rights" is that the issue does not hinge on they necessarily make things safer or not. If any thing, that argument detracts from the real reasoning (and particularly so when people are exposed to the most fervent types from either side of the debate, the "nuts"). Regardless of the net effect of gun carry, the principle is that the government should not prevent rational men from the opportunity to carry that which may be necessary for personal defense. Any other reasonable argument is just cream on the cake.

You can speculate all you want what that actual net effect might be, but I would withold my judgement until I actually saw it nationwide. However, it is quite within the realm of possiblity that the number of people killed would go up (and not just by the death count of criminals) if more people carry guns all over the place.

To reiterate my initial contention with your comment, private property ownership rules who carries gun and it's not necessarily idiotic to prevent carrying on said private property. The extent and manner in which that would change the way things are is just a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...