Shooting Rampage at Virgina Tech

[DavidOdden]

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.

I think that is because the distinction you think you are making is itself idiotic. To begin with, you are exuding exactly the same monsterous perspective that Cho held, the "kill 'em if they blink" mentality. I suggest, as an alternative, that the existence of one lunatic out of a million is no evidence at all that America is under siege or that you need to be ready to shoot to kill at an instant, just in case some person threatens you. You are proposing that I should increase the palpable threats to my very existence because of a rationalist fear of an imaginable crime being thwarted by an upright citizen who is armed. Your rationalization seems to be that I should sacrifice myself as a matter of policy, seems to be your opposition to the fact that I would seek to reduce the real chance of threats against my life, at the expense of a one-in-a-million event. Because... I should sacrifice my life for the interests of others?

Now, I have an intellectual challenge for you, if you are up for an intellectual challenge, and if you are willing to engage a challenge from someone who you publically consider to be a moron. I would like you to show that your position is more in consonance with Objectivism (which, as we know, is the philosophy of Ayn Rand) than mine -- you claim that is is moronic to ever restrict presence of firearms as a matter of private property owner's discretion in lieu of an overwhelming armed security force, I claim that there are numerous venues where requiring the absence of firearms is rational and the failure to exclude firearms is moronic. Your position implies that the universe is fundamentally dangerous and that civilized society doesn't really mean much; my position is that the universe is not out to get us and that there are real benefits to living in a civilized society, not the least of which is that we don't have to be loaded like Schwarzenegger or Stallone just to go to the grocery store for a quart of milk. But if you would like to show me that Ayn Rand's philosophy holds that rational men must be mentally and physically prepared to kill at the drop of a hat, using Ayn Rand's actual philosophy and not some rationalization of it, then by jove, I will admit publically that, well, I dunno, the moon is made of cat fur since you aren't gonna get to first base on this.

[softwareNerd]

I don't know if Cho was medically crazy or simply evil; but, a professor of psychology, writing in the WSJ today, talks about a movement in the 70's that led to less mentally ill people being sent to asylums.

...self-styled mental health "liberation activists" steeped in the writings of Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing. Though he denied being opposed to his own profession, Laing's notion that madness could be a reasonable reaction to an unjust society, or even a vehicle for spiritual transformation, helped fuel the anti-psychiatry movement of the post Love-In era. The most radical of Laingians carried revisionism one step further: Not only wasn't psychosis a bad thing, it was evidence of a superior level of consciousness. ...

...Dr. Szasz devolved into something of a psychiatric Flat-Earther, insisting in the face of mounting contrary evidence that mental illness simply does not exist....

...While moderate members of the anti-asylum movement were willing to concede that psychosis might pose difficulties for a few individuals, they insisted that society had no more right to force psychoactive drugs upon mental patients than it did to hold down diabetics for insulin injections. If treatment was to be offered, it needed to be consensually contracted between caregivers and care-recipients on an outpatient basis.

[aequalsa]

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.

What I don't understand is what in particular about a college campus makes it necessary to disarm everyone on it, as compared to disarming everyone in the country. In other words, if they are legal citizens without a felony or mental disorder, why should they be considered incapable of being responsible with firearms, while people in a church or grocery store would be? What is the differentiating factor of a university other then the average age of the occupants? Or do you believe that they ought to be banned in all public places?

[RationalBiker]

What is the differentiating factor of a university other then the average age of the occupants?

This is kind of an important factor to "throw out". Even at 18-22 years of age, young adults (on average) lack a certain level of maturity and life experience and very many of them have less than adequate conflict resolution abilities.

As an example, and this is certainly not conclusive or all-encompasing evidence, there was a club in our city that at one time had a 25 and over age limit for an extended period of time. We hardly ever got called to that club for disturbances or problems. The manager/owner changed the age limit to allow 21 and older into the club. We started getting regular calls for service for fights in the parking lot, loud music from cars, shots fired calls, and a couple of actual shootings. Now there may have been some other influence affecting this sudden and dramatic change, but I doubt it.

By and large, universities are relatively safe places to be already without the introduction of an in flux of armed students. The fact that the very, very occasional incident like the Tech shootings happens seems to cause people to lose perspective of that. And I point to the DC sniper situation to be excellent proof of that. People all over the arear were scared to get gas in their vehicles despite the overwhelmingly miniscule odds against any one of them actually being a victim. Just imagine the sheer number of people, gas stations and stores within a 50-100 miles of that event and how many gased up the cars or went to grocery stores without receiving so much as a scratch. Yet people all over were dashing from their cars to the stores and back as if they were in a war zone.

Whether or not a university would be "safer" with students carrying firearms at universities is a matter subject to considerable speculation in my opinion.

Now I'm all for the idea that if a university wanted to institute a policy of allowing students to carry the should be able to. Perhaps then we could see some real life comparisons and people would have the choice to attend a "packin'" university or a "non-packin'" university. If my son had a choice between the two, I'd tell him my thoughts (if he wanted to hear them) and let him decide.

As I have mentioned before, my son (one of my highest values) will be attending Tech in the fall. This incident hasn't caused either me or him to waiver in that decision, and he doesn't even think at this point (based on what we know) that the university should change any of it policies. It's been safe and homicide-free for years and years and this one fluke incident doesn't change the total picture of that. If anything, probably from a purely statistical point of view, his chances of being involved in some mass shooting incident at Tech just dropped significantly as it rarely seems that most places have repeat events like that. This incident could have been in Anywhere USA.

[aequalsa]

This is kind of an important factor to "throw out". Even at 18-22 years of age, young adults (on average) lack a certain level of maturity and life experience and very many of them have less than adequate conflict resolution abilities.

As an example, and this is certainly not conclusive or all-encompasing evidence, there was a club in our city that at one time had a 25 and over age limit for an extended period of time. We hardly ever got called to that club for disturbances or problems. The manager/owner changed the age limit to allow 21 and older into the club. We started getting regular calls for service for fights in the parking lot, loud music from cars, shots fired calls, and a couple of actual shootings. Now there may have been some other influence affecting this sudden and dramatic change, but I doubt it.

I was not throwing it out. That was in response to David, who said that it was not age related. I do not disagree with the age issue. I am certain that a lot of arguments could be made for 25 being the age of majority rather then 18. I was only trying to better understand his position.

[RationalBiker]

I was not throwing it out. That was in response to David,

Okay, I gotcha.

[Inspector]

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

The point is that without strict enforcement, the policy only disarms the innocent. That's not a risk trade-off - it's a lose-lose.

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

I'm struggling to understand your context, so excuse me if it slips through my fingers. What about universities, specifically, necessitates such a policy? From the rest of what you say it would appear to be age but I just want to be clear. Now, as I said, I can understand age. But remember that the policy I was railing against was one in which all guns were banned via policy from a university - not an age limit policy.

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?

Lamentably, no. All school grounds are "gun free" by law, even private institutions and postgraduate universities which have nothing but adults.

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.

My concern is an ability to defend myself.

But let's be perfectly clear on what any law or policy will do. It will only take guns out of the hands of people who respect the law or policy. It won't change a damn single thing for those who ignore the laws. What your argument presumes is that the people who obey the laws or policies are unstable enough to represent a significant risk. I think that if someone is the kind of person who is going to shoot me, they will not be the kind of person to obey such a law or policy. They will carry anyway and shoot me anyway - the only difference is that I - the law-abiding - will have no defense against them. Such a person, who will obey the law but if the law allows him to carry will go around shooting people is not impossible, certainly. But I do not think they are as numerous as you make it out to be.

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.

I, personally, am safer when I carry than not. And I do not believe that allowing people to carry makes things any more unsafe than not allowing them to; not unless you have a particularly nutty group of people and you actually enforce this policy at a level which is not practical for most universities I know of (i.e. guards and metal detectors).

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.

Right. In that way, we are beside the point here. But from the posts above with quotes from the university official, we see the administration certainly would have had such a policy even if it hadn't been law. So it is relevant to the discussion in that way.

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.

Of course. I know neither you nor David is in favor of laws to this effect.

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.

In Canada, where this policy is across the whole land, less people are killed but many more are victims of crimes. A defenseless populace is easy prey for criminals, whether you are talking law or policy.

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.

And to reiterate my own position, it is indeed not necessarily idiotic to prevent carrying on private property. It has never been my position that it was.

To begin with, you are exuding exactly the same monsterous perspective that Cho held, the "kill 'em if they blink" mentality.

That was not Cho's mentality; not even the same zip code. Not even the same planet. Not even the same damn solar system. Cho killed for the sake of killing, not because he thought people threatened his life. Retract that claim right now, or this talk is over between us.

[Inspector]

Whether or not a university would be "safer" with students carrying firearms at universities is a matter subject to considerable speculation in my opinion.

One thing to bear in mind is that these killings took place in the dorms, I believe, i.e. the students' "homes." There is a distinction in policy and in effect between carrying to class and being able to defend oneself in one's domicile.

[DavidOdden]

What I don't understand is what in particular about a college campus makes it necessary to disarm everyone on it, as compared to disarming everyone in the country. In other words, if they are legal citizens without a felony or mental disorder, why should they be considered incapable of being responsible with firearms, while people in a church or grocery store would be? What is the differentiating factor of a university other then the average age of the occupants? Or do you believe that they ought to be banned in all public places?

On private property, I have the right to require all my guests (or customers) to wear frilly yellow dresses. If I want to, I could even allow (or require) guests / customers with felony records or mental disorders to carry firearms. Since we are talking not about legal banning but about a contextual policy -- is it allowed to carry arms (go nude, sing loudly) on this piece of property, the question of "rights" is irrelevant. I need to emphasize this because of the potential for confusion over legal rights vs. responsible policy. There has to be a reason to allow guns, given the potential threat posed by mob or weapon-wielding students -- a rational policy weighs the risks and the benefits. There isn't little benefit if we're talking about a rational, civilized society, other than the spiritual benefit of saying "I recognise your maturity, in allowing you to carry a gun in my classes". Perhaps at Darfur University, a different policy is called for.

The reason why I would (at least as a default policy) prohibit firearms possession by students on my university, if I ran one, is that usually, students do not have the maturity to carry and use firearms in a responsible manner. As I stated before, I don't have a well worked-out theory of what causes this fact in students, but I think it can generally be attributed to lack of experience in the "consequences of your actions" department, learning to get and hold a job and knowing that you must do so to survive and that calling mommy isn't an option, etc. Sort of tautologically, with age comes experience.

What's more important than trying to figure out exactly why students are the way they are is being able to correctly the difference between responsible and irresponsible people. There are some students who are mature and responsible enough that I would see no reason to limit their carrying guns to class (at least from the perspective of the threat that they would pose). How do we distinguish the two kinds of students? Well, that's a separate thread. I would certainly prefer a policy that says "If you can prove, following our criteria, that you are sufficiently responsible that no threat is posed by you carrying firearms in class, then you may carry a gun".

Two metrics give you a good first approximation of the average level of responsibility and maturity prevaling at an educational institution: per capita alcohol consumption and class attendance-rate. If alcohol consumption is low and class attendance is high, more benefit of the doubt is warranted.

[DavidOdden]

or this talk is over between us.

It was over yesterday, you just didn't know it.

[Inspector]

It was over yesterday, you just didn't know it.

You picked an utterly dishonest way of letting me know. So be it.

[RationalBiker]

That's not a risk trade-off - it's a lose-lose.

I think you are wrong here for the aforementioned reasons, but I'm not going to continue to go around and around. However, before I discontinue this round and round I want to clarify a couple of things from this post;

What about universities, specifically, necessitates such a policy?

However may have said "necessitates", it wasn't me. I merely addressed why it could be a good policy and why it wasn't idiotic.

But I do not think they are as numerous as you make it out to be.

That's fine with me because in the end neither of us can escape "is/ought". I'm pretty sure I'm as comfortable with my perception of people and the world as you are.

And I do not believe that allowing people to carry makes things any more unsafe than not allowing them to;

I point to something they taught us in the police academy; there is a firearm present on EVERY call I go on. Mine. One needn't look too far to find any number of instances (even among trained police officers) of people who carried weapons, had them taken from them, and died as a result. There are more than a few people in the world who might choose to carry a gun but don't have temperment or judgement to use it nor the physical ability to retain it. Sorry but the presence of a firearm factually can make situations more unsafe (for the innocent) so it isn't a matter of what you believe.

And to reiterate my own position, it is indeed not necessarily idiotic to prevent carrying on private property.

Good. This post concludes my participation in our exchanges in this thread so you can have the last word if you care to.

[aequalsa]

The reason why I would (at least as a default policy) prohibit firearms possession by students on my university, if I ran one, is that usually, students do not have the maturity to carry and use firearms in a responsible manner.

I understand that you are not advocating not allowing firearms to be used generally. I also understand(though don't necessarily agree) with requiring a higher age for possession. What I am stuck on, however, is the "place" issue. Colleges don't kill people, people kill people...sorry, couldn't resist If at that age, they are not responsible enough to carry guns at a university, would they be responsible enough to own and carry them anywhere else?

[DavidOdden]

If at that age, they are not responsible enough to carry guns at a university, would they be responsible enough to own and carry them anywhere else?

That's a valid question, and not a can of worms that I had planned to open. For example, suppose that I ran a McDonalds or a Olive Garden, would I also want to have a policy that employees couldn't be packing on the job? Probably. But maybe not at Hooters. You might think that this is a completely unrelated question, but I think the basic issue is the same. Employees should not threaten customers, so it would be highly disfunctional to have a policy that allowed employees to threaten customers. Students should also not threaten faculty and other students, so given the purpose of school, a policy that encourages (or even tolerates) the disruption of classes would be a bad idea. In another context with a lower concentration of immature or hostile people, a different policy could be warranted.

[DarkWaters]

For those who have not seen them yet, I found these acts of heroism during the shootings to be particularly moving. They are worth reading.

Edited April 24, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Scott_Connery]

Concealed carry is legal in Utah colleges, so there is no need for speculation on wheter or not letting guns on campus will result in a blood-bath. Just like every other "shoot out at the OK corral" prediction that anti-self defense people have, this one is completely without merit.

[gags]

Scott, do you have any reliable info on what portion of students actually carry while on campus in Utah?

[Scott_Connery]

No, I don't have any figures on what portion of students actually carry on campus. Furthermore, I really doubt any survey could really get an accurate figure, because not all students would admit to it

[RationalBiker]

Concealed carry is legal in Utah colleges, so there is no need for speculation on wheter or not letting guns on campus will result in a blood-bath.

Okay, but no one in this thread made the claim that there would be a blood bath. Who are you responding to?

Just like every other "shoot out at the OK corral" prediction that anti-self defense people have, this one is completely without merit.

Ahh, okay, I'm not anti-self-defense so this couldn't be directed at me.

[DavidV]

For those who have not seen them yet, I found these acts of heroism during the shootings to be particularly moving. They are worth reading.

I am somewhat disappointed that in a post 9/11 world, no one tried to put a stop to his rampage, especially when I read about students who played dead as they heard the killer reload his ammo while he systematically shot at every student in the classroom.

Edit:

I think the fact that the killer shot himself as soon as he heard the police bust in, as well as his suicidal rage show that he was a coward, and was unlikely to put up much resistance.

Maybe this is just me, but my (almost involuntary) response to this tragedy has been to think - "what would I do in this situation?"

Edited April 25, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[Mimpy]

I think the fact that the killer shot himself as soon as he heard the police bust in, as well as his suicidal rage show that he was a coward, and was unlikely to put up much resistance.

His plan was to kill himself all along. This is most clearly evident by the videos he sent NBC...in one of them he says, "I die like Jesus Christ." So I think he knew all along that it would come to this. He did try to stall the police's arrival for as long as he could, though, by chaining the doors to Norris Hall from the inside.

But yes, he was a coward.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Mimpy

[DavidOdden]

Concealed carry is legal in Utah colleges, so there is no need for speculation on wheter or not letting guns on campus will result in a blood-bath. Just like every other "shoot out at the OK corral" prediction that anti-self defense people have, this one is completely without merit.

I'm also wondering who this comment is directed at, or what relevance it has here. I know for certain that I am not anti-self defense, so it's obvious that you can't be directing your comments at my position. I also have not contended that a "bloodbath" will ensue -- I have only argued for banning threats / threatening actions on campus (especially in classrooms). Once that new Utah law is actually in place and in practice for a few years, we will be able to see whether there are any consequences. If, for example, it turns out that students simply never carry weapons to class or if they keep them discretely concealed and don't brandish them in a threatening manner or imply that using weapons is a legitimate means of getting a higher grade in a class or otherwise resolving conflicts, then it would turn out to not be necessary to have an official policy on the matter. Remember, the goal is simply to make sure that students don't brind their weapons to class, and it isn't important whether that comes about because of a policy, or because students value living in a civilized society where shooting other people in self defense is not necessary.

[JMeganSnow]

Personally I find the idea of carrying a gun for self-defense (or defense of third parties) to be somewhat laughable. If I have enough warning of the threat to pull out a gun and make use of it, I have enough warning to take other measures as well. I have no desire to invest the time and effort into becoming a violence specialist, and just as in other cases where I don't care to become a specialist, like car repair, I leave it to the professionals. I may wind up stranded by the side of the road or get shot, but the risks are small and I compensate with a general contingency plan that goes something like this: "Don't panic. Use brain." It's served me well.

The main argument, as I see it, for not bothering with rules against carrying weapons is that they are essentially impossible to enforce (unless you intend to invest in metal detectors and searches for everyone entering your building/campus) and any rule that is impossible to enforce undermines the authority of the rule-making body. You end up with drama students getting harrassed for carrying a prop sword across the campus while their peers are packing and getting away with it. It's absurd.

[KendallJ]

The main argument, as I see it, for not bothering with rules against carrying weapons is that they are essentially impossible to enforce (unless you intend to invest in metal detectors and searches for everyone entering your building/campus) and any rule that is impossible to enforce undermines the authority of the rule-making body. You end up with drama students getting harrassed for carrying a prop sword across the campus while their peers are packing and getting away with it. It's absurd.

I disagree with this. The main success in gun control advocates is in the very real prospect in being able by law to eliminate the legal supply of guns, rather than 100% of the demand. Make guns illegal and there is no such thing as a gun store.

I still think the main argument is based on fundamental rights, not the impracticlity of laws to the contrary.

[DavidOdden]

Make guns illegal and there is no such thing as a gun store.

There are two distinct questions. One is about rules against having guns in some location, but you're speaking about laws. Nobody is arguing that there should be laws against guns, and I didn't assume that Jennifer is addressing the question of laws and rights, but simply the issue of a campus rule. I may have misunderstood her intent: however, there is no right to carry a gun contrary to the wishes of the property owner, so no rights are violated by a rule agains guns in class.