Shots Across The Bow

By similar logic: you are either happy Cho's mother chose not to have a "partial birth abortion," or you are unhappy about it.

Bleh.

Posted by: John on April 21, 2007 2:04 PM

The logic is not similar at all John. In your haste to be snarky, you missed the difference between pre-emptive vs proactive defense.

Let me simplify it for you.

I think it would be good if one of the students or staff on campus would have had the capability to stop the rampage before 31 people died. I don't think it would be good if somebody murdered Cho before the rampage started, whether through late term abortion, or a .38 bullet on his 18th birthday.

The point is that either you are happy that Cho's victims had no effective way to defend themselves, or you aren't.

Get it now,John?

Posted by: rich on April 21, 2007 3:29 PM

My point, admittedly snarky, is that you are taking a tragedy and spinning it to make some right-wing pro-gun argument.

Let me simplify it for you.

I do not think campuses would be any safer with random students and staff walking around with concealed weapons every day. As a matter of fact I believe that would lead to more people being harmed than has happened in these rare, sad events.

Apparently we'll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: John on April 21, 2007 5:08 PM

No spinning,just a simple observation. Here's the crux of the matter. Virginia is a "shall issue" state, which means, to my way of thinking anyway, that the state has recognized that it is unable to provide for the safety and security of its citizens against the bad guys.

This isn't a remarkable statement when you think about it. It would be impossible to build a police force that could stop every crime, every time. In order to do that, every law abiding citizen would have to be a member of the police force.

It just isn't possible for any state organization to prevent all crime. They function best after the fact. They catch the bad guys and punish them. Sure, there's some slight deterrence value to their operations, but the police are primarily a reactive force, not a proactive one.

As a state, Virginia has recognized this fact, and acted to allow her citizenry to fill the gaps as it were, and gave them the ability to defend themselves proactively.

Then Virginia Tech acted to take away that ability by banning all firearms on campus, without adjusting their security force accordingly, and we see the result. A reactive defense cost 31 people their lives.

You say that allowing random students to carry on campus would cost even more lives. You're probably right, but the problem with your statement is that CCWs are not issued randomly. It's a self selected group, meaning that only people with a certain set of characteristics will go through the trouble and expense of arming themselves. First and foremost, they must have a respect for the law and for authority, otherwise they wouldn't go through the trouble of getting a permit. That by itself removes the 'randomness factor' ensuring that those who arm themselves are more responsible than their peers.

I could go on, but I'm sure you see where I'm going. CCW holders are a more mature, responsible group than the parent group they come from, regardless of age.

This tragedy could have been avoided at several stages if Cho's mental condition had been properly diagnosed and treated. It wasn't. The tragedy could have been lessened significantly if another student or faculty member has been armed.

You say that arming the students would result in more deaths over time, which is hard to argue either way,since the data isn't really there, but consider this:

Assume that over 50 years, 31 people die on a campus from accidental discharges, suicides and homicides. Is this better, worse, or just the same as 31 people dying in one morning? Explain your answer.

Posted by: rich on April 21, 2007 10:59 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Security Code:

Remember info?