I realise I am in a different country, but would still quibble with your statement:
‘It speaks of some fundamental disconnect between “protected” environs like universities and the “real world”, where such things are normal, albeit uncommon.’
I think you should replace “real world” with “the rest of America”. The UK, for example, not only forbids gun ownership for self-protection, but also beat policemen are unarmed.
Oh, as if the UK is “the real world.” Don’t you people worship King Arthur or some nonsense? Wake up, England. In the real world, real people solve their problems with guns. If the problem happens to be guns, the solution is MORE GUNS.
IMHO, a lot of crazy people have delusions of granduer. They know that they are going to die, but they think at least they will go down in history as the guy who killed 10?100?1000? people on his way out.
If, two seconds after you pulled a gun a killed your first victim, you KNEW that the rest of the class would pull their legal, concealed pistols out and kill you, then you might wonder what the point was in doing it…
Why are their no mass killings at gun shows? 
Why are almost, if not all mass killings in places where people may not legally carry weapons?
That is reasonable. Which is how sane people think.
I recall posting here before my stance on this - one instigating factor in school shootings is that the victims are essentially guaranteed to be defenseless by law.
The “wackos” that perpetrate such acts aren’t entirely irrational - motivated by revenge or notoriety they generally seek to kill as many folks as possible and figure that a place where people can’t defend themselves is such a place. Most debates focus on the “shooting back” aspect, but I believe the knowledge that the victims may not, in fact, be quite defenseless is a solid deterrent to a would-be mass murderer regardless of whether firearms are actually carried or not.
The other major factor is that school (and work) are stressful places where people spend a lot of time, it’s relatively easy for an unstable person to “go off the rails” for some perceived (or real) social problem. Young people are particularly unstable since they’re still growing up, which exacerbates the issue.
While I agree that relaxing CCW restrictions in schools would probably help with events like the one at Virginia Tech, a bit more emphasis on psychological support for students with problems would go a long way to cover the suicide issue as well, which is a big one for young adults.
Obligatory CDC link follows, which has a 216 page paper (free downloadable PDF) on what they feel are best practices for resolving the problem of youth violence:
Center for Disease Control - Youth Violence Prevention
In a nutshell, they focus on effective conflict resolution and communication skills, mentoring, identifying problems early, and so on - understating rather eloquently: “…when adolescents are faced with social situations for which they are unprepared for emotionally and cognitively, they may respond with aggression…”.
These are essential life lessons to learn in their own right, I’m not sure why they’re not a more substantial part of the school curriculum already. Many folks pick this stuff up naturally through social interaction, but there are many who do not with ramifications well through adulthood.
I’m not sure how well this applies to the Virginia Tech situation, though. It’s not as though the killer chose the school as a target and traveled there to kill people specifically because he knew of their “no-gun” policy. He was already a student there, and according to his writings and actions, he’d focused his craziness on his fellow students and teachers for some time. It seems unlikely that he would have been dissuaded by the mere possibility that some other student might have been packing heat. Hell, he himself was carrying guns illegally, so why would he just assume that no other student was?
For that matter, he seemed to have no qualms about wandering around campus in search of more victims, even with the threat of the University Police, who were armed. They didn’t respond as effectively as they might have, but he couldn’t have known that beforehand.
One angle that hasn’t been mentioned is that many college campuses are residential. Carrying guns on your person is one thing. Having guns strewn about a cluttered dorm room is another.
I knew a girl who was shot in the leg in her dorm room by an errant bullet coming out through the floor, from the dorm room below her. IIRC, the shooter was expelled, as he should have been. If guns are allowed on campus, there would have to be specific policies about securing weapons when not in use and how many a student is allowed to possess. Personally, if I were a dorm director on such a campus, I would freak out at the whole idea.
But you and I aren’t talking about people so insane that they think they are the King of Prussia or howl at the moon at night. We are talking about people who function as a normal part of society, yet are off in a slight, but very dangerous way (the VT shooter, Tim McVeigh, OJ Simpson, all of the other school shooters).
You seem to be classing people in one of two categories: sane or insane. There are degrees of each, and IMHO, when you introduce the fact that the state has artifically created a pool of defenseless victims by law (a school, a restaurant that sells booze, an airplane, etc.) then such people see an opportunity to give meaning to an otherwise worthless life.
Sure some people could be carrying illegally, but the stats show that people generally don’t, so it’s safe to take that risk. I LOL at the poster who said that VT shooter should have worried that another student was carrying illegally because he (the shooter) was.
I guess if another student was intent on mass murder the same day, time, and building that the VT shooter was, then he should have worried. But the average VT student who has a concealed carry permit, thinks like this:
“I have a better chance of being found out that I’m carrying, and get expelled from school, than I do getting killed on campus” and as such they leave their guns at home. That’s exactly what I do at my job.
What studies, or personal experience, do you have that students, legal or otherwise, would or do leave guns “strewn about” dorm rooms, apparantly under beer cans and pizza boxes?
Because they leave a lot of other things strewn around?
It just seems ridiculous to allow students to carry and own weapons on the off chance that an insane person might start shooting the place up. You’d probably run into more problems with people accidentally getting shot. It would be a residential director’s nightmare, and a huge liability if someone got shot and decided to sue the school.
Oh, bullshit. Theres no increase in risk in allowing carry on a campus any more than there is in allowing it on a busy city street or in a crowded Walmart. These “accidentally shooting someone” theories are the wet dream of the antis.
As for the deterrence factor of legal carry, sometimes the actual deterrence doesn’t begin until after the bad guy has acted. A sucking chest wound and a hole in the skull are a great way to deter someone from continuing their rampage.
I’m somewhat skeptical that this belief of yours is actually true. Certainly, there are plenty of instances of gun violence in locations such as military bases, where the shooter must have been aware that there would be other armed people around. I’m thinking of cases like last June’s where one armed guard at Walter Reed Army Medical Center opened fire on another:
And the five spousal murders involving US Army members at the Fort Bragg Army base in 2002.
If apparently rational people can be unbalanced enough to attempt to assault someone with firearms on a military base—where they know perfectly well there are plenty of other people around with easy access to firearms and skilled in their use—why should we believe that out-and-out loonies will be seriously deterred from shooting rampages in schools and workplaces just because there’s a chance that somebody there might be legally carrying a gun?
Anyway, Airman, I think your Op-Ed is mostly well-argued and well-written. But I agree with Bryan that you should rewrite the misleading statement that “approximately one in ten people you speak to, are statistically likely to be carrying a weapon”. I also think your closing paragraph is weak; although I understand that you’re just trying to be fair to the opposing side, it sounds as though you’re backing down from your stated position or timidly trying to deflect criticism of it. Just ditch the last paragraph and let the forthright opinions expressed in your second-to-last paragraph stand on their own.
Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2923.12:
Existing law specifies that the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state of Ohio, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. A person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of R.C. 2911.21(A)(4), amisdemeanor of the fourth degree.
It may be a bad idea to get legal advice from gun sites. I’m not saying I never break the law, but I never break one accidentally.
That’s Ohio. I’m wondering about some other states. From what I’ve read they have to be of a certain size and have specific wording. Also, I’ve read that in many of these places the worst that can happen is you’re asked to leave and are not breaking any law until you refuse to (trespass).
But, admitedly, I’m taking this from memory of something I read a while ago, and the site I read it on has not been up for almost a month now (packing.org) so I have no way of going back and re-reading it. I’m certainly not going to debate something I’m pulling from a distant memory.
In my opinion, the presence of greater numbers of people carrying weapons would dramatically decrease the total number of people killed in any single instance of mass shooting, and dramatically increase the number of people killed in shootings involving “only” one or two victims.
Which number might be greater than the other? I would guess the latter, but that’s just my opinion.
Kimstu
None of the cases you mentioned were “mass murder” or even multiple murders. Yes, the military does have incidents of murder. Sometimes guys with guns are idiots. Mostly not, though.
Using the cases you mentioned in a discussion about mass murders is . . . uh, dumb.
Tris
Whereas the “carrying a gun on the off-chance of blowing away a psycho killer” theory isn’t a trigger-happy wet dream at all.
I believe that’s become known as the “Yoshihiro Hattori deterrence method.” (By the way, the enthusiastic use of phrases like “sucking chest wound and a hole in the skull” are probably not the best way to convincingly present the pro-carry argument as reasonable and wise.)
Interestingly, I’ve read that suicide rate on college campuses is significantly lower than the rate of the same age group outside colleges. It has been suggested that the prohibition on guns in college dorms is at least partially responsible for this difference. But that’s probably just another wet dream.
Why? Nobody so far has provided any solid evidence that deterrence effects operate differently in the case of individual murder, multiple murder, or mass murder.
There seem to be a number of people here who would like to believe that the possible presence of other armed persons would somehow have a specially deterrent effect on would-be mass murderers, but their beliefs are not evidence. Absent such evidence, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to point out that there are many instances where the possible presence of other armed persons clearly doesn’t deter would-be murderers at all.
I disagree, but even if this were fact, I don’t give a shit! I refuse to recognize any justification for limiting civil liberties just because some loser may use said freedom to off himself.
You’re the one who mentioned “under beer cans and pizza boxes”, which means you’re familiar with the organizational skills of an average college student. Don’t paint such pictures if you feel they’re inaccurate.
At any rate, due to the communal nature of most college residential settings, Mr. I’ve-Got-To-Have-A-Gun-To-Feel-Like-A-Man may have his shit together enough not to be irresponsible with his gun, but chances are he’ll have a roomate who is of a different state of mind. Not only does a campus have to worry about the sanity and stability of Gun Owner, but also the people who live with Gun Owner and have access to his weapons. A logistical nightmare, for a residential director.