"People Don't Stop Killers. People With Guns Do"
As news of yet another tragic school shooting hit Twitter, I thought about how many (and maybe all) campuses ban firearms on their premises, and how the best way to stop a shooter is with another gun.
I have a number of college prof friends I'm close with who are accomplished with guns. One practices regularly on a range and one was one of the first women given the M-16 rifle in the army. I wish they could be armed on campus, but it's apparently a firing offense. And I don't mean the shooting kind.
So they are made to be sitting ducks on campus, as are the soldiers gunned down on military bases, denuded of their firearms.
Well, I went looking for any pieces written about this and came upon this NY Daily News op-ed from 2007 by law prof Glenn Reynolds -- with the headline I quoted as the title of this blog item:
On Monday, as the news of the Virginia Tech shootings was unfolding, I went into my advanced constitutional law seminar to find one of my students upset. My student, Tara Wyllie, has a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee, but she isn't allowed to have a weapon on campus. That left her feeling unsafe. "Why couldn't we meet off campus today?" she asked.Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles also has a permit to carry a gun, in Virginia. But on the day of the shootings, he would have been unarmed for the same reason: Like the University of Tennessee, where I teach, Virginia Tech bans guns on campus.
...[Colleges] think that by making their campuses "gun-free," they'll make people safer, when in fact they're only disarming the people who follow rules, law-abiding people who are no danger at all.
This merely ensures that the murderers have a free hand. If there were more responsible, armed people on campuses, mass murder would be harder.
In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 fromhis truck and ran to the scene. In February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun.
Police can't be everywhere, and as incidents from Columbine to Virginia Tech demonstrate, by the time they show up at a mass shooting, it's usually too late. On the other hand, one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. Only if they're armed, they may wind up not being victims at all.
When there's a tragedy, there's an impulse to do something in response. But that impulse often isn't the wisest one.
Cathy Young explains at OnlineAthens.com that gun control wouldn't make us safer:
Writing on CNN.com, Fareed Zakaria cites Switzerland as an exemplary country with low gun homicide rates. Indeed, the total homicide rate in Switzerland in 2010 was 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with 4.2 in the United States. But Switzerland, unlike most of Europe, actually has widespread gun ownership (with an estimated 2 million to 3 million guns in a population of fewer than 8 million) and a thriving gun culture rooted in a tradition of a citizen militia. Shooting clubs are common, and target practice is a popular sport, even for children.Meanwhile, in the Philippines, gun laws are considerably more restrictive than in the United States and civilian gun ownership is a paltry 5 per 100 people -- yet the homicide rate is more than double the U.S. rate.
...Even if a total ban on the sale and possession of firearms were enacted, it's doubtful it could be enforced with an estimated 270 million guns already in circulation. The War on Drugs shows that we don't have a stellar track record of keeping illegal products out of people's hands. Why would guns and ammunition be different? Indeed, a recent Reuters report on the gun culture in the Philippines notes that attempts to outlaw the sale and carrying of guns during election campaigns has merely driven up business for illegal gunsmiths.
...Some gun control measures are reasonable. But in trying to understand the causes of shooting sprees, we should be looking at other factors, from social isolation to inadequate attention to mental illness. The push for gun laws offers an illusion of safety in the face of horror.
And don't forget this event a few years ago just down the street in Oregon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting
On many college campuses the ban probably does save lives...not from this type of event but from drunk and/or high idiots accidentally shooting someone including themselves.
The Former Banker at October 1, 2015 10:46 PM
"Looking at other factors" - great idea.
I'd start with psychiatric drugs, apparently linked to a large number of school shootings.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 1, 2015 10:47 PM
What are the odds of a crazed psycho coming onto campus vs the odds of some idiot accidentally shooting themselves?
NicoleK at October 2, 2015 12:32 AM
One thing that's common in all school shootings is the presence of a school, so when will America finally pass a common-sense schooling ban?
Snoopy at October 2, 2015 4:28 AM
What are the odds of a crazed psycho coming onto campus vs the odds of some idiot accidentally shooting themselves?
Posted by: NicoleK at October 2, 2015 12:32 AM
Is this the standard you want to use to judge all constitutional rights by ?
or have you just been well brainwashed by the socialist media to believe guns are some special enhanced kind of dangerous?
Unlike say, that swimming pool in your backyard, or that bicycle your kid has?
The statistics say you are wrong.
Isab at October 2, 2015 4:51 AM
Given that the guns are already here in great profusion, I wonder what proponents of gun bans actually think the bans will actually do?
Passing laws to express your feelings doesn't seem terribly useful.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at October 2, 2015 4:58 AM
Some news reports are now saying that the Oregon gunman was targeting people who were Christian.
Obama condemned guns after the shooting, condemned the US for "not having common sense gun laws."
Will we now hear him condemn the beliefs of the gunman?
I'm going back to bed; wake me up when he does.
charles at October 2, 2015 5:06 AM
We don't need gun control, we need a MASSIVE mental health system overhaul. The deinstitutionalization push in the 60's (thank you, hippie-dippie progressives)got the mentally ill out of institutions and......abandoned them. If you KNOW your kid is having a psychotic break and needs to be locked up for the safety of everyone, you know what you can do about it? Jack shit, probably, because good luck finding an open bed at the few hospitals that will take the mentally ill. Try to get him in to a psychiatrist? Hope you've got months and months to safely wait for that appt. Haul him to the ER? if you're lucky, you'll buy 48 hours and some meds. So what ends up happening? The kid kills himself, or attacks someone, or commits some other crime, ends up in the system, and then IF he is extremely lucky, the judge orders him to a state facility. (a severely underfunded, understaffed, very out of date facility).
Psychotropic drugs can affect people differently, yes, and can cause adverse mentation and behaviors in some. But the fact that all the killers had some Dr, somewhere, who recognized something was wrong and at least tried to treat it? That doesn't mean the meds cause the behavior. It means the meds were the only thing the General Practitioner or pediatrician could do/knew to do for the kid. They needed access to someone who specializes in the meds, and could and would try many different ones until they found the one that worked for this particular kid.
In 1980, the Austin State Hospital had 3000 patients. Now they have 300. It's not because 90% fewer people are severely mentally disturbed now, versus then. They're just walking around society now.
momof4 at October 2, 2015 5:52 AM
NicoleK, Try using the time spent drinking Kool-Aid meditating on the use of common sense.
Yes there are and will be accidental shootings just as there are accidents in any activity.
Horse riding is probably listed as a pretty dangerous activity but women love it so don't focus on that one.
"Shooting Traditions in America
German and Swiss riflemakers in Pennsylvania began producing flintlock rifles suitable for use on the American frontier around 1710. Since protection from Indians and hunting for food were vital concerns, frontiersman soon began "shooting at a mark" to sharpen their skills. The mark was usually a knot on a tree or an "x" marked on a slab of wood."
We've been using guns for a long time and as far as I know there have not been any mass accidental shootings.
If given a choice between waiting for a shooter to get to me and being accidentally shot by someone trying to stop him I pick the latter. The odds are in my favor there. (None vs. slim)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/olympics/longterm/shooting/shthist.htm
Bob in Texas at October 2, 2015 6:02 AM
Yeah, we had a bunch of politicians jumping at the opportunity last night to cynically exploit the tragedy for their own gain. "If only it had been impossible for him to obtain guns!" May as well wish for a unicorn while you're at it. You'd think that no murders were ever committed before guns were invented. It's like they never heard of Julius Caeser and Brutus. Oh wait, they probably haven't.
Cousin Dave at October 2, 2015 6:39 AM
I'm going back to bed; wake me up when he does.
Ok, Rip van Winkle. Well, actually only 16 months...
I R A Darth Aggie at October 2, 2015 7:02 AM
"If only it had been impossible for him to obtain guns!"
Then he might have taken a chemistry course and built a bomb. All he needed was some sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate in the right proportions and *poof* an IED.
Long term survival was not on his agenda.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 2, 2015 7:08 AM
Tragic as this latest event is, it's about the same as a bad week in Chicago. Where's the President's moral outrage about that? It happens every week of the year.
The President bemoaned the fact that we as American' "accept" this sort of thing. I will now go out on a limb and suggest that what he says is a) perfectly true and b) actually a rational choice that Americans make, which makes complete sense when seen in its larger context.
When looking at a question like this, you have to always consider 'the things seen, and the things not seen.' And the fact of the matter is that the widespread ownership of firearms in America prevents a massive amount of crime of all sorts. Direct defensive use of firearms to prevent violent attacks numbers in the millions of events per annum, and the volume of crime that never happens because of the threat of armed response is likely orders-of-magnitude greater. This is why the US has such low rates of many crimes, such as burglary and assault when compared with many other nations which generally prohibit citizens from owning firearms.
I believe many Americans instinctively understand this calculus, and take the position that the occasional isolated outbreak of gun violence is an acceptable price to pay for the huge amount of crime and mayhem that is prevented by widespread ownership of firearms. We 'accept' 30,000+ deaths on our roads each year as the price of fast and easy personal mobility - while we try and find ways to reduce the death toll, we don't ban automobiles. Why is the calculus so very much different?
Washington is a 'shall-issue' CCW state, meaning that any citizen who meets the state's requirements can get a concealed-carry permit to carry a pistol in public. 6.5% of the state's total population, or more than one adult in 10, is so licensed. That's why this latest nutjob went to a community college campus (to which he had no other ties) to do what he did - it's one of the very few places in the state where you will find large groups of people who are prevented by law from being armed - college campuses are one of the places in the state where CCW holders may not go armed. If he had done this at a mall or a movie theater, there's better than a 1-in-10 chance that he would have encountered a citizen who was armed, and presumably willing to shoot back. That's why almost-all of these nutjobs pick schools and college campuses - because they know that they will be the only person there with a weapon. They're crazy, but they're not stupid. They want fame, power and notoriety - being shot dead by some passing civilian will not fit that bill.
Want to reduce the number of people injured and killed in these sorts of events? It's a simple - allow CCW holders to carry everywhere. That's a 'sensible gun law'. Will never happen.
llater,
llamas
llamas at October 2, 2015 7:09 AM
Unlike say, that swimming pool in your backyard, or that bicycle your kid has?
_____________________________________
I have to say, I really don't understand the "need" some people have for swimming pools at home. People should ask themselves: "Am I really not going to get BORED with this luxury after just one summer, if not earlier, since it will be available every day?" In the meantime, of course, you have to keep pouring considerable money into its upkeep, even if it's an above-ground pool. (Unlike at least some other long-term luxuries, such as camping equipment - which you wouldn't use every day anyway.) On top of that, one has to worry about neighbor's kids sneaking in and possibly drowning - lawsuit!
Speaking of that last point...
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,394610
The people at Bratfree, naturally, think Prudie is kowtowing too much to kids and parents in general, in her last suggestion. IMO, however, it just might be wise - or not. If you want to see a different thread on that, Prudie's column is at Slate - but that includes responses to other letters in her column.
lenona at October 2, 2015 7:11 AM
Charles C. W. Cooke challenges the gun control crowd to come out of the closet and admit they want to repeal the Second Amendment.
And, if I recall correctly, a week in Chicago with only 13 killed and 20 or so wounded would be a quiet week. They can rack up those numbers on a busy Friday night.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 2, 2015 7:18 AM
One angle that's not getting much discussion is the shooter's family situation. Divorced parents, single mom (who may be a little unstable herself) trying to raise a son who has "issues", moving around a lot, no consistent strong male presence in the home. Sounds like a perfect recipe to create an isolated, disconnected, frustrated young man with no idea how to cope. Give him a good father figure and I wonder if his life wouldn't have played out differently.
bkmale at October 2, 2015 7:50 AM
When seconds count, take comfort knowing the police are only minutes away.
Nick at October 2, 2015 8:13 AM
_____________________________________
"I have to say, I really don't understand the "need" some people have for swimming pools at home. People should ask themselves: "Am I really not going to get BORED with this luxury after just one summer, if not earlier, since it will be available every day?" In the meantime, of course, you have to keep pouring considerable money into its upkeep, even if it's an above-ground pool. (Unlike at least some other long-term luxuries, such as camping equipment - which you wouldn't use every day anyway.) On top of that, one has to worry about neighbor's kids sneaking in and possibly drowning - lawsuit!"
The difference between you and me Leona, on this topic at least, is I see a lot of people making stupid choices about both their personal safety and how they spend their money.
That doesn't mean, that I want to tell them to do it differently, or God forbid, lobby Washington to pass another feel good safety law, to try and make people do, whatever the latest cherry picked politically driven study tells our overlords is the *safe* choice,
I, so far, have lived sixty years, by totally ignoring the government low fat dietary recommendations, and at least from my casual appraisal of my contemporaries seem fitter, healthier, and in generally better health than those who have attempted to follow them.
Isab at October 2, 2015 9:20 AM
Perspective:
Peitro Beretta & Sons - est. 1591 AD.
Number One With A Bullet
Radwaste at October 2, 2015 9:34 AM
Take a step back and breathe...
now ask yourself, those who are "we need commons sense laws"...
ask yourself how, precisely, those laws would have prevented this tragedy...
or the 100 shootings, with 13 deaths in Chicage the last 10 days or so.
Most people immediately start dissembling... because they don't know, they just want something done.
Some of the worst laws on the books were in pursuit of "something"... but ended up used for something completely different. Take asset forfeiture, for example.
Or bulk data collection of all your life... or registering with any store you want to buy real sudafed in.
Many people you talk to will say "but this time it will be different... " Because UNICORNS!!!11!!
You might also want to think of every person who DOESN'T say anything. Cooke is correct that some of the shrillest voices demand something that is not entirely quite unlike confiscation, but is.
And those people think that every person who is silent is on their side. It is certainly not that simple. People who are for confiscation know nothing about guns, and suggest the would never use one... but they also scream police brutality and microaggression all the time.
Imagine all that dissonance in your head? It prolly doesn't quite hurt, but still.
Many who opine, including the guy in the mansion with huge security details around him, have great difficulty in reconciling the difference between ideas and theory, and applied force.
They will make fun of someone who trains and prepares for an eventuality that may never come.
I know these people, they were making fun of me while I worked 100+ hours a week leading up to y2k.
I'm one of the schmoes that made sure that nothing bad happened.
And what do I get? SEE, NOTHING BAD HAPPENED! :facepalm: "yeah, because we sprinkled it all with faery dust, and tinkerbell fixed everything."
You might be mugged in chicago by some guy with an old .38 special with all it's bluing worn off... that doesn't make it any less real. And NONE of your gunlaws would apply, at all, in any way. Generally, criminals don't bother with background checks to buy an expensive new gun. :shrug: and that time you handed him the wallet, and, nothing bad really happened, except for having to replace everything.
And then? Maybe some week, you were walking out of a parking garage, and saw a group of teens, sorta messing around on the street. You turned to go to starbucks, when the first one hit you... and then the second, then you got kicked, and hit, and...
If only you could defend yourself... but how to do that with 10 assailants?
http://kdvr.com/2015/08/16/exclusive-visiting-couple-beaten-attacked-on-16th-street-mall/
I'm sure that couple thought it would never happen to them... most people do.
The boyfriend didn't die, and the police came. How close was it?
Meanwhile, in some other city, a mugger says "gimme the cash!!!"
And winds up on the wrong end of a gun.
He lets out for far away just as fast as his legs can go... and boya with a concealed permit holsters the gun... and heads home for the day, because after that, all he can think of is scotch on the rocks, and some comfort food... cuz he's shaking like a leaf.
What he had in his pocketses prevented bad things... but only the wife will ever know, because, no crime. Unless a cop was right there, there is no "attempted" anything, and there will NEVER be a statistic on this, because: no crime.
Maybe the wife decides that he isn't stupid to be carrying "that thing", and decides to get herself a small pistol, and take some classes.
I don't wish being mugged on anyone, but it is remarkable how much it clears your mind of foolish belief.
So, about those "common sense" laws... Who do they apply to, and why? Do they apply to 310million people? or to criminals? How much do they even slow a criminal down? Will they stop a disturbed individual from getting a weapon? Do people even apply them evenly?
Gun stores do. Apply them to everyone, using a fed database. But that is only for a NEW purchase, and only for someone who abides by a law. In one case I can think of, THERE IS A LOOPHOLE that could be easily closed.
The one where the sale goes through after 3 days, of the feds don't auth/decline the sale.
It's that way in a lot of the country, and it shouldn't be. You should have to retry, if it doesn't go through.
That would'a prevented that bastard in Charleston... though he might have tried something else.
The gunshow loophole isn't, really. Which people would know if they'd been to one. Very few individuals would buy a table to sell a gun at a show. It's usually dealers or other fed licensed people... and they HAVE to do the check at the show... and the show is set up with all the methods to check.
There may be sales OUTSIDE the show, but those will go down somewhere, regardless if they are legal or not, because you just CAN'T control people on such a granular level... so the law becomes irrelevant.
Tragedies freak people the hell out, and essentially, they should, because otherwise we can no longer feel. But that doesn't make it a good time to trot out your pet law, the one that won't actually do what it says.
And you are going to hear about "some law" doing something or other, a lot over the next weeks...
but with NO specifics. Because specifics are testable, and have to work... and some politician banging on about how this makes him sad, HAS NO SPECIFICS. The things he wants to do amount to security theater, just like at the airport, and for the same reasons.
It's almost like the whole thing is a point of control, isn't it?
SwissArmyD at October 2, 2015 9:37 AM
Milo Yiannopoulos offers some thoughts:
Great, seething, anger. Aimed inward. And outward.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 2, 2015 10:51 AM
Stop using Switzerland as an example, though, there is massive gun control here. You get your gun after you train in the army, not on a whim.
NicoleK at October 2, 2015 11:21 AM
"Tragedies freak people the hell out."
Only certain ones, though. It depends almost entirely on where it happens and the identity-group affiliation of the perp and the victims. As many others here have pointed out, what's happening in Chicago is an ongoing tragedy. But nobody cares because Chicago. Even #BlackLivesMatter doesn't care. Black men are dying? Yawn. The perps mostly aren't white cops so nobody cares. What's happending to women in the Middle East is an ongoing tragedy, but nobody cares because Muslims. The women aren't trendy Manhattanites; they didn't go to school at an Ivy and they don't own a single pair of Manelos. And it isn't George W. Bush who is killing them. Yawn.
Cousin Dave at October 2, 2015 1:08 PM
"Black men are dying? Yawn. The perps mostly aren't white cops so nobody cares. "
If the country gave half a sh*t about those folks the President and AG would lead the charge to save them from their violent neighbors.
But sadly the Prez is an elected office and he goes where the wind blows.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 2, 2015 1:44 PM
SwissArmy: "In one case I can think of, THERE IS A LOOPHOLE that could be easily closed.
The one where the sale goes through after 3 days, of the feds don't auth/decline the sale."
Are you in favor of bureaucrats being able to deny a constitutional right because a bureaucrat was incompetent. What follows from that is that any time a bureaucrat wants to deny a right, he just feigns incompetence.
markm at October 2, 2015 4:31 PM
"... 30-year-old Chris Mintz, the student and Army vet who was shot at least five times while charging straight at the gunman in an effort to save others."
If the Army vet could have had his gun he could have used bullets instead of his body. Gun-Free Zone = Victim Zone
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html?via=desktop&source=facebook
Bob in Texas at October 2, 2015 5:59 PM
Yeah, MarkM, it's a toughie... on one hand they could just put off the sale to prevent you from having a gun... but what's to stop them from not clearing you now?
If they routinely turned down every other person, it wouldn't be a stoppage, but would be ugly...
Don't trust em anymore, but I've no better answer.
And to NicholeK's point... Switzerland isn't a good analog, because IIRC, it's ammo that is regulated, there.
Tho, it's better to have a gun with no ammo, than the other way.
SwissArmyD at October 2, 2015 9:09 PM
I've worked for 20 years with patients taking psych meds. I haven't met a single mass killer. I have met two individuals who murdered three each. Neither was taking psych meds, but they probably should have been.
Ken R at October 2, 2015 9:29 PM
To Isab:
I'm not saying what the laws should be regarding swimming pools - I have no idea. All I was saying was that there's more than one reason to think twice before getting a pool, so why not think of all the reasons first? (Another reason would be the possibility of one's OWN relative, young or not, drowning in it. I could never live that down, even if it were strictly the adult relative's fault.)
lenona at October 3, 2015 9:09 AM
There is no such thing as "Constitutional Rights" in the U.S. Constitution. We have (the People) "Natural Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution is a restriction on government, not a restriction on the people. The Bill of Rights was a mistake according to Alexander Hamilton (from Federalist 84):
"I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights."
Jay J. Hector at October 3, 2015 5:17 PM
Leave a comment