Another Tragic Success for Gun-Free Zones
April 16th, 2007 by Syd
At least 21 people were killed [33 by latest count] Monday in twin shootings on the Virginia Tech campus — the worst school shooting incident in U.S. history. “Some victims were shot in a classroom,” university police Chief Wendell Flinchum said. The lone gunman is also dead, Flinchum added. Source
And, of course, the Virginia Tech campus is a “gun-free zone.” From the Virginia Tech Student Code:
Unauthorized possession, storage, or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited, including storing weapons in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls. (Note: organizational weapons of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, approved by the commandant, are not prohibited by this policy.)…
…Exceptions to possessing weapons may be made in the case of university functions or activities and for educational exhibitions or displays. Such exceptions will be subject to authorization by the Virginia Tech Police. This policy does not prohibit the possession of firearms by persons, such as law enforcement officers, who are authorized by law to do so in the performance of their duties. A weapons storage program is available. Interested persons should contact the Virginia Tech Police (Sterrett Facilities Complex, 231-6411) Source
In 2006, Virginia House Bill 1572, that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus, died in the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making “rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit … from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun.”
In the most tragic of ironies, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. He said:
“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” Source
Well, Larry, what are you going to tell all of those parents who were made to “feel safe”?
When asked what could be done to avert a tragedy like this, the president of the University responded that, “We obviously can’t have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day.” To which the Firearms Coalition responds: If you admit that you can’t protect people, why do you insist on taking away people’s ability to protect themselves? — Jeff Knox
“Gun-Free Zones” don’t work. Denying people their right to self defense doesn’t work. How many people have to die before this mythology is revealed for the demonic lie that it is? This is what happens when you create gun-free zones. When you broadcast to the evil-doers that here is a place where we guarantee that you will receive no resistance or opposition, there is a certain kind of sick bastard who will exploit that vulnerability to play out his malignant psychodrama. The sad fact of the matter is that there have been a lot more school shootings, and particularly multiple-victim shootings, since the Gun Free School Act was passed in 1995 than there ever were prior to it. The policy is an abysmal failure precisely because its effect is actually the opposite of its intent: it attracts homicidal people.
…there is no connection between recent mass murder events and gun restrictions. As Quebec economist Pierre Lemieux noted yesterday, “Mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, while they have been increasing as guns have become more controlled.” The 1996 murders in the Scottish town of Dunblane–17 killed–occurred despite far more restrictive gun laws than America’s.” The Wall Street Journal
On our “security procedures”:
The university reported shootings at opposite sides of the 2,600-acre campus—first at about 7:15 a.m. at a coed residence hall that houses 895 people and about two hours later at an engineering building. One student was killed in the dorm and the others were killed in a classroom, according to Virginia Tech Police Chief W.R. Flinchum. Source
“We don’t need guns because the police will protect us.” Even with a two-hour warning, the police were not able to stop the majority of the killings which happened around 9 AM. One girl with a .38 Special could have stopped this had she been on the scene.
You can bet that when the dust settles there will be solemn promises to “review our security procedures.” It is also a certainty that conspicuously absent from that “review” will be any mention of the one thing that could have stopped this maniac — a lawfully armed civilian on the scene. Remember the Appalachian School of Law shooting in which the shooter was subdued by two armed students, former police officers, one of whom retrieved his personal defense handgun from his car and stopped the attack. Remember also Pearl, Mississippi where school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school’s vice principal took a .45 from his 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.
All qualified adults should have the right to be armed if they so choose. They shouldn’t be fired from their jobs if they choose to go armed, and their workplaces and other public areas should not be made “gun free zones.”
If there had been just one at Virginia Tech…
See Also:
Trolley Square Mall and Concealed Carry
Google Search on Appalachian School of Law shooting
John Farnam on School Shootings
GUN-FREE ZONES
Shooting at the University of Washington: the woman who was killed had been asking for police protection for several weeks.
http://tinyurl.com/yvecus
HOW GUN CONTROL TRADES LIFE FOR DEATH
http://tinyurl.com/ypclj6
THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET OF “GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES”
http://tinyurl.com/t2c9g
Gun bill gets shot down by panel
Virginia HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.
VA Tech official praised defeat of student self-defense proposal in 2006
News Reports:
Gunman killed after deadly Virginia Tech rampage
At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting
Gunman kills 30 on Virginia Tech campus
Va. Tech tragedy revives gun controversy
Gun Control Backers Respond Swiftly
Shootings At Va. Tech Sparks Gun Debate
Professor: Shooter’s writing dripped with anger
A year and a half before before Cho Seung-Hui went on a deadly shooting spree on the campus of Virginia Tech, a professor was so concerned about his anger that she took him out of another teacher’s creative writing class and taught him one-on-one… Cho, an English major, never wrote about guns or killing people, she said. But his writing was disturbing enough that she went to police and other university officials to seek help.
Police: Virginia Tech Gunman Had Past Stalking Incidents
Police: Cho taken to mental health center in 2005
Students angered, disgusted by gunman’s manifesto
Hey a howitzer could have stopped this guy too, or a tank, or a nuke. Let’s give everyone one of those….you know by your philosophy.
The ACTUAL solution would be to give everyone non-lethal weapons….auto repeat tazers, pepper guns, flash grenades. That way this guy could be stopped AND crazies like him also couldn’t do damage.
Saying gun free zones don’t work is like saying the Greenzone in Iraq is safe. You can’t have a tiny little area surrounded by a state where anyone can carry an assault rifle and then say it failed.
Seriously….you’re just being silly and picking up a talking point like an NRA drone.
The NRA doesn’t write my copy for me. The only only one picking up talking points is you with this suicidal Brady Campaign horse shit. Flash grenades? Captain Kirk’s phaser? What is it with you people? Drone on, Brady drone.
“Gun-Free Zones” don’t work because they create magnets for psychopaths, not because of the availability of guns or other weapons.
Note the lack of logic or evidence in trying to defend “gun-free zones.”
The point of gun-free-zones at a university is to stop students from having weapons and doing stupid things with them. No one has every suggested they would prevent something like this.
And the point that they essentially operate isolation–surrounded by a country where we can’t even get to together to agree that there’s no good reason for civilians to carry assault rifles–is important too.
For gun control to have an effect on criminals, it needs to be done on a wide scale (i.e. nationally) with strong enforcement. Unfortunately, folks like you are going to ensure that we never get a chance to see how many lives can/would have been saved by rational gun control policy at a national level.
Thanks for the compliment, Nathaniel or whoever you really are with you bogus name and e-mail address. I really had no idea I was so powerful. To know that I stopped a fascist police state from stripping American citizens of their life, liberty and civil rights makes my life almost worth living.
The fact is that we have had ample test cases of “wide scale” gun control driven by a “rational gun control policy at a national level.” They include the Third Reich, The Soviet Union, Mexico and Red China. Try to buy a gun in the People’s Republic of North Korea or Zimbabwe. Look at the disastrous failure of gun control in England where parents are buying bullet-proof vests in which to send their kids to school. And then there’s that island of tranquility known as South Africa. If gun control works so well, why don’t you move to one of those lovely spots?
Gun control didn’t work today, didn’t work yesterday, and it won’t work tomorrow. Only a complete idiot or someone with far darker motives could continue to advocate a policy that has never once shown itself to be successful. Say “hi” to Sarah for me.
We have already seen yesterday how a gun-free zone lost 32 lives yesterday.
Following the logic of the anti gunners, you know, its the fault of the gun and not the criminal scum, we should ban gatherings of people over 3 because the larger group of people, the larger number of potential casualties. How easy the antis will surrender freedom when it comes to something they do not like.
Yep, gun control works! A couple places were it really worked:
1) Germany, registers guns, controls guns, confiscate guns, Hitler in power with no opposition.
2) Solidarity movement in Poland…same thing…eveyone turns in guns, now all you citizens are helpless to protect themselves from a tyranical government.
Evil exists. It’s not the guns, it’s the pshcho behind the gun. I see no reason to take guns from law abiding citizens and punishing them for what evil people do.
God gives us the right to protect ourselves, the Second Amendment spells it out.
Gun control has about as much chance of working as did prohibition. Chicago and Washington, DC have the strictest gun control measures on the books….and also the highest crime rates. Anyone who thinks they are safe with strong gun control, please move to one of those cities.
Politicians would lead us to believe they are sincere about gun control. That is why Dianne Finestien speaks out and tries to put forth many gun control bills. If she’s such a strong believer, why did she have a carry permit when few were issured? And the Brady bunch…why do they have to fabricate fake statistics? Why do they tell half truths?
Yep, gun control works!
If passing more laws will stop gun crime, why hasn’t it worked for narcotics?? When people are killed by a car, who is charged?? When was the last time a car recieved a DUI?? The police are good, but they can only lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Why is Vermont such a safe state??
Brendan,
The fact of the matter is that an armed law-abiding citizen can be trusted with a weapon capable of yielding deadly force in an act of self-defense as a last resort. Your overblown rant is just that, overblown and ill-considerate of some practical facts.
Understand that law-abiding people are called that because they tend to obey the law and respect others.
Criminals, on the other hand, do not care about the law. That is why they are called criminals since they break the law and only have respect for themselves. Do you seriously think they will care about breaking a gun law in the commission of breaking other laws?
That’s the logical fallacy of “gun-free zones.” They are only effective if the criminal is willing to leave his weapons out of the equation. You can guess how often that happens. In the meantime, the law-abiding will obey this provision and not be armed. This is why innocent people can be rendered defenseless in these so-called “safe zones” when a criminal decides to conduct his “business” in that zone. And, when the authorities are summoned for help, you can’t possibly expect an immediate response. By the time law enforcement does arrive, it’s typically too late to do anything about what has happened since the criminal will have plenty of time to do their deed, including murder; even against those who cooperate. This is also why places that do have draconian gun control measures, such as Great Britain and Washington D.C., have such high levels of crime whereas places such as Vermont, which allows unlicensed concealed carry, have low incidences of crime compared to the rest of the United States. Criminals do not want to get shot at by their victims, which is why crime is usually low in places like that whereas a criminal is smart enough to know that places like Maryland disallows effective civilian self-defense, which means crime is easier to commit there.
And, until we have a weapon that is as effective as a “Star Trek” phaser, the only personal weapon that will be effective at stopping an attacker will remain a pistol of adequate caliber and the proper training and practice to use them wisely and effectively.
Current stun weapons and irritant sprays are not entirely effective as there are perps who are able to resist these forms of immobilization and flash-bang grenades require the user to take adequate distance and cover else they be affected by the flash and concusion as well.
I doubt you will understand anything I’ve typed up here, but at least try to understand. Also understand that the most dangerous weapon remains the human mind and that responsibility always lies within the individual.
To poster #1, Brendan: Are you really that brainwashed that you actually “BELIEVE” that BS you are spouting? If I am ever faced with a gun toting nut with intent on shooting me, I do not want my options to be limited to “NON-LETHAL” responses. When faced with lethal force, I intend to respond with lethal force. I am a law-abiding US Citizen with proper training, permits, and experience to carry a conceled firearm safely. I am not a threat to ANYONE except one who is NOT a law abiding person. I carry a firearm every single day of my life. It is as much a part of my every day wardrobe as shoes are to you. I am not a threat at all. I do not go to schools and shoot students, I do not go to a store and rob it, I do not use the gun to rob people at gunpoint. I will however, use the gun to protect you in the event you are faced with a situation like those poor unarmed victims at VT. Had even one of those student victims been armed, there would have been less than 33 dead people that day. Period! No question about it. So do not dare to tell me that I would be safer if there were no private gun ownership. That arguement is just plain flawed. It was just proven again at VT.
The rest of the world wants the USA to disarm her citizens not because they care about us as individuals, but because someday in the future they are predicting a war with us on our soil and they do not want to have a gun pointing at them from every window on the street. A disarmed country is an easy target like a gun-free school zone is an easy target. Just look at your history books and find out why Japan did not continue on to mainland USA after Pearl Harbor. They stopped because of fear of private gun ownership by normal everyday US Citizens! People like me willing to carry arms to defend what is worth defending!
Yeah, gun control really works. (NOT!) Look at Australia, they banned guns, and deaths due to firearms WENT UP! Try to explain THAT one you f*****g Brady Bunch morons. Their society is very similar to ours, and they banned guns due to a shooting incident on a campus (similar to what happened at VT) back in the ’90s. John Howard (prime minister of Australia) bowed to the pressure of gun control freaks (anyone who advocates gun control in this day and age IS definitely a freak) and instituted a nationwide gun ban. Since then, there has actually been increases in firearm related deaths. If you want proof gun control doesn’t work, THERE IT IS. If you want stats, look them up yourself, you’ll find it’s the God’s honest truth. Anyone who STILL advocates gun control after looking over Australia’s record needs to find a new country to live in, preferably one where we will never hear from them again.
Here is a blatant and obvious fact that all of the news media and all of the liberal whiners will never face or admit. No one fought back! Those kids were all brought up in a school system that taught them that fighting back was wrong, that fighting back was also going to be punished. Thew shooter was a small stature individual, and there were some big boys in those classes, why didn’t anyone try to fight back? Oh he had a gun they will whine, so what. Throw a book , a chair, anything. Look at the teacher in Texas that got fired for teaching his 5th graders to throw books at an intruder. What the news didn’t tell you was that is was so effective that a trained swat officer couldn’t get a clear bead on a single student when they practiced it. He was so overwhelmed by 30 books coming at him he put his hands up to defend himself. Why on God’s earth didn’t someone fight back. I teach my kids to fight back, going against the liberal school policy and if they get suspended for dropping the bully that picks on them, then fine, we can home school them.
The youth of today are being trained to be compliant, and weak.
I say fight back, if one kid or teacher had fought back, and not just stand there and take bullets ( yes that teacher was a hero for blocking students with his own body) but he died, and not one of the kids he protected fought to save him. The shooter came and went several times, many of the victims were shot in the back or while cowering.
HELLO what ever happened to the basic human nature of self preservation???
FIGHT BACK!! better to die fighting, then to die on your knees begging. If he shot one person what makes them think he won’t shoot another.
The media will of course paint the gun as the killer, and make the shooter out to be a poor pitiful picked on victim as well. He was a coward, he lived a cowards life and took the cowards way out. It is unfortunate he took so many with him.
Rusty,
Excellent point.
In summary, and as I believe, a refusal to practice self-defense when it is necessary is, more or less, tantamount to suicide.
My website documents the successes of Victim Disarmament.
http://leveron.com/john/rights/
Another Tragic Success, indeed.
As Reinhart says, Brendan, your comment is simply overblown. When have you ever seen a criminal walk into a bank, or a school, or a coffee shop lugging a howitzer? It’s simply not practical. A gun is simply that: a gun. It will not stand up and shoot someone. Someone with a sick and twisted mind would have to pick it up for it to cause something like the VT massacre.
Save someone from a criminal, and he lives another day(or at least until the next criminal comes along when no one is there to help) give someone a gun, and teach him/her how to use it, and he can defend himself every time.
And as for tazers, pepper spray, and flash bangs. What good are they against an armed criminal who can shoot you long before you get close enough to zap him, spray him in the face, or pull the pin on, throw, and get out of the way of a flashbang?
It is simply not practical. It is far better for a criminal to be fataly harmed than for half of a school to be wiped out.
Nothing original here from me, because the obvious has been presented in so many ways that there arent anymore ways to present it.
Disarming honest citizens doesn’t protect honest citizens. I am not a hunter. I am not a country fella. I am an articulate “metropolitan” Californian, and I will defend myself with lethal force if you threaten me with the same. I am an American exercising my right (and duty) to own firearms in a responsible manner. I will protect my neighbors if I hear the sounds of murder and mayhem coming from their homes.
Proper use of force is easy. Even an educated liberal should be able to understand its principles. Please, think about it. If you were confronted by a distraught, vicious and angry person with a gun, What would go through your mind? Honestly? Would it be “Oh darn, my life is forfiet because someone else (police, government) failed to keep a gun out of this person’s hand!”
Gun control advocates are asking the entire planet to un-invent a tool that is useful to every self respecting person.
What other practical measure can a small woman use to ensure that five gang members dont rape and murder her in the street going from work to her car?
Im done. One can’t argue with the irrational using logic.
R.I.P all 33 victims in the virginia tech shooting…you will all be missed…