Last week was horrifying for the small town of Blacksburg, Virginia, and Virginia Tech University. Summoning visions of the massacre that took place there in 2007, initial reports described how a lone gunman shot a police officer on the grounds of the VT campus, and how another person had been shot and killed as well. It was thought the shooter was still at large. The campus locked down immediately. Given that I have a dear friend who works as staff there at VT, I paid close attention to the reports. Naturally I had fears of another mass shooting.
That was several days ago. Since then, the story has become clear. Ross Truet Ashley, age 22, apparently snapped. For reasons that are still unclear from media reports, last Wednesday he robbed the office of his landlord at gunpoint, demanded the keys of the landlord's Mercedes-Benz sport utility vehicle, then drove off in it. Almost 24 hours later, officer Deriek W. Crouse had pulled over a motorist on the grounds of Virginia Tech University. From out of nowhere, and for reasons unknown, Ashley abandoned his stolen vehicle, walked up and shot the officer, killing him. Ironically, the shooting happened across from the dormitory where the first shootings began in 2007. Ashley then ran off to the university greenhouses and made a quick change of clothes. Meanwhile, notices were already being sent to students, and the campus was locking down. Officers spotted Ashley in a parking complex, but by the time they caught up to him, he had shot and killed himself. They didn't initially identify him due to the change in clothing.
Obviously, the community was traumatized -- not just due to the horror of the event itself, but because this conjured memories of the 2007 shooting, where another mentally ill lone gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 students and faculty before taking his own life on the VT campus.
This case is particularly ironic, given that pro-gun groups have been holding rallies at area universities, trying to goad the universities into allowing concealed carry by their students, which the universities have a policy against. It's interesting to note, though, that the general public, outside of students, can carry there. These groups, particularly the radical Virginia Citizen's Defense League, held such a protest at VT on December 1. On Wednesday, Dec. 7, they held a rally at Radford University. The rally was going on when, almost within sight of the protest, Ashley robbed his landlord's office. Had Ashley known about the protest? Did he attend? It's unknown. The next day, as the shooting was taking place 2 hours away, the pro-gun extremists were holding another protest at James Madison University in Harrisonburg.
Even before the shooter had been identified or many facts were known, pro-gun extremists were commenting that this case proved that students should be allowed to carry guns on school grounds. Just like the protestors, they claimed on the comments sections of online news flashes that students should be allowed to protect themselves, that if they had a gun the shooter would be dead, that the universities were trampling the Second Amendment. All arguments about the dangers of guns or availability of guns to criminals were snidely brushed aside with language about patriotism and rights.
But let's take another look at what they claim. The pro-gun crowd likes to suggest that the sort of people who go on shooting sprees are criminals with previous records, obviously mentally ill, drug dealers, or gang members. Their vision of students who should be armed are students who have a clean record, who are well-adjusted, academically achieved, and well-liked -- law-abiding citizens who just want to feel secure.
Students just like Ross Truet Ashley.
You see, Ashley had no previous criminal record. He had shaved his head and was known to run rather than walk, but otherwise showed no clear signs of mental illness. He was a student, attending part-time at the business school at Radford University, 16 minutes away from VT. He was of legal age to purchase a firearm and have a concealed carry license. He is described as being friendly, nice, and quiet. He never talked about guns, drank, or used drugs (although he owned a gun and had visited a shooting range), wasn't a loner, and had been a star football player in high school. And he was academically achieved, having served on Student Government committees and been on the dean's list at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise in southwest Virginia in recent years. This is a young man who seemed to have everything going for him. It's unclear if he had a concealed carry license, but there was nothing stopping him from getting one.
Said his roommate from his years at U.Va-Wise:
"I was like, 'Oh, my God,'" he said. "This was my freshman roommate. This was the first person I met in college. This dude wore my clothes. This is freaking me out for real -- this is so crazy."
Vaughan said he was shocked by Ashley’s alleged actions.
“It’s unbelievable,” he said. “He doesn’t seem like the type who would do something like that. He was always eager to help and pretty much always in attendance [at SGA meetings]. He always had a smile on his face. I would never have imagined him doing anything like this.
Ashley was the model student for the campus conceal carry movement -- until he went on his murderous crime spree.
In the emotionally- and academically-charged and sometimes irresponsible environment that defines university life for young people, how then are we to trust that the average student carrying a gun is to be trusted? Does it make students safer somehow? The pro-gun extremists think it does. The vast majority of students and faculty at VT don't, and neither do any of the survivors of the 2007 shooting or their families.
The day after last week's shooting, Lori Haas, the mother of one of the first 2007 shooting survivors, Emily, had this to say:
Meanwhile, on the same day that we lost Officer Rouse [sic], a radical pro-gun group, the Virginian Citizens Defense League, or VCDL, was rallying on the James Madison University campus to force the school to allow guns in its classrooms and dormitories. When they’re not busy trying to arm our campuses, VCDL advocates for the eradication of Virginia’s state background check system.
Keep in mind that neither the Virginia Tech administration—nor a single victim or surviving family member of the 2007 massacre—supports these attacks on our gun laws. To the contrary, many of us are calling for tougher, universal background checks on all gun sales to halt the carnage before it ever begins.
Recently, my friend Colin Goddard—who like my daughter was shot on April 16, 2007, but survived—said something that stuck with me. Responding to those whose only solution to violence on campus is to arm themselves with concealed handguns, he said, “Shame on those unwilling to be their brothers’ keeper, but being all too eager to be his executioners."
Similar sentiments were shared by Omar Samaha, whose sister, Reema, was shot at VT in 2007. Samaha works hard to help prevent concealed carry on campuses.
And for those pro-gun folks who are still arguing that being armed on campus is going to save the lives of students, let me point out the following. Ashley's victim, Officer Crouse, was a Virginia Tech Police Emergency Response Team member, an Army veteran, was trained as a Crisis Intervention Officer, General Instructor, Firearms Instructor, Defensive Tactics instructor and most recently completed training for Advance Law Enforcement Rapid Response and Mechanical and Ballistic Instructor (source). And yet, despite all of Crouse's training and experience, the shooter still got the jump on him and murdered him. What are the chances, then, that the average student, barely trained in firearms or conflict engagement, could have any better luck? Is that chance worth all of the potential non-defensive shootings?
Universities are no place for guns. Keep 'em gun-free.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this guy sound a lot like you?
When should we expect you to go off the rails, eh?
(If you object to this, imagine how we feel)
Bob, I'm glad you see my point (that even this student, who seemed reliable and trustworthy, turned out to be untrustworthy). I'm not a student anymore, but I was, and I was supportive of my school's no-gun policy. I new plenty of students whom I would not have trusted to be armed.
ReplyDeleteStudents are under enough stress without being armed. How many more like him would supporters of campus carry arm? Obviously not all students are untrustworthy, but how can you tell? Why take the chance?
Sorry if my stance somehow makes you feel uncomfortable, but polls suggest that students are more uncomfortable with guns around than not.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteI don't see your point. I was making fun of your point.
IF you sound like this guy, then obviously we need to take away your children, your driving privileges and anything that can be used to harm someone else.
In other words, we need to lock you away before you can harm anyone.
I don't care how many student you thought shouldn't be armed. You are not king nor God. You don't get to decide who gets to exercise their rights.
Students are under enough stress without being armed.
What a crock.
Enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased by 9 percent between 1989 and 1999. Between 1999 and 2009, enrollment increased 38 percent, from 14.8 million to 20.4 million.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
20.4 MILLION students and enrollment is increasing.
That means at least 20,399,999 students didn't "snap" on that day and harm someone else.
How many more like him would supporters of campus carry arm?
NOT ONE PERSON WHO DIDN'T want to be armed.
This conversation is very revealing into your personality.
It appears you think that because someone might do something it is reason to deny their rights.
Isn't that right?
Well, by that reasoning you might abuse your children tonight so they should be removed from your home.
By that reasoning you might hurt your wife tonight so you should be locked out of your house.
Heck, you might rape a woman tonight so you should be locked up to prevent that.
Now I don't think any of those things are likely (even though those things happen all the time) so I'm not trying to abridge your rights.
Sorry if my stance somehow makes you feel uncomfortable, but polls suggest that students are more uncomfortable with guns around than not.
And at one point the same things could have been said about minorities, or GLBT students, or people with disabilities.
It simply does not matter what students are uncomfortable around. There shouldn't be a law preventing people from exercising their rights.
Wouldn't you agree to that?
As long as guns are available off campus, it makes no sense to restrict them on campus. Someone who is willing to walk up to a policeman and shoot him for no apparent reason isn't going to obey a campus gun ban. A ban didn't stop Cho, it didn't stop Ashley.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I doubt legal civilian carry would stop most cop killers, including Ashley.
There's also a significant difference between being eligible for a permit and having a permit. Lack of a permit didn't stop Ashley either, nor did he bother to get one before committing murder.
@ Bob: Every day there are around 274 shootings in the U.S. By your reasoning, since there are around 312 million citizens in the U.S., and 311,726 of them didn't "snap" on any given day, shooting someone to death shouldn't be illegal either.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the majority of people, of any class, are law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, a small percentage are dangerous, and laws must be passed to deter them from engaging in that activity or to prosecute them if they do. Such philosophy applies here, as well.
As to your statement about the "right" to carry concealed, you are confused, and, no, I don't agree with you. The 2A doesn't give you a right to carry a concealed firearm, as defined by the Heller case, and they allowed continued regulation by states. The granting of a CCL is a privilege granted by the state and local regulation. So there is no civil rights discrimination. To compare to minority rights or the rights of GLBT students or students with disabilities is hardly comparable and is a gross exaggeration.
What in the world are the points made by Bob, above? The arguments are specious. You simply can't change the subject and try to reverse the blame on the writer of a post you don't agree with. That's also ad hominem arguing. As to exercising rights- there is no unfettered right to carry guns around wherever people go in public places. The Supreme Court made that clear in Heller. You are confusing your own desires to have those guns with your rights. " A well regulated militia" also goes along with the second amendment. Prevention works. All you have to do is look at what other civilized industrialized countries not at war do about gun control and you will see that there are not shootings going on like this. People are living their lives comfortably, also owning guns for sport and hunting, but they are not shooting each other. What is going on in this country is insane. We are a laughing stock but it's not funny when so many people are shot to death every day and many of the shootings are by "law abiding" gun owners until suddenly they are not. Random shootings by criminals are rare. The Virginia Tech officer shooting was random but it was not accomplished by a criminal.
ReplyDelete@ Sevensteen: True, people can come in with guns from off-campus, and having a ban won't necessarily stop those who bring them with the intention to do harm, but having a gun isn't going to save you, either, just as it didn't save this officer. Unfortunately, allowing guns on campus WILL increase the potential for misuse of firearms there, bringing the rate of shootings up (currently universities are lower than the communities around them).
ReplyDelete"You are confusing your own desires to have those guns with your rights."
ReplyDelete"A well regulated militia" also goes along with the second amendment." -japete
japete, you are confusing YOUR own desires to have the restrictions you believe in.
I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS was 9-0 on the individual right argument.
"Unfortunately, allowing guns on campus WILL increase the potential for misuse of firearms there, bringing the rate of shootings up"
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that in a campus where firearms are prohibited that no one is carrying a firearm?
In other words, do you believe that criminals are deterred by such laws / regulations?
b
@ Bryan: Some it will, out of fear of being caught. Some it won't, but the law will allow a mechanism for prosecution if they are caught, hopefully preventing further crime.
ReplyDelete"The pro-gun crowd likes to suggest that the sort of people who go on shooting sprees are criminals with previous records, obviously mentally ill, drug dealers, or gang members."
ReplyDeleteNo we don't. We suggest that an enormous portion of firearm homicides are street crimes perpetrated by people with criminals records, often drug and gang related.
Spree shootings--which are extremely rare--are a totally different story.
"The Sort Of Student The Extremists Want To Arm"
ReplyDeleteYes, I will admit—someone with no previous criminal record, no signs of mental illness, of legal age, friendly, nice, and quiet who doesn't drink or use drugs is absolutely the kind of person I think should remain able to purchase a firearm.
Are you saying that people who fit that description should be barred from owning firearms? You've said you don't believe in a complete gun ban, but that would seem to be the only way to prevent such a person from legally obtaining a firearm.
Also, since there was a protest to allow students with concealed carry permits to bring their guns onto campus, I guess that means the VA Tech's ban on student carry that you are advocating is still in place. That didn't prevent this kid from bringing his gun onto campus, did it. If anything, this incident proves our point about how futile and pointless such a ban is.
You say "In the emotionally- and academically-charged and sometimes irresponsible environment that defines university life for young people, how then are we to trust that the average student carrying a gun is to be trusted?," and as I've mentioned before, the fact is that young people (21 and over) who are college students are ALREADY ABLE to carry concealed firearms. We DO trust them to do so already. Unless you're advocating that the age for concealed carry be raised to 35 or something, I'm not sure what your point is. Someone who legally carries with no problems does not suddenly turn into a murderer as soon as they set foot on campus.
College students can already carry weapons. I fail to understand why it matters all that much if they do so on campus, in addition to their car, the store, etc.
@ Guav: No, I'm not advocating to ban all guns for that age or description. You're clearly trying to exaggerate my point.
ReplyDeleteMy (obvious) point is that the environment on a university campus is a dangerous one to mix with firearms, no matter who is carrying them, including seemingly average students (like Ashley). While most people wouldn't "suddenly turn into a murderer as soon as they set foot on campus," as you put it, some people will, whether due to the mix with alcohol or drug use (more common on campuses), unsafe storage, depression, or simply irresponsible behavior, not to mention effects of stress from the college lifestyle. I thought I was clear on these points, but some folks need to hear it again, apparently.
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteSeeing as though those college campuses which already allow CCW have a 0.00% gun accident/homicide/suicide rate, your argument supporting the abridgment of a COTUS right is solely based on hypotheticals. If you applied that logic to any other right in the BoR, you see how that fails, don't you?
"Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft."
http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php
I was certainly not trying to exaggerate your point, I was trying to understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe things you describe—stress, drug/alcohol use, depression, irresponsibility—are not unique to college campuses. They exist off campus as well, and are not unique to students either. And most homicides are not carried out by college students with clean criminal and mental health records anyway. It's really just not a serious public safety issue. Anyone intent on going on a campus-wide murder spree is not going to be stopped by a campus-wide ban on firearms. Just seems like a lot of hyperventilating over nothing to me.
All I'm saying is that I don't think allowing students with concealed carry permits to bring their guns on campus is any more dangerous than allowing them to carry off campus, which they already can, and do.
@ Molon: Carrying concealed is not a "right" as defined by the Supreme Court, as stated in the Heller case. So there is no "abridgment of a COTUS right."
ReplyDeleteAs to the main part of your comment, this is exactly the same comment, word for word, that you posted in the last blog post comments. So I'll post the exact same reply:
As for the schools you mention, I'm glad they haven't had any problems (yet). You can just as easily say that the allowance hasn't been needed, as there is no instance I can find of a shooting being stopped at those universities, either.
A 2001 study by the U.S. Department of Education found that the overall homicide rate at postsecondary education institutions was 0.07 per 100,000 students in 1999.(citation 1) By comparison, the criminal homicide rate in the United States as a whole was 5.7 per 100,000 persons overall in 1999, and 14.1 per 100,000 for persons ages 17 to 29. Another study conducted by the Department of Justice found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus. (citation 2)
1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “The Incidence of Crime on the Campuses of U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions,” p. 5, http://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/finresp/ReportToCongress.pdf
2 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Violent Victimization of College Students, 1995-2002,” p. 1, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs02.pdf
Yet the fact remains that there have been two shootings at a gun free zone campus as opposed to zero at those allowing ccw.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, comparing college campus settings to the general community is apples to oranges. (I wonder how many up-standing gang bangers are pursuing their post secondary educations in business management?)
virginia tech shooting
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
ReplyDeleteYou keep referring to the Heller decision and stating that Concealed Carry was not a right as defined by the Supreme Court.
Could you point out the applicable parts of that please?
Because Heller had nothing to do with Concealed Carry. It was not a part of the argument.
It's right there on page 1, Bob.
ReplyDelete" 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Baldr,
ReplyDeleteSorry but it doesn't say that Concealed Carry isn't a right; just that some prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment.
Since the case before it didn't question those prohibitions, it didn't address the legality of those prohibitions.
We have the right of free speech but are prohibited against slander -- that doesn't mean we don't have the right of free speech.
Wow, BS misses the point and demonstrates that he doesn't understand English:
ReplyDeleteFor example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
Upholding a prohibition makes it pretty clear that there is no right, BS.
If there is a right, then a prohibition would violate it.
Wouldn't it, BS?
I like to point out that the decision goes on to point out that:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
26 says that We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
While the text says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well it actually says:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Scalia judicially amendment to read:
The right of law abiding people to possess working firearms in their homes shall not be prohibited
Of course, Judicial amendment and playing fast and loose with the law is what the gunloons want and advocate!
Not to mention, they thrive on people like this shooter being armed.
Otherwise, they would stop fighting measures that would work to prevent this sort of thing happening.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteYou are exercising your right to free speech, correct?
Are you saying there are no prohibitions regarding free speech?
As the Heller decision also stated there are no unfettered rights -- do you remember that part?
Is this really the best you can do? Stomping your feet and saying because we say so?
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) (McCain–Feingold Act), 2 U.S.C. § 441b, prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make "electioneering communications" (broadcast ads mentioning a candidate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election
So Congress passed a prohibition on free speech -- does that mean corporations and unions don't have free speech?