VA Tech official praised defeat of student self-defense proposal in 2006

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting.

-S

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/va...ised_defea.php

VA Tech official praised defeat of student self-defense proposal in 2006

Jeff Johnson OneNewsNow.comApril 16, 2007


A Virginia Tech official in 2006 praised the defeat of a proposal to allow students with state-issued concealed handgun permits to carry their handguns on college campuses in Virginia. At least 30 unarmed students were killed on the VA Tech campus Monday morning by a single gunman.


Virginia House Bill 1572 was proposed in 2005 by Shenandoah County, Va., Republican Del. Todd Gilbert after a VA Tech student with a state-issued concealed handgun permit was arrested and charged only with "unlawfully" carrying a handgun on campus. The bill would have prohibited state universities in Virginia from enacting "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."


After the proposal died in the state's House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety, The Roanoke Times quoted VA Tech spokesman Larry Hincker as celebrating the defeat of the bill.


"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions," Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."


Following Monday's multiple-victim shooting at VA Tech, Erich Pratt with Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called that philosophy "idiocy."


"I think gun control advocates will say, 'See, we need more gun control,' even though this is exactly the product of gun control," Pratt said.


Currently, only two states - Utah and Oregon - have statutes specifically authorizing law-abiding individuals with concealed handgun permits to possess their firearms on state university property. Most other states have explicit or implied prohibitions.


"Every [other] school campus in this nation is a 'gun free zone,' supposedly," Pratt bemoaned. "But, isn't it amazing that criminals, bad guys never obey those laws."
Utah also allows teachers with concealed handgun permits to carry guns on secondary school campuses, Pratt adds. "Isn't it interesting that [those are the states] where we haven't heard of any school shootings."


At least two mass shootings at schools have been interrupted by armed civilians before police could arrive:


· January 9, 2002, Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. - 43 year old Peter Odighizuwa, who had flunked out of the small law school earlier in the week killed three people and wounded three others. Two law students - Tracy Bridges and Ted Besen - retreived a handgun from Bridges' vehicle and held Odighizuwa at gun point for several minutes before police arrived. (Bridges was a reserve deputy sheriff, but was not on duty at the time of the incident.)


· October 1, 1997, Pearl High School, Pearl, Ms. - 16 year old Luke Woodham carried a rifle onto the school campus, killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends and wounded seven other people. Assisstant Principal Joel Myrick retreived a handgun from his truck and held Woodham for police. It was later learned that the teeneager had beaten and stabbed his own mother to death before the attack at the school.
Pratt is not optimistic, however, that lawmakers will allow public university students and faculty members to protect themselves from mass murderers like the one who struck VA Tech Monday.


"The only schools and universities where these tragedies have been stopped abruptly were the places where law-abiding citizens had a gun that was accessible to them and they were able to stop the shooter," Pratt noted. "The schools and universities that had to wait for the police to arrive, those are the ones that find these high death tolls.


"It's just a real shame," he concluded, "that these guys never get it."

[gnirtS]

At least some sanity prevailed otherwise yesterday could have been countless more killed with panic fired unaimed reflex shots flying everywhere.

If only that similar sanity didn't apply outside and the guy that did the shooting couldnt just have gone to a shop and bought a gun.

[TteFAboB]

The AL posted this under the title of Irony elsewhere.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

At least some sanity prevailed otherwise yesterday could have been countless more killed with panic fired unaimed reflex shots flying everywhere.

And you know this how?

[August]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

The AL posted this under the title of Irony elsewhere.

Yeah she's really one for substituting names for links but I think sometimes it makes her point too easy to overlook.

[SUBMAN1]

I guess I should be clicking on every link. I do not read anything that doesn't look interesting from the title though, so that is probably why I missed it.

[Heibges]

Having been a college student, I have to say that letting folks walk around campus with guns is not a good idea.

Deputizing the Campus Police to allow them to carry guns, as my University did, is a much smarter alternative.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

At least some sanity prevailed otherwise yesterday could have been countless more killed with panic fired unaimed reflex shots flying everywhere.

If only that similar sanity didn't apply outside and the guy that did the shooting couldnt just have gone to a shop and bought a gun.

This is an interesting point that is often not considered.

We like to think that citizens with CCWs would be able to lay down accurate and approprate defensive fire in times of danger. However, simply possessing a CCW permit does not mean that the person is in any way qualified or experienced in the proper use of a handgun under those situtations.

In CCW classes you are taught the legal aspects of carrying as well as you are required to demonstrate a very very basic level of skill in the handling of a loaded weapon. It would be folly to assume that this would qualify someone to be able to safely and accurately use their weapon in a crowded panic ridden situtation.

All you have to do is spend little time at a shooting range to see the skill level of many gun owners. Look at their targets and remember that this is in a safe controlled situtation not in an emergency situtation. People miss human sized targets at 7 meters all the time.

Armed citizens have their advantages and disadvantages and is important to realize that just the existance of armed citizens does not guarentee a safer situtation.

Imagine a group of really scared "dirty harry" types blasting away in a crowded classroom shooting at themselves because they can't tell which are the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Cops, with all their training and experiences make mistakes in these situtations. Is it safe to assume that unexperienced armed citizens won't?

Personally, I am in favour of armed citizens, but I also recognize that there is a risk that needs to be considered. It is never an easy question to answer.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Heibges

Having been a college student, I have to say that letting folks walk around campus with guns is not a good idea.

Deputizing the Campus Police to allow them to carry guns, as my University did, is a much smarter alternative.

Yeah, but you come from San Fran. I think your entire city has 6 civi CPP's issued in the entire city/county! No one there is allowed to walk around with a gun on school property or not!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Platapus

This is an interesting point that is often not considered.

We like to think that citizens with CCWs would be able to lay down accurate and approprate defensive fire in times of danger. However, simply possessing a CCW permit does not mean that the person is in any way qualified or experienced in the proper use of a handgun under those situtations.

In CCW classes you are taught the legal aspects of carrying as well as you are required to demonstrate a very very basic level of skill in the handling of a loaded weapon. It would be folly to assume that this would qualify someone to be able to safely and accurately use their weapon in a crowded panic ridden situtation.

All you have to do is spend little time at a shooting range to see the skill level of many gun owners. Look at their targets and remember that this is in a safe controlled situtation not in an emergency situtation. People miss human sized targets at 7 meters all the time.

Armed citizens have their advantages and disadvantages and is important to realize that just the existance of armed citizens does not guarentee a safer situtation.

Imagine a group of really scared "dirty harry" types blasting away in a crowded classroom shooting at themselves because they can't tell which are the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Cops, with all their training and experiences make mistakes in these situtations. Is it safe to assume that unexperienced armed citizens won't?

Personally, I am in favour of armed citizens, but I also recognize that there is a risk that needs to be considered. It is never an easy question to answer.

Its called - discression. I have a CPP, but in no way would I consider pulling a trigger, or even putting my finger on the trigger until I knew my target. And don't get me wrong, but the cops don't do so hot when compared to many civi's. THey get their butts kicked because many civi's have more training with their weapon.

-S

PS. I will ask for permission to repost a thread from somewhere else that expalins this, but I won't do it unless granted permission.

[Heibges]

I'm from Vermont though. Guns galore. But a gun, especially a hunting rifle, is almost a Mythological Weapon in Vermont.

I remember when I got my a 30-30 for my 10th birthday, which also happens to be on the first day of Deer Season in Vermont.

I would just worry that Alchohol and Guns don't often mix. If I had a gun tucked in my bag, what if some drunken idiot grabbed it, and accidentally shot himself or someone else.

[TteFAboB]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17424561.htm

In this link witnesses say he walked silently and calmly from room to room, no chaos at all. Seems it wouldn't be that difficult to identify him, if the witnesses managed to do it, not being trained cops. The cold-headed guy walking around shooting at least three times per unarmed and helpless victim is the bad guy.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Heibges

I would just worry that Alchohol and Guns don't often mix. If I had a gun tucked in my bag, what if some drunken idiot grabbed it, and accidentally shot himself or someone else.

It is your responsibility to do everything in your power to control your weapon. If you are an idiot and put it in your bag for someone to grab and shoot someone else, then I would personally hold you responsible.

My CPP clearly states that it must be on my body at all times and under my control. If not, it is locked up out of site in the car, or at home.

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Its called - discression. I have a CPP, but in no way would I consider pulling a trigger, or even putting my finger on the trigger until I knew my target. And don't get me wrong, but the cops don't do so hot when compared to many civi's. THey get their butts kicked because many civi's have more training with their weapon.

But cops are required to be trained on their weapons. For civilians its completely optional, and no number of perfectly capable civvies will make up for some jackass with a Glock who thinks he/she is Chuck.

I've seen enough fights around campus to dismiss an armed student body out of hand. The world is already paralysed by ****ing fear, we don't need reminders in shoulder holsters in every classroom

And it's called discretion

[Yahoshua]

LEOs' usually only fire their weapon in two situations:

-Marksmanship certification
-When using deadly force while on duty

They aren't paid enough to have an interest in accurate marksmanship, which is unfortunate.

And what makes a LEO so magically invincible when compared to other civilians?

*FYI* I see people in 3 categories and 3 categories only: Military, Clergy, Civilian. If you're not active-duty military, or clergy, then you are a civilian. LEOs' are merely civilians who are granted the power to enforce the law, nothing more.