But even after the truth came out, the tough questions were never asked of the administration and police very loudly or for very long. Tim Kaine swept them out of the way through committee, everyone settled out of court and campus police bought a shiny new Segway.
Instead of a serious reevaluation of the magical legal barrier that causes weapons to disintegrate when they cross the threshold between the real world and campus, we have the VT Alerts system, a $35,000/year pacifier -- a safety net that shattered like glass under the weight of its first crisis last November.
Those of you who were here got the "shots fired outside Pritchard Hall" message about 40 minutes after it happened. Unfortunately, the two follow-up messages fell victim to "access issues" in 3n's database and weren't received. After berating 3n for their failure, Tech was so concerned for our safety that they sent 3n back out to do the exact same job -- only this time with instructions to do it better, as well as a field test to make sure it happened.
Now the field test as well as the real crisis has been deemed a success, with some people concerned only with the lack of message boards in all areas of campus. But while I personally would like to see one installed in the lone English classroom that has been overlooked, I know that it is a reactionary measure designed to tell time and to make our administration look like it's doing something to preserve our safety.
Allowing students who have already earned the right to concealed carry in Virginia the right to carry on campus would enable responsible adults to protect themselves when unthinkable things happen.
You would notice a person carrying a gun on campus with the same frequency that you would notice one at the grocery store, mall and/or church. More importantly, during a crisis, first responders are trained to distinguish between people like civilian shooters and undercover police officers when they arrive on the scene.
But you really don't have to take my word for any of this; look at Blue Ridge Community College. Look at Colorado State, look anywhere in Utah, look at Switzerland if you fear that licensed citizens exercising their right to protect themselves automatically translates into more violence.
What we shouldn't do is swallow the prevailing wisdom that Wednesday's response proved that we are safe. It's time for Tech to set aside fear and ignorance and allow us to quietly protect ourselves.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
Leave a comment 22 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a national organization that advocates just what Jeremy and our 35,000 members have been arguing for years. But before you go calling us "gun nuts" understand one thing - we have carefully thought over the same concerns that you have. We've talked to Campus Police, SWAT officers, University Presidents, students, faculty, staff, legislators, ... the list goes on forever. We care a lot about the campus environment, about safety, and about responsibility. So please bring your comments and concerns, but expect that we've considered them already - we're just like you. Many of these are posted at www.concealedcampus.com
Reply to this Top
Before trying to list reasons why guns are bad, I encourage commenters to read this page http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm . It contains answers to most of the common arguments that come up in these debates and it answers these arguments with facts and studies and evidence, not rhetoric.
Reply to this Top
My favorite line: "You would notice a person carrying a gun on campus with the same frequency that you would notice one at the grocery store, mall and/or church." I don't understand why anyone thinks that permit holders will show any less discretion on campus than they already do when they go about their daily business everywhere else in the state.
Reply to this Top
Yea, Benjamin, my thoughts exactly. In the years I've been carrying concealed, I've never had anyone 'notice' I was carrying - even those who know I do. Carrying concealed is just that - concealed. Someone knowing that I'm armed is like saying they know what books are in my backpack or something.
Reply to this Top
I went to Colorado State. We've never had a problem with licensed people carrying concealed weapons. But the point is that you are ultimately responsible for your own safety. The police, paramedics, and firefighters aren't there to save you...they are your backup. You need to be able to survive until they can get there. I agree with Mr. Baker; a gun may not have saved Xin Yang's life, but there is a chance. And when someone's life is at stake, they deserve every chance they can get, especially one so innocuous as a license to carry a gun. I suppose it bears repeating: a license to carry a gun is not a license to kill. It's not even a license to threaten people. It is a compromise solution that allows responsible people to have one last safety net. An option of last resort. And even with a license, even the slightest abuse is still a criminal offense. But those who would abuse it tend not to bother with the effort of becoming licensed, and that's really what this is all about. Stop worrying about the people who follow the rules and cut them some slack. Kudos to the police for a rapid response time, even if it was tragically not fast enough.
Reply to this Top
The VT alerts system can only let you know that something bad has already happened. It doesn't do you a bit of good if the bad thing has already happened to you. This article is right on! Thanks
Reply to this Top
I will completely agree with others on this. A concealed handgun is only a last resort measure, meaning what it implies: You use it when there is no other option. A responsible adult with a licensed privilege to carry knows how hard it can be to obtain a license and would most likely know when that final decision option is the only thing left to choose. Most of us who carry are not police officers, we have been trained to be able to defend ourselves in a dire situation that involves imminent death or serious bodily injury. I mentioned the police officer statement to give an example of why we carry: to defend ourselves. I do not have the duty of "clearing a building" or going out on a hunt for the "bad guy" when a situation arises, that duty falls on those whom are trained and specialize in doing so. My privilege to carry is to do one thing, exercise my right to defend myself until the proper authorities arrive. My privilege to carry is a buffer to allow my survival until a properly trained first responder arrives on the scene. I agree it is nice about the documented response time of the VT Police with the GLC murder and kudos to them for doing what they do best, but it cannot always be a perfect situation like that.
Reply to this Top
Continued: Law enforcement personnel are not designated to protect you as an individual. They are tasked with blanket protection of the whole campus. That is why they patrol and move around; all to stay vigilant and cover as much of the campus as possible to protect as many as possible. If officers were tasked with personal protection they would be more of a body guard and how many people do you see walking around campus with an armed guard with them? I believe the answer is none, or at least I haven't seen any. My whole point is that the police cannot be around you and protect YOU as a person 24/7. I accept this because that would be logistically impossible or unfeasible. The defense of yourself ultimately falls in the lap of none other than YOU the reader. I exercise my right to defend myself by concealed carry whenever legally possible. That is my choice and I can understand that others do not feel the same and that is their choice. But why do they feel it necessary to hinder my right to defend myself when I have gone through every legal process to do so? They have a right to their opinion and that is their choice. What makes their opinion and/or right higher/more important than my right/opinion? Aren't we supposed to be equal?
Reply to this Top
Wasn't Seung-Hui Cho someone who legally obtained a gun? I really don't think more guns will help.
Reply to this Top
Cho obtained a gun legally yes, but he did not have a CCW license. People who do have CCW licenses are the kinds of people I want to have close by in dangerous situations.
Reply to this Top
To Anonymous- if you don't think more guns will help, what is your solution?
Reply to this Top
Ok, for those who keep using the term "more guns" -- stop. You're treating guns like inanimate objects that walk around and fire all on their own. The reason that gun owners use the term "concealed carry" so much is because it describes the true nature of it - a person is carrying the gun and is responsible for it, and it is concealed from view. Besides, no one is advocating that we put "break glass in emergency" boxes with guns in them, so it makes no sense to talk about a gun as a lone object.
Reply to this Top
WAIT A MINUTE. Lets get the facts straight. Yes, Cho obtained a gun through the legal channel BECAUSE some INCOMPETENT Doctor, who I recall the news said was South Korean or Korean, FAILED to report Cho's unstable condition to the authorities as REQUIRED by law. Had this Doctor alerted the authorities in Cho's earlier years when diagnosed, before the legal age to obtain a gun, Cho never would have been able to purchase it. The Doctor should be held ACCOUNTABLE for the deaths of 32 students and should lose his license. His parents should have alerted the authorities as well. People who obtain Concealed permits must go through strict background and criminal checks. But yet I don't know of any college, or grocery store, requiring a criminal background check before allowing a person to enter their premises. From personal experience, once you save your own life and your family's life, because you had a gun, your opinion against guns will change immediately. Take away the guns and people will use baseball bats or whatever.
Reply to this Top
To Anonymous: Yes, Cho did gain a firearm legally and passed all checks that were in place at the time. He even waited the 30 days to purchase his second firearm legally. For all the FFL dealer knew, he was a average person just wanting to purchase a firearm through the proper methods. There was no way for the dealer to know that he had malicious intent for those firearms. The article isn't about the ownership or purchase of legal firearms it is about those who own a firearm and have obtained a valid concealed carry license. Those of us whom support carry on campus have this license wish to have this "magical barrier" around campus removed. I can carry around town with no problem but if I come onto campus I will be expelled as a student. If I have a valid license, what is the problem with me being on campus with a firearm that I can legally carry off campus? You cannot argue that it will interfere with the learning environment because it is concealed and that is the whole point. You do not know its there, same as when I am off campus. It is hidden from view for a reason and I don't plan to show it off because that is illegal in itself....its called brandishing and that can get my license revoked. How is on campus different than off?
Reply to this Top
Nano, I agree with you! If someone plans on doing others harm they will use what means they have available. Whether it be a gun or a weapon of opportunity. If he/she plans on hurting someone they will find a way. Carrying doesn't guarentee your safety, but it does give someone the last safety net to be used when all else fails. Same thing as a seat belt in a car, it won't say that you will 100% survive a crash. But it does increase your odds if you ever need it.
Reply to this Top
Cho did not obtain his gun legally. The seller did nothing illegal, but Cho committed a felony in the acquisition of his firearms. The form says "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective...?" He had, but he hadn't been committed to a mental hospital which allowed him lie and fall through a narrow crack in the system. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure the legislation passed last year closed that crack.
Reply to this Top
CE, you are correct, the loophole was addressed almost immediately after it was discovered. And ya know what? The fix was supported by gun-rights advocates just as much as gun-control advocates. To those anti-gunners: you should actually talk with pro-gunners a bit, you'd be amazed how intelligent and patient they are (I used to be anti-gun).
Reply to this Top
For all the anti-gun people out there, you need to understand that everyone shouldn't own everything. What I mean is that I don't believe that a fully automatic weapon or such should be able to buy off the shelf at your local Wal-mart. To purchase one legally someone has to go through a WHOLE lot of red tape and pay MUCHO $$$ in fees and registrations. But the thing is if they can legally buy it, why not? Don't say they don't need it when you see plenty of people driving expensive cars. They don't need those either but they can afford them so I don't see people complaining there. More deaths happen per year here in the USA from car accidents than shootings. Just felt like putting my 2 cents in.
Reply to this Top
In a district of Tokyo, called Akihabara every Sunday (since 1973) they would close streets to traffic for pedestrians. Last June, a madman drove through a crowd of people then got out started stabbing people. He killed 4 people, injured 8. He will probably get the death penalty. They do it, then announce he's dead. In my country they will never have conceal carry, but they no longer allow for closed streets for pedestrians on Sundays...which is stupid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
Reply to this Top
The Virginia Tech Cook Counseling Center dropped the ball on Seung-Hui Cho. But did anyone there lose their jobs as a result of their incompetence regarding him? Only one lowly filing clerk. Everyone else at Virginia Tech stayed in place in spite of collective mistakes that led to the conditions that resulted in the deaths of 32 people. Gosh, I bet a lot of wayward train engineers and pilots would like that sort of "cushion" for job security.
Reply to this Top
Va. Tech’s warning was too late: http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TECH03_20090202-221910/196413/
Reply to this Top
You cannot let people carry guns and expect to shoot to kill criminals on site. Using and shooting a gun takes a lot of skills, skills that can make or break the situation. A wrongly utilized gun can kill more than who it’s supposed to kill. People out there do not have license to kill. Owning a gun in that situation, does not guarantee anything. What if someone with a gun had panicked and started shooting at the murderer of Xin Yang but killed everyone around him or her by stray bullets? Point is you can't just let people carry guns and expect them to shoot perfect, bull’s eye on the perpetrator. That can never happen, therefore owning a concealed weapon idea being obsolete. There is only one fact. Virginia Tech dropped the ball big time on the April 16 tragedy by not alerting students or shutting the campus down after the first two shootings letting the killer go about his way for the next few hours. This was the biggest mistake, and something that should have been avoided. Everyone knows it by now. Better alert system, gun control laws, and psychology practices are needed to ensure the safety students. Guns will never be the only solution.
Reply to this Top