Norris survivor suggests classes
Friday, February 22, 2008; 12:00 AM

Correction: Editor's note: This story has been changed from its original copy. April 16 was a Monday, not a Tuesday like it implied. The Collegiate Times regrets this error.

On April 16, 2007, then freshman Erin Sheehan went to her elementary German class in 207 Norris Hall as on every other Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Shao Cui/SPPSErin Sheehan, a sophomore mechanical engineering major, survived the shootings in Norris Hall last spring.

Though several people were killed in her classroom that day, Sheehan survived because she ducked under a desk while Seung-Hui Cho shot at her classmates and professor.

Because of her experiences in the building, Sheehan is now suggesting that a class on defense tactics be taught at a high school level to inform students of what to do in an emergency situation in the classroom.

"In the last eight months I have been trying to deal with my post-traumatic stress disorder to the best of my capability, but with that said, every time I enter a classroom, lecture hall, or almost any room on campus I mentally design a plan for what I would do in every emergency situation I can imagine," Sheehan, now a sophomore mechanical engineering major, wrote in a letter to the editor to the Collegiate Times.

Sheehan also wrote that she cannot blame anyone in her classroom for not taking action against Cho when he entered the classroom, but if there had been two or three individuals properly trained, she believes the casualties would have been significantly lower.

In an interview with the CT, Sheehan explained her idea of having defense tactic classes "instead of, or in addition to, a high school gym." She also thinks that high schools should integrate martial arts into their system.

"I was just thinking a high school program that would teach you self-defense classes — basically what a woman's self-defense program teaches — teaching basic holds, or what would happen if there was someone with a gun," Sheehan said. "There is basic training in the military where you can be trained to take a gun away from an attacker, so something like that."

Barry Trent, coordinator for health and physical education for Roanoke County Schools, said that he didn't think it would be a bad idea to teach defense and martial arts classes in high school, but not in place of P.E. classes.

"The hurdle would be getting instructors that are certified," Trent said.

Trent also said that a concern would be students in direct contact with other students. He said that they used to teach wrestling in P.E. classes, but had to stop because of student contact concerns.

Geof Allen, officer in the community outreach unit of the Virginia Tech Police Department, said defense tactics are part of the training necessary to get into the police department and the student police academy. He said that the training for police officers includes martial arts combined with ground fighting.

"Law enforcement is trained in defense; the issue with that is it requires practice, training, and constantly staying on top of moves," Allen said.

Allen said that the defense part of police training is toward the end of the program because it requires you to be really physically fit.

"It is so physically intense, you have to be in really good shape," Allen said.

He said he did think it would be feasible to model their defense training for younger students, such as students in high school.

In her letter to the editor, Sheehan said that when she came back to school after April 16, the university had posted a list of emergency instructions near a door in every classroom.

"In my opinion this is just a waste of paper, because I didn't see anyone running around my classroom looking for a list of instructions when a gunman entered," Sheehan said in her letter.

Sheehan said that one of the security measures she personally advocated was putting locks on all the classroom doors.

"In my German class, the door wouldn't close and someone had to get a piece of furniture to block it," Sheehan said.

She also said although she feels the locks on the doors keeps the classroom more secure in emergency situations, some of the doors have windows on them, making it easy for an attacker to bust through. She also said she thought that requiring students to use key access to enter dorms is unnecessary.

With the subject of self-defense on campus inevitably comes the discussion of carrying concealed weapons on campus. Sheehan said that she doesn't think that legalizing carrying concealed weapons on campus would have prevented many deaths on April 16.

"I would say that people would need a lot of training — even more than they would need self-defense training — to in the heat of it, harm the gunman and not anyone else effectively," Sheehan said. "I think that's pretty unlikely."

You might be interested in... Related Topics: april 16
Posted by: FedEx overnight shipping free pills prescription pharmacy MyRxPill at May 12 Tramadol pills pain relief pills overnight shipping free prescription http://MyRxPill.com Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Feb 27 bxl - Did you read the article? Both the interviewee and journalist bring the gun argument into the article. Besides, if we're going to talk self defense, we need to discuss all options! Flag Abuse
Posted by: bxl at Feb 26 Anybody that thinks chop-socky is going to save you from a guy with a drawn semi-automatic pistol (or two) and the element of surprise is out of their mind. The rest of this argument is the usual red/blue gun argument, which really doesn't have anything to do with this article. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike M. at Feb 25 T Allen, in fact there are not thousands of accidental child shootings. They are rather rare, less common than pool drownings. If you do the research, you will find that a home with a pool is far more dangerous for your child than a home with a gun ("Freakonomics", Levitt & Dubner, 2005). And I do have to go through a process to purchase a gun. Sadly, there is no way to know a person's mind, and so no way to predict when someone is planning to commit a violent crime. We prevent those with a criminal history from purchasing guns, and we're trying to improve laws that ban the mentally ill from owning guns. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, it hasn't wiped out the drug trade, and it would be foolish to believe it will eradicate guns. Besides, a defensive firearm is the one weapon that truly equalizes the victim and the attacker. Weapons can be used to attack or defend, but the gun is the one weapon that truly levels the playing field (Tasers are getting there, but still only single shot). I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment of getting the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but I have yet to see a plan that accomplishes that. Can you suggest a way to take guns away from criminals that does not first require disarming the victim? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Denny at Feb 25 TAllen - One more thing. You wondered about the disproportionate response to terrorism vs violence. 9/11 happened all at once and was totally unexpected. On the other hand, auto accidents (which far exceed gun deaths, by the way) happen over the course of a year, in all parts of the country, and are more or less expected. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Denny at Feb 25 TAllen - I'm having trouble understanding what your issue is. I get it that firearms are scary and dangerous, but why don't you make it easy on everyone and tell us your solution to the problem. Is it a lack of proper training? registration? a waiting period? a background check? a psych evaluation? a lack of respect for the law? the lack of a moral compass? In other words, what's wrong that you'd fix? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kelly at Feb 25 TAllen - "You shouldn't be able to walk into a pawn shop in Roanoke as a mentally ill person, not have your background checked, walk out and then use your gun to mow down innocent people". This is an inaccurate statement. Cho's background check was performed legally by the store in Roanoke. He had no criminal history, so he was approved for the purchase of a handgun. The loophole in that instance was that he had been hospitalized for his mental health, and there currently isn't a system in place to "check" mental health records. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at Feb 25 T Allen - Nice of you to jump in late. You really should read the posts before you, because you clearly have missed your points being addressed. I don't think many are concerned if you have been brought up around guns or not, you are advocating that responsible people should be penalized for the irresponsible. Maybe I should say you can only drive 10 miles/day because of a girl that was killed by a car here this weekend? Cars kill so many more people than guns ever could, yet no one is calling for it to be harder to buy a Honda. The reality is that if you want to be safe, you make choices that keep you safe - CHOICES. Further, in case you missed it all over the news, mental health bills are flying through our legislation and are supported by both sides. But beyond that, you're calling for more restrictions on responsible people. Permit holders are almost 6 times less likely to commit violent crime than those without, and firearms are used 2-3 times more often for self-defense than for crime. I'm so sick of people saying a gun is too easy to get. If you've ever bought a gun, you would know that you can't even get the background check in 45 minutes, so add in shopping time, checkout, picking out holsters, ammunition, etc etc etc and we're talking hours if not days/weeks/months. Flag Abuse
Posted by: T Allen at Feb 25 And just to be clear - I was raised in a household that had guns. I used to belong to a shooting club. Many of my friends are hunters. ALL of them are respectful, upstanding citizens and ALL of them believe that it is too easy to walk into WalMart, Gun Shows, Pawn Shops and score a weapon. So, this actually isn't at all about a bleeding heart liberal argument - this is about intelligence, common sense, and the very real understanding that too many people who own guns ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE. Flag Abuse
Posted by: T Allen at Feb 25 Mike M - no one here is "politely asking criminals to turn in their guns." The issue is making it respectfully difficult for you to get a gun. You shouldn't be able to walk into a gun show and walk out 30 minutes later armed. You shouldn't be able to walk into a pawn shop in Roanoke as a mentally ill person, not have your background checked, walk out and then use your gun to mow down innocent people. YOU SHOULD, HOWEVER, be required to apply for your gun, go through the proper process and receive your gun once it is PROVEN you are law abiding, respectable citizen. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparant the burden of proof of your innocence is yours...BUT, more safety on the front end of the process will only benefit YOU as a law abiding gun owner. IT ISN'T ABOUT TAKING AWAY YOUR OWNERSHIP - it's about getting everyone to comply so you can pursue your interests and we can live in a safer nation. Flag Abuse
Posted by: T Allen at Feb 25 John H - you're sweeping generalization is not only incorrect, it is irrelevant. There is less than .1% of the population who ever said: "I'm going to drink and kill or get behind the wheel and use my car as a weapon." There is however a huge percentage of the population who say, "I'm going to get a gun and murder my wife, rob a bank, slaughter my classmates, shoot my enemies." Add to that percentage those who are actually law abiding who accidentally shoot themselves, their kids 'find' their concealed weapon and then accidentally shoot themselves or their siblings {thousands, in fact}...so the old car, alcohol argument is just that same old irrelevant argument that no one believes except you. Party of one - you're table is ready. Flag Abuse
Posted by: T Allen at Feb 25 Apologies to anyone I may have confused - my point is not about concealed weapons - it is about the overall American obsession with GUNS and the high number of deaths annually directly attributed to the use of guns - legally, illegally, accidentally, concealed, not concealed, stolen, etc...The use of violence through guns is in fact alarming and I wondered why the American public would 'rally' behind stopping terrorism on our soil when the gun problem is just as violent, just as critical, kills far more people than terrorism, alcholo, stabbing, strangling or any other means of death. GUNS are the number one source of violent crime in America - so why aren't people taking to the streets to do something to make it safer for BOTH LEGAL GUN OWNERS and NON-GUN CARRYING CITIZENS. The thing legal gun owners fail to admit is that they will be better off if it is more difficult for those in the population who abuse guns to get them in the first place. The statistics are clear and the problem is the gun owner and the theif. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Feb 24 I didn't call out liberals, I called out bleeding heart liberals, the people that claim we should be free to do whatever we like, yet are the reason for many laws being passed in this country. The Republican party is a MUCH freer party than the Democrat party. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at Feb 24 8:41pm - shame on you for calling out liberals. Many liberals support gun-rights -- self-defense is not a political issue. Work towards a respectful debate front and more people will give it a chance. HOKIE STUDENT - I totally agree. If that, however, is an argument against concealed carry (which it usually is) then I have to disagree. Many things should be done in parallel - improve mental health, reach out to others, work to get guns away from known criminals, etc etc BUT in the meantime allow citizens to protect themselves from those who aren't being reached. MIKE M - 100% with you - make prison next to hell. For many, prison is better than living on the streets, so why not? Some gangs require you to serve time before you can join! Flag Abuse
Posted by: hokie student at Feb 24 i think more should be done to make sure students bond and get along with each other. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike M. at Feb 24 T Allen, (and Dr), perhaps the problem is not the tools, but the criminals. A large portion of violent crimes are committed by known criminals who have been let out of prison, either on parole or due to their short sentence being completed. Prisons are criminal training camps, since the bleeding hearts have made sure we can't make those poor souls work or be deprived of their cable TV. The one sheriff in Arizona has it right - make prison a place that's no fun so criminals won't want to go back. And make sentences for violent crime long - very long. Get them off the streets, and keep them off. None of this three strikes garbage. I've managed to avoid committing felonies my whole life. Why do I have to give some thug three freebies? Commit a crime, go to jail for a very long time, where you are deprived of the comforts of home and have to work hard. IF they get out, I want them to want to do whatever necessary to make sure they never go back. That'll reduce violent crimes a lot more than asking nicely for them to turn in their guns. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John H at Feb 23 T Allen if that is going to be your opinion then everything from driving to alcohol is to be banned cause it leads to needless death. But just as cars have taking the lives of people they can be used for both utility and fun. And going off what Ken is saying, in martial arts there a single strike moves that can easily kill someone. The fact is any form of defense against a lethal attacker is going to be a lethal defense. It is just a matter of how someone defends them self. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at Feb 23 T Allen, I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry. Concealed carry on campus is simply about allowing those who already carry responsibly off-campus to carry on-campus. The way it is now, it's like we have to 'forget' our martial arts skills when we come to school because we might suddenly become irresponsible inside these borders and karate chop someone when we mean to hug them. So, leave your self-defense skills and tools at home - this is a peaceful environment! (sarcasm) Flag Abuse
Posted by: T Allen at Feb 23 Oh - and just so the folks who will go after me for referencing Sept 11th - just so you know I was there and I survived in NC. Flag Abuse
Posted by: T Allen at Feb 23 Reading the comments on the gun debate within this chat, the arguments on both side seem to be consistent with what folks are thinking out in the world. Some in favor of tougher laws and some not. B no means a scientific sampling, but fairly representative one can assume. What strikes me is that the events of a single morning 9/11 took the lives of roughly 2,900 individuals on American soil - and there was outrage, a war, enforcement systems put into place nationwide almost immediately. Yet we as a nation rack up thousands of times more deaths each and every year at the hands of our OWN gun-carrying citizens and there is no uproar!? no tightening of the laws for legal owners as well as the criminal or even those many who exists somewhere between the two. The outcome of both sets of events is exactly the same- the massive, needless deaths of our fellow American's. That's what's so odd. Could it be that Al Queda doesn't have a powerful industrial lobby in DC? Flag Abuse
Posted by: 2A at Feb 22 Denny, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" - Samual Adams Flag Abuse
Posted by: Truth at Feb 22 To Dr. You said, "I entered law school (where I am now) not sure about this, but after studying crime and our system of rights it is clear that GUNS kill people." Clearly you are planning on being a defense attorney for the scumbag criminals of this country. You are already prepared for and making arguements to suggest that the criminal is not responsible for the murder, it was the gun's fault. Then you say, "It is that if law enforcement officers were empowered to take all guns off the streets the impact would be huge." Well, if our government passed a complete gun ban some law abiding citizens will turn in their guns. However many will fight tooth and nail. As for the criminals, well, I doubt they will turn in their guns. So how do you expect law enforcement to be able to go around and confiscate all of them. Law enforcement doesn't know where all the guns are. This would simply shift the balance further in the criminals favor. Your next satement, "What if the police actually had a firepower advantage, rather than huge disadvantage, versus criminals?" Completely irrelevant not to mention misleading. Criminals commit a small number of their crimes with long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they don't use machine guns either. You may be able to point to a few incidents where law enforcement did not have enough firepower (Bank of America robbery in LA a number of years ago), but this was only the case until SWAT showed up with fully automatic submachine guns and other firepower. Today, most police departments issue handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles (m16, ar15 and the like). You should be able to check your facts a little better if you are indeed a law student. Then you say, "For every anecdotal example of a person 'saving themselves' by having a gun in their home, there is at least another anecdotal case of a child dying in a gun accident or an accidental shooting between family members." Well again you are completely incorrect. The number of children that are killed accidentally by guns each year numbers in the hundreds, unless you are looking at statistics produced by liars. As for the number of times a citizen stops a criminal with a gun, conservative estimates suggest this occurs several hundred thousand times per year. We also know that like rape, where many cases are not reported, some citizens do not report to police these attempted criminal attacks. Some folks place these defensive use estimates to upwards of 2 to 3 million per year (see John Lott's book More Guns Less Crime). And finally you say, "The second amendment is NOT about everyone buying guns, it is about states being capable of resisting the federal government at a different time and place in history." This doesn't even make sence. Are you saying the Constitution is no longer relevant? There is never a time or place in history where it would be appropriate to forfeit your ability to protect yourself or to overthrow a tyrannical government. It is people like you, with opinions like yours that put us all at risk when it comes to tyranny. What if I said that the first amendment does not apply to individuals, but only to large group of likeminded people making similar statements? It would kind of put a kink in our ability to live freely as Americans. The same is true with the second amendment. Instead of imposing harsh penalties (like mandatory minimum sentences of using a gun in the commission of a crime) on criminals, you would rather flush our future down the drain. Frankly Dr., we simply won't let this happen. Thats all I have for now. Hope to standing with us (free people) one day, rather than with the other side. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Denny at Feb 22 Mike, the 2A is like a rorschach test: you see what you want to see. Militia? of course! The people? there can be no other answer! The nice thing about the Supremes taking up this issue is that it will (should) settle this argument for a time. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Feb 22 http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php#c4 " Suppose the Constitution provided: A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.13 This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate's educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence." Flag Abuse
Posted by: Denny at Feb 22 Since this article is about not being a victim, I recommend that anyone interested in taking a martial arts class (for defensive purposes) also read "Strong on Defense," by Sanford Strong. It's been out for awhile and you can likely get it at a local library. It's basically about attitude and channeling it at your attacker. It's "just say no" on steroids. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John H at Feb 22 All the moves that involves disarming a gunman is done at gun point, not when shots are being fired. And those moves take just as much practice as does using a firearm. But here is where the conflict comes, removing the gun is a hand to hand move, I have to get to that person. If I'm at gunpoint that is my primary form of aggressive action, even if I have a weapon. However if I"m at a distance, the hand to hand move is worthless and that is when I need the reach of a fire arm. I don't own a hand gun and I'm a decent shot, I put full trust in the capability of someone with a CCW permit Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle Minor at Feb 22 Dr, it is important to note that the only way your plan is feasible is if you can derive a method to systematically remove all guns from society while simultaneously preventing new guns from coming in. I mean, look at the Drug war, for instance. We banned marijuana sales and consumptions - and it has done little or nothing to elimenate marijuana sales and consumption in the US because there is no way of preventing the stuff from coming into the country. Bottom line is that, to follow your premises to your conclusions, we have to assume that all people in the US necessarily obey the laws. Clearly this is not the case, since (for instance) we have speed limits and people routinely recieve speeding tickets for ignoring these limits. So now we have concluded that not everyone obeys the laws; consequently, why does it follow from your conclision that 'banning guns' across the country will simply elimenate guns from society? Virginia Tech itself is a microcosm of what you want to achieve - it is a gun-free zone. While the school is *generally* a safe place (and hence, I would feel it unnecessary to carry around a gun to protect myself if the permission was afforded), the fact remains that the worst school shooting in American history occurred here nearly a year ago. People who have aims to break the law always find a way to do so - knowing going into a situation that your victims will not be able to defend themselves potentially gives such perpetraitors more confidence in their success than they might have had otherwise. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Anonymous at Feb 22 People state that carrying concealed weapons is the answer and that people everywhere but campuses do it. Why are there episodes like this at malls, churches, restaurants, etc. Where are all of the people with concealed weapons then? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Feb 22 George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." Dr, did you miss the part where it says "the right of the PEOPLE". A well regulated militia refers to the armed citizenry. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Feb 22 Dr, the Constitution is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. It does mention militias, but many read it as an interrupting clause to clarify why the right of the people to arm themselves shall not be infringed. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle at Feb 22 Okay, I was talking about the metro area... Guess they probably don't include that with crime data... So, divide by 10, and you've still got 170 reports of murder. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US11&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph Says about 600,000 sorry about being off on calculations (thankfully I don't major in math!) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Denny at Feb 22 Dr., the first series of amendments are for the benefit of "the people," not the States. Regardless, we can agree to disagree because the Supremes will give us their opinion and that will settle the matter. Anyway, we're going off on a tangent. This series is about Erin's proposal. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Also, Re: Swiss gun laws. ONLY people who are reservists or have served in the military in Switzerland are required to own guns. It is illegal to CARRY a gun w/o special highly limited permits. I would fully support those changes if you want that to be US law (only military + no carrying) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041024050851/www.ssaa.org.au/un/swiss.html -- here I will site a Pro-gun site, just to show you that this is the most pro-gun way of framing their laws) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Kyle, while I appreciate the attempt please show me where your numbers come because it sounds worth looking at. Seems pretty clear to me that DC has about 500,000 people . . . Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Denny, you are right that the court will likely say (5-4 with the conservatives winning ever since Nixon made his 3rd appointment to the court) that there is no limit on gun ownership. That is not deniable, if anything gun laws may be relaxed in the next few years as a result. But my point was more that if you READ THE CONSTITUTION the purpose is clearly meant for militias. I used to think otherwise, but I was unfamilar with the text and its history. How can you say "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," is not related to militias? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Also, re: the video, not only is it also reliant on anecdotal evidence, this guy is going to go into inner city Detroit and pull out a gun and point it at people? That will help him survive? Really? If we want anecdotes, I invite any one of you to try it. I also invite anyone to walk around in someplace where other people don't carry guns without a gun. It seems pretty obvious where people are and feel safer Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kyle at Feb 22 I don't understand the hateful comments on here, really please grow up. Self-Defense is an invaluable skill, it may not work in all scenarios when you are in danger but there are many other scenarios in which it does work. As for gun control, look at Switzerland for a good model. Just about everyone has a gun there (required by law to have a firearm) In 2006 there were 34 murders/attempted murders by firearm for 7.5 million people (70 for attacks with knives). In 2006, D.C which has about 6 million people recorded over 1700 reports of murder. Washington D.C. has very strict gun control laws, Washington D.C. has a very high per capita murder rate. Switzerland makes people carry guns, and they have a very low per capita murder rate. Think about it. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Denny at Feb 22 Erin, good interview, and it's encouraging that you've continued with your studies at Tech. I don't concur with your position on concealed carry on campus, but you're being proactive with your new proposal and I wish you success. Dr., I won't argue the constitution with you, seeing as how you're almost a lawyer, but I believe the Supreme Court will be giving us their 2A opinion fairly soon, and then we won't have to listen to the "it only applies to a militia" nonsense anymore. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Mike and Mike, I understand your response and it is justified because I misspoke earlier. When citing the D.C. handgun laws you misentrepted my comments. Yes, they were first enacted in 1976. But for decades, the police now admit, they used this law ineffectively, cracking down on citizens who were not prone to violence. Moreover, the 1976 law did not retroactively destroy all gun ownership in D.C.-- thus it is estimated it took decades for the ban to have any effect on overall ownership (which I admit would happen with a national law, but so be it). For more information see Briefs in D.C. v. Heller: (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/PetitionersbriefinD.C.v.Heller.pdf). Since the officers began to use the law as leverage for prosecuting other crimes and as a basis for warrants (since the mid 1990's using a New York style program) the turnaround has been dramatic. The idea that starting firefights is better than cracking down on gus is crazy. Mike M., while studying 2nd amendment law I leared about the UK laws. The intial restrictions were begun in the 1920's -- I don't think the idea that crime rates have both increased and decreased since then is compelling. Also, you cannot say all violent crimes have guns as a basis. While 70% of murders in the US are from firearms (they do a great job of defending people, huh?) less than 7% of UK murders are. That is on top of the fact that in the U.S. there are roughly 3-4 TIMES as many murders per person per year. Moreover, only 1 police officer is killed with a gun every THREE YEARS in the UK, whereas thousands are killed in the US in the same period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom). Yes, gun control is problematic and flawed. I used to hate it. But what are you really going to tell the families of people who lost loved ones to shootings -- that your right to bear arms is worth their lives? What is the freedom that is preserved? The right to own hand guns so the next shooter can kill again? (Also, other Mike, while I respect your opinion you quoted me a line from a conservative political action site. If you want to support your comments please use wikipedia or government data -- everyone knows that just because it is on a website does not make it fact. Plus I would be interested in looking at some actual data you have to support that position) Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike M at Feb 22 Dr, the other Mike already pointed out that the DC laws started in the '70s, so I'll just refer you to his post. A better example is the UK. They have a total ban on handgun ownership, yet since this ban was put in place, violent crime and gun crime have skyrocketed. Google it, there are numerous articles about it. Gun prohibition would only give drug smugglers another product to sell. Erin, I think you have a great idea. It has bothered me for a long time that our schools push an agenda where kids are taught to never fight back, since "all violence is bad." Plus, all the talk here about martial arts being useless misses the point. Surviving a threat situation requires either sheer luck (not a good plan) or a survival mentality. By that, I mean you have to be willing to face the threat and fight back. One of the first things any competent tactical firearms instructor will tell you is this: in a gun fight, expect to get shot. Now that you expect it, understand that you are most likely not dead yet. You can still function, you can still fight. You have to be ready to fight back with whatever you have until the threat stops. If that's self defense training or martial arts, use it. If it's a concealed handgun, even better. But your brain is your best weapon, so train your brain to have a survival mentality. If you can't escape, FIGHT. It's not called "fight or flight response" for nothing. Erin, while I disagree with you about concealed carry on campus, I applaud your efforts. I'm glad to see someone is advocating for an end to the helpless victim mentality that seems so prevalent in America today. Look at Flight 93 on 9/11. They may not have saved themselves, but they fought back and prevented countless others from losing their lives. Flag Abuse
Posted by: bxl at Feb 22 I think this is a great idea. Let's teach martial arts and armed-attacker-defense instead of gym. That is possibly the stupidest idea I have ever heard. What kind of defense against the next Psy-Cho are they gonna teach? The "hide under the desk" defense? The "run like hell" defense? Is that what we're going to teach? Unless you're willing to teach the "shoot back" defense, you're wasting your time... so go ahead and keep teaching dodge-ball. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Feb 22 Dr, Murder rates did drop in the 90's in DC, however, the strict gun control you mention was instituted in the 1976, not the 90's. "In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia's less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia's largest city with almost 400,000 residents, has had one of the lowest rates of murder in the country — 4.1 per 100,000. " The constitution is to be followed. The founders knew that times change, so they included a way to change it, through amendments. Just because todays politicians show a total disregard to the constitution doesn't mean that it's not supposed to be followed. In fact, it just goes to show you how important the second amendment really is. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Mike, Since DC instituted strict gun laws in the 1990's the murder rate is down MORE THAN 50%. See the official police stats --- http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp The fact that there still are guns just shows how hard it is for one jurisdiction to stop gun crime when the state next door (VA) has such liberal laws. While I understand the general constitutional logic of what you claim, the bottom line is that "constitutional rights" have changed enormously over time and this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment protecting or failing to protect these rights. The meaning of each amendment and clause in the constitution is totally context dependent, there is no way of asserting these have any timeless or universal meaning. Government has taken control of commerce, voting rights, racism, even slavery, in ways that the original constitution clearly opposes. The 2nd Amendment only gaurantees more deaths in the U.S. each day Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 To "For the Dr" -- your argument makes NO sense, none at all. What does the fact that doctors save millions of people, and a few end up dying due to complications have to do with gun control at all? (I say complications, which I assume is what you mean, please provide a link to the govt website with the stats if you want to claim otherwise.) What does the fact that doctors save millions while making a few mistakes have to do with this? According to your logic, if you look at the number of doctor visits in the U.S. and calculate the number of people "saved" (I realize not each person is saved, but "accedental" death often means they die of the EXISTING condition, even when they might have lived w/ better care, not that they are killed). Each doctor saves over 1000 people per year doing the math you claim is valid (only 170k while there are more than a billion doctor "visits per year" in the U.S.). While I can introduce you to a lot of people at VT who were saved by a doctor, introduce me to just one who was saved from that killed by a gun. Please. The question is not how people die, it is what are the payoffs and benifits of allowing people to own guns. All you are telling me there is no payoff, but that some people die for other reasons besides guns, which was never an issue Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Feb 22 Dr, banning guns is a terrible idea, and would never work. Just look at our nations capital for a perfect example of the crime that results from a ban on guns. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons, how are we going to keep guns out? Even if we could, it would still be a terrible idea. The second amendment guarantees all others. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris S. at Feb 22 Let me play devils advocate and make some statements similar to those that have been said recently in other CT articles. [Sarcasm on] I don't think we should have to sit next to someone in class that has been trained in deadly martial arts. Any argument could instantly turn into a Jackie Chan kick fight in the middle of campus. There is so much alcohol around campus - we shouldn't be mixing alcohol with people trained to fight. I just wouldn't feel safe knowing there are people around me who could kill me with their bare hands if I disagree with them. [Sarcasm off] Get your heads out of the sand people! You have no "right to feel safe." This is a dangerous world we live in. You have to be prepared. Whether that means carrying a gun, or learning martial arts, deciding to be proactive is the first step. Flag Abuse
Posted by: For the Dr. at Feb 22 a lil LOL to show how stupid the "we need more gun law" people are: Think about this: a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000. c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services) Then think about this: a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000. b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500. c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188. Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention. Flag Abuse
Posted by: John Woods at Feb 22 Hi everyone. I'm going to jump in here and clarify something that the CT didn't do a very good job with. One trained individual cannot stop a gunman intent on shooting people. Maxine Turner and Reema Samaha were both studying Tae Kwon Do, as a matter of fact. Cadet La Porte was not able to stop the shooter alone, either. The idea is that you train people not to kick the gun out of someone's hand but to respond properly to the situation. Freezing, of course, is the worst thing to do. If everyone in the class had simultaneously rushed at the shooter, however, he would almost certainly have been stopped. Taking him on one at a time, teenage mutant ninja turtle-style, however, would have been useless. So, the reflex to freeze or hide--replace it with the reflex of running straight at him as a group. This helps whether or not students are armed with guns. I don't think bringing more guns into the classroom is a solution, but even if you think it would be a solution, that doesn't make Erin wrong about martial arts being helpful. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Mike, while I have also trained w/ firearms, I admit I lack your specific knowledge about shooting back. But look at what you are saying. The only way to stop a gun is with a gun? Which is better, someone starts shooting and everyone else shoots back? What about the professor and the others in the front row? So maybe, maybe we have a few fewer people killed. But are the people up front, in the crossfire, really safer w/ bullets coming in two directions from panicked people who have never been in a firefight? If we have NO GUNS, we have NO SHOOTING at all. The answer seems clear Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Feb 22 I have trained martial arts for years. I am also in the military and train with firearms regularly. Even though I've trained for years, it would be very unlikely I would be able to disarm a gunman without a weapon of my own. The idea that some people that took a self defense class in high school are going to be able to stop an armed madman is laughable. You would have to close the distance on him, starting from sitting at a desk, before he could fire a shot. Bear in mind that he already has his weapon drawn. This is a near impossible task. The only effective way to stop a madman with a gun is with a gun of your own. The Virginia Tech administration has no right to bar you from defending yourself on campus with a gun. It is an outrage that gun free zones (aka, victim disarmament zones) are allowed to continue. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dr at Feb 22 Guns in the U.S. are far and away the leading method for and cause of murder. I entered law school (where I am now) not sure about this, but after studying crime and our system of rights it is clear that GUNS kill people. Numerous reports have shown that gun control would be the most effective manner of preventing such crimes. The following data is not from a liberal or conservative organization, but simple crime stats direct from the FBI. Note the number of murders w/ guns as compared to all other methods: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html The arguments posed here that gun control would not work are illogical and circular. The point is not that "a criminal might have a gun." It is that if law enforcement officers were empowered to take all guns off the streets the impact would be huge. Would some people somewhere have guns? Yes. But the prevalence of guns right now has done nothing to reduce violence. At VT last year or at N. Illinois this year, the only thing everyone being able to own guns has done is allowed more violence. Moreover, these violent actors were able to easily acquire guns due to the current lax laws. Look at the VT killer going and buying these guns in the months before. Imagine if there were no gun stores. (Was he really going to go into some inner city and attempt to pay tens of thousands of dollars on a black market for a single gun? Very unlikely, and this is the worst outcome of increased control I have heard suggested by pro-gun advocates). What if the police actually had a firepower advantage, rather than huge disadvantage, versus criminals? For every anecdotal example of a person "saving themselves" by having a gun in their home, there is at least another anecdotal case of a child dying in a gun accident or an accidental shooting between family members. Most countries with strict gun laws (Japan, most nations in western Europe) have far lower murder rates. This is NOT coincidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate The second amendment is NOT about everyone buying guns, it is about states being capable of resisting the federal government at a different time and place in history. "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." The constitution says we should value our national guard and be willing to resist tyranny. It says NOTHING about gun shows Flag Abuse
Posted by: Suzanne at Feb 22 I think that self-defense classes would be a great idea. I have always felt the need to take such a class but without it being required, I have struggled to find the time. If such a class were implemented in high school or even as some sort of program for college freshman, I think that it would be quite beneficial. It could help in a variety of different situations. Maybe Virginia Tech should check into this. Flag Abuse
Posted by: TG at Feb 22 Come on, the CT is the one that can't seem to remember the exact day April 16th happened. How unbelievable. I for one will never forget what day it was, where I was, and what I was doing. Erin Sheehan isn't a fraud, I saw her on CNN, MSNBC, etc. about 10 million times. Her head was shaved then and she was one of (if not, the only?) survivor in that classroom. Furthermore, no one should be attacking her ideas or opinions. It's just one idea of many. Furthermore, self defense classes could help people in other situations, i.e. fighting off a rapist who doesn't have a gun or a knife. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kelly at Feb 22 Concealed carry is an important right for every American. The statement "I don't think the answer to guns is more guns" is flawed. You are making this statement as a pacifict...as someone who wants peace. Most of us want peace. In a perfect world, everyone would live in harmony. However, the criminally insane do not care if they violate laws. Anyone could carry concealed weapons on Virginia Tech's campus, and I'd be willing to bet that many students are doing it anyway. Think about the next time you go to Kroger on South Main Street, or to NRV mall. Chances are, everywhere you go, there is a licensed concealed carrier within shooting range of you. I realize this article was about defensive tactics training, but I just thought I'd throw that in there. Any kind of self defense (including concealed carry or martial arts) that you can utilize legally, can and should be used by everyone. If you are not comfortable with guns, become proficient in defensive tactics and carry a taser. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Bill at Feb 22 I believe self defense classes are not a bad idea, but as has been said below if you can't get to the shooter it does no good. Erin, I understand how concealed carry might not help in a class of all freshman, but the thought that someone might me armed could be enough to deter another incident. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Erin Sheehan at Feb 22 John, Google my name. The CT made a typo on the date, but I've been interviewed by atleast 10 different reputable sources in print and video about my experience last April. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Carrie H at Feb 22 John - Why in the world would someone lie about being in one of the classrooms on April 16th? Come on, it was an accident on the CT's part when reporting the story. Do your homework. Learn some respect for the victims. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at Feb 22 Erin - Michael and BK have pretty much said what I would. reader - thanks for ONE example, there are millions of examples of citizens using firearms for self-defense. Emily - There are 22,000+ gun laws in the US, they only make it hard for citizens to carry/buy, not criminals. Chris S - far from it. If you have a hammer, you're far less worried about handling nails. Without the hammer, you are unprepared for some situations. Everyone - concealed carry is a choice for self-defense that is respected everywhere BUT campuses in the US, and look where the crime is. Heck, I was carrying the last time I was at the General Assembly - around the Gov, Legislators, many prominent people. They trust permit holders but campus can't? The same people would carry on campus as do there. Flag Abuse
Posted by: reader at Feb 22 "Gunmen don't shoot up the police station." What about Michael Kennedy, 2006? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Michael at Feb 22 You can teach whatever martial arts you want, you can't disarm a gunman if you can't get near him. This class is a good idea but concealed carry needs to be a part of the material, and allowed by the University, to make any difference. Anything less is just a feel-good measure that won't make anyone safer. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Emily at Feb 22 I think that martial arts training is a better plan of action because there ARE martial arts that teach disarmament of a gunman. I don't think the answer to guns is more guns. There just aren't enough restrictions on gun sales to effectively make arming students a plausible answer. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Kelly at Feb 22 I think that this is a great idea. Having the ability to defend your own life can be valuable, no matter what the situation. i.e. in a classroom, or in an empty parking lot at night. My husband is currently in academy to become a police officer, and they just finished the defensive tactics portion of their training. It took two weeks of hard physical training, but I don't think that it is unrealistic for normal everyday citizens to learn these tactics, either. It could be spread out over weeks, or months. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Jason T at Feb 22 Erin, you make some good points. It amazes me that many people, myself included, so often go through life with little thought given to self-preservation. Most of us would be cooked if confronted with a dangerous situation. Of course, given that many Americans don't care for their health or finances either, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise. While I don't agree with mandatory training classes (I believe they would turn out like mandatory PE classes, where the people who don't want to be there take away from the experience for those who do), I do believe that we should all learn from your comments and consider how best to protect our most precious possession: our lives. As a side note, I worked as a contractor on a DOD job a few years ago, and all of my colleagues and I underwent mandatory training to teach us how to avoid dangerous situations, and how to survive them if they occurred. The first time I took the course, I thought it was outlandish, but the second time I realized that just because we don't see danger every day does not mean it doesn't exist. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Chris S at Feb 22 I am all for allowing students with permits to carry on campus BUT... when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I think Sheehan has a great idea. As said before, freshman wouldn't be able to carry a firearm even if the policy changed. And some people just aren't comfortable with carrying a gun. Shouldn't they have other some way of defending themselves? Being in charge of your own safety is about more than just carrying a gun. It is about having the skills to defend yourself by whatever means necessary. The mere discussion of this is a step in the right direction. People have to realize they are responsible for their own safety, not the university and not the police. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Henry at Feb 22 The concept of allowing concealed weapons is not geared towards allowing you to shoot back. It's geared towards warding off attackers who come to a building expecting it to be defenseless. If they know people are armed, they will be less likely to choose that venue. Gunmen don't shoot up the police station. Flag Abuse
Posted by: BK at Feb 22 "Even if we had concealed weapons, it would only theorietically help work in classes with mostly juniors and seniors or grad students." Isn't that better than none at all? And there may be only one professor or teacher in each classroom, but there are dozens in each building that could quickly respond to the sound of gunfire. But, the neat thing about concealed carry is that the criminal will never know who is armed and who is not, so a counter-attack could come from any direction. Awareness of that possibility could be a serious deterent to a violent criminal. You don't have to support concealed carry just because it won't help in every situation, but that's no reason to be against it. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Erin Sheehan at Feb 22 Ken S. How would concealed weapons help students in a shooting in a high school class? Or in classes where there are 100-300 college freshman, less than 10 of whom would be old enough to legally own a gun here. In my classroom the professor was the first to be shot, so deputizing professors would be of no use. Even if we had concealed weapons, it would only theorietically help work in classes with mostly juniors and seniors or grad students. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Error at Feb 22 April the 16th 2007 was a Monday. NOT a Tuesday, or Thursday, as insinuated by the intro of this story. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken S. at Feb 22 Sorry, but martial arts and self-defense takes a lot more time than firearms training. A woman in Indiana purchased a firearm and stopped an attacker who broke into her house that same day. The training is not easy, but certainly doesn't take years like martial arts, either. Besides, WHO is going to volunteer to rush someone carrying two guns? One shot from a CHP holder while Cho was reloading could have stopped him. And you think it's likely that someone can karate chop an armed attacker easier than they could aim and fire from a defensive location? Besides the fact that concealed carry is about SO many more situations than classroom attacks - rape, robbery, assault, etc. Flag Abuse
Add your opinion
Copyright © 2008 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | print edition | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» VT webmail
» VT People Search
» My VT / Hokie Spa
» VT Blackboard
» gmail