Collegiate Times

A small clarification: The university policy prohibits only students, faculty, and staff from carrying weapons on campus. All others who can legally own a gun can legally carry on campus with no repercussions.

Another quick clarification. "Concealed weapon" is a bit of a misnomer, at least in this state. Virginia will issue a "permit to carry a concealed handgun," but the permit does not allow carrying "other weapons" concealed as the third paragraph of the article states. The VA State Police website has all the information available: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm

Shameful that the gun lobby has chosen VT as its battleground. My stomach churned when I read "One question was asked about whether or not Tech students had the right to carry weapons in a visible manner, to which one audience member loudly responded, "Only once!" to open laughter." Open laughter? Was this a room full of freshmen who werent there in April or just a gathering of small, selfish minds convinced that their guns can protect them from any harm? Would a cross fire in Norris Hall have saved lives? Maybe we can start having duels again...back to pack, twenty paces? Guns dont belong in schools, period. According to the CDC, 29,569 people died as a result of handgun violence in 2004, the highest demographic was age 18-25 (collegiate-aged). Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people. Keep them out of schools, period.

"Open Laughter": Maybe guns do or don't belong...not disputing that now. But looking at your facts from the CDC- how many of those 29 thousand killed by handguns were on school property when killed? That statistic does nothing for this argument.

Your story opens with factual errors and continues with distortions and out of context statements. First, about the "open laughter" comment: This was in reference to whether a student or faculty member could carry a concealed firearm on campus. University policy states that the first time a student is identified with a concealed weapon on campus, the student or faculty member will be asked to remove the weapon from the campus. (In essence, one time without real consequences.) After that, stronger disciplinary measures, up to and including expulsion for students or firing for faculty members, may be taken. This material had been covered previously in the presentation, so the question showed that the questioner had not been listening. Secondly, your opening line is a gross exaggeration. There were only two "exposed guns" in the room, and neither person wearing said were wearing khakis. There was one male and one female, both from the VCDL organization. The male was wearing canvas pants, surely, but also a dress shirt. The female was wearing light colored, hip hugging jeans and a sweater. The point made by those carrying their weapons openly was that visitors to this campus are NOT bound by the university's policy. Only those of us who actually attend or work for the university are restricted in this way. Whichever side of the issue one identifies with, this cannot possibly seem right or fair to anyone. Mr. Van Cleave did not express "apparent dissatisfaction with the performance of the police". His point was simply that the laws of time and space, basic physics if you will, do not permit a limited number of police personnel to be in all places at all times. This is just a fact of life. As a 39 year old graduate student, I take personal offense at the university's policy. I am not a child.

"Open Laughter?" presents the statement that the largest demographic age group killed by handguns (18-25 years old) are college aged individuals. What "Open Laughter?" failed to identify (perhaps on purpose) was the high percentage of these victims (age 18-25) are involved with and died as a result of gang violence, turf wars, and the drug trade. They are not "innocent bystanders" when they themselves have a smoking gun in their hands. "Open Laughter?" also has no problem making sarcastic comments about standing back to back, walking 20 paces and having "duels" but can't understand the sarcastic irony that criminals like Cho don't follow rules or regulations, and thus the laughter when someone commented that "only once" had students carried weapons visibly on campus. Lastly, "Open Laughter?" would have us all believe that his/her opinion is what's best for campus safety. Well, we have tried that system, and it has failed us. Ben Franklin once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Banning responsible adults from carrying concealed arms while on campus will sadly have the same tragic results as last spring. Or shall we keep these gun free policies and expect different rssults? That would be insane.

"My stomach churned when I read "One question was asked about whether or not Tech students had the right to carry weapons in a visible manner, to which one audience member loudly responded, "Only once!" to open laughter."" This comment was only referring to the fact that you would be expelled, not what you seem to be thinking it meant. "Was this a room full of freshmen who werent there in April or just a gathering of small, selfish minds convinced that their guns can protect them from any harm?" Having already talked about the first part, it's sad that in an institution about the critial thinking of new ideas that gun owners must be labeled as such. Gun owners know that guns will not protect them from any harm, and putting a gun on you doesn't give your superpowers, but what it does give you is a choice when defending yourself when presented with deadly force to respond. If the police and government institutions fail at preventing these kinds of crimes, they are telling you that you will die. Sadly some people still believe that when you cross the magic boundry into the school zone, criminals will realize this and start obeying the law. What you would rather have is the feeling of being safe rather than actually being safer. After the events of earlier this year I thought it would be more obvious that this is nothing more than an illusion. "Would a cross fire in Norris Hall have saved lives? Maybe we can start having duels again...back to pack, twenty paces? Guns dont belong in schools, period." Possibly it would have, but no need to make up hypothetical situations to try to stir up emotions rather than thinking logically about the topic. I could say that we could go out and start crashing cars together and it wouldn't sound any less stupid when I said we should ban cars after that. Sadly that's pretty much what you are saying. "According to the CDC, 29,569 people died as a result of handgun violence in 2004, the highest demographic was age 18-25 (collegiate-aged). Guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people. Keep them out of schools, period." This is a statistic that has been reported to no end, and if you actually showed up at the presentation with an open mind you might have realized what they were talking about, because the speaker went over this. Quoting a previous poster: "high percentage of these victims (age 18-25) are involved with and died as a result of gang violence, turf wars, and the drug trade".

The vast majority of handgun deaths in U.S. are done either by (1) people who would never been issued a right-to-carry permit, or (2)gun-related accidents. The question is should a learning institution coarsen its social ethic in order to reduce the risk that, in the extreme offchance of a recurrence, fewer people would die? If I could vote, I'd lean toward accepting the risk.

While mass shootings are definitely a reason to allow concealed carry on campus there are the least likely to happen. We should also be able to carry on any college campus due to the fact violent crime (assault, armed robbery and rape) also occurs on college campuses as it does elsewhere. Checks out various court rulings police have no duty to protect individual only the community as a whole. The police are a deterrent and so is my revolver the only difference is my revolver could go anywhere I go if the law would allowed it to.

Once again the biased media strikes a cause. While many of the other people here have pointed out fallacies of this article, I want to particularly reinforce one. Philip Van Cleave is a retired sheriff from Texas, and never once eluded to police (his own colleagues!) being incompetent. Many police -encourage- citizens to protect themselves (ask one!). Posing the article the way it is biases readers from the beginning, and hurts the real message. Way to go CT, way to bring objectivity to the table when you have tens of thousands of readers who rely on you to educate them on news around the campus. Would you be upset if I, as an educator, taught your children in a biased manner? I would never do that, and everyone who knows me knows that they are free to choose their viewpoint, as long as its educated. Free yourself of bias, educate yourself and others, and enjoy a -true- free country.

The logic presented by "Open Laughter?" would preclude gun possession by police officers. Would unarmed police make you feel safer? Police officers are no different than any other citizen. They are prone to making the same mistakes that any civilian would make, and subject to the same penalties/repercussions for misuse of a firearm. The fact is that they need guns to protect you from armed criminals. When it hits the fan, and the cops aren't around (as is usually the case unfortunately), that responsibility is placed on your shoulders. In that situation, you would require the same means of protection afforded to you by the presence of an armed police officer. We are talking about trained civilians with proper permits who obviously have no problems carrying their weapons off campus without incident. We are NOT talking about drunken freshmen vigilantes who have no firearms training running around with chips on their shoulders. Also, I would personally rather risk a cross fire scenario, than to sit submissively while someone shoots me in the face, as you would seem to prefer.

While mass shootings are definitely a reason to allow concealed carry on campus there are the least likely to happen. We should also be able to carry on any college campus due to the fact violent crime (assault, armed robbery and rape) also occurs on college campuses as it does elsewhere. Checks out various court rulings police have no duty to protect individual only the community as a whole. The police are a deterrent and so is my revolver the only difference is my revolver could go anywhere I go if the law would allowed it to.

A great quote: "I carry a gun because I'm not strong enough to carry a cop." Van Cleave was definitely not referring to his dissatisfaction with the police. As others have said, the problem is that the police cannot be everywhere at every time. The problem with random violence is that it is, well, random. You can't predict when or where it will happen. The police do a great job, but with about 37 officers in operations (counted on the VT Police website) covering 4 shifts (again from their website) on a 2,600 acre campus with over 100 buildings, that leaves each on-duty oficer with 10-11 buildings and over 300 acres of land to patrol. What are the odds they're within earshot when you cry for help? This isn't dissatisfaction, this is simply the reality of the situation. We can't put an officer on every corner, and on every floor of every building. Thus the quote, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is not a criticism, but an observation of reality.

I'm sad I missed the presentation, but work precluded the possibility of attending. I just wanted to clear up one matter of factual content: Open Laughter presented a statistic quite incorrectly when he said "According to the CDC, 29,569 people died as a result of handgun violence in 2004, the highest demographic was age 18-25 (collegiate-aged)." Actually, 29,569 is the total number who died as a result of any firearm used in any way. In other words he's including suicide, self defense, hunting accidents, and even Police protection in "handgun violence" even when rifles or shotguns were actually used. In reality there were 11,624 homicides by all kinds of firearms including rifles in 2004, according to the CDC.

Some random thoughts: Can't say I'm in favor of people carrying weapons on campus... too many opportunities for youthful exuberance. Seems like there's quite a bit of carrying of armament in South Central... doesn't seem to keep the peace much. Maybe just the ROTC folks should carry... at least they're supposedly trained in how to use them. For a test, maybe let everyone carry those tazers that shoot the probes... one of those certainly would have been just as effective as a gun in stopping Crazy Cho.... then wait six months and see how many people tazer each other for no good reason. That'll give you an indication of how many people will get shot if you allow folks to carry guns (yes, it will).

Are tazers also allowed on VT campus? If not, there are probably already people carrying them and your experiment has already played out. Section 10 of this document does not preclude them: http://www.studentprograms.vt.edu/judicial/documents/SectionII.pdf

bxl: I would say a good indication of how many people would get shot would be the town of Blacksburg. All those who want to carry on campus already carry while in town. There is no random shooting now - there is no reason for it to start simply by crossing the invisible school zone line.

That shouls be "disallowed," not "allowed."

Whichever side you're on, you have to see that one of the biggest problems is the inconsistency in VA law vs. VT policy. It is absurd that a non-VT-affiliated citizen can openly carry a gun onto campus but a student or faculty member can't. Also, I must urge people to again remember that the "youthful exhuberance" that could lead to gun-related incidents is rather unlikely. Again, we're talking about on the order of 1% of the VT population that will even have permits, and all of them must be over 21 and pass background checks and take gun safety courses.

And I sympathize with those who say guns have no place in the classroom, but I again urge you to consider that a policy without active enforcement is no guarantee. It's like posting a sign at your front door saying "no roaches allowed" but never laying down any traps.

BXL: "Youthful exuberance" is an argument that has not played out in any state with concealed carry. This argument is consistently made, and consistently disproved. Where is "South Central" that you refer to? ROTC is trained in the military use of arms, which is quite different from legal self defense. All CHL carriers are required to pass live-fire self defense training as part of the licensing process, so they are trained. And finally, tasers would not be a valid experiment. They are not a means of lethal force, and thus they lack the level of natural deterrence against use. By that I mean the sane human brain has a natural aversion to killing other humans, which deters people from using lethal force except in the most extreme, life threatening situations. In combat during World War II, the Army found that it was extremely difficult to get green troops to pull the trigger when confronted with the enemy. They found that psychologically, they could not bring themselves to pull the trigger when aiming at another human being. The military started using sillhouette targets in training to combat this effect. Tasers, being non-lethal, would not have this same chilling effect, and you would thus expect them to be used more often. We also see this in police actions. Folks are tasered far more often, and in less threatening situations.

A small clarification of the initial "small clarification" by Jonathan McGlumphy: Virgina public university "no guns policies" can only prohibit concealed carry by faculty, students, and staff of THE UNIVERSITY ASSERTING THE POLICY. Employees, students, and staff on any OTHER university, public or private, with a CHP can lawfully carry on the VT campus because the VT administrators cannot punish (i.e. fire or expel) them for doing so!

Some interesting quotes from law enforcement: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." -- Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97 "I ... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless." -- Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97 "Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated." -- Fairfax County VA Police Major Bill Brown, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97 "I was wrong. But I'm glad to say I was wrong." -- Arlington County VA Police Detective Paul Larson, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97 "The concerns I had - with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons - we haven't experienced that." -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97­­­

Mr. Van Cleave is right on the money in pointing out the absurd policy of university administrators who deny students, faculty and staff their right to self defense while on university grounds. They act as though somehow inanimate objects such as guns cause crime when it is their own policies which make them ripe for their students, faculty and staff to be victimized by criminals. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. I am a faculty member at a major state university with a CCP -- I carry regularly but am prohibited from doing so to and from work, agruably the most likely times that I would need my gun. This is nothing but preemption of state law by arrogant university administrators who wouldn't know the first thing about either self defense or guns. They live in their ivory towers in which the world is full of only good guys but have the arrogance to deny our 2nd amendment rights to those of us who live in the real world and have invested the time and money to train ourselves to protect ourselves. The police are merely historians. This is well known. Yet the university chiefs of police meekly follow the administrators in mouthing dangerous platitudes. No student, faculty member or staff should ever have to make the choice between being able to protect him/herself and keeping his job. Yet this is exactly the choice that is forced on us every day by our employers, state institutions which do not recognize state issued CCP's. If our state attorney general had any sense of justice or of what is written in the US constitution he would stop this nonsense today. In the mean time our universities continue to be "gun free zones", that is killing fields. Had there been one student or faculty member who had not been forced by university policy to disarm him/herself, many lives would likely have been saved the day that Cho, a madman but firearms novice when on his killing spree. But Virginia Tech, like so many of our universities is a "gun free zone" so Cho did not have to worry about anyone of his victims actually shooting back. If that is what the universities whant to promote, then they are culpable in the mass murder and should be removed from any position of authority now. How many more innocent victims will have to die before those in charge of our state's universities and colleges recognize that it is not only a good idea, but absolutely necessary to allow students, faculty and staff with CCP's to carry on university property?

While it would be nice for the Police to protect us all, people seem to forget that protecting us all isn't really what the Police do. The majority of the time the Police react to crime, they do not prevent crime (protect us). There is just too much crime, to much distance, not enough Police, and not enough time. Firearms prevent far more crimes than criminal with firearms cause. Things at VT would have turned out better had staff/students been allowed to protect themselves.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not bound to protect the individual citizen, but only the public as a whole. The police do a great job in most situations, however it is rare that they are able to prevent a crime such as happened at VT. Too often they are only able to show up after the fact and draw the chalk outlines. This is in no way a condemnation of their efforts, it merely states the facts. I have nothing but the highest regard for the men and women who choose this line of work. I believe that if the university, ANY university, denies students or faculty the right to self protection, then that university should be held to account for their safety, as individuals, and subject to civil suit should they fail.

SO many of you talk about this point that the police are not obligated to protect, and how they can't be everywhere. You're missing an important point: THEY recommend that you arm and protect yourself! My father is a retired officer, Mr. Van Cleave is, and I have many other friends and family members who are too. I have yet to meet an officer who doesn't advocate personal protection, and they don't take it personally! (They know they can't be everywhere either!)

This was a great event - it's time to end all of the Ivory Tower Gun Bans. College students' lives are important too - and they are not "children," so college boards need to stop treating them like children.

This article and a related news item is now linked to at OpenCarry.org where you can learn more about your open carru rights on and off campus around the United States - open carry is not just for the VT campus.

For some time now Utah has allowed handguns on campuses. There has NEVER been an incident where a student, faculty member, or other employee has gone crazy or gotten over drugged and shot someone. The fact is, persons with concealed weapons permits are FIVE TIMES LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME than those without permits.

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that these institutions of "higher learning", which are shaping the minds that will shape our future, are depriving these students, faculty and staff of their Constitutional Rights? Is a university a nation unto itself where the laws and liberties of United States are not in effect? How dare anyone think that they have the right or authority to deny anyone the basic human right of self preservation. What did our forefathers work so hard for anyway?

P. Webb, you are absolutely right. You have put it better than I ever could. Thank you.

One of my favorite quotes is by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, who said, "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." I fear we are becoming a nation of sheep, hiding behind the false assumption that a law will protect us. We already have laws against murder, rape, use of a gun to commit a crime, etc. Gosh, do these laws make you feel safe? If so, you must be one of the ivory tower types who have never been out in the real world. As has been stated, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not here to protect us, so what do we have to do that -- a law saying guns are not allowed on campus? What is the solution - do we sit around like sheep and be slaughtered if an armed crazy is on the loose, or do we take it upon ourselves to actively protect ourselves and others? Now I am not naive enough to think that if concealed permit holders had been allowed on college campuses that the VT massacre would not have happened. Given the anti-gun and pacifist mentalities that seem prevalent on most campuses, and the relatively few students over 21, the chances of an armed person with a CCW being present are pretty slim. But still that chance would have been far greater than that of having a police officer present. Of course those opposed to this position will scream that more guns would be a disaster (disproven in Utah) -- to those I would suggest that they read the most authoritative work on this subject, "More Guns, Less Crime", by Prof. John R. Lott,Jr., the senior research scholar at the Yale School of Law, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000. Secondly, they should read the recent Federal Court of Appeals decision in case 04-7041, the DC gun law case, which gives a good grounding on the principles on which our country was founded, and of which I have spent a career protecting.

Except for my really young years I've been around guns all my life, I'm 48 now. But I vividly remember the first time I came across a gun that was meant to kill someone. Up until then guns were "fun" things to shoot paper targets and to shoot skeet or to hunt with, all fun games. But this gun, which was bought by a friend, was bought to protect him, in other words to kill someone if need be. It was a 9mm semi-automatic. It was laying on his coffee table. He had just told me why he bought it, for protection, to that date I'd always considered a gun to be a fun, recreational thing. I picked it up off his coffee table and it was like a Tazer went through me. It truly FREAKED me out. I immediatly set it back down. I had handled and fired many guns in my life at that time, but this was seriously different! I thought of these thoughts and feelings quite a bit after that and determined that my reaction was "immature". Afterall, cops shoot people all the time. There are people in this world for whatever reason "need" to be shot. Once I realized this and overcame my emotional immaturity I recognized that my friend was right. I began to see it as a responsibility of every "citizen" to resist crime since as good as the police may be they cannot be everywhere. Over the next few years I became convinced of this and eventually bought a .45 handgun and applied for a Conceal Carry Permit. Once I bought my (first) gun, a Taurus PT 145, and before I actually was given my CCP, I confronted a group of young men (legally open carrying) that had been breaking into storage units on Jennelle Road, where I was renting. Now I did not "know" these were the guys but they fit the discription and afterwards, seeing that I was carrying a "big freaking" gun, there were no more break-ins. Coincendence? You decide. The bottom line is whether you're talking about VT or the real world, evil respects and fears a gun and those willing and able to use them. Tech policy forbids me, even as an outsider, to carry into a campus building. Of course Virginia law does not. If I'm on campus I will be carrying. I hope you will feel safer knowing this. I am not a wild west cowboy, you will never know who I am or if I have a weapon, unless the S hits the fan. Just know that I am there.

My previous post states that I'm an off-campus person, which I am. It would be unlikely that an off-campus person should provide any protection for the university. I'm rarely on-campus. So, to provide "real" protection for the Univeristy "students" would have to be an active part of this. Which means students would have to violate campus policy. Since "the Administration" has demonstrated that it cannot protect the students, it seems to me that there is a legal precedent that the students have a superceding right to protect themselves. In other words, anyone with the "balls" to do so should do so. Somehow I think others would come to your aid, I would, but of course you may otherwise be on your own. Civil disobedience is always an admirable thing when the action is about freedom.

I just can't seem to understand how a "State" University (not a private school) can be allowed the authority to take away a person's civil liberties in the first place, much less how those who are supposed to be of “higher education” can actually believe that they can somehow create a magic bubble (university) where everyone will be safe from harm. It honestly makes no sense at all, and yet school administrators will defend themselves and their policies as though Virginia Tech can be governed in a way which makes it safer than anywhere else in the world and thus somehow immune to the daily random acts of crime and violence which occur nationwide.

The problem is that school shooters are terrorists. As a country, we are struggling to figure out how best to fight a war on terror. How do you root out the terror element without disrupting everyday life? Psychological profiling and societal change will only accomplish so much. After that, we just trust that we won't be victimized every day. The difference is that, while we have little control as individuals (aside from vigilance) over dirty bombs, plane crashes, etc., we do have more control over individual terrorists like school shooters by responsibly carrying weapons. Therefore, I completely understand the desire of many stable, law-abiding citizens to carry a gun as a means of self-preservation.

The goal we all agree on is attainment of a peaceful world. It doesn't matter if its a peaceful world with, or without guns. Peaceful is peaceful, regardless. So, we should stop focusing on the guns as the problem, and work more on understanding, preventing, and controlling violent human behavior. Although guns will not help us to understand violence, they have repeatedly proven themselves as effective tools for preventing and controlling violence. As such, it is irrational and illogical for colleges and universities to reject the idea that guns would be helpful on campus. Theirs is an emotionally driven dislike of weapons that has no place in a seat of higher learning. They should be ashamed.

My son is a VT student. On that fateful day, he had overslept, otherwise he would have been somewhere around Norris Hall at around the same time that Cho went on his killing spree. That thought alone keeps me awake at nights sometimes. Knowing him, had he been there, he would have probably gone after Cho directly, bare-handed if necessary, in order to try to save others (he's too much like me in that respect). I am one of the lucky VT parents -- too many others werent' so lucky. I have a permit to carry concealed. I carry 24/7. When my son turns 21, if he chooses to obtain his own permit to carry concealed, I will support him 100%. The "bad guys" will always be out there. Just because someone makes a place a "gun-free zone" doesn't make it a safe zone. History has proven that time and time again and still people don't seem to learn from it. Why is it that too many people in power won't admit that laws are useless against those who break them? The police can't be everywhere all the time. We have to be able to adequately protect ourselves at all times. I understand that guns aren't for everyone but those law-abiding adults who choose to carry should be allowed to do so as granted by State law -- that includes adult students as well as adult faculty.

I'm stunned at the number of supporters of conceal carry on campus. Where are the anti-gunners? Let's hear your arguments.

I'm a grad student at another Virginia university. I wrote to our President about our right to carry soon after the VT shootings. She told me that we need to get to the root of the problem and that an understanding of why people do these things is key. Others like her probably feel the same way. My question is: why is "why" so important? Even if we knew why, would any explanation for the shooting of dozens of innocent people ever be good enough? The real question is not "why." The real question is "what." What do you do about the here and now? When you have a raving psycho suddenly pointing a gun or a knife at you, and you have 10 seconds left to live, do you really want to spend that time trying to understand him and getting to the root of his problem? Or, are you going to pull your gun and do what you can to save yourself and those around you? So go ahead, make those gun-free zone signs as big and bold and as painfully obvious as you want; the insane and those hell bent with criminal intent still won't care.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."- Sigmund Freud Never fails to surprise me that people will use Freud quotes up and down,day in,day out and twice on sundays to support their believes, yet somehow "overlook" that one. Bottom line: Schools tend to be targeted b/c the shooter/attacker KNOWS the students are more like unarmed peasants,or targets,they have no way to fend back. May the students of VT R.I.P. that were killed that horrible day. If I saw a crazy looking guy chaining the doors shut,I would have definitely inquired,and/or drawn my concealed handgun,and defended myself. It only would have taken ONE shot from a student legally carrying their weapon to stop the massacre. One shot.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."- Sigmund Freud Never fails to surprise me that people will use Freud quotes up and down,day in,day out and twice on sundays to support their believes, yet somehow "overlook" that one. Bottom line: Schools tend to be targeted b/c the shooter/attacker KNOWS the students are more like unarmed peasants,or targets,they have no way to fend back. May the students of VT R.I.P. that were killed that horrible day. If I saw a crazy looking guy chaining the doors shut,I would have definitely inquired,and/or drawn my concealed handgun,and defended myself. It only would have taken ONE shot from a student legally carrying their weapon to stop the massacre. One shot.

I took the required NRA safty class on handguns about 2 years ago thinking I would get my concealed carry permit. Guns to me had always been something I would never need or use. This class lasted about 4 hours. When it was over I had to ask myself, Can I carry a handgun and be safe in doing it? It took about 3 months to answer this Question for myself. I now carry, not to be someone who stands out in a crowd, but someone who values life. I hate to burst anyones bubble, but ther are a few BAD people out there that will kill you for no reason. I encourage everyone to take this class and perhaps you will be able to protect yourself also. I consider VT as my family and hope that you all will stay safe.

Form Relative,vast chance guide difficult school crowd association chair need sheet realise more or total eye whereas boat where enough put people double welcome idea merely asset whose criminal theme beat region that communication face as lose transfer heart close history ago use beat notice document conduct report significant transfer foreign carry problem particularly unable they late slightly trial motor tea comparison sequence box since question access advise teacher rock importance card much expense stand whole price route anyway afraid thought access military nor price cross