Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Vicki, Colorado on April 23, 2007:

I am very ambivalent about guns. Never had much to do with them personally, but spend 20 years as a paramedic in urban areas trying to put the pieces of GSW victims back together again. Still don't see the sense in handguns....made for one thing and one thing only....to kill people.

Now that I live in rural Colorado, I see a different view of guns, for hunting, among other things (I prefer Costco, frankly) and there is that pesky 2nd amendment, the one both sides read incorrectly. Conservatives forget about the "well-regulated" phrase and lefties forget about the "right to bear arms" part.

I just have one question for those that advocate for widely available concealed weapons. In this one incident, suppose you are a student, armed and seated in class. You hear gunshots in the hall and leap out of your seat and towards the sounds. In the hallway, you see 6 other people with guns. Who is the bad guy? Who do you shoot? Who do the cops aim for when they get there?

I have heard this scenario posed to several concealed carry advocates and have yet to hear anything but sputtering and a quick change of subject. I am truly interested in a logical answer.

And what about other situations? As sad as these school shooting are, and they seem to be growing in number, they are still a tiny percentage of shootings. And what about the other situations? The depressed student who turns it on himself, or maybe his roommate. What about the abusive relationships where someone picks up a gun instead of stomping out? I understand that the assumption is that concealed carry permits would come with education, but I don't see that as necessarily stopping someone enraged, and with ready access to a gun. I feel that further arming people would result in unintended consequences, but yet, I can't see people continue to try to hide under desks.

---

The "several concealed carry advocates" you've talked to are idiots. I hardly consider myself one, but I'll answer since they didn't -- from my perspective as a former deputy sheriff who has sat in on quite a few classes for civilians.

First, your premise was wrong. If I was in plain clothes and carrying a gun, and I heard shots in the hall, I most certainly would not run toward the ruckus! And in the training I've been in, students were certainly not encouraged to do so. That would be, plain and simply, stupid. The point is to avoid dangerous situations, not rush to greet them.

Second, for honest citizens who carry guns, it's about defense, not showdowns. The first thing I was trained to do was retreat if at all possible to a safe position. Guns come out only as a second-to-last resort (pulling the trigger is the last resort, and the training includes to never put your finger on the trigger unless you are justified and ready to shoot, despite what you see on TV -- actors rarely get good training). In the situation you describe, the gun comes out only when you're cornered in a classroom, and the gunman is pushing his way in.

The bottom line is the statistics: how many honest citizens thwart crimes with a gun per year? The estimates I've seen range from 750,000 to 2 million in the U.S. alone -- every year. How many get shot by cops because they've rushed into a bad situation with their guns drawn? I've never even heard of such a case, though I'd be surprised if there weren't a few, since even honest people can be dumb sometimes. But the number by comparison is, I'm sure, vanishingly small. -rc

Posted by Bob, NJ on April 23, 2007:

First, I'm encouraged that there are a couple of Heinlein fans here. RAH explored the idea of concealed carry and self defense in several of his books. His bottom line was that self defense was a wonderful idea. While "Friday" was a bit on the wild side, Lazarus Long was a wonderful example of an armed citizen.

Second, Cho's ancestry is nearly immaterial. This type of nut case can come from any background. Get over it. The man needed help and he did not get it. The social safety net failed him and us.

Third, we do not need to have everyone armed to prevent this type of episode. The mere knowledge that he might have faced an armed teacher or student might have been enough. If the posability did not prevent the attack, one or two people carrying would have lessoned the extent of the event. Based on the published bios of several of the victims I would not have had any problems with most of them being armed.

Fourth, the comments about trying to avoid problems is part of the training that anyone should have. Running towards the gunfire is stupid! Holing up behind a baricaded door and defending themselves if the problem came to them is more realistic. Leaving, if there is a safe way of doing so is ideal!

Finnaly, I think that no one is against reasonable background checks for carry permits. Likewise, safety training before getting a carry permit and occasional refreshers would be in order.

Posted by Craig, Minnesota, USA on April 24, 2007:

Vicky, Colorado: You have one critical (and common) error in your observation regarding the 2nd Amendment: "Conservatives forget about the 'well-regulated' phrase...."

Our language has changed since the 19th Century. You have to read the Constitution with the meanings attributed to words of that era if you expect to understand its intent. This is why the "Living Document" position is inherently wrong; the Constitution can be changed by adopting new definitions for some of the words it contains.

In the military of those times, there were militia (citizens called to arms in time of emergency) and Regulars (professional soldiers). "Regulars" derived from being regulated - trained. Regulated did not mean what it often does today - controlled.

"Well-regulated" does not mean that the government can control (regulate) arms and the "shall not be infringed" phrase clearly dispels any argument to the contrary.

As an aside, many argue that "assault weapons" (whatever that term means) were never intended by the framers because they could not possibly have envisioned such arms.

If you accept that argument, then you must allow that the government can "regulate" freedom of the press to quill pens and manual printing presses because the framers could never have envisioned high-speed printing presses, television or the internet.

Our Constitution establishes and limits the government and preserves (not establishes) the rights of The People. Technological innovations are simply inconvenient to those with ulterior motives.

Posted by George, Hampton, VA on April 24, 2007:

52 comments so far - and one from someone with a "connection" to Va Tech. My son is a third year student there, I know dozens of current students, and many of my colleagues at the local NASA Center are "Hokies." A girl from Hampton is dead - my wife worked with her mother and taught the young lady's brother and sister in a home school high school art class. Another girl from Smithfield, VA (15 miles away) is dead. My former boss has known her parents since before she was born and shared in her life for many years in her young life. Yeah- I think I have a "connection."

Almost every comment says- "let's arm everyone". That way when the occasional nut case shows up, we can all shoot him together. Of course, the "accidental shootings" that happen to kill and wound "law abiding citizens" every year in the USA don't really count in the equation held by the gun advocates - just "collateral" damage? We all are armed to "protect ourselves," too bad that 6 year old kid shot himself with his dad's gun.

What about a response of "love your neighbor?" Maybe that means keeping an eye on him, like most of us do in airplanes since 9/11. We have all seen the "moody" guy around us. Did we all ignore him and try to avoid him? Do you ignore the people sitting around you in an airplane, or do you keep an eye on the comings and goings of people? I guess many of you would feel more "comfortable" if you were "carrying" while flying.

Two cents from a "Hokie" dad - the students want to get back to class and move forward in their "education." Unfortunatley, they have gotten a lesson no one wanted, but they WILL learn and care about their fellow man a bit - no a LOT more.

Thank you Arcie for the forum.

---

You're welcome. Your emotional involvement shows: "Almost every comment says- 'let's arm everyone'. That way when the occasional nut case shows up, we can all shoot him together." Actually, they don't say that. Not even close. But you don't want to hear it because what you see is too raw. The actual statistics don't matter. Your emotions are valid, but they make your conclusions suspect. -rc

Posted by John, SC on April 24, 2007:

I can sympathize (a little bit) with people being bullied. I was an Army brat and we moved around a lot when I was young. I didn't have any problems until we moved the summer before I started 5th grade. From then on, my life at school was a living hell - I was picked on constantly and I never understood why (to this day I still don't understand why). You might want to say it was because I was the new guy, but this was a military school - most people in it had been there at most a year or two.

My older brother told me it would continue until I fought back but I was always afraid to fight back, so I just ran. What was worse was when I started 7th grade: I sat in front of a girl who also took a dislike to me. Fortunately it was only for the first class of the day. She would pinch me; I don't mean a little love pinch, I mean a get-some-real-skin-and-squeeze-as-hard-as-she-could pinch. If I had had my today attitudes back then I would have turned around and slapped her into next week. I was brought up to not hit women, though, so I couldn't do that even if I had wanted to.

All this bullying kept up until the about half-way through 7th grade when somebody picked on me on the wrong day and I went after him and kicked his butt (literally). Of course, I got to go to the principal's office and get my butt beat, but it was worth it. After a couple more fights I was pretty much left alone. I was still afraid but it sure felt better to see the guy with a black eye the next day. I'm sure it helped that I finally started growing, too.

I guess my point is, I have never felt like killing people at all, let alone just because I was picked on. It never entered my mind that I should take a gun or knife to school to get even.

---

You missed my point. I'm not saying it's reasonable for those who are bullied to take up arms -- far from it. I'm saying that the institutional response to bullying is partly to blame in many of these cases, including Columbine (though it's too early to be clear about VT). That response is: shut up, don't fight back, sit back and take it or else. That is simply wrong. YOUR rage is clear, even from here so many years later. You were able to fight back. If you had no ability to do so, or were too afraid to (you barely overcame that fear!), your rage would have been significantly larger. One can understand that rage without condoning turning it upon innocent people. The point is not that we should arm people so they can act out their rage, but rather that we should fix the root problem so the rage doesn't exist. We have been unwilling to do that, so I can certainly understand the call to defense against the inevitable result. -rc

Posted by Barry, Iowa on April 24, 2007:

As usual, thanks to Randy, This is True readers are ahead of the pundit press. There are some great opinion pieces running by other columnists in the newspapers now which could well have been sparked by Randy's editorial and reader reactions in this blog. Examples:

• "After Virginia Tech" in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which notes "our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense." and

• "Let's be realistic about reality" in the Chicago Sun-Times, which notes there was a law proposed in Virginia that would allow students with permits to carry guns on campus, but that was defeated -- after lobbying by, yes, Virginia Tech itself! It's an astounding read.

---

It's definitely thought-provoking. Columnist Mark Steyn even notes where part of the blame lies: Zero Tolerance! He even (in effect) replies to some of the objections raised by other readers in this space: what chaos would have resulted if some of the VT students did have guns? The answer: "Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him down until the cops arrived." That is exactly what many posters here have been saying would happen.

If I knew about that case, I had forgotten it completely, so I went looking for details. This article discusses how the two students (both off-duty cops, who would not be allowed to carry under VT's rule) subdued the gunman after he "only" killed three people -- a student, a professor and a dean -- and how most newspapers purposefully omitted the simple fact that the students who "tackled" the gunman were armed. -rc

Posted by Bergman, Washington on April 24, 2007:

To answer Vicki in Colorado: Word meanings change over time. "Well-regulated militia", however, is actually a legal term, defined in legal dictionaries of the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

Put simply, to be well-regulated, a militia must have officers, hold drills, and be competent in the use of their weapons. How those officers were appointed was irrelevant. By that standard, members of many paintball teams are well-regulated militias, since they usually have (team) officers, train to shoot guns well, and hold drills to improve their skills.

As for the question of who is in the militia, there's a fairly simple test: Are you elderly or infirm? Can you fire a rifle? Can you vote? If the answers are No, Yes and Yes, you are a member of the militia.

Posted by Angie, Los Angeles on April 24, 2007:

To everyone who goes into an uproar when we speak of bullying as the cause of this violence, and think we are blaming the victims or are somehow missing the point, well that is just ludicrous. I don't blame the victims themselves any more than I would blame a rape victim because she was raped by an individual who was abused as a child.

The point IS every school shooter has this profile - and let me tell you I myself was a school bully, who the school protected, and instead of getting to the root of my anger issues chose to chastise my victims. I grew out of that thankfully despite the lack of action by the school. I had a lot of my own anger and was a troubled child that should have been dealt with. It is just obscene that the school systems are allowed to sweep students' abuse of one another under the rug. Some kids can learn to fight back, but it is just not in the nature of some others, we are all different and some of us are more sensitive than others.

We need to mandate that school administrations, teachers and students are trained and made to enforce a ZERO TOLERANCE TO BULLYING, be it physical or emotional. We are all responsible for this society and we have created this mess. We are our brother's keepers.

Posted by Vicki, Colorado on April 25, 2007:

Point taken about well-regulated and the change in meaning off language over the years.

Doesn't really do much to change my feelings about guns....I just don't see the point in today's society. And may I point out to you, Randy, and others, that you are making giant assumptions about the training and common sense of all people that may get concealed carry permits. The training you had as a cop would be not only cost-prohibitive (but frankly, probably impossible to achieve politically) to require for concealed carry permits and I still believe the original question is a good one. The shooting at the law school does not really prove the point....the students were off-duty cops who HAD the training you assume everyone will get. There will also be idiots with guns, legal or illegal, crazy or not and I still think further arming will create unintended consequences.

---

I'm definitely not trying to change your feelings, but I (and the other posters) are trying to clarify some of your impressions. For instance, proper training is definitely not politically impossible. In fact, that's how they get the permit laws through -- the laws require training! Paying for it, and taking the time for it, is simply left to the person who wants a permit. Would I, with my experience, be totally comfortable with someone who had no training or practice other than the legal minimum? Probably not, just as I'd not be terribly comfortable with a driver who got a license with the bare minimum of training and practice.

My guess (no data) is, most people with such interest get much more than the legal minimum simply because they are interested, and want to be proficient and safe. It would be definitely be interesting to see what the "average" person gets as far as training and practice. I do know one thing: the percentage of cases of wrongful shootings is higher for cops than it is for citizens who use firearms, which at least implies not only decent training, but good thinking among those civilians who use firearms for defense. -rc

Posted by Trevor in Arkansas on April 25, 2007:

I applaud the sentiments about needing more brave individuals in our society.

The VT shooting is the kind of thing that makes me (and I suspect I'm not alone) ponder how I would have responded. Wondering what I should and actually could do in such a situation. Hopefully I wouldn't forget everything except self-preservation, but would try to help others if possible. But at the same I wouldn't want to be stupid.

It also makes me think about the gunman's previous experiences, and whether I would have tried to be a friend to a person like him.

Anyhow, I also agree that our society has problems, and could be better, and we each should do what we can. But at the same time we should realistically expect -- and, to a practical degree, prepare for -- problems with members of this society.

I do not disagree with the comments to the effect that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with guns. But I would add that guns are not the only method of self-defense. Non-lethal implements such as Tasers have some advantages. For one, they could be used by persons unwilling to wield a firearm. Also, being less dangerous, they warrant less regulation.

Maybe every head of household should have a Taser. Of course, Tasers have their limitations too, and are expensive.

My father, unbeknownst to the rest of our family (including my mother), used to bring a small revolver on our camping trips. It was his responsibility to keep us safe from dangers, whether wildlife or other. (He kept blanks and small shot in the first chambers, before a bullet or two).