Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Mike from Dallas on April 25, 2007:

With great power comes great responsibility. One of the precepts of martial arts is that "it is not important that you win, only that you do not have to lose." We teach mental discipline along with the art for this reason: If someone picks a fight with you and you use superior ability to beat him into a limp bloody pulp, not only are you likely to be arrested for excessive force, but also sued in civil court for the same reason.

The same applies to carrying a gun. A permit to carry does not grant unlimited authority to use it. In fact, one may be arrested for shooting the wrong person, or even for shooting the right person for the wrong reasons.

And in martial arts, we remind our students that, no matter who wins a fight, both sides get hurt. Again, the same is true with a gun. Pull out a firearm, risk getting shot yourself.

Posted by Phil, Maryland on April 27, 2007:

Are people reading nothing more than the headlines before they decide that they know why the VT massacre happened and how it could have been prevented? Do some people really think that students died because they weren't brave enough, or that they didn't fight back because they were afraid of getting in trouble? NO ONE knows for certain what they would do in that situation, even if they had time to react, which many at VT did not.

We're all sitting on our butts at our computers, blaming the victims, the institution, each other, politicians, and everyone else we disagree with. It's easier than trying to make sense of the complexities that caused Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the next one, and the next one....

Certainly a contributing factor to Cho's downward spiral was the way other people treated him his entire life. In one account, he was bullied by kids in his Christian youth group. Think about that for a moment. Then imagine if those kids were the ones who wanted to carry guns to school. Now imagine a world in which weapons were carried by college students like the pothead, the drunk pathological liar, and the unabashed bigot who lived on my hall in college. I think folks imagine that with the right and privilege of carrying a gun comes maturity and responsibility, as if the armed students suddenly sit upright in their seats and refer to the professors as "Sir" and "Ma'am," while the defenseless slackers spout liberal talking points about the 2nd amendment. It's just not that easy.

---

It's interesting that you would criticize other posters for judging the situation from afar, as if you know what they know or have read, and then go on to judge the situation from afar. Yes, the issues are complex. The only way to deal with that complexity is to raise the issues and discuss them, rather than assume that the solution is obvious. If it were obvious, these things wouldn't keep happening. So criticizing that very effort -- yet participating in it with the same breath, is rather silly and, worse, diminishes the power of your own points. -rc

Posted by Liz, Houston, TX on April 28, 2007:

I don't get why people keep blaming drugs like antidepressants. As someone who's on them, I will point out that you go on them because you're already unbalanced. They aren't magic happy pills, you have to work with your doctor and adjust the medications and levels until they're right. And often meds work best with counselling.

It may be that a high % of people who do particular types of things are on antidepressants or similar drugs, but that doesn't mean the drugs are the cause of the problem. It means they were probably trying to get help and it wasn't fast enough, wasn't working well enough, wasn't enough to get them to quit with bad coping mechanisms, or whatever.

-- Dee-Ann LeBlanc, BC Canada

Thank you very much for saying that; it was exactly what I was thinking. I also take antidepressants (in my case, prescribed for their anti-anxiety use) and very likely will for the rest of my life. It's certainly true that, sometimes, a medication makes the situation worse, or fails to make it better, or only makes it a little better –- and I've known people who went on antidepressants not fully understanding that it might take weeks before they started feeling a positive effect, didn't feel any better, and decided that meant they were hopeless or they'd been tricked and became even more depressed and angry -– but I think that, in a large majority of cases, psychiatric medication does more good than it does harm.

As for allowing or even requiring guns on college campuses... I don't really know what I think about that. I don't have anything against gun ownership and am looking forward to the day I have the time and money to get a permit, get substantial safety training, and own a gun myself.

But I'm a college student, and while there are certainly students and instructors who I'd be perfectly content to know had a gun, there are also a lot of students, and even instructors, who I'm glad don't have guns. My next-door neighbor whose greatest crime is a tendency to listen to really loud country music when he's feeling down, or the very normal, rather genial archaeology professor? Sure. The guy who lives down the hall and celebrates the end of finals by getting rip-roaring drunk and setting a textbook on fire, or the English professor who occasionally flips out and screams at the class with no provocation? Not so much, thanks.

Like all issues that become political, gun control is more complicated than either side usually makes it out to be, and I feel much the same way about it as I do about most of those other issues: namely, I have no idea what the best solution is, and I kind of suspect that no one else does, either. But I'm pretty sure that just being able to have a gun isn't likely to make anyone that much better equipped to handle a crisis like this one. As the security expert quoted in the April 20 update said, and as I think was suggested in the editorials another commenter linked to, it's going to take a more substantial change in the way we think and the way we teach our kids to think.

Posted by Cheryl, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada on April 29, 2007:

It's really sad the things that are happening with our young people today. I think kids today are pushed way too fast to grow up. Let them be children. When I went to school, very few people worked. We went to school and that was it. It was enough. Also, one or two people had a car. The rest of us walked or took a bus. There is so much pressure for young people to have what everyone else has. Some people can't handle the pressure and they explode.

Last week, in Delta, British Columbia, Canada, my nephew's school had the same thing happen to them. Fortunately, the student's mother found out what her son was planning and she called the school to warn them. My nephew's class was locked in their classroom until the teachers were absolutely sure that there was no more danger. Apparently, before he even made it into the school, this student fled when he saw police cars, etc. at the school. Thanks to his mother, nobody was hurt. They just found the shooter today.

Things need to change. I don't know how we can change things, but we have to somehow find a way to let students understand that they don't need everything right now. They should do what every other generation did before them and wait until they are fully employed. I also think it would be a good idea to go back to uniforms. That way students won't feel like outsiders if they can't afford the brand-name clothes that some students wear.

Young people today are spoiled. However, we have the parents to blame too for this.

As for Zero Tolerance, I believe it's a good idea IF they use it properly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a 4-year old child isn't trying to seduce his teacher when he gives her a hug. THINK first before you punish.

---

If you think before you punish, it's not zero tolerance, it's thinking, common sense, and ...yes... sometimes tolerance. That's why we pay school administrators professional-level wages -- to make those decisions, to have that common sense, to exercise judgment. With ZT, we get none of that. So we're paying for their expertise ...why? -rc

Posted by Matthew, Hungary on April 29, 2007:

I'm a bit surprised to see you Randy saying more people should have guns. Of all the people you should know best, that there are lots of nuts out there. If everyone would have a gun, there would be a LOT more shootings.

And as for Virginia Tech, I think the killer would not changed his mind if there were other people with guns around. He shot himself in the end, so I think he didn't really care about his life that much. But if dozens of people would take out their guns and started shooting, there might have been a lot more casualties.

Here in Hungary, it's illegal to have a gun. And guess what, there were no shootings in schools ever. I don't care if I can't have a gun, so long as I can be sure that noone else has any, so no one can shoot my children or family members.

---

I definitely did not say more people should have guns; please read more carefully. I don't know about the history of gun ownership in Hungary; have civilians had the right to own guns at any time since the Nazis came in and confiscated them so the population could be more easily controlled during their occupation? Or was that done before the Nazis arrived, making their takeover that much more simple? -rc

Posted by Carlton, Miami Florida on April 30, 2007:

Randy, I know your methods and realize that you're trying to provoke Matthew in Hungary to think outside his fairly narrow worldview, but I wonder if others will realize that's what you're doing. I'm also reasonably sure you know you chose an appropriate example in Nazi Germany, that they indeed used gun registration to then confiscate firearms from their opposition so that they could take over more easily, and that is why pro-gun people in America are so suspicious of registration schemes.

But Nazi Germany was an abberation, right? Wrong! We have seen it again and again in country after country. But I doubt others will realize that, and just think you're being mean.

---

Savvy long-time readers do often "get" that I sometimes push people a little bit to provoke thought. But you're also supposed to know that I roll my eyes over people who think they're the only ones smart enough to understand that, and no one else will get it. Matthew in Hungary might bristle at the method, but even so it will be difficult for him to miss the point. -rc

Posted by Melanie (BC, Canada) on May 2, 2007:

I live in Canada and thank god we have not had to deal with alot of this which is very surprising considering the ZT method that they are using. My son for example has been a target for bullying for the past three years and I have always told him that NO ONE is to put their hands on him in a uncomfortable way (fighting, sexually etc...) as all parents would do and the consequences to that is my son is the one whom gets suspended for defending himself. I have always told him heaven help him if he starts a fight or ever picks on someone else for any reason but I will be damned if someone is putting their hands on my son and nothing done about it.

I have fought the school many times on this and I believe that this has created a environment of prejudice against my son as they seem to have issues all the time (Issues meaning that he does not take beatings anymore without reacting, he helps out any other kids that are being bullied) and instead of commending him for his compassion they redicule his actions. We as a society both Canadian and American need to stand up for our children, our future and say enough is enough. Maybe they need to open the school up more to parent involvement cause obviously the teachers and their counterparts aren't doing what needs to be done.

Posted by Chris, Scranton, PA on May 9, 2007:

There was a time when kids (especially boys) were allowed and even encouraged to settle their differences themselves. That was back when it was expected that any normal kid would get at least one broken bone (probably a greenstick) before he was 12 and any normal boy would get into at least one fistfight/wrestling match on the playground every term. And, guess what? There were NEVER any guns in schools in the 1950's and '60's! It's exactly like Prohibition. The more you restrict something, the more Americans want to do or have it.

---

Actually, there were plenty of guns in schools in that era -- especially the high schools. At least, there were during hunting season, when many kids went out after school to get food for the family. But yes, I understand your point: these kids didn't go rushing out to the pickup to get the shotgun to settle scores with their classmates. -rc

Posted by Keith on May 20, 2007:

It is wrong to state that the solution to gun violence is arming everyone, or even allowing those who choose to do so, to get and carry firearms on campus, or in society.

Gun deaths will go up. Kids are experimenting with alcohol, drugs, and relationships in college. Guns don't mix well with any of those. And if every civilian were armed, all those crazy aggressive driving incidents would end with bullets flying.

Besides a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment, there is no reason for a citizen to own a gun. We have police for crime-fighting, we have a military to assert our political will against unwilling countries, and we have the ability to defend ourselves with knives, pepper-spray, hand-to-hand combat, tasers, and spoons (if you're really talented).

Guns are for the police and the military. If you think you will ever need to employ a gun to defend yourself against your country, you are contemplating treason.

I went shooting with a few friends about a month before the Virginia Tech shootings, and I fired 2 .38s, a 9mm Glock, and a .45. It wasn't my bag, though I was consistently deadly accurate with the Glock. Then, on May 4th, my girlfriend and I went to the Netherlands. Drugs and Prostitution are "tolerated" in the Netherlands, which basically means they are non-arrestable offenses. Sex shops are everywhere. As are good restaurants. Nice hotels. And churches. It was very free, my friends, and very safe. Not even the police had guns.

Perhaps if, as a country, we could unclench our collective gluteus maximi, there wouldn't be as much violence here. But a gun is a tool for destruction. It is not a deterrant to criminals. Criminals are stupid or insane anyway, and deterrants only work for the smart and sane.

Posted by Jason, MN on May 21, 2007:

"It is not a deterrant to criminals. Criminals are stupid or insane anyway, and deterrants only work for the smart and sane."

It is, however, an absolute deterrent to recidivism.

To toss an old cliche into the mix, when only the police and military are armed, you're in a police state.

Also, the police have no legal responsibility to protect anybody. Your safety and well-being is your responsibility. My safety, and the safety of my family is my responsibility.

The average adult can cross 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That's larger than my living room. A bullet can travel 1200 feet in 1 second. The average response time for a 911 call is 8 minutes. How is that supposed to protect anyone?