ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

DonkeyDude said 04/20, 04:18 AM
The solution to school shootings is notably NOT to allow other armed students to engage the shooters in gun battles on campus. Potential problems:

1) These students with concealed weapon permits might injure additional students in the crossfire with the shooter. What would you tell the family of one of these victims?

2) You are suggesting that we put a lot of trust in the judgment of the student with the concealed weapon. We are essentially deputizing him to stop the shooting by taking out the shooter, without any kind of training or verification of his marksmanship or judgment. The standards for obtaining a concealed weapon permit are not rigorous enough (IMO) to warrant so much trust in anybody who can get one. See http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f20 You basically just need a job that involves an element of danger.

3) The cops show up to respond to the call. They see one or more students walking around with guns, shooting. Who is the "bad" shooter, and who is the concealed-weapons-permit holder? Who do they shoot?

It would be far more prudent for a campus to hire a security guard, rather than hope someone with a concealed weapon permit comes to the rescue.

DonkeyDude said 04/20, 08:06 PM
Your point, if extended to its logical conclusion, would put us back in Dodge City. Given that people do not need to pass rigorous evaluations of any sort to be given a license, you are suggesting potentially that we fill the classrooms with firearms.

You make a good point about the license holder's legal liability for their actions, but it does not comfort me much to know that these guys will be prosecuted after the fact if they are a little loose with the trigger.

You are effectively deputizing anyone who gets this license to open fire on crowded campuses, without having any mechanism currently in place to ensure that these are people with proper judgment, accurate shooting skills, or any moral sense whatsoever. There is a huge difference between anyone who gets this license and a peace officer who has been trained to handle these situations (and screened rigorously).

I'd suggest that we increase the availability and desirability of psychological services on these campuses, and educate school officials and students alike to be more aware of the warning signs that almost always precede these tragedies.

DonkeyDude said 04/25, 03:48 AM
Your argument that "we let people carry concealed weapons elsewhere so why not in gun-free zones" is flawed. I don't think having concealed weapon permits is a good idea anywhere, and your argument presupposes that it is. Any yahoo can get a concealed carry permit.

Nor do I buy the claim that these gun-free zones are more dangerous because they are attractive havens for shooters. It implies that killers are "attracted" there as opposed to other places. The VT shooter chose that campus because it's where he went to school, as did the Columbine shooters. To demonstrate that gun-free zones are more attractive, you would have to show that outsiders often choose to go there and commit their crimes, in preference to other locations.

But crazy mass murderers don't travel to find a "safe" place to commit their crimes. If VA Tech didn't have a gun-free zone, I submit the shooter would still have done what he did. Is there any evidence of any particular crazed killer knowing that a particular school had a gun free zone?

Lastly, I reiterate that while one person firing a gun on a crowded campus is a bad thing, multiple people firing multiple guns on a crowded campus is an even worse thing.