Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

What is certain is that the average college and university will not permit guns on or in close vicinity to their campuses.

Additionally, it is certainly unfortunate that law-abiding citizens must forfeit their ability to protect themselves in order to pursue higher education.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Also, to toss one more pebble into the ripple, the idea that concealed campus carry might "scare" a would-be assailant from carrying out his craziness may be naive. Those types seem to like going out in a "blaze of glory" and often just turn the gun on themselves, anyway, so why would they care if the final bullet came from another gun? They'll still have had their rampage, will get their "fame" and won't have to face the consequences legally. So sure, they may get mowed down a little quicker if a couple of quick-draws in the 3rd row stand up and catch him in the chest, but that doesn't mean he won't still kick those doors in, fully armed and guns blazing randomly and try to do as much damage as he can before the gunfire he might now anticipate starts.

Exactly.

Students are expected to have one hand on their pen and the other on their gun at all times. These would-be assailants should be very afraid. Not.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Exactly.

Students are expected to have one hand on their pen and the other on their gun at all times. These would-be assailants should be very afraid. Not.

I think this is totally unfounded. Who has said anything about what would be expected of students? People simply desire to use the rights they have off-campus to defend themselves on campus. I don't keep a gun by my bed for a community-wide deterrent effect. I do it to deter individual criminals who might seek to harm me or my loved ones. I feel the same about carry on campus.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think this is totally unfounded. Who has said anything about what would be expected of students? People simply desire to use the rights they have off-campus to defend themselves on campus. I don't keep a gun by my bed for a community-wide deterrent effect. I do it to deter individual criminals who might seek to harm me or my loved ones. I feel the same about carry on campus.

(I was being sarcastic but anyway)

Gun access without changed expectations. Yeah, this is definitely a theoretical discussion.

Your gun by your bed doesn't deter individual criminals unless you put "I have a gun by my bed" on every window and door. But you are expected to always be aware of where your gun is, know what to do with it, and be prepared to do something with it if need be. Right?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

(I was being sarcastic but anyway)

Gun access without changed expectations. Yeah, this is definitely a theoretical discussion.

Your gun by your bed doesn't deter individual criminals unless you put "I have a gun by my bed" on every window and door. But you are expected to always be aware of where your gun is, know what to do with it, and be prepared to do something with it if need be. Right?

Exactly. So is the average person who legally carries their gun to Wal-Mart. So would the licensed student who conceals his gun when going on campus.

[KSig RC]

It will be fascinating to see which happens first: a gun-carrying student shoots a gunman mid-assault and saves lives, or the gun-carrying student fails to stop an assailant/makes a "friendly fire"-type mistake/exacerbates a domestic situation or whatever.

So much of this type of 'debate' is fueled by perception issues and personal beliefs on the utility of firearms. I don't really think allowing students to have "conceal and carry" permits on campuses will have much of an effect at all on the whole (in either direction), but there will certainly be an outcry and explosion of media attention on that very first situation.

If you support weapons on campuses, you'd better damn well hope someone successfully plays hero before someone else screws up in a fatal way - which is kind of a microcosm for why I think this entire conversation is low-yield and kind of silly: I don't have any information that I find credible either way, and hate being in the prognostication business without any background or foundation. I also hate that this is such a media-fueled mess, and that we fail to even investigate some of the core issues of why that's bad.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

I personally wouldn't like to attend a school where concealed weapons are allowed. I just graduated and while the atmosphere at my particular school isn't violent, we already have enough crazy people and/or behavior without guns being allowed on campus. I would honestly take the odds of a random crazy with a gun busting into glass than know that any random person could break out into gunfire at any moment. I guarantee option one will happen a million times less than option two. At least at my particular school. If we allowed guns at school I know people would go bezerk on any given day and have the gun ready to do the deed. I'll take my chances against the one shooter than the thousands that would be packing if allowed.

My heart goes out to the families, no one expects this to happen and those people obviously were not involved in his personal problems. He had no right to ruin so many lives in this way.

[bohdi]

Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.

Not going to respond to the whole thing as a) it's tl;dr, b) you're a one-poster and c) I have better things to do this morning. But, in response to the bolded:
Gee, thanks for the warm greeting.

The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything.
Actually, no it wasn't her JOB. She's a volunteer. "The Rev. Boyd, who introduced Assam, stressed that all church guards were volunteers who worshiped at the church and were legally allowed to carry guns."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center

And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target.
Actually, not quite. You don't make a "better target", your already a target in this case. Your chances of being more visible increase depending on when you shoot and if you miss. Then you might be a more visible target. Though if I were a crazed gun man and I met someone that was armed and shooting back at me I would think that is a more risky target to me. The easy ones are already in front of me running for their lives or cowering in fear.

This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy.
I agree, it's not my job either, nor is it my job to protect you or anyone else in the crowd and I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating the ability to chose to shoot at someone in the event they decide to open up on a crowd like this and I feel like I might be next - in this environment that chance is extremely high wouldn't you say? If having a weapon in class increases my likelihood of survival by even 5%, that's 5% I'd take.

It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible.
How exactly does one do that? Jump up and down and attract attention to yourself, essentially making yourself a martyr? Signaling to students around you the way to the door? Shouting something? All these things would bring more focus on you in this situation.

Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon.
Ok, so even if you had the ability and skill to shoot back, you still would not approve others around you having the same ability, because you don't like your fellow citizens to be armed. That's what your saying right?

As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person.
Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to stereotype people like that. Considering that not all college students are under the age of 21. A good deal of students these days are over 21 and have taken classes and shoot regularily. Not to mention a good deal of students are also former members of the military who have had additional firearms training. I on the other hand trust a small percentage of the population with firearms, and surprisingly Police Officers fall into this category. You see the Police only have a limited amount of tax payers funds, and a very small portion of that actually goes to firearms training/qualification. The ammo that is paid for is to perform basic weapons qualification certifications and for advanced tactics - which involves a very small number of people. Most Police Officers don't goto the range on their own time and pay for their own ammo. Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target? Many if not all of your comments are unfair and unfounded.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by bohdi

Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target?

Thank you for helping make my point above.

In a high stress situation an armed person may be as likely to shoot an innocent bystander, him/herself or nobody at all as they are to hit an intruder.

It just seems to me that in the middle of chaos, a lot of people with guns are going to cause more problems than solutions.

[Drolefille]

[QUOTE=bohdi;1602976]Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.

Gee, thanks for the warm greeting.

You're welcome. People who jump in with one posts on touchy issues are generally sock puppets. Also, quote button is your friend.
The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything.

Actually, no it wasn't her JOB. She's a volunteer. "The Rev. Boyd, who introduced Assam, stressed that all church guards were volunteers who worshiped at the church and were legally allowed to carry guns."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center

Her volunteer JOB. She was hired, in part, because she was legally allowed to carry a weapon. Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility.

Actually, not quite. You don't make a "better target", your already a target in this case. Your chances of being more visible increase depending on when you shoot and if you miss. Then you might be a more visible target. Though if I were a crazed gun man and I met someone that was armed and shooting back at me I would think that is a more risky target to me. The easy ones are already in front of me running for their lives or cowering in fear.

Right, the gunman won't return fire on someone who might stop him. "Better target" means standing, aiming and firing from a controlled and sadly, visible, position. It means drawing attention to yourself with loud noises and makes you a necessary obstacle for said gunman to overcome for him to continue.

I agree, it's not my job either, nor is it my job to protect you or anyone else in the crowd and I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating the ability to chose to shoot at someone in the event they decide to open up on a crowd like this and I feel like I might be next - in this environment that chance is extremely high wouldn't you say? If having a weapon in class increases my likelihood of survival by even 5%, that's 5% I'd take.

Even if your 5% wasn't pulled from no where, you're talking about 5% out of exactly what chance that someone will bust into your classroom shooting? 1 in a million? And that's why we should all either carry guns or sit next to people who carry guns?

It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible.

How exactly does one do that? Jump up and down and attract attention to yourself, essentially making yourself a martyr? Signaling to students around you the way to the door? Shouting something? All these things would bring more focus on you in this situation.

No, that would be stupid. Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover. Helping others is barricading a door, breaking a window open in another room, helping an injured person flee. Unless you are trained in dealing with high-adrenaline, life-threatening situations, the most the average person can do is breathe and run.

Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon.

Ok, so even if you had the ability and skill to shoot back, you still would not approve others around you having the same ability, because you don't like your fellow citizens to be armed. That's what your saying right?

No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either.

Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to stereotype people like that. Considering that not all college students are under the age of 21. A good deal of students these days are over 21 and have taken classes and shoot regularily. Not to mention a good deal of students are also former members of the military who have had additional firearms training.

The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon.

I on the other hand trust a small percentage of the population with firearms, and surprisingly Police Officers fall into this category. You see the Police only have a limited amount of tax payers funds, and a very small portion of that actually goes to firearms training/qualification. The ammo that is paid for is to perform basic weapons qualification certifications and for advanced tactics - which involves a very small number of people. Most Police Officers don't goto the range on their own time and pay for their own ammo. Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target? Many if not all of your comments are unfair and unfounded.

I trust a very small population as well. And, oh my goodness but police officers are in that category as well! Glad we finally agree. None of this addresses the fact that college students are NOT police officers. Nor does it encourage me that said college students if armed would not miss a gunman and hit another student, particularly in a crowded chaotic classroom.

[bohdi]

Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.

The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others.

"Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility." Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered.

I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position.

I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence. Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones? This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons. I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery.

"Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover." - That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences.

"No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either." So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify.

"The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon." Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then We agree.

I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by bohdi

Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.

No, I'm not comfortable with those who aren't highly trained being armed around me. Soldiers? Fine. Police? Sure. Your average college student who can't be bothered to renew his driver's license is not likely to stay up on his FOID card either.

The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others.
"Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility." Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered.

No, she has the responsibility because she chose to volunteer for a position that was given to her based, in part, on her experience in handling a firearm.

I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position.

Shooting at a gunman makes you a target in return. The more cover you use, the less visibility you will have, the more likely someone could run between you and the gunman, etc. Your chances are not "50/50" so if you base your decision making off of those odds, you're starting from a flawed standpoint.

I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence.

If your odds are so tiny than even doubling them doesn't make it a viable concern. "Criminals" don't engage in this sort of shooting spree. "Whackos" as you classily put it, don't think about the number of guns the people they want to kill have. Whatever purpose the NIU guy, or the Virginia Tech guy, had in his head, it wasn't "I'll shoot them because they don't have guns." It is much more likely to be, "I'll get them back, they deserve it."

Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones?

Police officers are never attacked? Shot at first? Gun stores are never attacked? Crime doesn't exist in Texas?

This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons.

Not this sort of suicide/homicide they don't. Someone disturbed to this level is not thinking like that and they expect to die at the end of it. The man who attacked the churches in Colorado had a previous connection there... there was some reason, in his head, why they deserved it.

I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery.

How many college students are there? How many have been shot by a gunman. How many have been in a classroom with a gunman? You might be better off playing the lottery than betting on being in that situation, but either one's a stupid bet.

That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences.

Nothing will help everyone. If everyone in that class room had a gun, people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. This sort of gunman usually takes his own life or has the police do it for him.

So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify.

No. I'm not a pacifist. I'd stop you if possible, and if not, injure you as much as necessary and/or possible while screaming for help. Fists are not guns.

Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then We agree.

Where did I say "minority students" could carry? You're not actually reading what I'm typing any more. Allowing weapons as a general rule on a college campus means that not only non-traditional, ex-military students can carry, but that Joe Student can as well. So nix that.

I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons.

So you don't trust the police or you only trust them as much as you trust a private citzen?

So, anyone who shoots a gun is, on average, highly inaccurate. The police, trained in how to enter and handle a situation where a gunman is in a building with civilians, can control their numbers and their method. The average armed civilian has no training nor control over the police or other civilians. If they're all highly inaccurate, I'd rather have the police handle it thank you. Why add another gun firing into the mix? Or two guns? Or a 300 person lecture hall full of them?

Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. I don't feel a need to carry a weapon around wherever I go. And sorry shinerbock, too much practice on line by line quoting on my part.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. I don't feel a need to carry a weapon around wherever I go.

To be fair, I'm not in constant fear of bad car wrecks, but I still use my seatbelt. I'm not afraid of random disasters when I leave the house, but I still carry my cell phone just about everywhere. I don't live in constant fear that people will break into my house, but I lock my doors because it is a relatively simple precaution I can take. So is carrying a weapon to many people.

I'm not sure it was your intent, but a lot of people attempt to disparage gun owners or those who wish to extend their right to carry by labeling them as paranoid. If it is to be categorized as "fear," I don't think carrying a weapon is in any way irrational. Some people carry pepper spray or take self-defense classes. Others carry firearms and get training to accompany that. Seems reasonable to me.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be fair, I'm not in constant fear of bad car wrecks, but I still use my seatbelt. I'm not afraid of random disasters when I leave the house, but I still carry my cell phone just about everywhere. I don't live in constant fear that people will break into my house, but I lock my doors because it is a relatively simple precaution I can take. So is carrying a weapon to many people.

I'm not sure it was your intent, but a lot of people attempt to disparage gun owners or those who wish to extend their right to carry by labeling them as paranoid. If it is to be categorized as "fear," I don't think carrying a weapon is in any way irrational. Some people carry pepper spray or take self-defense classes. Others carry firearms and get training to accompany that. Seems reasonable to me.

No, it's not an attempt to disparage your average gun owner. I don't see a need for conceal-carry situations though because I don't think it's necessary. And I feel that this push for conceal-carry on college campuses is drummed up in a sense of fear and paranoia of "It could be YOU" or "It could have been YOUR CHILD." Proponents aren't above using fear to win their argument.

That said, a weapon is an offensive solution, not a defensive one. It is active, not passive since no one's going to be wearing hip holsters and making everyone aware of how armed they are. Seat-belts are defensive, weapons are offensive. And guns are lethal ones on top of that.

Not really suggesting this as a solution, but tossing it out there: what about bean-bag guns. How would Joe Firearm feel about "non-lethal" alternatives? (I acknowledge that such things can in certain circumstances kill but are generally non-lethal)

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, it's not an attempt to disparage your average gun owner. I don't see a need for conceal-carry situations though because I don't think it's necessary. And I feel that this push for conceal-carry on college campuses is drummed up in a sense of fear and paranoia of "It could be YOU" or "It could have been YOUR CHILD." Proponents aren't above using fear to win their argument.

That said, a weapon is an offensive solution, not a defensive one. It is active, not passive since no one's going to be wearing hip holsters and making everyone aware of how armed they are. Seat-belts are defensive, weapons are offensive. And guns are lethal ones on top of that.

Not really suggesting this as a solution, but tossing it out there: what about bean-bag guns. How would Joe Firearm feel about "non-lethal" alternatives? (I acknowledge that such things can in certain circumstances kill but are generally non-lethal)

A couple of things I'd dispute and a couple I'd agree with:

I certainly don't think either side is above using the fear factor. I think my side (for concealed campus in most places) can make legitimate points without playing on people's fears. On the other side, I think the anti-gun crowd bases much of their platform on scaring citizens. Painting the average carrier of a concealed weapon as a wildly shooting maverick is the same thing. These generally aren't people who go purchase a weapon and simply start carrying it around. Many are very capable of operating their weapon in all situations, and just about every time I go to the range I see civilian shooters putting together groups that would make seasoned cops envious. Now, this is simply anecdotal, but I'm explaining where my position grows from. I think the idea that more people would die as a result of concealed carry on campus ignores the abilities of those who carry, in addition to the more important skill many of them possess: years of training/contemplation/experience resulting in the good judgment to know when to risk shooting and when to stay concealed.

Weapons are both offensive and defensive solutions. This depends on definition of course, but the use of the weapon in a VT scenario would be in the defense of others and self. Perhaps this is a good spot for a trite statement like "the best defense is a good offense." Besides lethality, how are mace type solutions or certain "self-defense" maneuvers any less offensive?

Non lethal solutions are fine. I think they're great tools. However, when someone is threatening me or my family (or friends or classmates) with deadly force, and especially when they've shown they're willing to act with the intent to kill, I don't want to mess around with less-effective forms of defense. You'll never see police use a tazer against someone shooting at them. The point is to stop the threat ASAP, and a gun is the most effective method of doing that. Maybe that seems cold, but my respect for an individual's right to keep living ceases when that person attempts to take the lives of innocent people.