Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[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.

[DeltAlum]

Shiner,

First, let me say that I'm pleased and impressed with the tone of your argument and thank you for that. For the most part, that goes for the rest of the posters as well.

Second, unfortunately, I don't share any confidence that the average gun owner has the training and mental capacity to react cooly and rationally to this kind of situation.

Third, given a situation like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois or the others, a lot of guns and no formal tactics among the owners would lead to dangerous crossfire situations with the potential for a lot of innocent casualities. Not meant to be humerous, but the last thing needed is to form a "circular firing squad."

Finally, as a small hijack, this discussion has led me to Google a lot of information on Columbine which I hadn't before. My interest in this particular case is because the school is about ten miles from my home, and the facility in which I worked then, and now work again, is four or five miles away and became the headquarters for ABC News, as well as feeds for CNN and other news agencies. When the shooting happened, I was called back from the National Association of Broadcasters conference overnight to help coordinate. The stuff I "Googled" is pretty dry prose, but fascinating.

And scary.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Shiner,

First, let me say that I'm pleased and impressed with the tone of your argument and thank you for that. For the most part, that goes for the rest of the posters as well.

Second, unfortunately, I don't share any confidence that the average gun owner has the training and mental capacity to react cooly and rationally to this kind of situation.

Third, given a situation like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois or the others, a lot of guns and no formal tactics among the owners would lead to dangerous crossfire situations with the potential for a lot of innocent casualities. Not meant to be humerous, but the last thing needed is to form a "circular firing squad."

Finally, as a small hijack, this discussion has led me to Google a lot of information on Columbine which I hadn't before. My interest in this particular case is because the school is about ten miles from my home, and the facility in which I worked then, and now work again, is four or five miles away and became the headquarters for ABC News, as well as feeds for CNN and other news agencies. When the shooting happened, I was called back from the National Association of Broadcasters conference overnight to help coordinate. The stuff I "Googled" is pretty dry prose, but fascinating.

And scary.

Fair enough. Still though, a couple of things:

1) Depending on the state, anyone can purchase a weapon with relative ease (unless you live in a state that people jokingly refer to as the "People's Republic of _________."). Carrying is an entirely different ballgame.

2 and 3) Even if I were to give you that the average gunowner is irresponsible, I'd strongly argue that the average person who carries concealed is not (this isn't the case, I think the average gun owner is at least as responsible as the average person driving a car). Many states require training. Almost all require heightened background checks, fees, and often extended waiting periods. I strongly suggest from my experience and from reading extensively on the subject that those who will go through the hassles of legal concealed carry take their role very seriously. Many, many such people take firearm training above that which is required. Every person I've ever met (seriously) who legally conceals a weapon practices regularly, and that practice isn't inexpensive. Internet searches will yield thousands of threads about when to act and when to refrain to doing so, and I've found that this is absolutely one of the most intense communities when it comes to disciplining and shaming their own. These people live and die by the four rules of gun handling, and I think it shows. You simply do not hear about a person carrying concealed hurting innocent people very often. It is quite simply, extremely rare.

Further, I gave you information about the hassles and cost of carrying concealed to further the idea that not everyone is going to run out and do this. In fact, I suspect relatively few will. Not only is it expensive and time consuming, it simply isn't overly comfortable to do. As a recent college student, I imagine the idea of going to your local probate court during business hours is enough to dissuade all but the truly dedicated.

Finally, I simply don't buy into the logic of the collateral damage argument. Because some people could get hurt in a "crossfire", we're not going to allow anyone a means to defend themselves? Is there really any merit to keeping all the rounds going in one direction when that direction is the rest of the class? There are always risks. But if I'm sitting in a classroom with a gunman spraying fire, I'm praying someone has something that can stop him. If its my family or friends in there, I'd much rather risk the chance of them being injured by a gun-owner trying to do the right thing. To me that is a much better gamble than having them defenseless against someone who is intent on taking as many lives as possible.

I know I can't give everyone confidence that this is the best solution. It isn't even really a solution, to me it is simply a common sense extension of rights granted everywhere besides on a college campus. However, for those not familiar with guns or gun safety, I encourage you to have a look around the internet and do a bit of research. Head out to the range with a friend who knows what they're doing. I think you'll find that the "gun-culture" in America is a culture that places an extremely high emphasis on personal responsibility and safety.

[bohdi]

My response in parenthesis

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.
Considering most states won't allow anyone under 21 to carry concealed anyway, I'll take this as a nod to compromise. People 21 years and older have known to be soldiers, so that qualifies them for your need.


Shooting at a gunman makes you a target in return. (Only if you miss) 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. - Actually no I'm not. Wearing a concealed weapon gives you an advantage of surprise.

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. (Again I disagree. They become criminals the moment they walk onto a campus that doesn't allow firearms) "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." (VT, sure. Columbine, sure. Colorado springs, not so clear. This one either)

Police officers are never attacked? Shot at first? Gun stores are never attacked? Crime doesn't exist in Texas? (Compared to your average person and situation, it's negligable)

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.

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. (How many never had a fighting chance or option?)

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. (I actually agree with you here. But that's the point, less loss of life and the means to ensure it.)

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. (No but fists are tools, one option. Just like a gun is a tool, like a knife is a tool).

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. (You stated older non-traditional students were in the minority, hence they are minority students.)

So you don't trust the police or you only trust them as much as you trust a private citzen? (Not when the Police have absolutely no obligation to respond) http://www.wftv.com/news/15335127/detail.html

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? (In this situation your already in the room, shooter is in front ofyou or behind you. If he's in front, everyone else is already out of your firing range. If he's behind you, most of the students will be too far out of firing range as well. I don't agree with your position.)

Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. (Perhaps you ought to, it's becoming more common place.) 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.