What happened 5 years ago on a Virginia Campus... with guns?

[Mr.Vicchio]

On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year-old student from Nigeria, walked into the Appalachian School of Law offices of Dean Anthony Sutin, 42, a former acting assistant U.S. attorney, and professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun – shooting them at close range. Also killed in the same building was student Angela Denise Dales, 33. Three others were wounded. As soon as the gunfire erupted, two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms. Gross, an off-duty police officer in his home state of North Carolina, got his 9mm pistol and body armor. Bridges got out his .357 Magnum. Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students.

WorldNetDaily: Death toll limited before campus gun ban

I think this article right here, is a great contrast to the recent events at VT.

Students COULD carry guns, and when some lunatic went in, with a gun intent on mayhem and death, he was stopped, by armed, law abiding students.

[Praxius]

Then do it... Give the students firearms and see what happens. Everybody seems to be for it, and any other option is ignored as foolish, so load them up with firearms and see what happens....

[Jack]

Evidently at that time students had to keep firearms in their vehicles. They weren't going into classes armed. So if they couldn't get out to their vehicles, they couldn't retrieve their firearms. That means the outcome might not have been any different at VT.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Isherwood, that's neither here nor there, the fact that they could in fact bring arms to the campus was good, now just let them carry them to class.

Praxius, we have to incidents with crazed gunmen.

1, the students had access too, and used their guns.

Lives were saved.

1 the students had no means of defense, and 33 died.

You be the judge which works.

[Derach]

IMO - there is no need for students to be carrying guns into classrooms ... now campus security is another story. They should be 1. armed and trained in the use of firearms, 2. have powers of arrest and suitable detention facilities, and 3. be instantly available in any classroom on campus within minutes with a well trained, professional SWAT-style force if necessary as well as being able to control sporting events.etc. I don't know about VaTch, but most campus security is A JOKE ... you could literally use a commercial home alarm system and pay under $50 a month and get better security for your home via instant contact with local authorities than campus security can usually provide in my experiences. They ususally have less credibility than amusement park security.

[Osborn F Enready]

Adults ALL have the right to carry, regardless of what the "laws" state.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Derach IMO - there is no need for students to be carrying guns into classrooms ... now campus security is another story. They should be 1. armed and trained in the use of firearms, 2. have powers of arrest and suitable detention facilities, and 3. be instantly available in any classroom on campus within minutes with a well trained, professional SWAT-style force if necessary as well as being able to control sporting events.etc. I don't know about VaTch, but most campus security is A JOKE ... you could literally use a commercial home alarm system and pay under $50 a month and get better security for your home via instant contact with local authorities than campus security can usually provide in my experiences. They ususally have less credibility than amusement park security.

I agree, instead of hiring fat men who arm themselves with doughnuts and incompetence rather than bullets and vigilance, campus security should be efficient. Unfortunately, most things (not just security) on most campuses are bureaucratic, useless, and stupid, and that should change for anything good to happen.

However, by that token, how can we really trust the good nature of students? The gun case at this particularly university isn't necessarily a good representation of what would happen if guns were allowed on all campuses; since guns aren't allowed on most campuses, this sample's a bit too small to make a good decision. It's not all fun and games.

Besides, I think from the looks of that story, that gunman was intending to walk away after killing some witnesses; if he really wanted to continue the rampage, in my opinion he would have shot at the students regardless of whether or not they were armed, not caring for his own death. But still, I reiterate that this case isn't a very good sample.

And as Praxius alluded, most universities don't allow guns. States that ban students with firearms on campus are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont and Wyoming. Other states let universities decide, and most of those universities that do allow it do it just for special circumstances like a military program or something that requires administration approval, like perhaps a woman afraid of predators.

Now, if you really want to put the "power" to the common people, then perhaps there could be some special student taskforce that is allowed to carry guns, but all members are carefully screened and trained. Then, we could bypass the problems of administration incompetence with what you, the OP, believe is the "virtue" of the common man.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Isherwood, that's neither here nor there, the fact that they could in fact bring arms to the campus was good, now just let them carry them to class. Praxius, we have to incidents with crazed gunmen. 1, the students had access too, and used their guns. Lives were saved. 1 the students had no means of defense, and 33 died. You be the judge which works.

I'm sure one case is a good representation of all factors that will come into play in the future.... it'll just be another Cold Wars Arms Race in schools.... the people who plan on going in to shoot everyone will know just as much as everybody else that firearms will be there.... so they'll just get bigger weapons to give them the advantage....

Soon you'll see grenades, shotguns, Semi and Autos..... hell.... this is one of those adapting problems that you can't just brush away by adding more firearms..... more firepower, more troops and technology isn't helping much in Iraq against a few bombers.... by the time the students did get their weapons out and took the guy out, chances are there's still going to be plenty dead..... the only real difference is that the students might actually be able to kill the shooter before the shooter shoots themself..... I guess that might be a little bit of justice.

Yes there are pros and cons to this debate..... but when people claim I'm grasping at straws when I bring out my hypothetical situations, my situations are very real and possible, and were derived from other incidences I have looked up, read about, experienced myself and was trained in.... I'm not saying I know everything, nobody does.... but I tend to be able to pick out the worst case situations that are probable and could very well happen..... they may happen they may not happen.... I just bring them up so people are aware of the possibility..... so long as they are aware of it and they accept that it might happen, then make whatever decision they want.....

That's why I say go ahead.... you don't have to convience me that it'll work..... I'm not the one being affected by the idea.....

[brien]

Soon you'll see grenades, shotguns, Semi and Autos..... hell.... this is one of those adapting problems that you can't just brush away by adding more firearms

And the sky is falling there Chicken Little. Your wild scenario is hardly credible. Responsible people who arm themselves don't brag about it, they don't shout about it, nor do they usually even let another know they are carrying a firearm. People never know when when I am carrying and that is exactly the way I prefer it.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien And the sky is falling there Chicken Little. Your wild scenario is hardly credible. Responsible people who arm themselves don't brag about it, they don't shout about it, nor do they usually even let another know they are carrying a firearm. People never know when when I am carrying and that is exactly the way I prefer it.

You seem to think that the responsible people will outweigh the irresponsible for some reason..... Do these people who go in to kill people walk in shouting "Hey I got a gun!" before they start shooting? Most of the time you don't see their firearms until they make it to their destination.... or the cops or someone else would have stopped them long before they got through the doors, so that works both ways for responsible and irresponsible.

My scenario is very credible whether you believe it or not.... your scenario where you think your entire country can be responsible with their firearms 24/7 isn't credible..... up to todays date, history proves this. Your current system of keeping the weapons out of the hands of those who wish to commit crimes has failed and it will continue to fail. You can't wish something to work, you have to make it work, and in order for it to work now, you have to change the system.... if you don't change the system, then don't expect any miracles..... it's simple as that and it's true.

The only way you can say my scenario isn't credible is if you can garentee that with your current laws and methods of prevention to date can prevent the scenario I laid out...... you can't garentee it, the possibility is there..... the possibility is more there then your possibility that your country will live as a perfect utopia so long as everybody can carry a weapon anywhere they go at anytime.

Anytime you guys who defend your firearms sees a coment about a possible problem or a fault, you cry that it's not credible, or someone's grasping at straws, or fear mongering..... instead of actually trying to argue what was said, you just simply say it's not credible..... and go off on some tangent about how you can hide your weapons and a responsible person would do this...... which has nothing to do with what I was talking about..... which makes your argument fail before it begins.

How about for now on in the topic of firearms and such, people stop complaining about "Fear Mongering" / "Grasping at Straws" / or "Not Credible" because when you argue your own side of things, you become so hypocritical by using the same methods, it kinda defeats any use for the argument either way.

If you have a problem with someone's comment on one side or the other.... directly discount it.... ask the questions to discount it, and make it worth while.... don't just use your basic propaganda techniques of crying strawman.... because it's lame.

Any of my possible scenarios are just as possible, if not more possible then many of the defenses that nobody or less people would die if they all have guns.... it's all speculation and hypothetical trial and error, no matter what side you take.

You can use examples in the past of how firearms benifitted a situation, and you can probably find an equal amount of examples where no firearms available benifitted the situation... each country is different, each society is different.... one method will not nessicarilly work the same in another country.....

I'm putting a lot of factors into play when I make a comment... not just the pros and the cons, but also the larger spectrum of the big pictures, and each little outcome that would come from each action, what's the most probable outcome, what would that follow, what would follow that.... what effect would this have, how would this affect others nearby, what is the general feel of the community who is affected, etc.......

This is why I honestly believe that the US isn't going to solve this problem anytime soon, more killings will continue, and this argument will going again in a few months, running around in circles, because 1/3 of the country wants to keep their guns to protect themselves from incedences like VT, another 1/3 will want them removed because of situations like VT, and the other Third will want something in the middle..... not enough of your society will be able to make a decision one way or another, therefore things will remain as they are, people will continue to be killed, and instead of going for the obvious simple solution, you'll instead look for any methods that you're current constitution will allow without change, which is hardly anything.....

You'll try it... it'll fail, things get even worse..... then you forget where you went wrong and make another foolish decision on more security, more rights removed, more policing, everybody having guns on them, basically making your country into one big martial law with the citizens taking the law into their own hands because they feel the police are usless and don't protect them, more court trials over who shot who, who was in defense, who's liable, etc etc... eating more at your government resources due to more legal battles, compared to a simple restriction on firearms.

Nothing will change, because you as the people of the US won't change..... Having the right to bear arms has been stuck in your heads for so long now, you can't fathom any other options..... call that comment ignorant, offensive, whatever you want to call it.... I only express what I see your country portray..... if it's not true, then act like it's not true.

Will any form a gun control stop all gun related crimes? Most likely no..... but it'll stop most, and it's better then doing nothing, which your government has already been doing for the last number of years...... absolutly nothing.

[brien]

Praxius; I can and do only speak for myself. I rather think it a waste of time to spin scenarios in an attempt to bolster or prove my points. It is, let's say, pointless. I very much doubt that lifting a firearms ban on a college campus would suddenly transform it into the mythical Dodge City of the 19th Century.

Crazy people will go ahead with their crazy plans no matter how many laws one prescribes to prevent it. I would prefer to be prepared for the worst case situation rather than place my security in the hands of others who can neither protect me in a timely manner or diffuse a violent situation before it escalates into murder.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien Praxius; I can and do only speak for myself. I rather think it a waste of time to spin scenarios in an attempt to bolster or prove my points. It is, let's say, pointless. I very much doubt that lifting a firearms ban on a college campus would suddenly transform it into the mythical Dodge City of the 19th Century.

Fair enough, and equally, I don't feel giving them all the ability to arm themselves will be a better solution.... maybe a different solution.... but I doubt it'll be a better one.

Crazy people will go ahead with their crazy plans no matter how many laws one prescribes to prevent it. I would prefer to be prepared for the worst case situation rather than place my security in the hands of others who can neither protect me in a timely manner or diffuse a violent situation before it escalates into murder.

This is true... and don't get me wrong.... here in Canada we feel the exact same way about having freedom and the ability to protect that freedom.... be that from military force or by the person down the street.... some use firearms, some use knives when commiting their crimes.... anything can be used.... But everybody I know personally, anybody who lives here, including myself, feel there is no need to own a firearm for protection..... they are deemed as tools for hunting and sport.... not required for pretection of our everyday lives..... Most of use here have lived thus far in our lives without needing a gun to protect us.... as I said, I can only speculate that it's a society issue. If your society as a whole is dangerous, then you need your weapons, but otherwise.....

The select few I know from the US, when they have stepped foot in Canada, they admit they notice there is a very different feeling..... a different Auroa of the place..... kinda like you don't have to worry about getting a drive by hit on you when you walk down the street..... you know that about 90% of the people around you do not have a firearm..... you're not worried about who's gonna come up and shoot you for your money.... you just go about your business and deal with the reason you're out in the first place.

There is always crime wherever you go in the world, but how you deal with it, and what your society deems right and wrong can at least reduce the ammount of crime.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The fact remains we have two gun incidents, one where the average joes were empowered, and one where they were denied.

I think the death toll differential is what matters here.

[Slevin57]

Our campus police are trained police officers.

I don't see how arming students to combat violence is anywhere in the realm of logic.

In 2000, 600 people were killed by accidental gun injuries. Now were 600 people saved in 2000, or any year in the United States from defending their classmates against armed killers in the University?

Now let's encourage students in a crowded university to wield weapons.

The NRA has been saying for years that 50% of Americans own firearms.

1/3 have carried them in their car for protection. Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.

So we will give the benefit of a doubt, and say that 25% of students are carrying a weapon in my lecture hall today on exam day.

There are 105 students enrolled in my class. They are all present, everyone shows up on exam day! That's approximately 26 students carrying weapons today in class.

Someone bursts through the door in the middle of the exam and starts shooting (VT Scenario).

Immediately the lecture hall goes into a state of panic. This shooter is blocking the only exit. All of the students are running around, some crowding in corners.

Now just because these 26 students are wielding guns does not mean they are all in a prone position laying down suppressive fire. They are college students, very few of them will be trained to use their gun.

In a lecture hall of 105 students, when those 26 people draw their weapons amongst the students without weapons, more panic will ensue.

The 26 shooters will by chance alone end up hitting their own classmates, while trying to get a shot at the shooter in question.

With so many weapons in a confined space, with untrained people, and the amount of panic I do not see a positive role for armed students.

There is no good way to avoid these kind of shootings. You cannot arm every teacher anymore than you should arm every bank teller, or doctor.

I would almost say the students stand a better chance of using non-lethal force to take down an armed shooter.

I come from a military background. I have traveled around the world, and it's become commonplace for me to observe everything around me when I walk into a room. I note exit points, choke points, and yes things that could be used to non-lethally defend myself. I don't expect everyone to do this, nor do I expect everyone to believe that these things will make a major difference.

There are so many factors and variables that go into a situation like this, it's virtually impossible to secure any high level of safety.

We all go willingly into situations that could be dangerous. We do so with the hope that today will not be our day. Until we find a better solution, we are going to have to continue like this. It can not hurt to take a few moments out and ask yourself what you would do in a situation like this.

The only way situations like this are going to be prevented is by vigilant observance of the behaviors that have been identified time and time again in people that perpetrate these attacks. Violence should never be answered by violence. Violence is limitless. If you bring a small gun, someone else will bring a bigger one.

When you finally get to that point where you feel safe, every student armed. There will be campus bombings. I don't want to walk down this road personally. I would rather take care of the problem at it's source, not deal with damage control.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Slevin57 Our campus police are trained police officers. I don't see how arming students to combat violence is anywhere in the realm of logic. In 2000, 600 people were killed by accidental gun injuries. Now were 600 people saved in 2000, or any year in the United States from defending their classmates against armed killers in the University? Now let's encourage students in a crowded university to wield weapons. The NRA has been saying for years that 50% of Americans own firearms. 1/3 have carried them in their car for protection. Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack. So we will give the benefit of a doubt, and say that 25% of students are carrying a weapon in my lecture hall today on exam day. There are 105 students enrolled in my class. They are all present, everyone shows up on exam day! That's approximately 26 students carrying weapons today in class. Someone bursts through the door in the middle of the exam and starts shooting (VT Scenario). Immediately the lecture hall goes into a state of panic. This shooter is blocking the only exit. All of the students are running around, some crowding in corners. Now just because these 26 students are wielding guns does not mean they are all in a prone position laying down suppressive fire. They are college students, very few of them will be trained to use their gun. In a lecture hall of 105 students, when those 26 people draw their weapons amongst the students without weapons, more panic will ensue. The 26 shooters will by chance alone end up hitting their own classmates, while trying to get a shot at the shooter in question. With so many weapons in a confined space, with untrained people, and the amount of panic I do not see a positive role for armed students. There is no good way to avoid these kind of shootings. You cannot arm every teacher anymore than you should arm every bank teller, or doctor. I would almost say the students stand a better chance of using non-lethal force to take down an armed shooter. I come from a military background. I have traveled around the world, and it's become commonplace for me to observe everything around me when I walk into a room. I note exit points, choke points, and yes things that could be used to non-lethally defend myself. I don't expect everyone to do this, nor do I expect everyone to believe that these things will make a major difference. There are so many factors and variables that go into a situation like this, it's virtually impossible to secure any high level of safety. We all go willingly into situations that could be dangerous. We do so with the hope that today will not be our day. Until we find a better solution, we are going to have to continue like this. It can not hurt to take a few moments out and ask yourself what you would do in a situation like this. The only way situations like this are going to be prevented is by vigilant observance of the behaviors that have been identified time and time again in people that perpetrate these attacks. Violence should never be answered by violence. Violence is limitless. If you bring a small gun, someone else will bring a bigger one. When you finally get to that point where you feel safe, every student armed. There will be campus bombings. I don't want to walk down this road personally. I would rather take care of the problem at it's source, not deal with damage control.

Brownie points for you and my Hat....

This is pretty much 100% how I see things happening and this solution not being a solution..... But of course if I say it.... I get the flack.... go figure

My only difference is I went into a bit more detail then your scenario in the other thread about this topic, and everybody said I was grasping at straws and all that crap....

Perhaps it has something to do with those who have military background/ligitamate firearms training that understand that a firearm isn't the be all end all solution to a violent problem, nor does it actually solve all problems to begin with.

Those who defend the idea to arm the students seem to think that all of them will be responsible with their firearms..... in a perfect world, perhaps..... but it'll be just the same as half assed drivers only knowing the basics to get them from point a to point b, an accident is waiting to happen.

Not only that, but arming the students also would arm the student who plans the attack.... this would just be one extra thing that would allow them to get further into the campus because they now would have the right to carry that firearm onto campus and nobody would be able to stop him or her until they got the first few rounds off..... by that time it'd be too late and the chaos that was mentioned above and what I mentioned would be a very hard reality.

[brien]

I don't see how arming students to combat violence is anywhere in the realm of logic

No one is "arming" students. Citizens have the right to carrying firearms if they are properly permitted under the law. Those who wish to cloud the issue here will conjure up all types of "Dodge City" type scenarios that have no room in meaningful debate. The reality of the situation is more likely thaty those who are trained in using firearms, and who are approved to carry firearms, would do so responsibly on campus. It would be no different that those who already carry in society because you merely aren't aware of those who carry now. Tell me how you can recognize someone who "carries" as opposed to someone who doesn't carry? The same people who carry off campus now don't go around fullfillling the extreme nightmare scenarios portrayed by those who wish to create a atmosphere of pandemonium with regard to carrying guns on campus.

Therefore, please explain to me how carrying a firearm on campus is any different than carrying that same firearm off campus. Does carrying on campus suddenly make those who carry, all subject to some crazy whim to go around shooting up everything in sight? Hardly. Please explain to me the difference in carrying a firearm in the coffeshop across from the campus green and carrying that same firearm in the coffeshop on campus? Just what is the difference?

In 2000, 600 people were killed by accidental gun injuries. Now were 600 people saved in 2000, or any year in the United States from defending their classmates against armed killers in the University

?

How many thousands of people were killed accidently in cars, or on the water boating, or by electrocution?

Now let's encourage students in a crowded university to wield weapons

Big difference between "wielding" and carrying a firearm. You are creating a unrealistic scenario to suit your opinion.

There are so many factors and variables that go into a situation like this, it's virtually impossible to secure any high level of safety.

This is exactly why a properly trained and licensed firearms owner should carry on campus. You have made the carry argument in this statement.

Violence should never be answered by violence.

Ohhhh Kay.... Tell this to the cops, the military, and the FBI. The FBI, when it was first founded, did not arm their agents. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder why the policy was revised to arm their agents?

When you finally get to that point where you feel safe, every student armed

Who ever postulated that every student would be armed? Not everyone qulaifies to use and carry firearms. Those who are qualified should have the option of carrying on campus, as they have the right to do, off campus.

[Slevin57]

Your scenario is with trained firearms owners. Training is not compulsory.

When training becomes compulsory, meaning everyone who brings a gun on my campus has to go through Urban Closed Environment training, then they can bring guns.

I am not against owning guns. I think if you want to own one that's just fine. But I am against someone bringing a weapon to school, around me that does NOT know how to properly use it and more importantly properly respond to such a high stress situation.

Policeman and other LOE's are trained to use their weapon and are trained to respond equally.

All of the Virginia State Police have been through training for a school shooting at BlackwaterUSA in North Carolina. I have been there and seen it myself.

I have never been shot during a routine traffic stop, nor have I ever seen an officer walk up to someone and shoot them. They are not being offensive, they are being defensive. They are trained to shoot when they know their lives or the lives of people around them are in imminent danger.

We have all heard the phrase "drop your weapon, and get down on the ground."

[Osborn F Enready]

Slevins said: I don't see how arming students to combat violence is anywhere in the realm of logic.

Replace the word students, with adults....

Is that better, or more logical now?