"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill [to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry guns on campus] was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Note the operative word in that statement.

Methinks the real reason VT feared letting their student body carry arms wasn't so much because they believed it would lead to gun violence, as because of the implicit message that would send to the public: "Our campus isn't safe, and we're at a loss as to how to make it any safer. You're on your own." That may have turned out to be awfully close to the truth, but it doesn't exactly make for a knock-'em-dead recruitment pitch.

Gun control is dead as national issue.

If this had happened a few years ago there'd be a firestorm. Now the anti-gun lobby is barely showing up on the radar, unless they're somewhere behind Rosie O'Donnell.

Hell, just the other day the DNC was making fun of Mitt Romney because he's never had a hunting license. They've figured out that Gore would have been President if he'd done better in gun country.

Clinton times are here again. Forget about the gun control, the feminism, the Kyoto treaty, and the goofy leftist crap. We're going to have trade agreements, a good bond market, and more wars than we know what to do with.

I don't really think guns are the main issue here (as opposed to all the impediments that kept the early warnings from working), but I still expect this to be a net-gain for the gun rights movement.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Emphasis mine. Thats really the point- anti-gun laws are about making people feel like they are less likely to experience violence. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Mmm, yes. More guns. How exactly would the campus have been safer for the two hours between the two shooting sprees with dozens of scared and gun brandishing students roaming about trying to find the killer? It would be reminiscent of the scene at the end of Enemy of the State where a mexican standoff decends into an orgy of indiscriminate shooting due to a mis-reading of one person's body langauge.

You should ask why campus mass murders appear to be solely an American phenomonen. Surely the answer isn't that there are too FEW guns.

In practical terms, I think it's very unlikely that permitting concealed-carry on VT's campus would have made a difference. As Mark Buehner noted on another thread, "...sometimes it's just a terrible tragedy that would have been almost impossible to avert without the advantage of hindsight."

(E.g, the cops had reasons to pursue domestic-violence leads after the 7am shootings (see D. Sensing thread comments). They were wrong... in hindsight.)

The mass shooting happened fast; a few minutes. An armed person would have had to have been lucky to have been in the right place at the right time to intervene.

In my view, the most useful lesson was touched on in an earlier post: we should start realizing that The Authorities cannot protect us from or rescue us from this sort of situation. It isn't possible.

This is exactly opposite from the Prevailing Wisdom I've seen in breathless interviews and on-air grief counseling from the likes of Katie Couric (PhD, psychology) and Matt Lauer (PhD, psychology).

To the extent that the concealed-carry argument jolts people out of the sheep-mode that the faux-compassion-mongers are promoting on their 'News' shows: Good.

"How exactly would the campus have been safer for the two hours between the two shooting sprees with dozens of scared and gun brandishing students roaming about trying to find the killer?"

In your experience, what leads you to believe even college students are stupid enough to do this? What is it with anti-gun people that make them assume you put a weapon in someones hand they suddenly become a bounty hunter or a trigger happy gunslinger? We hand car keys to 16 year olds and only rarely do they become Mad Max or Death Race 2000.

"It would be reminiscent of the scene at the end of Enemy of the State where a mexican standoff decends into an orgy of indiscriminate shooting due to a mis-reading of one person's body langauge."

Oh! Because it happened in a movie! I see. Yet somehow states with concealed carry laws manage to get by everyday without civil war breaking out in the streets.

"You should ask why campus mass murders appear to be solely an American phenomonen. Surely the answer isn't that there are too FEW guns."

Ask the parents of the 16 kids murdered in Dunblane Scotland ten years ago why it only happens in America. Or the 8 kids knifed to death in Tokyo in 2001. Sure, its just America, and its just guns.

Rockingham: My understanding is that many serial killers do not use guns. The green river killer, for example, or the unabomber. I don't think removing guns would stop this phenomenon.

Again: They're have been many incidents where multiple unarmed citizens have prevented armed assailants. Why this did not happen here maybe related to a number of circumstances that we may never know. While it's nice to beleive that a change of circumstances would have dramatically changed the outcome, it's impossible to know what 'could have been'. Life does not work through 20/20 hindsight.

Oh yeah, it only happens in America.

See Clayton Cramer here

As to an armed citizen having to be in the right place, so? One armed teacher, or a student with his carry permit, could have kept the murderer out of the classroom, or given cover to other people escaping.

(comment edited by AL to move url off page)

They did make their campus safe. It was very safe for the killer. Hope they're proud of their hard work.

As for someone having to be in the right place at the right time, one person in that place does make a difference, and now all we're talking is odds. Speaking of which, unarmed people have disarmed armed killers, and if that's the only chance you're left with than AL's post is right - go down fighting. Of course, mass charges across an open field into machine gun fire are on record as working too. On occasion. Pity about all the millions who didn't make it in World War One. Is that the preferred scenario?

Taking active steps to ensure that NO-ONE can possibly be in the right place at the right time is a decision with consequences - and we've just seen them.

Rockingham:

The worst mass-murders by one people are mostly Asian. There was the Japanese nut who killed about 40 people with a samurai sword in 1938 in Japan. The South Korean policeman who with grenades and a semi-auto assault rifle killed around 30. The nut in IIRC Tasmania who killed around 25 or so with two assault rifles.

But I think you are missing the main point (which has little to do with guns directly and a LOT about how we live our lives).

We live in a middle class world where everything is perceived to be "safe" and risk free. What stands out over and over and over again with every office, mall, school, and other shooting is:

"We didn't know what was going on until it was too late."

Office work, school work, even going to the mall requires a lot of abstract, non-physical thinking. Hardly any of the students were able to perceive the threat because they were focused on the abstract nature of the material presented in class. The same way folks in 9/11 in the Towers were unable to perceive the threat (except for Rick Rescorla and few others who had anticipated it).

We live in societies that have from the Cold War on demanded abstract, anti-perceptual thinking and operations. In an environment where perceived risk hardly exists. What could happen of a physically threatening nature in a cubicle, a classroom, an office tower, a shopping mall. Our society is so big and seemingly secure and the demands for abstract operations so great that people at VT could not actually perceive the gunshots as gunshots. They thought it was construction work until they saw the blood in the hallways or the killer with his gun.

Rockingham:

The biggest argument FOR concealed carry is the mindset it instills. NOT aggressive behavior but enhanced sensory awareness. Most people go about their lives in what Col. Jeff Cooper called "Condition White" i.e. totally unaware of their surroundings and not monitoring people and situations. Akin to driving a car while fiddling with the cell phone or radio. Carrying a CW forces people out of that "Condition White" into "Condition Yellow" (because of the training and responsibility) into watchful monitoring, the way you'd look at cars up ahead on the road to discern sudden moves, lane changes, stops, etc.

Globalization means more than cheap stuff from China in your Wal-Mart. It means violent jihad or jihadis in your campus, mall, office tower, or elsewhere, or disturbed individuals with little social control in a fast-moving, complex, and largely atomized society. Placing a premium on surrounding awareness and rejection of the Cold War "safe" model of suburbia (which is now no longer safe).

I'll add that the late Prof. Librescu well understood the fallacy of believing that the natural state of things was "safe" or that violence only happened in "other places" hence his instinctive and heroic acts when it really mattered.

Even though he was elderly and thus with less acute senses than his younger students his ability to perceive accurately and act quickly saved many lives.

It is not simply arming oneself, but continual and constant rejection of the existing mental models of "safe suburban environments" in favor of calm but continual monitoring of your environment that is essential.

Hmm, #11 & 12 could become a good Guest Blog post...

Okay, I'll concede that mass murders of this type are not solely American and not solely gun related. But the reason that Dunblane and Tokyo and the others are remembered is that they were so rare.

I am not an American, but I love that country and do believe that it is the world's great hope for freedom (and I am saying that so you know that this is not an anti American rant). But you guys should realise that most mass murders of this type in the US go unacknowledged by the rest of the world. If they are mentioned at all it is along the lines of 'another American loony blew away his class mates today, and now the weather'. The only reason the Virginia Tech shootings have received such attention worldwide is the number of victims.

Neither am I anti-gun. Your constitution clearly grants you the right to bear arms (although it does so in the context of being part of a militia)and I see nothing wrong with that. But the society that granted that right in the 18th century was very different from today (there are vastly more people for one, and the stresses of life are of a different order) and I think that sensible regulation of gun carrying and ownership is desirable.

You all make your points thoughtfully and they have some force. I have no stake in this argument; for me in England it is all moot as Tony Blair banned all handguns (including sport air pistols) as soon as he got into power in 1997. Has that stopped gun crime? - no, we are currently experiencing a rash of drug related shootings which we know must be done with illegal weapons. The argument is complex and my original point was (or was meant to be) that rather than simply arming everyone in the hope that someone is in the right place at the right time, surely an investigation into why people carry out these atrocities would be more useful. It seems that the only reason anyone can usually come up with is that the killer is a 'loner', as if that is reason enough.

Two quick points - Jim Rockford (loved your show by the way) you appear to be advocating that we all live in constant fear of our lives so that when the moment comes we are ready to react. If that is your idea of civilisation, you are welcome to it. And that incredibly brave man Prof Librescu was highly educated in 'anti-perceptual' thinking, and yet as you said - he was ready when the time came.

Finally, why concealed carry? On the basis that prevention is better than cure, why not have people in class with a glock strapped to their hip?

Anyway, thanks for the responses, you have given me a good deal to think about - maybe I was a little too black and white in my views.

Why concealed carry?

Because concealed carry requires a threshold that is higher than usual, and so one can properly assume that the people doing so are much more likely to be vetted and trained given the permit conditions. Unless you think about it that way, it sounds like a lower threshold - but in fact it's the opposite. It was made as a minimalist proposal to amend the rules... which makes its defeat that much more egregious.

"On the basis that prevention is better than cure, why not have people in class with a glock strapped to their hip?"

On the basis that (more certain) cure by 9mm lead poisoning/ "drop it or else"/ etc. is better than (never fully effective and dependable) prevention, or telling people to do WW1 style "charge the guns and hope"/ "sacrifice yourself and maybe others will get lucky"/ etc... it would indeed make sense to simply allow anyone with a handgun to carry it openly, if preventing situations like Virginia Tech et. al. is the goal.

Admittedly, there would be a corresponding death toll on the other side of the ledger, as statistically a very small number of people who have such weapons handy will use them in less justified situations. And be put away for (attempted/) murder, of course - responsibility is enforced. Which is why the concealed carry stipulation can also be thought of as a way of providing a certain level of safety and options, while mitigating this particular risk because you're dealing with fewer armed people and more trained people.

This will never be as effective in Virginia Tech type situations as simply allowing a general carry. On the either hand, it doesn't offer some of the downsides of a general carry approach - or of a big welcome sign to killers that advertises your population as sheep to be slaughtered at will (while the killer calmly takes breaks between shootings to email news organizations and send pictures).

I am India and have recently (after Virginia Tech) become aware of the different issues and views regarding gun culture in America .

I read that your constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to be able to possess Firearms.

Coming from a country where most people have never held a gun in their hands, I find it difficult to comprehend as to why ordinary people find it necessary to have a gun on them .

Guns are available but with very strict regulations. Anyways nobody even thinks about firearms..let alone think about buying them.Nobody wants firearms..even if they are given for free.

Crimes do happen, poverty is pretty widespread,but cases of holdups with guns are very rare .I do not have to worry about someone holding me up on the road with a firearm.Or that some nutty colleague would open fire inside the office.Simply because guns are not freely available.Psychos dont have that destructive power available to them.

I would just like to understand from this forum about its thoughts of there being any correlation in America
regarding crime,firearms deaths and the easy availability of guns.I guess more than 90 percent of the population would be responsible users of firearms..but saddens me to hear about the no of deaths that happen in America because of firearms as compared to other developed countries in the world.