The Virginia Tech shooting could have been minimized or prevented had the Virginia Tech hierarchy allowed conceal carry on it’s campus.
A similar incident happened in January 2002 without the consequences of Virginia Tech’s Tragedy.
This was at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia.
This from a February 2002 WND Column by Larry Elder :
On Jan. 16, 2002, a law student at Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law shot and killed the dean, a professor and another student, while wounding three others.
How did the shooting spree end?
According to the Los Angeles Times, "Other students tackled [emphasis added] the gunman minutes after he stalked through the tiny campus of the Appalachian School of Law where he wounded three others during the shooting spree." The New York Times also said that other students "tackled" the man. The Associated Press quoted another student, off-duty Sheriff Tracy Bridges, "’I just reacted,’ said Bridges … who tackled [the shooter] with classmates."
But, according to the same man the Associated Press quoted, Sheriff Tracy Bridges, the newspapers left out relevant information about how the shooting ended.
Here’s what Sheriff Tracy Bridges told me: "We were located in the classrooms just across from where the first professor was shot. We heard the first three shots. At the time, we didn’t really know that it was gunfire. Just a few seconds later, we heard the next three shots, followed by some screams. Another student and I went into the hallway. We ran into a professor and he said that Peter [the gunman] was in the building and that he was shooting. So I ran back to the classroom and, what students were left, I said you all need to get out – there’s a shooter in the building.
"We exited out the back stairwell of our building. As I exited, that day I was running a little late, so I did park in a faculty parking spot, which put my vehicle between me and the shooter. We saw him in the front yard there. I stopped at my vehicle and got my handgun out.
"As we approached Peter, I started giving him a lot of verbal commands. … I told him to drop his weapon, to get on the ground. … His back was to us, and once he turned around and saw that I had a weapon, he laid his weapon down and stuck his hands in the air. At that time we approached him, and there was somewhat of a struggle, but we took him to the ground and handcuffed him until the authorities got there."
But why did they fail to mention Bridges’ role in stopping the shooting spree? Did members of the media simply fail to interview Bridges?
…
Just another incident with all the details conveniently omitted by the MSM.
As a result of the Appalachin School of Law shooting incident a student group attempted to have a campus ban of conceal carry lifted.
From CNS.com September 2002:
After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school’s ban on guns."We are trying to build a detailed and persuasive brief that would include statistics on increases in safety, decreases in violent crime when you do have concealed carry permit holders in a jurisdiction," said Orest J. Jowyk, president of the Second Amendment group at George Mason University School of Law.
"I think the middle ground is to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry just like they can anywhere else in Virginia," he said. "You provide extra safety to the student body that way."
Jowyk began researching his law school’s gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school’s dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.
Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.
Jowyk was heartened by the students’ intervention. But looking into GMU’s gun policy, Jowyk found to his dismay that the school’s board of visitors had in 1995 passed a ban on all weapons, concealed or otherwise, except by law enforcement officials.
Anyone who violates the school’s gun ban would face administrative repercussions but not criminal charges, according to Jowyk.
Then in April, Virginia’s Democratic governor, Mark Warner, signed a law prohibiting local governments from using administrative rules to pass gun restrictions that go beyond existing state law.
Jowyk’s Second Amendment group is now investigating how that law might apply to GMU, though the group has not yet approached school administrators about changing the policy.
"There is a question that’s being bandied about in the Commonwealth whether or not this university qualifies under that law as a locality," said Mike Lynch, chief of police for GMU law school’s police department. "Today, I don’t think we have the answer."
If that legal question is eventually resolved in the school’s favor, Lynch says he will likely recommend that the weapons ban continue.
"The more people that have guns…on them, it is my opinion that that would increase the propensity for somebody getting hurt," either through accident or mischief, said Lynch. "And I don’t want to see that."
…
A Viginia State Legislator Attempts to allow students to carry weapons on campus. This from January, 2006:
Bill Seeks To Clarify Rules On Permits Allowed By Law But Prohibited By Colleges.
Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, has introduced a bill that would force public colleges to allow students with concealed weapon permits to "pack heat" on campus.
Gilbert introduced the bill at the request of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which was formed in 1994 to protect concealed weapon laws.
"It’s a gray area," said Philip Van Cleave, the defense league’s president.
The state allows concealed handgun permit owners to carry weapons at colleges and universities, but campus officials, including those at James Madison University, have restricted them.
"We’re trying to get that rectified," Van Cleave said.
The proposed legislation, he said, has exceptions allowing storing weapons in dormitories and banning them at athletic events. Van Cleave said students must be 21 years old and go through a screening process approved by the state to get a permit.
The law, he said, would most likely affect students who live off campus and adults who take classes.
…
And was this bill passed? No…
From the Virginia Citizens Defense League:
Gun Control Claims Lives At Virginia Tech
As most of you know VCDL has been pushing hard to change Virginia law
to allow college and university students with concealed handgun
permits to be able to carry a gun on campus for self-defense.Last year Delegate Todd Gilbert put in such a bill for us and so did
Delegate Mark Cole this year.We could not get the bills out of subcommittee.
We warned the General Assembly that violent crime can, and does,
happen on campuses across the Commonwealth.But the university and college lobbyists swore that crime was not an
issue and that the schools did not want students and visitors to be
able to defend themselves with a gun or other weapon. They argued
that the schools had little boxes with lights that had a button
someone could press if they needed the police.The General Assembly turned a deaf ear to allowing college and
university students to be able to protect themselves and here we are
todayWhile it is NOT illegal for a college or university student with a
CHP to carry in Virginia, they could get expelled (or fired if a
teacher). And that is a severe enough financial penalty that students
don’t want to take the chance. Who can blame them?But, I’ll bet a few are reconsidering their position now. Expelled
by 1 or carried by 6?VCDL will make it a high priority again next year to get a bill
introduced that will let students and faculty carry.I don’t want to hear from universities and colleges any more about
crime not happening on campuses, or the police will save you if there
is a problem, or that we need more gun control on campuses.ENOUGH OF ELITIST BALONEY FROM COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES!
If just ONE of those victims had been armed, this most probably would
have turned out very differently***************************************************************************
In January 2006, Virginia Delegate Todd Gilbert introduced House Bill 1572, which was meant to guarantee, with a few exceptions, that students with concealed handgun permits would be allowed to carry guns on college campuses. The bill died in subcommittee later that month. Like many schools, Virginia Tech had a policy prohibiting guns on campus, and Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker expressed pleasure at the bill’s defeat. "I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions," said Hincker, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."As we all know by now, the gun ban didn’t insure safety. Virginia Tech was the site of the worst shooting spree in American history yesterday. Thirty-two people are dead — not including the shooter, who committed suicide — and at least fifteen are injured. Mightn’t a law-abiding armed student might have stopped the spree in its tracks? We’ll never know.
Perhaps some school administrators still think that declaring a "gun-free zone" makes a campus safer; that was what legislators thought when they started passing gun bans at high schools in response to the late-’80s youth-crime spike. But it’s likely that at the college level, fear of litigation plays a large role in shaping such policies. No school or business has been successfully sued following an on-site incident involving a gun, but according to David Kopel, director of the Second Amendment Project at the Independence Institute, "that doesn’t stop administrators from being scared." Kopel notes that big business is afflicted by the same lawsuit-paranoia. "If you look in these corporate counsel manuals…you’ll find these things all over the place, saying that you should adopt a no-guns policy so you don’t get sued — when there’s really never been a case of a successful suit," says Kopel.
The irony, Kopel points out, is that Virginia Tech may have opened itself up to a lawsuit anyway. Two people were killed several hours before the rest of the victims, and many have complained that the school didn’t warn people of the situation before the killing started again. "This interval and failure to warn, after having affirmatively disarmed them…I’m not a Virginia tort expert," says Kopel, "but that strikes me as a good start" for an enterprising litigator. Perhaps the reluctance to release the news flowed from the same central-command instincts that led administrators to disarm their students.
Technorati Tags: Second Amendment Rights, Virginia Tech, School Shootings, Appalachian School Of Law, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Delegate Todd Gilbert, VCDL, Viginia House Bill 1572, Gun Free Zone, Liberal Hypocrisy, Democrat Party Hypocrisy
Sphere: Related Content
Can “responsible journalism” become irresponsible?
My power finally came back on over an hour ago. I’m tempted to exclaim “Hallelujah!” And what the hell? I will say “Hallelujah!” But you have to be careful with religious exclamations these days. Saying “Allahu Akbar” might be taken…
Reading the article about the Apalachian Law School shooter, one may think that perhaps the great loss of life at Virginia Tech could have been avoided had the students been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Perhaps someone may have been able to stop the Virginia Tech student by pulling out their own 9mm and firing back at this troubled youth. On the one hand, this may seem justifiable and, in the matter of the Virginia Tech incident, a better outcome that could have most likely saved a lot of lives. We do have laws that allow for citizens’ arrest and for citizens to apply deadly force wherein their lives are in mortal danger, etc. But is this really justice? This scenario can all too easily lead us down into a black hole of anarchy wherein justifiable homicide becomes a household term. What is even more scary is that carrying concealed weapons is all to easy in our society. This is a real money maker, and not just for the gun manufacturers, but for the fashion industry and the entertainment industry, as well. The possibilities and money to made in such a venture are endless.
It’s all about the money: This would be a marketing marvel. How about designer handguns in colors for every season (and remember not to “wear” your handgun with white pearl handles after Labor Day). Or for those more quiet folk, a handgun with a peace symbol on the handle — there’s a real oxymoron. Or a 9mm handgun that comes with an assortment of exchangeable clip holders — one for every outfirt, with lots of bling. Then there is the upscale clip holder that could possibly be designed by Louie Vitton or Prada. And let’s not leave out those animal prints. For the more masculine line of accessories, you could have your favoirite sports team logo imprinted your handgun handle or clip holder. Then comes a host of handgun accessories, such as hip holsters, back holsters designed especially for the corporate executive that come in designer straps to match designer suspendors. And how about that backpack with a special compartment to place your handgun just like you have for you hand-held electronics. And you wouldn’t have to worry about targeting sales for the main stream market, as once the high-end designers put their hand gun accessories out on the market, the goliathes of the chain superstores would get on board with lower-priced goods. Naturally, you would have to worry somewhat about the knock offs that are guaranteed to follow. We make it sexy. We make it appealling. We make it a high-end that is available for in the low-end chain stores, must-have commdotiy. If we can sell canned air and pet rocks, why not color-coordinated handguns with matching accessories.
Now envision the campus with students and faculty walking around with their stylized handgun accessories with lots of bling. Are they safer? Are they more secure? Are their new toys a deterent to violence or being attacked? No. It is just the opposite. Suppose someone cuts you off as you park and you are late for class — do you pull out your hand gun and say get out of my parking space or I’ll shoot you? Take a deeper look at road rage. Many states are (if not in place already) writing new laws to deal with the rising rate of road rage and the subsequent injuries, including fatalities, that result from same.
There is no justification for us to arm ourselves in this manner because there is no humanity in taking a life. Killing someone does not create value, even if that person is in the wrong. No value has been created by untimely or horrific death — self imposed or otherwise.
No doubt we must have security and the appropriate laws in place to ensure our security at home and abroad. Paraphrasing one of our country’s forefathers, “he who gives up his freedom for the sake of secuirty, deserves neither.” In essence, we must take thoughtful action based on creating value for all.
Take a moment to picture in your mind what it would be like were we to opt for a militarized state of existence based on fear and suspicion, wherein every public building has metal and explosives detectors, bars on the windows, armed guards dressed in military gear with drug sniffing dogs and assualt riffles. (Unfortunately, some may say that is just like my highschool.) The creative spirit would become extinct. And it is that creative spirit (along with a host of other ingredients) that allow us to be human. We must take thoughtful, humanistic action based on creating value for all.
We must have HOPE for a society based on creating value and take ACTION to instill and nuture our youth, and everyone, to make value-creative choices (including the laws we enact) in every aspect of life in order for us to bring about a possitive CHANGE. Namely, we must become the change we wish to see through a human revolution from within.
Val McCall
Can “responsible journalism” become irresponsible?
My power finally came back on over an hour ago. I’m tempted to exclaim “Hallelujah!” And what the hell? I will say “Hallelujah!” But you have to be careful with religious exclamations these days. Saying “Allahu Akbar” might be taken…
Can “responsible journalism” become irresponsible?
My power finally came back on over an hour ago. I’m tempted to exclaim “Hallelujah!” And what the hell? I will say “Hallelujah!” But you have to be careful with religious exclamations these days. Saying “Allahu Akbar” might be taken…