Tragedy

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> But, being someone who knows Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, and the  
> student body, and who doesn't have to "check on the web" to find out  
> about the place, I can state that, statistically speaking, Mike's  
> utopian fantasy of having classrooms with concealed-carry gun toters  
> seeded about the place, like coiled springs ready to counter any  
> rampaging nutters, is just that: a fantasy.  There just aren't enough  
> students with concealed-carry permits---let alone ones who want to  
> bring their guns to class---to make it a viable deterrent, because  
> the possibility of an armed student being in class to shoot back is  
> so low.  Get that: it's a VANISHINGLY SMALL probability. 

Hmmm. If it were me, would I prefer a vanishingly small probability of
having the rampage stopped or a zero one? That ain't rocket science.

There's the mall example too (and I know I have a couple of examples
somewhere of US schools where (1) a janitor and (2) a student went to
their cars, collected their weapons, and stopped the would-be rampager.
Of course at the mall, there were guaranteed adults there and you're
almost certainly correct in that more of them would be willing to take
on the responsibility of concealed-carry than would students.

> With or  
> without such a prohibition, a nutter could still expect "Safety At  
> Work."   A possible way to improve the odds is to follow the odious  
> suggestion that came in the wake of the Columbine shootings of  
> mandating that teachers be armed.  (All the teachers I know found the  
> suggestion odious, anyway.)

I can't see what's odious about the idea of teachers protecting the
lives of students, but as you say, minds differ.

> It's far from clear to me that "nutters"  
> would be dissuaded from "picking on these places" (as you allege)  
> whether or not there were firearms in class.

I note that they tend to attack schools and post offices rather than
army bases and police stations. I suspect that if they were honest,
they'd admit that this is because they're rational enough either not to
want to be shot, or at least not before they've done what the intended
to do.

> After all, there are  
> armed police on the campus at all times; there's even a Corps of  
> Cadets at VT.  And aren't these nutters, after all? 

Nutters can be pretty shrewd at times.

> Is someone who  
> is prepared to take his or her own life going to be that much more  
> put off by the thought that some passers by might do it for them,  
> instead?

yes, if they want to go out taking 30 people out with them rather than just
be shot.

> Bonus points to Mike for divining the intent of the gunman in the  
> spectacular absence of proven facts.  But why not play the blame game  
> when it's free, eh, Mike?

I haven't said I know what the intent was. All I can divine is what
anyone can: that he wanted to hurt and kill people. Why he wanted that
may well never be known. To be honest I don't care either. My concern is
with the victims and that they should be better protected from these
criminals. 

> I've read a lot of rumour, speculation, and ill-informed "facts"  
> since yesterday about the town and institution I know and love, and  
> I'm sick of it. 

That I can understand. My home town has twice been in the attention of
the meedja in unpleasant circumstances and not much light emerged from it.

FoFP