Long Way for Large Field To Run in Presidential Race
May 1, 2007

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

Unfortunately, the mass murder that took place at Virginia Tech on the morning of Apr. 16 has reignited the perennial national debate about firearms policy in the United States instead of a debate about public safety in general and how a society and its individual members should respond to the rare instances of so much hatred and evil.

The massacre took place as we were flying back from St. Louis, MO, and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) annual meetings and exhibits. We didn’t know about it until later that day, but there was a steady stream of information available through the traditional media and the Internet.

As was to be expected, around the world the media spotlight was immediately turned on guns and gun laws. By the following day, almost everyone connected to either gun rights or gun control organization got one or more radio, television or newspaper reporter’s invitation for “comment.” Early that morning, among my media invitations, was an early afternoon stint with a British television news show out of London. You know, one of those split-screen talking head in a window box things, of which television is so fond.

Mine was a pretty brief appearance, but it quickly became apparent that the international media drift was that America’s firearms laws, policy and Constitution were being blamed for the unexplainable. That view was confirmed later as I saw clippings and transcripts of news stories and commentaries from all over the world.

The key to international enmity for guns and gunowners was embodied in the rhetorical question posed by one Brit on the show where I was a guest when he closed with, “How many more such incidents must there be before you Americans do something to prevent more such deaths?”

Like so many people in America and around the world, the British question focused on the wrong aspect of the Virginia Tech story. The issue isn’t so much about preventing the wrong people from getting guns to wreak havoc by passing more gun laws. We’ve tried all of that, and so have other countries.

US Not Alone
Despite the most repressive firearms laws anyone can imagine, similar, though not as large, mass murders have been perpetrated in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Germany, in France, in Switzerland—and maybe several other places I can’t recall at the moment. In Canada, it’s happened more than once. And most of those international incidents, like those in the US, have been in a schools, places that proudly claim to be “gun free zones.”

Such horrendous, isolated multiple murders can’t be prevented by passing more gun laws to reduce the number of guns available for defense. We should remember, too, that there have been other mass murders in which guns were not the instruments of death: a bomb in a school claimed 27 lives in the US years ago, and a gasoline fire claimed 87 lives in a Bronx, NY, dance hall.

As some commentators have put it: The problem isn’t too many guns; it is too few. Gun-free zones are a clear and present danger because the predators know that they are killing zones, free of resistance, deterrence or retaliation from any intended victim. Even if all of the schools, colleges and universities had armed security patrols, which many of them don’t, because they don’t even want trained security forces armed, the prospect of meeting resistance or deterrence is pretty remote—particularly on campuses that are larger and more populace than many small cities, like Virginia Tech. That school has a 2,400-acre campus and almost 25,000 students, 9,000 resident on campus.

Professor Fired
An Emmanuel College professor in New England has been fired after re-enacting the Virginia Tech massacre in his classroom in order to air a pro-gun viewpoint that offended students at the Catholic liberal arts school, the professor was charged on Apr. 20, according to The Boston Herald.

Nicholas Winset, 37, said he was terminated and permanently barred from campus following a midweek lecture in which he dramatized the massacre to show that deranged gunman Cho Seung-Hui could have been stopped if another student had been carrying a gun.

“If there were more guns in society, the response time to the (rampage) might have been much faster,” said Winset, an adjunct professor of financial accounting. “Someone might have been able to do something to stop it.”

Maybe not! The Virginia Tech students appear to be typical of today’s multi-tasking college students all over the USA, largely unconcerned with anyone besides themselves, and unaware of what is happening around them.

Unlike the high school students in Oregon a few years ago who were familiar with firearms and tackled an assailant while he was reloading, most college kids today have little knowledge of firearms.

Worse still. The students are advised against resistance. And I guess instructors are too.

The Virginia Tech “Crisis Resolution Management” policy manual provides this advice for what to do when violence occurs:

However, Virginia Tech officials admitted that it was impossible to provide an armed policeman or security guard for every classroom.

Ohio Sheriff
A local sheriff has asked Ohio state officials to press for legislation that would place guns in schools, according to WLWT in Cincinnati.

Butler County Sheriff Richard K. Jones sent letters on Apr. 18 to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and state Rep. Courtney Combs calling for mandatory armed personnel in all public and private Ohio schools.

Jones said his plan is intended to prevent a school shooting such as the one at Virginia Tech.

Jones suggested assigning law enforcement officers to each school or training select school officials to handle weapons and enforce laws, and commissioning those officials as Ohio Peace Officers.

Jones admitted his plan would likely be expensive and would not prevent school shootings, but he said armed personnel would limit the number of casualties in such an event.

“The safety of all Ohio students is paramount,” Jones said. “These students are our children; they are our future. We must do anything we can to protect them as much as possible.”

I’d like to emphasize that the sheriff suggested training selected school officials to handle weapons. If that sounds a little like the Armed Flight Officer program, it should. It’s the same principle.

I have suggested that while it may be difficult to convince people right now that allowing any person qualified and/or licensed to carry concealed to do so on campus is good public policy, we should heed Sheriff Jones’ advice. Let’s train and arm teachers, administrators and even housekeeping staff at schools and colleges so that they can respond as a last resort. If nothing else, help is likely to be available much faster than a call to 911. For another, it would make today’s students much less fearful of meeting and greeting people that are legally armed every day. The gun is not the problem. Lack of practical knowledge and what we used to call “street smarts” years ago would also be a big help.

Perhaps we should print the schools, churches, businesses and institutions which want to be “gun free” some free signs and posters. I’d propose that they include the text “Danger” in big letters, with a red skull and crossbones, the universal symbol for caution. Underneath the skull and bones would be the legend: “Gun Free Zone.”

That should convey the real message.

Return to Archive Index