Lattice of Coincidence: Huskies

Friday, February 15, 2008

Huskies

I was watching the coverage of the shooting this morning when I almost saw Matt Lauer go the way of right-wingnuts. He asked one of the students "were you in the classroom when someone yelled out - 'he is reloading'?" It seems like a little comment but it brought back a number of memories.

The students thankfully answered him with a quick "no." If you remember, well after the VA Tech shooting, a few vocal voices suggested that (1) the students should have jumped the shooter while he was reloading or (2) that if the students had guns they could have returned fire. Frightening. What the students did was run. And for good reason - the graffiti found in the bathroom not long ago threatened that a rampage at NIU would be different, because unlike the VA Tech shootings, there would be more than one gunman. What the students on TV this morning did discuss was their fear that when they left the building, they would be picked off by another sniper, or their fear that entering another building would not provide safe refuge, because of their fear of other gunmen. It sounded like the students had a good memory of that grafitti, but it was strange that the news did not ask about it.

I don't see how the fairly quick response by the school or the actions of the students can be called into question, though the information coming out about the rampage is far from complete.

I don't know that you can call a country where you have to arm yourself to go to school or work or shopping a "society." At least not a civilized one. Where do we go from here?

And without further ado, this link wasn't hard to find.

5 comments:

k-mad said...: Yeah, it would be great if every drunken frat boy on every college campus was armed. That would end campus crime.; February 15, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Corms said...: I love the comments about how one armed person trained on how to use the gun could have stopped it. Of course they never ponder that if the asshole who did this was trained on how to use his gun there would likely be dozens dead instead of a relative handful.

Oh yeah and at least two of the guns in his possession were purchased legally.; February 15, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Smiff said...: By all means, we need more guns in this country, with everybody carrying one at all times. Everyone would be a lot safer. What could possibly go wrong?; February 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Ranger said...: Here was my response:

Posted by Jeremy on Feb 15 2008 4:22PM - Perhaps I'm just too liberal, but I don't see how a civilized society results in the individual necessarily carrying a gun in order to defend himself or herself at all times. To me that seems like the antithesis of a civilized society.

Now, I support the Second Amendment. I understand most of the undergirding of that Amendment. In fact I wouldn't mind if every household in American received a .22 courtesy of the Federal Government. But I think it goes without saying that the Second Amendment is not intended as an arms free for all. I have never felt entitled to arm myself with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. If we all had those types of rights, I think it fairly clear that a few unbalanced people would have dispatched the rest of us long ago.

At least in my youth, I'm glad I never owned a gun. I had too much concern, probably misplaced, that I would have been an irresponsible gun owner. The same thinking led me to avoid scores of other legal problems. Now I never let my self-denial grown into a drive to deny others the right to own guns, but there has to be a better answer than everyone arming themselves.

I don't think the answer to NIU is repealing the Second Amendment. I hope the answer isn't that everyong having to arm themselves.

If all that is seprating us from killing one another is the fact that we can kill eachother, we have become something more base than animals.; February 15, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Ranger said...: Still arguing:

Posted by Jeremy on Feb 16 2008 12:44PM - I like all the hypotheticals on the other students having guns to protect themselves. But what if there were other students with guns acting in concert with the shooter - what then? Say instead of jumping out on the stage like an idiot, the shooter had body armor and had placed other shooters on the catwalks above the theater, had a field of fire sweeping the exits, and some homemade explosives? Hell - even releasing bleach and ammonia into a crowded classroom could do a hell of a lot of damage. And not to mention fire - which we all have access to. What is to eliminate this kind of eventuality if everyone in the theater was packing?

I don't see how what happened is an argument either for or against gun control. Surely no one supports the idea that the killer was entitled to use his weapon under these circumstances.

The other comment that is strange is that a number of current and former firearms users suggest that only law-abiding, trained and screened individuals be allowed to carry a sidearm. While I understand that extraordinary "screening" may have detected this shooter, I don't presume that a law-abiding, trained and screened individual couldn't have done the same thing at some point. And the suggestion itself is a massive form of gun control - who is to decide what "law-abiding" means. Who is to decide what "training" is necessary. Who is to decide when and how "screening" will take place. Are you going to deny concealed carry to frequent speeders? How much training do you really need to fire a bolt action rifle - If I recall right - not much. Can you ever train someone to always be safe and responsible? When are you going to screen people - when they buy the gun, after significant events in their life (e.g., the infidelity of a spouse, the loss of a child)?

If you are for the type of gun control currently in place - this guy got a gun. If you are for extreme gun control - there is no guarantee this guy wouldn't have had a gun. If you are for concealed carry - this guy, and likely others like him would be as armed as you. I don't see how any of those situations are beneficial. There has to be some other answer.; February 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM