Concealed Carry Licensee Stops Killing Spree
I noticed this story on Instapundit, and even though it’s not specifically about concealed carry on campus, it seemed apropos to the new issue of the Commentator. The gist of it is that a man walked into a bar and started shooting, killing two and wounding two others before stopping to reload.
It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
After further investigation as well as ongoing discussions with Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith, the decision was made that the shooting of Villagomez by the Reno man was a justifiable homicide as outlined in Nevada Revised Statute 200.120 and 200.160. Because of this the Reno man was released from police custody.
At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any solid motive for the crime, though the article does speculate that the shooter may have been engaged in some sort of family vendetta. This article seems to reinforce that theory. Neither story indicates whether or not the killer was a legal gun owner or not.
[…] not specifically about concealed carry on campus, it seemed apropos to the new issue of the …http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/05/29/concealed-carry-licensee-stops-killing-spree/Privateer Publications State Reciprocity TablesClick Here to find out which other states honor your […]
you are trained when you get a CCW(atleast I was) after the threat is over, and law enforcement arrives, surrender your firearm!
Put it on the ground, hands on head!
I’m sorry, I wasn’t that clear. I was trying to construct two hypothetical scenarios that might help explain the logic for the ban and did it poorly. Keep in mind, again, that I don’t necessarily support a ban, I’m just trying to understand the pervasiveness of the argument that does.
In one case, let’s say handguns are legal on campus. In this case, we can safely assume a good number of people are carrying them regularly, making it more difficult to distinguish a would-be shooter from the regular public. In this case also, it would not be safe to assume that anyone carrying a gun on campus is up to no good – carrying a gun on campus is just a fact of life.
In a second case, suppose handguns and other firearms are prohibited on campus, as they are now. In this case, one would be required to violate this ban in order to execute a campus shooting. Although someone performing such a horrific act would have little concern for bans on firearms themselves, in this case it would be safe to assume that the person carrying a gun on campus is up to no good. At the very least, the no good they’re up to is carrying a gun on campus. First responders could deal with this person simply by virtue of their possession and not have to wait until they started firing. It gives them also, in essence, the legal means to suspect and identify a shooter more easily.
I don’t know if I made that argument clearer or simply repeated myself. I’m really curious about figuring out the problem with that line of reasoning, though.
Unfortunately, I read the complete Arguments page of the Students for Concealed Carry site and did not find a response to this question. The closest issue I found was:
“Argument: “How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed civilians and armed assailants?” ”
Which deals primarily with the crossfire/friendly-fire problem of armed conflicts with campus shooters and armed civilians on campus. (Sorry if I mischaracterized at all, but it didn’t seem to be confronting this issue as much as another issue with the actual crime scene scenario.)
and “Argument: “The answer to school violence is prevention, not guns on campus.” ” Which answered with a discussion about how prevention and armed civilians would work together ideally.
We might just have to acknowledge, in pursuit of an on-campus right to bear arms, that carrying guns on campus would indeed make it harder for a shooter to stand out in the crowd — until they start firing. However, just like criminals get off on technicalities about search warrants, there are prices to pay for being able to live a society more free from tyrannical government, and the inability to easily distinguish shooter from regular armed student at a glance might just be one of them.
@Students
Thank you for that link! I appreciate the contribution, however, nowhere on that web page did it address what I feel the major questions are, namely:
-How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsiepop?
-Where’s the beef?
Joking aside, the information contained on that web page is important in any discussion on the issue. I feel I am better qualified to discuss this topic.
Thank you!
Answers to your questions and concerns can be found on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website.
Er, @matt!
Damn lack of an edit button.
I didn’t say that. : )
@Chris
“when handguns are prohibited, authority figures can stop a would-be shooter simply for carrying a gun. In other words, when handguns are banned, the guy who
The other problem could be police arriving to the scene and accidentally shooting a good samaritan packing heat…thinking that he/she is the shooter.
Well, you’re totally right about that. The “shock to consciousness” factor is huge in any sort of irrational fear. I think that might have a lot to do with the feeling. I know something about just suddenly seeing it would freak people out, at least for a few weeks.
I’ve been thinking and I have another hypothesis, though, just to throw out there: when handguns are prohibited, authority figures can stop a would-be shooter simply for carrying a gun. In other words, when handguns are banned, the guy who’s carrying one clearly has something sinister in mind. If they’re not banned, we might have to wait until they actually start firing to know. And then we’d have to hope someone else in the class shoots first.
So perhaps the intention is not that we want to deter the wannabe Columbine kids, just that we will be more easily able to spot them if they’re the only dude around who’s packing heat.
Then again, there are still problems with this analysis: so far, this hasn’t really played out successfully either. The police at Virginia Tech even knew someone on campus had been shot for a couple hours and didn’t effectively lockdown until it was too late, so the prospect of them spotting the perpetrator – especially if he conceals his weapon – is not promising.
The other problem, of course, is that it ignores the rights question. Even if some religions decide its their religious preference to marry 13 year-old girls, which is inarguably abuse, it’s no justification for banning all religious practice just so that we could spot those crazy fundamentalists before they get their hands on the chillun. There’s clearly more examples like this: we don’t ban all protests so that we know which protests will be riots, etcetera…
Matt,
I too am a advocate of the right to bear arms and yet the thought of someone carrying a gun does affect me.
But why?
I think its because its different. Assuming that the legislation currently allowed the possession of a handgun on campus, I think it would be old hat. At a bar or a movie or a social event of any sort, people might be carrying handguns, but the situation is constructed where it isn’t obvious that they are carrying.
The chance of someone carrying a handgun and attacking another person is probably minute, but the focus on the legislation puts it into the mind and elevates the perceived threat. My parents threw out my Nalgene after the article about BPAs came out. The threat was still the same as before, but now it was in focus and seemed larger than something else, like a car accident, so it overwhelmed the senses.
Of course, that is a poor comparison for the handgun legislation because it concerns a mostly invisible threat (I didn’t know about it before some article came out and my parents read it) that is made transparent.
Something better would be saying that cars pose a constant threat of death, but people freak out about an airplane crashing when the chance of death is lower or they freak out right after an accident, because the threat is pushed into the public consciousness.
Assume that tomorrow someone decreed that It Was Alright To Carry Handguns On Campus. I know I’d freak out. Doesn’t matter who it is, I’d assume they were carrying a handgun and planning to shoot me, my teacher, my classmates, and my laptop…for a week. Then the threat would evaporate.
tl;dr:
Change causes fear because any departure from the status quo implies a departure from ‘safe,’ even if the status quo is non-ideal.
I think you raise a very valid and legitimate point. The truth is there’s no logical reason why we shouldn’t be allowed to carry our guns on campus. People who decide they’re going to go on a campus shooting spree is undoubtedly going to simply ignore any ban against carrying weapons because frankly, they’re going on a campus shooting spree and is unlikely to care about less significant crimes like illegal gun possession.
However, I might suggest there is a very valid but totally illogical reason for banning guns on campus: it just feels weird. I mean, doesn’t it? It seems like class is the kinda place where we shouldn’t be packing. I think it kind of scares people, even if the statistics suggest they’re really safer with a gun in the room.
Yes, there is the off-chance an armed student might “neutralize” a would be campus shooter, and I totally think that students should be allowed to keep guns safely stored in their dorm rooms, without question, but the whole bringing guns to class thing feels a tad excessive. And also, I have no logical reason for that feeling.
And to me this explanation for a ban isn’t totally unprecedented: we rarely make laws based on logical reasons alone. Often laws are leveled against behavior that just feels uncomfortable or dangerous, even if in reality the behavior is not. That doesn’t mean that such laws are always okay (often they are not), it just means that it’s not unheard of to use a “feeling” that a lot of people agree with as a justification for a ban of some kind.
Anyway, just throwing that out there to maybe help explain some of the anti-gun sentiment behind the ban. I’m generally a strong advocate of the right to bear arms otherwise.
Good points. I think where legislation can help the most is in clearly defining things like justifiable homicide. The Reno case sounds legit, but I’m pretty sure I remember hearing of a law in Florida that allows people to fire on others if they feel threatened…even if they haven’t come under threat, but just FEEEEEEL threatened.
“Did you feel threatened Mr. Jones?”
“Yes, Yer-honor”
“Case closed”
This whole handgun debacle is interesting to me because its so easy to come out against it without any reason why.
I’m against the idea of someone carrying a handgun on campus, but really it makes no difference if they do or don’t. Whats the worst that could happen? Someone opens fire on campus? Regardless of legislation allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed handguns, that can (knock wood that it doesn’t) happen any day of the week.
The possession of handguns by sane, rational individuals (as the Reno man appears to be in the article and as I hope anyone who would be carrying a handgun on campus would be) shouldn’t in anyway change my day-to-day life on campus.
Lets evaluate it.
Random Joe is now carrying a handgun to campus. Assuming Random Joe is mentally fit, he goes about his day to day life exactly as normal. Class, work, pint with the boys at Taylors. Nothing is different.
Lets say that Random Joe is not mentally fit. Something just isn’t right and he decides that the best way to demonstrate his grasp of Intermediate Spanish is to take his gun and open fire in class. Regardless of legislation allowing or prohibiting handguns on campus, Random Joe can make this happen.
So whats the worst that can happen if someone has a gun on campus where they were not allowed to have one before? I’m at a loss as to what the downside to this situation is.
The worst I can think of is someone has a gun at a party, gets drunk, and is offended by me, someone else at the party, or the toilet and decides to open fire.
Legislation affecting handguns on campus won’t affect that.
Now, assuming that they do decide to allow handguns on campus, I would be against allowing them in the dorms. It seems baseless to argue against possession of a gun there, but I just have a bad feeling about Random Joe Freshmen getting drunk (all of my ‘worst case examples’ do involve alcohol) or just pissed off and attacking someone else in the dorms. Even if handguns are prohibited, what prevents someone from doing this now? Nothing. I’d just assume that in close living quarters like a dorm, there is a greater chance of someone who isn’t mature or responsible getting a hold of a gun that isn’t theirs and doing something stupid.
So really, it isn’t the gun owners who I think would do something regrettable. Its the same stupid fucks who might open fire now who would open fire then.