The Shooting at Northern Illinois & the Dangerous 'Solution' Proposed by Gun Advocates

by Teh Nutroots |  In "a large lecture hall" at Northern Illinois University, a gunman shot at least people, five of whom are now dead.  Afterwards, he shot himself.  (CNN)  Four died at the scene.  Two more died after being taken to the hospital.  Most were shot in the chest or head. (CNN) 

The gunman stepped out from behind the curtain in a lecture hall at the front of the room and started firing. (CNN)  A student reported: ""He just kicked the door open, just started shooting...All I really heard was just people screaming, yelling 'get out.' ... Close to 30 shots were fired."(CNN)   According to the Chief of Police, the gunman used:  a shotgun, a Glock handgun and a small-caliber handgun.(CNN)  He was still standing at the front of the room when he turned the handgun on himself.(CNN)   

To hear a student describe the slaughter, click here.

The Chicago Tribune has updated information.

The gunman was not a current student at the school of more than 25,000 that rises from cornfields and subdivisions 65 miles west of downtown Chicago, authorities said.

NIU President John G. Peters said the man had been enrolled as a sociology graduate student at NIU but left school last spring. Peters said the gunman had no police record.

Late Thursday, sources confirmed that they have tentatively identified the shooter as a 27-year-old graduate student in social work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Chicago Tribune)

Apparently, security around campus was tightened up last December when police were alerted to racial slurs scribbled on the walls of a restroom.  The scribblings referenced Virginia Tech.  " One of the threats said "things will change most hastily" in the final days of the semester.""(CNN)   At present, "there is no evidence of a link."(CNN) 

On Thursday, NIU President Peters dismissed any connection between the graffiti and Thursday's shooting. University administrators said the school imposed new safety measures after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and upgraded those measures after the Virginia Tech shooting.  (Chicago Tribune)

I feel the same way I did after Virginia Tech.  Expressing sympathy for the victims and their families seems inadequate. Feeling rage on their behalf won't help them either.  But even though there's nothing I can say or do to help, I have these feelings.  I just don't know what to do with them.

At Newshoggers, Cernig says: 

Another tragic incident, following what appears to be a stream of mass-shootings at colleges, schools and malls. I'm as ever loathe to make political points on the day it has happened. I'm sure there will be plenty of comment on other blogs shortly.

I feel the same way.   But a number of people proposing solutions with which I do not agree have already weighed in. The solution they are proposing---lift bans on weapons being taken onto college campus---scares the bejesus out of me.

The advocates of this solution seem to think that if college students were armed, the chances of some of them dying by gun violence would decrease.  This is because they are thinking of only the one scenario:  the psycho shooter opening fire in a classroom.   Do these people not know anyone under 21?  Are they seriously arguing that college campuses would be safer places if a lot of them were walking around with concealed weapons?  Can they really not see that you astronomically increase the odds of gun violence if you expressly authorize students to have guns?   Maybe--though I don't buy it---students with guns would be safer.  What about everyone else?

First, the Gun-Toting Liberal.   The GTL is exercised over the use by MSM of the phrase "the gunman."  He would like them to use "the gutless coward."  I assume this is because the phrase "the gunman" implies that the gun had something to do with the killings.  The GTL thinks things would have gone down differently if all the assembled students were armed.  I'm sure it would:  there'd have been a lot more corpses. 

But he says:

Let’s say just FOUR of our fellow Citizens on this college campus bore arms — would the casualty count REALLY number twenty-one, or would somebody have stepped up to pound the “red dot” of exclamationism (new word — coined by MOI) upon the forehead and spray the “pink mist” behind the GUTLESS COWARD’S SKULLCAP long before this “gunman” GUTLESS COWARD senselessly took his time to load, reload, switch arms, and mow down yet a few others?  I seriously DOUBT it.  (The GTL)

He concludes:  "Stop… the… MADNESS."  So there is one thing in this post that I agree with.  I'm glad.  Except on the gun toting issue, I usually agree with the GTL. 

Sadly, bloodthirstiness and the lust for vengeance seldom helps in these situations.  Most of these people seem to be suicidal.  This shooter turned his own skullcap to pink mist when he'd killed as many as he wanted to. 

I understand why GTL feels this way.  I just don't think his "solution" would necessarily or usually have the outcome he wishes.  In reality, a room full of panicking college students trying to escape imminent death might not include even one seasoned gun users with a sufficiently steady eye and hand to stop the shooter in time (i.e., before he stops himself).   

Instead, there would be a lot of people under 21--many of whom might be angry, unstable, on drugs, depressed, etc with poor impulse control.---carrying weapons to class.  I can think of quite a few college professors who wouldn't have survived to retirement age if I'd had a gun on me at certain moments that occurred back in the day.  I can also think of a few roommates.  All of them are people I liked a lot before and after those particular bad moments passed.

People in their twenties don't necessarily have much sense of the irrevocable.  Most of them are driven by emotion and live in the moment.  Those are not people who should be carrying guns in crowds. 

The Malkin also thinks that the solution to gun violence is...more guns.  Of course she does.  If students with concealed gun permits were able to return fire, gutless cowards would have to work out some other way of killing a lot of people, like coming up from behind them and blasting them in the back before they had time to grab their weapons.
 
The author of Moonbattery says:

I never would have guessed.

Oddly, Northern Illinois University, where an armed maniac wreaked havoc today amid defenseless students and faculty, is another gun-free zone.  (Moonbattery)

All of these arguments strike me as very strange.  These people must know very different college students from the one I know.  I have some experience with college students.  I'm less worried, just on statistical grounds, about making sure they're in a position to return fire in the event of a mass shooting than I am about what would happen if they were allowed to bring guns on campus.  Here are some of the things I'd worry about:

1. Armed students who drink too much, take drugs, or get caught up in the crazy horseplay common to college students..
2. Students who are upset with roommates or boy/girl friends
3. Over-emotional students at sports events.
4. Students who are upset about a grade, negative feedback from a professor (VIRGINIA TECH) or punishment.
5. Students who are depressed, mentally unstable, or going through a bad period.
6. Students who don't really understand "gun safety."
7. Panicky students misperceiving a threat and shooting an innocent person.

I could go on.  In fact, I could easily create a list of 20 more likely scenarios than the armed gunman/mass shooting one, all creating the same risk for students and others:  death or injury by gun.

Nothing says that everyone carrying a concealed weapon onto campus would be a crack shot or calm under fire or mentally stable.  And unless the shooter is too crazy to plan ahead, the shooter would also know that some of the students might be armed.  Wouldn't it occur to him or her to take precautions against this, such as shooting from behind or after making them all lie on the floor?

I realize it's hard for people to think about these issues.  No one wants to see a young person get hurt. I am concerned that the over-reactions of some doubtless  well-meaning people will end up increasing the risk of more tragedies.  Maybe they'd be tragedies on a smaller scale, involving fewer deaths:  i.e., the angry student who shoots his or her roommate, rival, or professor. 

But that would be no consolation to the families of the victims.

MORE AT MEMEORANDUM

Comments

[Robbie]

Can they really not see that you astronomically increase the odds of gun violence if you expressly authorize students to have guns?

Every single study and analysis of crimes involving guns that have been committed by legally licensed weapons owners refutes your statement and your anti-gun fears.

Legally licensed gun owners are perhaps the single most law abiding group of citizens in our society.

Crime statistics back it up. Yours is just empty rhetoric.

[Teh Nutroots]

I see. And every college student who owns a gun is a member of the most law-abiding group of citizens in the country. QED! My fears are resolved.

But here's a small problem: might that statistic change if students were encouraged to own/carry guns? Might we not get a few carrying guns who weren't quite of the caliber (no pun intended) of your 'law abiding legally licensed gun owners'?

Or are gun licenses magic so that as soon as someone gets one he or she becomes law-abiding?

If you can't see that your argument is abject bloody nonsense, there's not a lot more I can say.

[Rev. Keith A. Gordon]

Actually, the author is being somewhat disingenuous here with his cautionary tales of drunken college students with semi-autos...a "gun free zone" also means that the ADULTS on campus are unarmed as well. Perhaps if one adult on the scene of these campus shootings had been armed, the tragedy could have been cut short...perhaps not. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The problem here isn't guns, which are just an inanimate tool. It's trite, but guns DON'T kill people...and neither do knives or any other weapon. The problem is that, as a society, we have taught at least two generations of children that violence is the way to deal with their problems and emotions. The use of guns makes this violence more efficient and horrific.

Until we begin showing our children that violence should only be used in self-defense and that there are better ways to resolve their issues, these tragedies will continue. Change must come from the top down, however, and in a world of "pre-emptive" wars, waterboarding, citizen spying and reckless imperialism, what are we teaching the next generation?

[geniusiknowit]

OMG College students can't be trusted with guns because they are always emotional, drunk, and stoned!!!!

And yet, we trust them cars and let them have drivers licenses. They're allowed to purchase combustible materials such as gasoline, which could be used to burn down a dorm or house while everyone sleeps. There are no laws preventing this notoriously unstable group from purchasing propane tanks which could be used to make bombs. We even let some of them have access to dangerous chemicals in the chemistry labs! Any first year chemistry student can make enough dynamite to blow up dozens of other students and faculty. Or, suppose that chemistry student also worked in the cafeteria... he could easily poison everyone with arsenic, digitoxin, ricin. Heck, if such a person had a little bit of patience and planning... say, the kind of patience and planning it takes to research guns, make videos of ones self to mail to the media, etc., then one could just as easily make and use botulin.

Obviously, this individual was quite emotional, depressed, unstable, and yet he still managed to get a gun. But it's probably better that way, as he only managed to kill 5 people. If he had a car, he could've killed at least 7, like someone did last night in Maryland.

There are just too many likely scenarios where a college student could go on a killing rampage using any of the numerous ways there are to kill lots of people.

Our best option is to ban college.

[Teh Nutroots]

MY COLLEAGUE RESPONDS [he asked me to post this for him]: This is, of course, a ridiculous argument. Guns are made to be used to kill people. Those other things CAN be used. But they don't have the same potential to spray death throughout an entire classroom.

[Damozel]

REV. KEITH A. GORDON: I don't think he was intentionally 'disingenuous.' At our local campus, the university police DO have guns---yet it's a 'gun free' zone. I am all for security guards being armed and having more of them. I am not for allowing students having guns. (My colleague does, in fact, oppose all guns, as does my British husband.)