“Unless he’s former military, there’s a damn good chance he’s never been in a firefight before.”

This is true of the millions of folks each year that use firearms defensively, and yet in very few cases do the fears you expressed come to pass.

“He’s an unknown variable that’s just as dangerous as the original gunman” except that he’s not. Someone actively trying to rack up a body count of as many innocent, unarmed victims as he can is far, far more dangerous than one or more individuals engaging an active shooter. I would argue that if you find yourself in a classroom with a spree shooter, you are no worse off if there is a lawful CCW holder in there with you.

Even if the CCW holder did shoot an innocent person, as tragic as that would be, it’s no worse a fate than being shot by the homicidal maniac between that person and the only exit in the classroom. Shot is shot, in other words. If I had to take my chances between an armed maniac bent on mass murder walking through a classroom unopposed with me in it, or my being caught in a crossfire between that maniac and another person shooting at the maniac, I’d take my chances on the crossfire.

Consider: Nearly every spree shooter on record has either surrendered or committed suicide as soon as any credible resistance is offered. In the case of a CCW at the scene, that resistance is offered and the end of the spree may occur before law enforcement even arrives on the scene. There are several recorded instances of CCW offering effective resistance to spree shooters both here and abroad. See here for a list of some: .

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/01/one-armed-citizen.html Marine goes on shooting spree-armed citizen on scene concurrent with police disarmed the shooter.

http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/12/10/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens-2/

These stories tend to not get as much airplay, as the lower bodycount “doesn’t lead because it doesn’t bleed”

Maybe we will or maybe we won’t have consensus. Even if we don’t, it’s nice to chat with folks who think differently.

This is called “magical thinking.” Magical thinking is when you pretend that by controlling the behavior of one group you will have the magic effect of controlling the behavior of another group. In this case you are trying to control the behavior of the most law abiding people on the planet in the vain hope that you will control the behavior of someone who plans a school shooting. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the breakdown of logic in that attempt.

I know that people like me scare you. I can’t help your reaction to me. In the end, your irrational reaction to people who lawfully carry guns is your problem. But look at it logically. Go and view the videos from the Columbine massacre. In them you will see the helpless victims cowering under tables, getting shot at close range by two kids who have no fear of anyone fighting back. Now add one person with a gun to fight back. Assume that everything you fear comes true. Assume he’s a terrible shot, and every bullet misses. Did the scenario get any worse? How could it? The two murderers had free reign to kill. It’s a worst case scenario. There is nothing you or I could do that would make this situation worse.

Being helpless in this sort of situation is your choice. You don’t have the right to demand that I be helpless. It’s my body, so it’s my choice.

But I don’t think that adding to the volume of weapons on a campus is wise. Sure, the guy sitting next to me in trig carrying is (likely) a forthright person, as he’s carrying openly. But if there were shooting to break out nearby, how am I to know that guy’s reaction, much less his accuracy? Unless he’s former military, there’s a damn good chance he’s never been in a firefight before. He’s an unknown variable that’s just as dangerous as the original gunman, making the scene more chaotic for law enforcement. I think it’s better to remove that variable from the equation entirely.

I saw this article linked a the CSGV facebook page, and I felt I should add my thoughts to the discussion.

It sounds as though the author is assuming that since it is illegal to bring firearms onto campus, that the dude next to him in trig class is not carrying a gun. The simple fact is that he has no way of knowing that this is true, and assuming that something just isn’t done simply because it is illegal is a bit naive. Perhaps we ought to bass a law making murder illegal-think of all the lives we could save!

Im not writing this with the intent of disrespecting anyone this is just my opinion, but reading this article stired up a flury of emotions for me. Its focus is missleading to the population in a sence that it focuses on the traditional food of thanksgiving. But why isnt anybody questioning nature of the holliday itself? what are we realy cellebrating when we stuff ourselves to the point of almost throwing up? Lets travle back in time to whene the pilgrims had this nice dinner with the native americans. The dinner in itself signifies the unity between the native americans and the the pilgrims. But now that we look at all the things that have happened to the native americans since, we find that Americans tried to de-culturalize, de-humanize and murrder every single idiginous human being they could. Thanksgiving to me is a dispicable holliday, it shouldnt be a day that we give thanks for having such amazing lifes,we can do that anyday! It should be a day where we remember the atrocities commited to the Natives of not just america but all over the world. Thats why on thanksgiving, or as many critical minded people like to call it, thanks-taking, I choose to fast in honor and rememberance of all the natives ever affected by colonization and genocide. To me this holliday would be no different than if Germany had a holliday celebrating The holocost.

Just a thought!

- Karen