Tragedy at NIU
by KevinFebruary 15th, 2008
A gunman opened fire in an auditorium at NIU while a lecture was being conducted. He has killed at least six and himself. I’ve been on that campus several times
I am just going to repost what I posted after Va Tech:
Okay, so its pretty clear that the fights over gun control are going to go on whether we wish for them to or not. Instapundit and his ilk started in almost immediately with the “if they had more guns this might not have happened!”. To be fair, I am sure there are some gun control advocates who started in with the opposite argument almost immediately. Insty is nuts; having more people armed in a situation like that is a recipe for more innocent deaths, not less. Considering that no state requires people to go through training on how to deal with a random, chaotic, panic filled situation and how to identify legitimate targets in such situations, it is completely unreasonable to expect that armed students would have done anything other than add to the chaos and death. Life is not like a bad revenge fantasy movie. The deterrent argument is just as silly. The man who did this was broken. Sane people do not commit random massacres. You cannot deter someone who is that far gone, who has so abandoned his connection to humanity, to himself, to his loved ones that he would walk into a crowded place and open fire. The point at which such a person could be deterred from anything has long since passed.
A lot of the gun control arguments will probably turn out to be just as silly. Its far, far too late to bad guns in this country, even if we could. Besides, the weapon was probably purchased legally. The only gun control that would make sense would be some methodology for keeping people who are depressed/homicidal/etc from getting legal weapons and to require a psych exam on a regular basis to catch gun owners who have slipped into such a broken state. But I am not a psychiatrist, so I have no idea if that notion is practical.
At the end of the day this was an extraordinary event and as such it is a lousy template upon which to build policy or narratives. I understand the desire to, to some extent. People are hard wired to want to know, to understand why things happen. Insty is telling himself a fairy tale to make himself feel better, to allow himself to believe that what happened at VT fits into the neat, understandable world we all think we inhabit. It doesn’t and it cannot be made to. It wasn’t neat; it wasn’t understandable; it didn’t belong in the worlds we try and make for ourselves. It was horrific in part because it reminded us how fragile those worlds, those stories we tell ourselves about hard work and decency and rewards and the good life really are.
What happened yesterday has almost nothing to tell us about gun control, aside from a reminder that its a good idea to keep firearms away form the mentally and emotionally broken. No matter how we may wish otherwise, none of the fairy tales of deterrence or reprisal or prohibition can no more explain what went wrong yesterday than philosophers can define beauty. Stop trying to find that explanation. Let the living bury their dead in peace. The arguments don’t really have much to do with them, anyway.
Categories: General |
>Insty is nuts; having more people armed in a situation
>like that is a recipe for more innocent deaths, not less.
>Considering that no state requires people to go through
>training on how to deal with a random, chaotic, panic
>filled situation and how to identify legitimate targets in
>such situations, it is completely unreasonable to expect
>that armed students would have done anything other than
>add to the chaos and death.
The GMUSL shooting ramapage was stopped by a bystander with a carry permit. As was the recent Omaha mall shooting rampage. As was the recent Colorado Springs church shooting rampage. I’ve also read of other instances where shooting rampages were stopped by armed bystanders, but I don’t have the time to go look them up.
On the other hand, can you name any cases where a CCW permit holder attempted to intervene in a shooting rampage and accidentally shot someone other than the shooter?
SD
Lookup the history of the Robert green Homes and ask that question again. And don’t say “well, they aren’t CCW” becasue CCW training is a joke. Those people in the Homes were dong what you advocate: using their weapons to stop gunfire. And look what it did.
The Omaha mall shooter killed himself.
The person in the Chruch was a security guard, not a random person in the street. The Church itself described her as highly trained.
I cannot find out anything about GMUSL shooting, but those instances don;t say what you imply they say. In one, the person killed himself; in the other a highly trained private security person did the shooting.
Googling ‘Robert Green Homes’ is only returning stuff about homes designed by the architect Robert Green. Could you provide me a bit more to go on?
>The Omaha mall shooter killed himself.
After being confronted by an armed shopper.
After the Colorado church shooting, my church implemented a plan to deal with such a crisis. We have several police officers who attend our church. They now bring their weapons to church. We have over 30 people with CWPs. On certain Sundays they will patrol the church campus. The police know their identities and when they are assigned to patrol. Although only a few of us know the specifics of the plan, it is publicized that we have a security plan in place. I feel safer at church than I do on a school campus.
SD
Typo — Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, the housing project. Thought it applies to any of the housing projects in Chicago in the 90s.
And the key was confronted, not that the person had a gun.
Fred wrote: ” They now bring their weapons to church. We have over 30 people with CWPs.”
What Would Jesus Do?
Why, get a concealed weapons permit, of course!
Janusz > you’re probably right.
“Big U writes:
Janusz > you’re probably right.”
He wouldn’t need to. He could raise the dead.
BTW, Jan, quoting part of a post to try to make it say something it doesn’t say is dishonest. Of course, I expect nothing less from a liberal.
Morris wrote: “BTW, Jan, quoting part of a post to try to make it say something it doesn’t say is dishonest. Of course, I expect nothing less from a liberal.”
Oh Morris/Fred or whatever you’re calling yourself these days, I was merely pointing out the discrepancy between the words of the Prince of Peace and some of his followers. It’s funny, your Taliban-style brand of Christianity is very harsh when it comes to criticizing the beliefs and actions of others, but there seems to be wiggle-room when it comes to the behavior of you and your brethren.
Why does it make me a Taliban-style Christian because I want to be defended in my place of worship? What a nutty thing for you to think.
No, the comment about Taliban-style Christianity refers to your harsh expectations regarding the beliefs and behavior of other people. You claim to pattern yourself after Christ, using Him as a model to follow. But unless I’ve missed something, I don’t recall Him carrying concealed weapons (in fact, quite the opposite).
You seem to hold other people to a more restrictive standard than yourself. That was clearly stated in my post above.
Good grief!
Jan, which post in this blog set off your wild rant?