http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fwUxBD0d7A
NOTE: Woods makes some very poorly arguments in this interview
I bet the kids hiding under their desks would have loved to have a choice.
That exercising an option may not have helped some people does not justify denying that option to all others.
This is why we see so many mass murders in police stations. (/s)
Written from the land of Polly & Anna. At the very least if any of the two professors who were killed had handguns this incident would have been stopped cold. Both of them were retired Army Officers (one Israeli) and proficient with weapons. They were trained to react in a crisis and succeed.
When the coming war finally arrives I do NOT want this little boy on my side.
I've not read about the Ft. Hood murderer being licensed for concealed carry. The military doesn't license people to carry concealed. Poor argument.
“According to the detectives, Maxine — the girl I mentioned, who died in German class — never saw the shooter come in. What good would a gun have done her?”
how do they know that “she didn’t see him come in”?
This was written by a person in college (Junior or Senior)? YIKES!
“They enter expecting to die.”
Well, let’s help them meet their expectations, then....
The questions:
1) This guy prefers a law that ensures a law abiding and responsible demographic not be allowed access to the best tools to stop a rampaging mental case like the VT killer. I can’t understand the philosophy that it is better to sit and await death than it is to actively try to stop murders.
2) It infuriates me that no one cares that we protect our money with the force of a gun, but get their panties in a wad when we suggest that we guard our children the same way.
3) The fact that the police would have shot anyone with a gun is moot. The police weren’t there until late in the situation, and in the end, didn’t even kill the one guy on campus who had a gun. If I have to choose between being shot now by a rampaging loony, or perhaps being shot later by police who are mistaken, I’ll take the latter.
4) The two deaths that he cites might never have happened had someone been able to stop the killer through armed force at the outset.
5) Hasan, whether or not he had a permit to carry, is irrelevant. He did not have permission to carry where the shooting took place, so how would a carry permit be a contributing factor? On the other hand, what if just one of the people who was killed that day had the means to fight back?
6) Go back and look the previous VA school shooting. Much different ending due to armed response. None of this guy’s paranoid ravings came to pass here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
This entire article is based on feel-goodism and fantasy. This guy should know better.
In most states, there is no way to determine what percentage of violent crimes are committed by concealed carry permit holders.
Whiskey Tango Fox?
Colonel, USAFR
Judge
Prosecutor
CHL holder
Look at the Ft. Hood attack. You had trained soldiers running for their lives because they were unarmed.
Yet when they were oversees fighting for their country, they were armed and would continually go towards danger.
If you unarm otherwise brave men, their first instinct is to run away and hide in the face of gunfire.
Bottom line, you cannot assume what the students would have done had they been armed.
With a legal STATE CCW permit I’d carry anyway. Deal with the consequences on campus later. Carry guns are now so sleek a pocket carry is not noticable .
The one point he made in his entire argument was right, but for the wrong reasons. That is, a student waving around a legal gun is likely to be shot by the police. But this goes against the entire concept of concealed carry, which gives you a huge tactical edge *until* you brandish your gun.
While I have no objection to those who prefer open carry, I would personally never do so, because I would lose so much advantage in a gun fight.
Heck, I wouldn’t want my opponent to even see my knife in a knife fight, so I would hide it behind my wrist until it was used.
The second I see a gunman, I try to maneuver towards cover if possible. Towards cover and concealment if at all possible. If he feels my bullets before he sees my gun, fine with me. And if he sees angels before he sees me, that is fine with me as well.
And a point of style: if I see a police officer’s shoes, I see no compelling reason to make myself known. If I see a police officer with gun drawn, they are busy, so no reason for me to distract him from what he is doing.
Most important of all, if the opportunity to bug out with reasonable safety happens, take it. It is not your job to gun down desperados, unless you have to, need to, or are given the opportunity to.
prolly needed somethin for his resume...
Look for this guy to be the latest Cindy Sheehan/Meghan McCain all over the tube, including Larry King, The View, Daily Show, etc.
I am firmly convinced that only a liberal fool would utter such a meaningless assertion. I say liberal, because of the display of static thinking.
This statement contains the evidence of static thinking, the girl I mentioned, who died in German class -- never saw the shooter come in. What good would a gun have done her? First of all were others armed there is the possibility the shooter would never have reached the German class, second, if the girl were armed she would have had the opportunity to be prepared to shoot first.
As for shootings with fewer victims, it's hard to tell. No it isn’t hard to tell, it is obvious fewer victims would be the result if others were armed. Static thinking liberals have never understood the wisdom of the observation that an armed society is a polite society, and likely they never will.