Once again gun free zones lead to killings.

Sadly I must report that the gun-free zone initiatives have once again taken their toll with a mass shooting at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. As a native of the state this is a bit disturbing. It has been confirmed that an armed man entered a lecture hall and started shooting. As of the last reports five students were killed and the gunman then inflicted justice on himself by taking his own life. Pity he didn’t start there.

Northern Illinois University is basically a gun-free zone. The policy on campus states: “Students who wish to bring firearms to the campus must obtain written permission from the chief security officer of the university. Firearms must be stored at the University Security Office except with written permission of the chief security officers of the university. At no time will any of the above dangerous weapons be allowed in the university residence halls.”

I guess this means the killer must have had written permission! Otherwise he was breaking the code of conduct for the university. Apparently that didn’t worry him. He could count on most students obeying the conduct code and thus was assured that the chances of any of his victims being able to resist was minimal. Once again the gun-free zone mentality painted targets on the backs of students.

This blog has documented how gun-free zones are magnets for deranged lunatics who realize that these zones allow them to find unarmed victims, in large quantities, in a confined location. It is perfect hunting territory for some loser intent on killing lots of people.

We have also documented numerous cases where gunmen unexpectedly faced armed resistance at schools or other areas. In these cases the shootings ended quickly with no, or few, casualties. When gunmen meet armed resistance their ability to slaughter people drops dramatically.

If you wish to see an index of many of our articles on gun control and gun free zones go here.

Armed resistances saves lives in would-be mass shooting.

This blog has argued that “gun free zones” attract individuals who want to kill numerous people. If a would-be killer wants to kill a number of people for his own warped reasons it is best for his plans if the potential victims are unarmed. So gun free zones are perfect hunting grounds. The second component that they want are large numbers of people in a relatively confined space.

With these criteria in place you can almost name the potential locations for such mass killings: schools, shopping malls, and churches are all potential targets. I would suspect many churches discourage or ban members from carrying weapons into the church.

In Colorado Springs a gunman opened fired on members of the church. Reports say the man entered the foyer of the massive church and started shooting. He killed one person and wounded five but his shooting spree came to an abrupt end when a church security shot and killed the man.

The church in question was previously pastored by Ted Haggard who resigned amidst a drugs/sex scandal. Rev. Brady Boyd of the church said he saw the shooting from his office window and he said that the armed security guard saved “many, many” lives by killing the gunman before more individuals could be hurt.

There is little information available but it is thought the killer might have been involved in a shooting at a missionary outfit the previous night. Under “gun free” circumstances this shooting had the clear potential of leading to the deaths of many more people. Disarming potential victims of mass shooters doesn’t save lives.

In a previous post we outlined numerous other cases where armed resistance to would-be mass killers ended the shooting spree quickly saving many lives.

A quick index to our articles on guns, gun control and gun free zones.

The reality is that thousands of people are currently coming to this site to read what we have to say about gun control, self-defense, etc. In light of that reality, brought on by the recent unfortunate results, I thought it useful to list below the specific articles we have and where they may be found. Most of these were written before this recent tragedy. And do remember we write about lots of other topics. Browse the archives or do a search on topics.

Total control of guns is total control of people. Some people now want total control of guns, much like total control of illegal drugs. And we all know how well that has worked. So exactly how much control is ncessary?

The failure of the state and national tragedies. Government is not able to respond quickly to tragedies, not as quickly as the civilian population can. Monopolizing response to the state is harmful in several ways. And we uncover a fifth case of a school shooting that ended by armed response on the spot.

Virginia Tech student's plea: Why was I disarmed? A student from the university who is qualified to carry a weapon discusses the helplessness of being left undefended. And we discuss a fifth case where a mass shooting ended due to armed intervention by someone on the scene.

Oppression, bigotry, dignity and the necessity of self-defense: This article discusses how the most marginalized in any society are often the very people most in need of being able to defend themselves.

When killers meet armed resistance: This discusses four cases of mass shooting where the killer unexpectedly found himself facing an armed victim. In all cases no further innocent victims were created.

Penn & Teller on Gun Control: This is a video of Penn & Teller presenting one view of gun control in their unique style.

The high cost of gun control: What happened when guns were outlawed in the UK. Gun crime escalated.

Gun free zones and mass shootings: laid out the argument that there is a link between mass shootings and gun free zones, a link sadly proven correct by recent events.

School shooting, blame evolution, ignore bullies: Discusses how some Right wing nuts were blaming shootings on teaching evolution but argued that bullying was rampant at schools and is often behind such shootings or at the very least a factor. A no bullying zone would be quite useful.

Virginia Tech student's plea: why was I disarmed?

--------------------The faces of some of the victims.

A Virginia Tech graduate student has written a potent and powerful piece about how he was left unarmed and vulnerable and unnecessarily so. Bradford Wiles, in the Roanoke Times, described being evacuated from his classroom and suddenly realizing, as he is fleeing, “that I had no viable means of protecting myself.”

He wrote:

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.

I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.

This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.

I feel incredibly silly right now because his writing has made so clear how unnecessary this tragedy was. I feel silly because the thought that all those people didn’t have to die has me sitting at my computer with tears in my eyes. It just wasn’t necessary. People died. Thousands, probably tens of thousands are suffering because of it.

I don’t love violence. I can’t even watch war films without getting upset. To this day I’ve never seen Saving Pvt. Ryan and I never will. Anything that shows someone being abused or physically hurt sickens me and I usually turn away. It is not a love of guns or a love of violence that compels my position. It is a love of, and for, people.

And sometimes policies on the Left are humane and sometimes not. Ditto for the Right. I fluctuate between the two constantly and for that reason. Often what the Left thinks is their most humane views are not due to unintended consequences and their lack of knowledge about the incentives they create. The same is true for the Right. I just don’t want people to suffer needlessly. And what happened at Virginia Tech may not have been entirely preventable but the suffering could have been minimized. Bradford Wiles plea ought to be heeded.

Please note that most the victims of this killer were actually older students and faculty. As I have outlined already the majority of the victims were over 21 years of age with about a third being older than 30. They were not kids fresh out of high school but mature individuals who could be trusted.

In a previous post I noted that there were four cases of mass shootings which ended before the police arrived due to an individual being present who had a gun or quick access to a gun. When I wrote that I said I suspected there were probably more. Here is another case.

Fifteen year old Charles Williams was upset because he was being bullied at school. On March 5, 2001 Williams stole a gun from his father and took it to school. In the boy’s toilet he opened fire. He killed two and shot 13 others. According to CNN “authorities with guns drawn arrested the suspect in the bathroom.” Close but not exactly accurate either.

Robert Clark was a parent, he was at the school, with his wife, to register his daughter for attendance when the shooting happened. He was also an off-duty police officer who was carrying a weapon. Jim Fotis, of Law Enforcement Alliance of America says that Clark: “courageously acted to save lives by confronting the armed killer, ordering him to surrender and preventing him from killing or harming countless others.”

No doubt the authorities had their guns drawn and no doubt they arrested him. But the man who ended the shooting was Robert Clark not the police who responded to the call. Deputy Ali Perez of the San Diego Police Department told CNN that when he got the call he went as fast as he could but “fortunately for me, there was an off-duty San Diego P.D. officer there, Bob Clark, who was there a minute and a half before I was, two minutes before I was.”

Clark said he had just pulled up to the school with his wife when he say large numbers of students outside. He thought it a bit odd but didn’t give it too much thought. Inside he saw the facial expressions on the staff and asked what was wrong. He was told that there had just been some shots fired.

Clark immediately headed for the location of the shooting passing gun shot victims along the way. He cornered the suspect in the bathroom and contained him there preventing further victims. Even if Clark had contained the shooter only a few minutes earlier when it comes to multiple shooting cases a few minutes can mean another dozen or so victims.

Fotis and his organization of law officers are trying to relax the laws so that police officers are allowed to carry weapons while off duty. Just as gun regulations prevented students at Virginia Tech from defending themselves they also restrict and regulate police officers unless they are on jurisdictional duty. Off duty and outside their jurisdiction they are liable to the regulations just like anyone else. Fotis writes, “as a retired police officer, I can tell you trying to understand the patchwork of federal, state and local law concerning carrying firearms across this nation is nearly impossible.” He says the “maze of regulations is so daunting that many officers simply choose not to carry their firearms rather than risk being prosecuted for a criminal act.”

Trained police officers who stop a violent criminal using their service revolver can be arrested for doing so if the jurisdiction does not allow one to carry weapons. It doesn’t matter that they are police officers if they are not on duty and not inside their jurisdiction. Yet LEAA documents numerous cases where police officers outside their jurisdiction save lives because of it. The Trolley Square shooting was one example I have used. LEAA offers many, many more examples.

And while we are at it here is another case that while not a school shooting ought to count as similar at the very least. Shawn Clark was an off-duty police officer when he was went to deliver some milk to a day care center. He expects children but finds a knife-wielding felon inside the building. Sure it wasn’t a shooting but a criminal with a knife can still kill a lot of kids in a very short time. Clark and the man fought, Clark shot him twice, still the man fled the scene but was apprehended soon after.

No one can say what would have happened if an armed man delivering milk had not stopped by the day care center at that precise moment. Maybe nothing. Maybe something horrendous.

In a few cases we out have outlined individuals with guns were coincidentally within a “gun free zone” at the time of a shooting. In the five cases documented so far that coincidence prevented the slaughter of more victims. It was pure coincidence that someone had a gun available at that time. It was luck. Shooters rely on the gun free zones being actually gun free, that is what they need to do their horrendous deeds. Removing the gun free restrictions may not always prevent such lunatics from expressing their rage but is sure does up the odds against them.

Photo: Some of the people killed inside the gun free zone.

Dozens massacred in gun free zone. AGAIN!

The news is still coming in but another tragedy has taken place on a school campus in the United States at Virginia Technical University. A gunman, in the early morning hours entered a dormitory and started shooting students. Several hours later he returned and walked into a second building and did the same thing. Almost three dozen are dead as a result.

I had a horrified fear in the pit of my stomach the moment I read this story. I suspected the reason that this slaughter would could on for so long. And a partial answer is found in the fate of a piece of legislation in the Virginia legislature known as HB 1572. You no doubt haven’t heard about it.

The legislation went to the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. And the vote was a quick one. The process was over almost before it began. A spokesman for Virginia Tech was thrilled at the results. He said: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on campus.” Wonderful!

People at Virginia Tech were going to feel safe on campus. The legislation in question didn’t pass. It failed. It failed the first hurdle in the legislature. It was legislation that would have allowed students and faculty at Virginia Tech and other universities to carry firearms if they had a valid concealed handgun permit.

Virginia Tech was famous for being a “gun free zone”. In June of 2005 a student, who had a gun permit, had a firearm on him when he went onto campus. He was disciplined as a result. At that time the governing board of the university approved another policy which made things loud and clear, they would never allow employees or students to carry firearms for self defense. The governing board openly, publicly, loudly, announced to the world they had disarmed every person on the campus.

Every person except, of course, any person who didn’t mind violating the law because he was going to break far more laws that day. And that is precisely what happened. When a person is intent on murder then violating a gun free zone is of little consequence to them. It will not and can not stop that person. It is of major consequence to the law abiding students and faculty, people who have no intentions to harm anyone and want to live peacefully with one another. The ramifications of violating the rules can be high for them. They could lose their job or be expelled.

So they abide the law and disarm. They are stripped of the ability ot defend themselves and must rely on the state and the state alone. That the gunman was able to walk back on campus two after his first shooting spree tells you something about relying on the state for your safety.

The killer walked into the the West Ambler Johnston dormitory looking for a girl in particular. He casually lined up his victims in a row and began shooting them. He could afford to be casual, he was pretty confident that no dormroom door would open up and an armed student would exit to put an end to his actions. The only person on campus, at that moment, who really knew he was safe was the killer. He was the only one armed. The university made sure of it.

All the school could do was tell students to hide and hope they weren’t found. The campus apparently was a real no gun zone since no one on campus appeared able to stop the killing. Students in the dorm were not evacuated by the school but told to stay put and go into lockdown. One girl in the dormitory said: “They had us under lockdown. They temporarily lifted the lockdown, the gunman shot again.”

And, pardon my language, but someone has to ask what the fuck the police were doing during all this? If the first shooting takes place at 7:15 and then again at 9:15 in the engineering building, this means the killer had two hours to wander the campus.

While details are still sketchy this report has some disturbing implications. It appears that the bulk of the killing took place in the classroom two hours after the first killings. Police were on the scene. Doing what? The gunman can walk from the dorm to the engineering building, all the way on the opposite side of the 2,600 acre campus, and kill there two hours later without anyone stopping him. One student complained about this: “That’s pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they’re sending out the e-mail [telling students of the first shooting], 22 more people got killed.”

According to the local police chief there was only one death from the dormitory shooting. It that remains to be true that would mean that something like 29 people were killed two hours later by the same gunman on the same campus. If the police were unable to defend students after a two hour warning that a killer was on campus shooting people then just how much time do they need to get their act together? And the school’s response was to tell students in the classrooms to lock the doors and huddle in the middle of the room. Brilliant! Why not just have them wear uniforms with targets on their backs.

These are the people that the students MUST trust to defend their lives because these people stripped them of the ability to defend themselves.

The school was oblivious to the facts. One press report states: “A gasp could be heard at a campus news conference when the police chief said at least 20 people had been killed. Previously, only one person was thought to have been killed.” They were holding a press conference to state one had been killed when they learned it was 20, the number is now set in the low 30s.

On February 15, this blog wrote:

“If you want to kill a large number of people you really don’t want them shooting back at you. Even if you are intent on dying their action can prevent you from accomplishing your goal. If mass killing is your goal you want your victims to be unarmed. And if you want unarmed victims then you are attracted to a “gun free zone” of one kind or another.

So to accomplish your goal you are looking for several things. One is to find a crowded location. You can’t kill lots of people if there aren’t lots of people. You need a confined space. Otherwise your targets can escape too easily. And you want people who are unarmed.

Not a lot of places fit that bill. Certainly shopping malls, if they restrict firearms, fit that bill. Schools would qualify as well.

It seems that most the “mass shootings” we have witnessed in the United States take place within gun free zones. I know people say guns are the problem. But oddly these mass shootings don’t occur at gun shows”

It angers me greatly to have this observation proven correct once again. If I had the power to be proven wrong about this I would grab it. I would reverse the killing. I have never owned a firearm. I prefer not to live in a world where such things are necessary. But wishing doesn’t make it so. Criminals will always have access to weapons and they will make the defenceless their prey. Only when individuals are free to protect themselves does this sort of mass killing end quickly.

If only 10% of the people at Virginia Tech had concealed weapon permits it is unlikely that this man could have continued on two hours later to execute another huddled batch of unarmed victims. The tragic shooting at the mall in Salt Lake City, another “gun free zone” ended because one patron, an off duty cop, of the mall was actually armed.

Once again disarming an entire population of people in one concentrated location has lead to a massacre. A gun free zone is a breeding ground for mass killings.

UPDATE: The most recent information is that 32 plus the gunman were killed in the shooting. Two victims died in the first shooting. The rest were slaughtered two hours later while the campus was crawling with police. It is also clear that 11 minutes after the second slaughter began the university sent emails to students telling them to remain in the buildings. Of course the gunman was inside. No warning was emailed after the first attack. It was two hours later, and after the second attack, that the email went out.

Note: You can read of what happens in similar cases when the shooter finds some of the victims are armed.

Gun free zones and mass shootings.

One thing about the tragedy in Salt Lake City was bothering me. Something didn’t make sense.

We know the basic facts. One individual decided to kill lots of people. He went to a crowded, confined space to do so -- the Trolley Square shopping mall. Within seconds he killed five people. An off duty cop from another city was having dinner with his wife. He hears the gun shots and confronts the killer. The off duty officer is armed. This stops the rampage, and from that point on the only additional death was that of the killer.

What bothered me was why this off duty cop was the only individual to respond. There were a large group of people in a card shop, where the most deaths took place. Why were none of them armed? In fact why were all the other shoppers apparently unarmed? Or was everyone too frightened to confront the killer?

The fright theory doesn’t work well. If you are standing in a crowd and someone is randomly shooting into this crowd even if terrified you shoot back.

Could the gun owners have all fled the scene seeking safety? All the indications are that people were trapped. People in shops couldn’t get out except by running past the gunman. So they hid, they sought cover, they couldn’t flee for the most part.

It is also possible that by some bizarre coincidence people in that general vicinity were all unarmed. Even in the West, where carrying a firearm is legal, it is possible that one could gather a group of a few hundred or thousand people in one spot and have none of them armed. Possible just not likely. We even know that lots of supporters of gun control routinely arm themselves!

So what explained the derth of armed citizens at that moment? Why was there only one person in the entire mall, other than the killer, who was armed?

And the answer came by reading a secondary article in the Salt Lake City Tribune. I always prefer going to a local newspaper as their coverage is usually more detailed. In this article they discuss the debate on gun control -- though in Utah there is not much of a debate. They quote one opponent of victim disarmament as asking: “How many people left their firearms home Monday night because they were afraid of violating a rule?”

Rule? What rule? The paper clarified, “referring to the signs at Trolley Square prohibiting firearms.”

Bingo!

Now mind you I acknowledge a property owner’s right to restrict access to his property contingent upon certain limits on behaviour. A shop owner may prevent smoking in his shop. He may forbid weapons in his shop. When I owned a business I stopped smoking in the shop but never restricted people from carrying a firearm.

This choice ought to belong to the owner of the mall. And apparently they restricted the carrying of firearms. I don’t know if that meant the off-duty officer was in violation of the rule but off hand it sounds as if he was. Good thing too! And I suspect the mall won’t be having a go at him for being armed.

From the description of events it is unlikely anything could have been done fast enough to save the lives of the people outside the mall who were killed first. But I can see that, had shoppers been allowed to carry guns, this would have ended sooner than it did. Certainly the people trapped in the card store, who were picked off and shot, would have fired back and there is a good chance the horror would have ended then.

Had that have happened a couple of lives would have been saved. Tthe incident would have ended before the one armed shopper had time to arrive.

The mall was basically a private “gun free” zone. Of course the problem is that individuals who want to kill people usually don’t worry about violating rules like that. And this raises a question. Was this mall targeted by this young man because it had signs up saying guns were restricted?

If you want to kill a large number of people you really don’t want them shooting back at you. Even if you are intent on dying their action can prevent you from accomplishing your goal. If mass killing is your goal you want your victims to be unarmed. And if you want unarmed victims then you are attracted to a “gun free zone” of one kind or another.

So to accomplish your goal you are looking for several things. One is to find a crowded location. You can’t kill lots of people if there aren’t lots of people. You need a confined space. Otherwise your targets can escape too easily. And you want people who are unarmed.

Not a lot of places fit that bill. Certainly shopping malls, if they restrict firearms, fit that bill. Schools would qualify as well.

It seems that most the “mass shootings” we have witnessed in the United States take place within gun free zones. I know people say guns are the problem. But oddly these mass shootings don’t occur at gun shows. And there is a reason for that. Consider the man in New Zealand who decided to rob a gun store with a machete. That didn’t work out very well for him.

And whatever perverse motives these sick killers have it doesn’t work out very well for their plans if they attack people who are armed. They prefer unarmed victims and a sign proclaiming a specific location as one where guns are not allowed is like a magnet to such lunatics.

The signs forbidding firearms may have disarmed the shoppers for the most part. But it had no impact on the killer nor would it. Breaking a rule like that is the least of his concerns. But it did mean that the shoppers were a prime target and that may explain why the Trolley Square Mall was targeted in the first place.

Note: For information on the Virginia Tech shootings go here.