Oh! The survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre. Got it...
I'm a graduate of Virginia Tech, as well. Walked the same halls in which so many good, young people died. What's so special about Colin? That he was shot? Does anyone really think he speaks for any of the 32 students who died?
He certainly doesn't speak for me.
I read Colin's
op-ed piece, and would like to comment on his points:
Student Seung-Hui Cho shot me in my hips, shoulder and knee. I've recovered from my injuries and I have come away with new perspectives on life and our country.
Unfortunately, Colin's opinions sound more like those of someone who was shot in their head. As for his "new perspectives" on our country, if they're not commensurate with the principles upon which our country was founded, they're not worth listening to. For example:
Permitting guns on campuses is simply a reaction to dangerous situations that come together due to failures in multiple areas of our society.
No, Colin, you apparently failed history, at least the part discussing what key 10 statements became a part of our U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.
It won't make it less likely that horrible tragedies will occur again.
You apparently failed statistics, as well, else you would have noticed that the more our right to keep and bear arms were restricted throughout the 20th century, the worse crime became, yet the more those restrictions were lifted, the lower crime dropped.
The mental health response also failed at Virginia Tech, as it has in other multiple shootings elsewhere. In almost every case, there have been friends, teachers and others who knew the shooter was troubled and likely dangerous. In many cases, including the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter had sought help, then fell through the cracks due to weaknesses in the system. No one in a position of authority to act listened to and properly reported the warnings.
Wrong again, Colin. No one in a position of authority to act could do anything, as at the time of his psychological assessments, Cho had violated no laws, and the assessments done on him were inconclusive with respect to whether or not he was a threat to himself or others.
You apparently failed Psych, as well, for there are several types of people whom are a danger to others, but not all types can be identified via a psych profile, nor for that matter, a complete battery of tests. Cho was in the latter category. Was he troubled? Yes. Was he a threat to others? No way to determine that conclusive, as didn't fall into one of the categories which can be detected on a psych test or via an interview.
Schools at all levels must create effective multidisciplinary threat-assessment teams, allowing a more fluid flow of information between student-teacher-doctor-parent, and following up until students no longer pose a threat.
Here's another section of history you failed, this time modern European, as this sounds way too much like Germany in the 1930s.
Cho was the subject of a court order finding him a danger to himself or others because of mental illness. That court order was not submitted, allowing him to pass two background checks, purchase two guns and kill 32 people and himself.
Perhaps I stand corrected. However, I distinctly recall reading about how the psychologist let him go as he wasn't considered an immediate threat to himself or others. If he had been, procedures were in place at the time to physically detain him for a more thorough examination and treatment. I know this for a fact as St. Alban's mental hospital contained several students from both Virginia Tech and Radford back in the 1980s, and not all of them were there voluntarily (in fact, most were not).
Also--startlingly--felons, the dangerously mentally ill and just about anybody can buy firearms without the background check or any paperwork at all. I'm not talking about on the streets or from the "black market," but in public from "private sellers"...
True, and that's an issue, but your solution is way to idealistic and won't do a thing to stop the problem. Rendering private sales illegal will only stop honest, law-abiding citizens from being a party to a private sale. Felons and other classes of law-breaking criminals will go right on buying and selling firearms, just as users and dealers of illicit drugs buy and sell without regard for the laws which prohibit it. Cho murdered 32 people - do you think he'd have cared one bit about engaging in a private sale if it had been illegal?
Forcing colleges to allow students to carry concealed weapons isn't a solution and it could easily make matters worse. It effectively rewrites the book on how police respond to a situation with an active shooter.
This is just a load of rubbish, as cops aren't stupid - they already assume people are going to be armed when they arrive on scene. Furthermore, if one or more of those 32 (or the many eyewitnesses) had been armed, the situation would have been contained long before Cho burned through his first magazine.
Proponents of allowing guns on campus have not explained how such a law would be enforced.
This is just plain stupid, Colin. It would be enforced precisely the same way OC and CC laws are already enforced in each state. For that matter, only laws restricting one's actions need to be "enforced." Laws permitting an action, such as OC or CC aren't "enforced" at the level of the one who does the carrying. Rather, they're enforced at the university level, simply by telling the university, "you will allow students to carry commensurate with your state's firearms laws." If they refuse, they're subject to civil suits in which those who have been denied their right to keep and bear arms can win a tidy and effective punative sum from their university. They may get away with it once, but it would get very expensive for them to attempt it on a regular basis.
Rather than pushing to bring more guns onto college campuses and trying to react to violence while it's under way, my point is we should work harder to stop the guns that make it there and to prevent those shootings in the first place.
Agreed! Provided you don't violate our civil rights in the process.
Once someone is on campus with guns and intends to kill, we've already lost.
Only if you're unarmed, or unwilling to counter the threat, Colin.
The head of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, said it well after the Columbine tragedy in 1999: "We believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel. We believe America's schools should be as safe as America's airports. You can't talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes. Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted."
Listen to him.
No. YOU listen to him. He was referring to the Columbine tragedy, a K-12 institution visited by
minors, not a college or university frequented by
adults.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Colin Goddard.
And hopefully, very few others!
