Sounds like it was another "Wichita Massacre" in the making. For those of you not familiar with that incident, do a Google search. It was the true definition of horror.

I love how the rapist who was shot was begging for help from the po po. (LOSER!)

The amount of stories that are like this one is staggering. Usually they don't turn out so well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

What these "people" did makes the Manson murders look pretty tame in comparison, yet who knows even one of the perps names? (myself included)
Perhaps that's for the best.

For that matter, who knows any of the names of the Zebra murderers, what religion they belonged to (take a wild guess), where, when and how these events took place? Although I did hear Jamie Fox is making a movie to remedy that situation. Go google the Zebra murders if you get a chance. I think it's funny that for the last 40 years Manson's been a household name and these people are for the most part unknown. I wonder why?

These goons acting like this doesn't suprise me a bit. It was fortunate that someone stepped up, and used some common sense that defied large swaths of people in our society.

Good guys win!

I'm surprised you left out this line:

"One female student was shot several times during the crossfire. She is expected to make a full recovery."

Now imagine instead of one student in one apartment, you have dozens of armed students racing to a gun battle in a large lecture hall.

I'm not at all in favor of criminals with guns, but frat boys packing heat doesn't strike me as very sound policy either. You are of course free to disagree, and of course are free to keep guns in your apartments as well.

Thank God T. Jefferson believed, “… that the citizens need to legally own the same weapons as their government….”. Which is why he spent a fortune *of his own money(!)* going to each of the 13 colonies/states supporting the Second Amendment. Which was supposed to guarantee us all the right to own whatever weapons the Feds have.
Unfortunately the collectivists who run DC have chipped away at the right “guaranteed” by this amendment. Recently 2 Presidents with the same last name ---- have supported “modernizing” America’s Second Amendment.
Folks in my clan have said for 3 generations – now going on 5 – “Guns don’t kill folk. People kill folk!”

Jim,

Reading is fundamental. I stated quite clearly in the paragraph following the quote that, "One of the party-goers would wounded in the crossfire and is expected to fully recover."

You can only copy a small amount of news content under fair use guidelines. I copied what I needed, but I posted the relevant details, including those you can't be bothered to read.

As for your fantasies of armed people "racing" about with weapons, that is simply based upon your ignorance, no doubt inspired by television shows and the movies and not by any real-world experience with concealed-carry training.

Reality is quite a bit different.

To the poster that brought up the issue of collateral damage. I have been in a number of incidents in which the cops were blasing away at bad guys. Guess what, the damage is much worse that any civilian using a weapon. So if I had my choice, I would opt for the civilians as the cops are dangerous and from what I have seen don't care who gets hurt as long as its not their own.

Ouch, sorry CY, you nailed me good! I did exactly what you say and only read the grayed box for your take on the article. Very sorry!

But...

As for my fantasy scenario of people racing to the scene, didn't you have a post or comment here about a school shooting that ended with 2 or 3 armed civilians arriving at the scene just as some (unarmed) students grabbed the gunman? I'll go look for the post in a second. I think it was an incident with a wiki link (maybe).

Lastly David,

The Police do cause a lot of collateral damage, they show up at the scene not knowing who is the homeowner and who is the attacker in many cases. That's the scenario I'm talking about where students from other classes, or dorm floors get involved in an on campus incident. Homeowners can tell bad guys and police apart, a student shooting at students (good or bad) is going to look the same to everyone on the scene.

Jim, I'll save you teh effort. You're talking about the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law. Not normal CCH carriers, but an off-duty sheriff and an off duty police officer that were students.

Neither man fired, and both were responding to their training, which is quite a bit different than the training we get as CCH holders, which is defensive in nature (I have a permit that authorizes me to carry in 30 states).

Jim: I think I would prefer one of the intended victims receiving minor gunshot injuries, rather than all 10 being killed as it seems to have been the intent of the intruders. We can sit around playing what if, but the people on the scene make the call.

"frat boys packing heat doesn't strike me as very sound policy

Letting our bigotry show are we? Just a tiny bit?

I believe the man who shot and killed the criminal was an American citizen.
Whether he belongs to fraternity or not, is irrelevant. What clubs do you think the dead criminal belonged to?

One other point seems to be missed. The student responder did not immediately pull out his gun. He seemed quite willing to be robbed withouta struggle. It was only when the perps began to attempt a rape and to imply they intended to murder everyone, that he pulled his weapon. Seems very responsible, appropriate, and reasoned. He was not a wild kid trying to be a hero, going off half cocked, or overreacting. This is real, yet this other Jim reacts to his wild imaginings, and his sterotypes of what he believes these students are. No matter the real evidence, he clings to his beliefs. What is the word that descibes that kind of behavior, again?

Well if you ask the girl that was wounded I'm pretty sure she prefers to be in her current situation than raped and murdered. I could be wrong however, she could be a rabid Liberal and preferred rapine and murder of herself and others before seeing a citizen exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

I didn't call the guy who shot the intruders a frat boy, I said, referring to another post here about a month ago about the wisdom of allowing students to be armed on campus, that I did not think arming frat boys was the road to fewer gun deaths on campus. Save me the PC boo hoo he's insulting fine young college men everywhere stuff.

And save all the, but what about the bad guys, and maybe you like rape and murder better stuff as well. No, I don't like bad guys, never have. And no I'm not pro murder or rape. No one is.

My point is, was, and will be this: I doubt having an armed student body in college will save lives, I believe there will be more accidents and more deadly arguments, then there will be people saved from criminals. No one here need agree.

Jim, concealed carry has existed for many years, and has not resulted in the "deadly arguments" outcome you theorize. There is no reason to assume that it would suddenly materialize, if concealed carry were extended to college campuses.

Individuals with concealed carry permits tend to behave with due respect to the deadly weapons they carry, and use them in accordance with their training. That's not NRA propaganda, that's the collective experience of concealed carry in the United States.

Let's keep in mind a salient fact: We're not talking about stereotypical drunken, frivolous college students carrying guns about as fashion accessories. We're talking about students, 21 years of age or older (for that is the minimum age for concealed carry in every state). In other words, students who are, at minimum juniors or seniors in college and who are, in general, in every way, head and shoulders above college freshmen in responsibility, maturity and rational thinking. In addition, we have many years of experience regarding concealed carry across the nation and those who are so licensed are the most law abiding citizens in the nation by a considerable margin over their fellows.

Will there be ten students in every college classroom carrying concealed weapons? Unlikely. But it is likely that in any place, at any time, an honest citizen will be carrying. It is that probability that makes concealed carry valuable. When schools are no longer free fire, victim disarmament zones, they benefit by making armed attacks much less likely. It is no accident that mass victim shootings tend to occur in "gun free" zones.

When the possibility of mere survival is between the humanity or lack of marksmanship skill of a premeditated murderer and an honest citizen with a concealed handgun, one wonders about the simple sanity of those who would reflexively choose the former.

Gun free zones like a Luby's in Texas?

Mike, I understand your argument, but doesn't following your logic mean we're just making targets out of Freshman dorms, High Schools, and Elementary Schools? Simply sanity would seem to require dropping the age limits on permits. Otherwise you're pretty much enabling murders in grade schools.

Dear Jim:

I'm afraid you're attacking a straw man here. I'm not suggesting, nor does logic suggest that one should arm people under 21. You reference to Luby's is likewise the opposite of what you intend. It was in fact at attack on a Luby's restaurant in Killeen Texas that took the lives of the parents of Suzanne Gratia Hup, who, complying with the law as it stood at that time, left her unarmed, her handgun locked in her car in the parking lot, as a maniac murdered her parents as she looked on, helpless to stop him. She became instrumental in passing shall issue concealed carry in Texas and elsewhere in the nation. At the time of the attack, Luby's was a gun free zone.

The point is that competent adults should be allowed the arms necessary to protect their lives and the lives of others. An attacker, knowing that adults can be armed on a given campus--perhaps the resident assistants in the freshman dorm you conjure--will be far more likely to attack elsewhere.

And you are correct, though I doubt you intend it, that when grade schools are gun free zones, they are more obvious targets. If human life is sacrosanct, if each of us has an inalienable right to self defense, a right that may not be proscribed by the state, by the arbitrary dictates of those who believe they know what is best for us, how then can the establishment of "zones" where self defense is denied be justified? How can it be justified in elementary schools where the potential victims are particularly vulnerable and helpless?

As a teacher, you assume responsibility for your students. You have two choices when the worst scenario comes to pass: (1) Train and arm yourself so that you can protect your life and the lives of your children. (2) Accept, in advance, that you will likely die in a futile attempt to protect your students, and that your students will then be helpless and at the mercy of one without mercy. And no, calling the police is not an option. Not only do the police have no lawful duty to protect the life of any individual, there are never enough of them and they will never be able to respond quickly enough. In every school shooting to date, every one, the police have had no role in stopping the shooter(s) or in saving lives.

So Jim, ultimately you have to ask yourself whether you are willing to do what is necessary to protect your life and the lives of those you love should that dark day arrive. If not, the time has come to tell your wife and children that should they find themselves under deadly criminal attack, you'll do nothing to save them, or at best, will likely die first as they watch in horror, your death a preview of theirs. If this is the case, You might well, as Shakespeare put it, be thinking your manhood cheap. But in any case, who are you, who is anyone, to make that choice for others, to deny them the chance to live?

Finally, recall, if you will, the Virginia Tech administrator who, upon the defeat of a concealed carry on campus bill several months before the attack on that school, crowed that everyone could thereby feel safe. One wonders how he feels now.

I thought the change after Luby's was that Texas went from may-issue to shall-issue, not that prior to Luby's concealed carry was illegal in the state.

What is magic, or better yet Constitutional about the 21 year age limit? I thought Colonial Militias admitted members at 16 or 17.

If you deny guns to 20 year olds, or 19 year olds and so on, doesn't that put you in the position you want to assign me, denying others the chance to live all because you don't think people under 21 have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones?

Jim:

Hysteria and hyperbole don't flatter you.

I'm posting this anonymously since I haven't seen this released to the press yet (but was distributed to the employees at the college.) Just call me "Unnamed Source."

About the same time that invasion, attempted rape and murder was occuring in College Park, we had a armed robbery on our campus. (About 70 miles away from there.)

Luckily, no one was hurt with the armed robbery, and today they caught the (accused) perpetrators. One was a student, 2 were not. (All have been issued trespass orders not to come on campus again!) They were in a dorm room. With (a) gun(s) (reports vary). And drugs. Which are illegal on campus, as are the guns and the robbing and assault and parole violations... Good thing law abiding citizens are disarmed, right, Jim?

"And no I'm not pro murder or rape. No one is."

Liberals are. One of the cornerstones of modern Liberalism is the oath "I hope your wife gets raped and can't get an abortion."

That's pro-rape.

And of course the mantra "We support the troops, when they shoot their officers."

That's pro-murder.

Given the number of people in the world who actively choose to commit rape and murder, it's astonishing that you promise that "no one" is for it.

It's just objectively false.

I think both of those things are bad and aren't myths. But that's just me. Agree to disagree I suppose.

Dear Jim:

One of the primary liberal arguments against concealed carry, particularly on campus, is that college students are too young and therefore, all manner of mayhem will surely ensue. It seems, therefore, rather like trying to have one's cake and eat it too when one tries to suggest that because I'm not (apparently) in favor of arming those under the age of 21, I'm somehow not consistent, or perhaps not presenting a logical argument. Not so. In fact, I haven't addressed that point, nor do I intend to in this thread.

The issue of appropriate age is quite apart from the issue of concealed carry on campus. Twenty one is accepted across America as the minimum for licensing, and I make my points with that reality in mind. As I've consistently said, the issue is that many adults on campus carrying concealed, student and faculty alike, provide a very important and life saving deterrent to active shooters. If you'd like to discuss the wisdom of, say, 18 year olds rather than 21 years olds carrying concealed, that's fine, but it's beside the point of this thread. No right is absolute, and not long ago, many argued that the Second Amendment didn't encompass an individual right. We now know better. However, no rational person argues that one should be able to own and carry hand grenades or shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles. In the same way, no rational person argues that 13 year olds should be carrying concealed handguns.

Indeed, on many campuses, most students will be under the age of 21. But when an attack occurs, all that is necessary is one armed, courageous 21+ person--student, staff, or passerby-- nearby. In reality, if concealed carry on a given campus is allowed and publicized, an attack will be far less likely to occur there. That's the point.

" and of course are free to keep guns in your apartments as well.

Posted by Jim at May 6, 2009 01:25 PM "

Maybe in the spirit of speaking truth to the power of the rapacity, your apt next to you should post a warning sign

This apartment protected by the 2cd Amendment
My neighbor however believes in Gun Control ;-)

Hey Mike,

I think we're talking about college students (no specific age) in an apartment complex, and how awesome it was that one of them had a gun handy to save himself and his friends.

So I think it's completely fair to ask you if you're in favor of letting 18-20 year old college students be armed, including on and off campus housing, and if not are you willing to take the responsibility for their potential deaths at the hands of madmen.

I understand your point about the number of adults on campus, but they are very hard to find in most college dorms and most student apartment complexes. Not every college apartment is going to have a 21+ year old, so you'd be leaving them victim to the kind of crime this whole thread is about.

"Indeed, on many campuses, most students will be under the age of 21. But when an attack occurs, all that is necessary is one armed, courageous 21+ person--student, staff, or passerby-- nearby. In reality, if concealed carry on a given campus is allowed and publicized, an attack will be far less likely to occur there. That's the point."

For me the point is, are 18 year olds full citizens? Or some Second Class variety,

Below the age of majority, a person is not considered competant to handle their own affairs, their parents or guardians are, Well exccept for having sex and abortions that is,

So raise the age of majority to 21 or give 18 year olds Full Civil Rights?

Actually there are some 40 year olds I would not trust with a gun.

Dear Jim:

Very well; one last time. That 18-20 year olds might not be armed under current law is not my responsibility. But refusing life saving protection for all on the basis of that particular straw man might well attach responsibility, at least moral responsibility, to those who refuse that protection, like the Virginia Tech official who felt safe.

The strength and value of concealed carry on college campuses, and public K-12 schools is that a given school or district publicize the fact that concealed carry is allowed, even encouraged, but absolutely withholds the identities of those carrying and their locations. In that circumstance, everyone, everywhere, benefits from the deterrent effect.

No policy is perfect; no policy covers every possibility. However, it is far better to allow free men the ability to protect themselves and others from terrorist or criminal violence than to rely on preening moral superiority. Evil is not deterred or stopped by saying "see? I'm morally superior and pure!" Likewise, evil is not impressed with the argument that if 18-20 year olds can't be armed, arms should denied all.

One last time for me too Mike, I'm not refusing live saving protection for anyone, I'm asking why people are using an event that took place in an apartment complex involving college students - who were presumably too young for concealed carry - to advocate for concealed carry on campus. Do you want armed students, the only players in this story, or not?

Obviously the fact that someone could have been armed somewhere in the apartment complex did not deter anyone, so it's going to take more than that to save the lives you're somehow saying I'm putting at risk. How far are you willing to go to save those lives Mike.