When mass killers meet armed resistance.

[Colin Parkinson]

Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Scary

Almost as scary as letting Army guys carry guns, when they should be handing out candy to kids on UN missions, right? Both this statements and yours come from the same mindset. Right now there are students and staff carrying concealed firearms on various campuses and school in the US, you never hear about it, because nothing  happens. There are at least 3 incidents in the US where school shootings were interupted by staff or students armed with legal firearms, you rarely hear about it because the facts don't fit the MSM's and F.A.G.'s  opinion on the matter.

 

[Remius]

Almost as scary as letting Army guys carry guns, when they should be handing out candy to kids on UN missions, right? Both this statements and yours come from the same mindset. Right now there are students and staff carrying concealed firearms on various campuses and school in the US, you never hear about it, because nothing  happens. There are at least 3 incidents in the US where school shootings were interupted by staff or students armed with legal firearms, you rarely hear about it because the facts don't fit the MSM's and F.A.G.'s  opinion on the matter.

Yup and the most notable one being two "students".  One was a serving police officer with the local sheriff's department.  The other was a former police officer from north carolina who used to be a marine.  These were not your average citizen defending themselves as some pro-gun organisation's would have you believe. 

And I believe the other incident was a one on one confrontation with  a particular teacher (granted him having  a gun saved his life, thus proving that carrying a weapon to defend can save one's life).  maybe those two in the dorm could have stopped cho on the spot, maybe not.

I don't think we can solve this debate with a black and white argument for or against.  Too many factors in this case need to be considered to have knee jerk reactions from both sides of the gun debate 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Kneejerk????  : I have been advocating self-defense and firearm permitting for years. I can also confirm that my pistol handling training as a civilian is light years ahead of anything I learned about pistols as a soldier. I also have shot with and watched many LEO’s shoot who have dismal training, most don’t even know how their pistol works, some didn’t even know the name of the pistol they carried. Civilian handgun training in the US can equal anything given by either the forces or police, granted not all goes to those levels, but any law abiding gun owner that shoots once a month is likely on par with the majority of LEO, the only advantage the LEO’s sometimes get is more force on force training and encounters. Yes I do also know some LEO's who are incrediable gun handlers also.

The only way to prevent mass murders like this is fast and decisive action on the spot. Either you make all the schools post armed guards in every major building or you allow lawful CCW. As the former will cost billions, you are left with the latter. Any of the concerns brought by the anti’s can be dealt with by asking the CCW permits holders to take some extra training, which could be done through the campuses. But the reason they won’t go down this path is not for practical reasons. The gun ban on the campus was purely for ideologue reasons and is fatally flawed.

Lawful firearm ownership and CCW works and gives an added tool to prevent nutcases such as these murderers. Gun control is pretty much a dead issue in the US and for good reason.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I despise guns.........but Colin is 100% correct in my gun-hating opinion.

 

[observor 69]

OK let's agree this is a grey topic. I have owned guns for years, rifles that is. I like weapons as objects of interest, how they are designed, mechanical methods to improve performance etc. My first years in the military were as a gun plumber.
But I also spent four years in Houston, Texas. Now that was scary. Man you had to see it to believe it. Homes armed to the teeth to protect the "homestead."  Kids blowing their playmates away cause Daddy hide his loaded gun under the mattress.
Yes weapons handling training ala military or civy is great, but it was pretty thin on the ground in Texas.
The one case that still makes me smile is the lady on TV who said she " just had a little gun that fit in her purse."
Trouble imagining that stopping a bad guy. I remember one cop told me he considered our 9 mill a waste of time, get a 45. 

 

[Remius]

Kneejerk????  : I have been advocating self-defense and firearm permitting for years.

Sorry Colin, my comment about kneejerk reactions wasn't so much aimed at you as it is aimed at the overall debate and the media.  Both sides are using this incident to further their own agendas about gun control.  Nothing wrong with that but I just think this incident has more facets to it than just plain gun arguments (for or against).  Look what's happening here and abroad, people are comparing what happens in the US to here, there etc etc.  People want to ban handguns outright in the US others want to arm the population.  I think we need to sit back take a deep breath and examine the incident itself and everything that affected it.  I think that a determined suicidal psycho is hard stop on location.  I'm not so sure there is "the" solution for it.

Nothing against your pistol training (you are probably still the exception to the general rule).  While allowing the population to carry concealed weapons for self defense might  be "a" solution it still leaves security to the average person.  If someone chooses not to carry a weapon and goes to class, how do we know who has a weapon or not.  Cho could have walked into a class full of non armed students or shot the armed one first leaving the others to their fate.  Ypur option of armed security and presence seems a better option as a more pro-active method.  You can still allow concealed weapons but professional security should be in place, trained to react (active shooter training comes to mind).

Also though, as someone mentioned our cultural restrictions need to be addressed.  We don't show our youth or the average person how to take initiative, how to act.  We see too many sheep, when something bad happens people don't want to act, they hope someone else will do it.  That mindset needs to change as well.  So you can allow someone to carry a weapon, but until the overall mentality changes to a more take action kind of midframe, more of these incidents will occur. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Talking to some guys on a US CCW forum, there is a possibility that 3 of the victims had their CCW license. If this the case (and I can’t confirm it yet) then the poop will really hit the fan for the campus and they will likely be sued by the families and you can bet that a lot of BS will be flung by the administration to cover their own goofs.

Legally you are the only person responsible for your own safety. Both the courts in Canada and the US have made it clear that the Police and the state have no legal obligation to protect you from this type of harm, unless they specifically tell you they will. (If they promise to guard your house and fail to provide security and something happens, then they can be sued) The difference in the US and Canada is that they US allows people the tools to protect themselves and this right is protected by the Constitution. In Canada we are allowed the right of self defense but the Government actively blocks the ability to do so, despite the fact that Concealed carry is allowed in Canada (for Judges, Politicians & criminals turned informers)
ATC level one- For people working in remote areas where a long gun is not practical, must not be concealed.
ATC Level Two- Security guards on armoured cars (funny how insured money is more important)
ATC level three- Concealed carry by authorized individuals who are in imminent danger (Of course if you live long enough to see the process through, likely they will decide you really don’t need it!) They are very cagey on these, even refusing to release the number issued or their existence, despite being clearly defined in the Firearms Act.

It would be very easy to expand the CCW here, the laws exist and the requirements laid out. People used to be able to carry openly in Rural areas and hunt with handguns. Both of those rights here have been whittled away. I have lived and breathed gun laws for the last 29 years, they suck at what they are supposed to do and where brought about by people with a social agenda (which also included neutering the Forces) so you will forgive me when I won’t accept anymore compromises or grey areas. The firearm community went down the reasonable route once before and got screwed, last election we barely missed getting totally F****d, never again will we be reasonable, because we learned that our opponents intend to go for the kill.

Cheers

 

[NL_engineer]

Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?
How would the Emergency Response Team tell the good guys from the bad guys?

Scary

They would More the likely obey the orders of the ERT; IE "with your left/right hand lay the gun down, put your hands on your head, and walk backwords to my voice"

After statements, video, etc. student X will released

 

[TCBF]

Yup and the most notable one being two "students".  One was a serving police officer with the local sheriff's department.  The other was a former police officer from north carolina who used to be a marine.  These were not your average citizen defending themselves as some pro-gun organisation's would have you believe. 

- But they ARE normal citizens.  Just like us.  Just think of the amount (1,000,000+) "ex-military" in Canada 's(pop 14,000,000 after WW2) population in 1946.  Even today, many are ex cadets, ex-LE community, ex 1970s SSEP, ex-hunter ed instructors etc.  That's what CCW does.  It empowers all of the 'Ex's'(among others)  to project the power of the citizenry.

"We are the police and the police are us."

 

[redleafjumper]

+1 TCBF for raising Peel's principle #7, it really is the point of CCW.  Perhaps it might be useful to review Peel's principles of policing:

"Peel's Nine Principles of Policing

1.  The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2.  The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3.  Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4.  The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5.  Police seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6.  Police use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7.  Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8.  Police must recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9.  The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it. "

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the British Police (aka Bobbies or Peelers) in 1822 and his principles were taken from A Short History of the British Police, (London: Oxford University Press, 1948).


It might also be useful to remember that all citizens have the right and lawful authority to arrest those who they find committing an offence - see section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

 

[ex-Sup]

Teen in custody after school lockdown in Thunder Bay
Police in Thunder Bay, Ont., took a teenager into custody late Tuesday morning after issuing a public safety warning that led to the lockdown of all city schools.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/05/01/tbarrest.html

I know I'm probably de-railing this thread, but given the events of the last few weeks...
This is the first time I've ever been involved in something like this, and to have every school in a town of 115,000 locked down is unbelievable. At first I thought it was a drill, but I followed procedure (lock the door, get the kids to the back of the room). When the lock down went on for more than 20 minutes I realized that this was the real thing. It was interesting having my students in the room for over 3 hours with no breaks; good thing I teach history and have a good stock of AV material (by this point the lockdown had become precautionary). The ironic thing was that were are in the middle of WWII and I was showing the movie Memphis Belle when the lockdown went into effect, complete with gunfire and explosions.  :-\

Can you envision the entire student body of U of Western Ontario going around packing concealed weapons ?

How about a bunch of high school kids? I can't envision some of them getting a job.

 

[TCBF]

Not EVERYONE would qualify as CCW - so the "all of my students armed!" alarmist thinking is a bit overwrought.

However: Out of 31,000,000 Canadians, about 2,000,000 are licensed holders of about 7,000,000 firearms  (which means about 40% of the guns are registered, more or less).

Now, assume everyone who could pass our regulatory, background and testing regimen went out and bought a PAL, then a .22 rifle, we would have over 20,000,000 registered and licensed firearm owners in Canada - vice 2,000,000.

No requirement for any change of laws or regulations, just people applying to do what they are lawfully allowed to do, then doing what they are lawfully allowed to do.

How would that affect the debate, if at all?

 

[FascistLibertarian]

would not most of them have rifles stored in their cars locked up?
Just saying, that would not do much good if someone came into a school with handguns.
I could be way off base here or missing the point......

 

[Foxhound]

Last year, in September, I was debating the school shooting issue with some co-workers and I brought up the notion that L-Col. Dave Grossman expressed in the preface to his excellent book, “On Killing.”  I reproduce that section here below:

“They [productive citizens – “sheep”] do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial.”

I was challenged by the person I was speaking with to prove that such was the case in Canada, because as everybody knows, this kind of stuff only happens south of the border.  So I looked it up online.  My source is Stats Can. and the figures are for 2001.

Fires in schools 2001:  420
Injuries:  19
Deaths:  0

Crime in schools 2001:
Homicide:  2
Sexual assault:  475
Assault:  6075
Kidnapping/Hostage taking:  21
Abduction:  17
Robbery:  435
Criminal harassment:  229

So:  victims in school fires 2001 = 19
Victims of school violence 2001 = 7254

FWIW

 

[a_majoor]

would not most of them have rifles stored in their cars locked up?

Of course they would. Carpenters lock their tools in the trunk of their cars when they are not using them, bankers put away their laptops, bakers turn off their ovens etc.

The origional point of this thread is that we, as a society need to cast off the passive mind-set that allows people to cower in the corner and become victims, and be prepared to take action on our own to counter bad situations. Naturally, you have a much better chance of taking efffecctive action if you have legal access to the right tools for the job. Perhaps a martial artist "could" have taken on a gun weilding maniac (and the passengers and crew of United 93 showed that action is possible even without special training), but the outcome where people could access firearms (even by running back to the car and getting them as in the first example) was far better, since the responder had the proper tools for the job. (This is like attending a car accident without your first aid kit in your car; how much help can you really provide?)

To me, the real solution is for people to start getting off their asses rather than this sterile debate over firearms.

 

[kierankyllo]

"All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns pose a threat to public safety."
-The Supreme Court of Canada, June 15, 2000

In my opinion the above statement is true.  On the other side of the coin, weapons (including guns) have practical uses in maintaining public safety based on the use of controlled and measured escalation of force.  The question therefore becomes how do we determine who is qualified to apply "controlled and measured escalation of force" and who is not?  Which weapons are to be considered most likely to pose a threat to public safety / which weapons are best qualified to enforce public safety. 

I would argue that concealable weapons (i.e. handguns) are both most likely to pose a threat to public safety and are highly suitable for protecting public safety (assault weapons are the next step up on the escalation of force ladder, a role almost exclusively filled by military as opposed to civilian public servants).  Therefore, concealable weapons should only carried by those who have been deemed qualified to apply the use of controlled and measured escalation of force with the goal of public safety held paramount at all times.  This has traditionally been the role of law enforcement, security, and other civilian public servants.

Furthermore, concealment has not been adopted Canada by our public servants, I would argue because the display of the weapon serves as a constant reminder to any would be criminals of where the escalation of force ultimately ends.  Also, it makes it easy to distinguish “bad guys” from “good guys”.  Anyone with a gun who doesn’t have a uniform on (or displayed credentials) is a bad guy, easy threat identification and i would guess, a reduction in “friendly fire” an advantage to the public servant.

Although there may be a need for armed and identifiable campus security on our university campuses, the events at Virginia tech do not (in my opinion) serve as strong enough evidence in support of an armed population, and certainly not in favor of concealed weapons in the hands of private citizens.  It is not a matter of “rights” to bear arms but a matter of public safety and maintaining the systems that we have in place to ensure public safety.  There are reasons why the general public are not allowed to carry handguns and we should respect the rule of law and as Canadians yield the responsibility to those identifiable individuals who have been trained in public safety and the application of measured and controlled escalation of force.  It may be that we require more of these individuals and it may be that we need to arm and train those who occupy public safety roles who are not currently armed but arming the general public is not a solution to gun crime in Canada.

 

[a_majoor]

"All guns steak knives are capable of being used in crime. All guns steak knives pose a threat to public safety."
-The Supreme Court of Canada, June 15, 2000

The statement is 100% true, but also completely illogical. Would you support seizing every steak knife in Canada on those grounds? A gun, a steak knife or anything else is an inert object or mechanism. What matters is intent. Consider again the initial article on page one of this thread. In each instance there are multiple people with firearms, one who's intent is random murder and one or more who use their firearms to subdue the attacker. In each case only one person carrying firearms is a danger to the public.

Going up the scale, the 9/11 hijackers used Boeing jetliners as cruise missiles. In flight United 93, the passengers took action with bare hands and whatever they could get their hands on and prevented the attackers from carrying out their intent.

The entire point is that people with intent to kill will find a way to do it, using guns, knives, poison, driving a car into a crowd of people, setting fire to a building etc. Only people willing to take action can stop this, and people who have the appropriate tools will (generally) be more successful than those who do not.

 

[a_majoor]

What a surprise:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/11/on_stopping_sch.php

On stopping schoolground killers
Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2008 06:29 PM

An interesting piece on changes to police tactics. The traditional response was bring up the SWAT team, plan it out carefully, then go in. As the matter was better understood, this switched to whoever gets there first goes in immediately -- seconds passing means people dying. To my mind, this is a powerful argument for allowing teachers to be armed. The article ends:

"The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.

As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves."

 

[twistedcables]

And the role of video games?  A kid who is already set apart from the rest due to either mental imbalance or just plain unable to fit in - could easily see his world through the lens of the video game controllers that he lives in.

We are going to see many more incidents like this - just you watch.  Unfortunately, because weapons are so readily available without proper scrutiny, the result is a series just waiting to occur.  I AGREE that specially trained people SHOULD be able to carry concealed in public but it is a VERY tricky subject.  Not anytime soon here that is for sure!

 

[redleafjumper]

Any firearm is concealable - the debate about concealing firearms is a red hearing intended to distract from the utility of small, convenient firearms that could be used for protection.
I remember having the discussion once when golfing with a typical anti-handgun twit who blathered on about how handguns were bad because they could be concealed.  I asked him what was in my golf bag, and he of course replied "golf clubs?"  As the bag was zipped up his answer was uncertain and I responded "Is it possible that I have a scoped high powered rifle and 60 rounds of ammunition for it in that golf bag?"  The answer was of course and the question is what would be more dangerous?  The answer is that it depends on the person and not the firearm.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper