Guns Have Already Saved Lives at School
Luke Woodham was a student at Pearl High School in Mississippi. When he brought his gun to school one day in 1997, he wanted to kill as many people as possible. Happily, he was only able to kill two people. The reason was Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. He retrieved a handgun from his truck, blocked the road as Woodham was on his way to kill some other students, and ordered him to the ground at gunpoint until police arrived.
Myrick has said he has no doubt Woodham would have killed more people if he had not been stopped since he had 36 rounds of ammo in his pocket when he was finally subdued.
A year later, a shooting at a school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania was ended abruptly by James Strand, who owned a nearby restaurant. Strand used his shotgun to disarm the shooter until the police arrived 11 minutes later. After Strand arrived on the scene with his shotgun, no one else was killed.
In 2002, two law school students at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia used their own personal guns to stop Peter Odighizuwa’s rampage. The students held the shooter until the police arrived.
Schools are generally gun free zones by law. There are exceptions, the biggest being all of Utah’s state-run universities. No school shootings have occurred in that state. But the multiple killings that have occurred at various schools around the country have all taken place in areas which have been legally rendered as gun free zones.
The idea of firearms for self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction, however. A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans deem it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use “a gun at school to defend the lives of students” in stopping a massacre.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Funny how a doctor failed to report Cho, but it is the majority 80 million law abiding citizens fault eh, no it is not!
Funny how the government background check process didn't identify Cho, but then again, that is all the 80 million law abiding gun owners fault again eh, no it is not!
Funny how when the congressional investigative arm and other studies show that when fake identifications were used to by a firearm, they were 100% successful, but then again, that apparently is the fault of the 80 million law abiding gun owners who had nothing to do with the failures of the background check eh?
Funny how the Brady Background Check fails to prosecute 99.3% of those rejected were not prosecuted or prevented from buying a firearm elsewhere. (USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer annual report 2008, USDOJ Felons Firearms Use survey 1997, published November 2001. But surely that must be the sole responsibility of the 80 million law abiding gun owners, no, it isn't.
Funny how only 4.48% of felons today attempt to buy from a licensed source, but that is the fault of the 80 million law abiding gun owners eh, no it isn't!
Funny how none of these failures are the fault of the 80 million plus law abiding gun owners, yet the Brady Campaign and their few lackeys claim they are and only infringe upon those 80 million law abiding gun owners. SO who are the extremists, those who blame the innocent majority, or those who defend the innocent majority who had NOTHING to do with these acts of violence eh?
To begin, let’s look at the issue again. The issue is whether or not students should be allowed to carry handguns on college campuses. Two of the three examples you have cited are of adults carrying handguns to protect the children and two of the three examples are also citing instances on high school campuses, not college campuses.
So to take out the two misleading examples, we are left with an example of law school students using their personal guns to stop a “rampage”. In this one instance cited, personal handguns were of help in a dangerous situation. And this argument is not to say that handguns are not helpful in certain situations. But when students carry handguns on college campuses, the level of danger is increased. In such a manner, any student may pull out their weapon and use it as a threat legally because handguns would be legal. With handguns legal on college campuses, students have the means to shoot and kill, to take away someone else’s life, right at their fingertips. Self-defense is one thing. But when does the power of carrying a weapon overcome self-defense?
Secondly, a “research poll” from 2000 found that 85% of Americans found it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use a gun to defend students. It is true. The majority of Americans want the lives of their students at school protected. But 85% of Americans have stated that they believe it is appropriate for a principal or teacher to do so. Not a student. If the students are the ones with the weapons doing the shootings, is it really sensible for the students to be allowed weapons legally at school?
I fail to see how allowing students who have a valid concealed weapons permit and are allowed to carry everywhere else in public(depending on the state laws in movie theaters, restaurants, malls, and even bars in some states) is suddenly so much more likely to be violent on a college campus? Firearms are already on college campuses how would allowing those who actually follow the law to carry increase the danger? These adults already carry everywhere else so why would be allowing them to carry across an imaginary line have any effect on their judgment on a self defense situation. You are correct self defense is one thing, but how is not allowing law abiding citizens their right to use the best tools available to protect themselves safer then allowing an unopposed shooting spree.
For your second point how is a 30 year old ex marine (such as the one currently having his rights violated by Western Oregon University) different from a 30 year old teacher. Yet again the people that have concealed weapons permits are adults why is the title of teacher make you any more qualified to defend yourself? It has already proven that criminals don't follow the law and they will carry firearms on to campus no matter what the law says so why not let those law abiding citizens that have the will to defend themselves the legal opportunity to do express their right to do so.
The truth is, people do stupid things, and they are always going to. That's just how the world is. Also, nobody is suggesting people be allowed to carry guns in any school. Students shouldn't be able to carry them in high school, for example, because they are just not old enough and it is not nessecary. However, college campuses are different. They are open places, almost like little villages. Maybe letting college students carry concealed weapons isn't that bad of an idea. If they can pass the test to carry a concealed weapon out in public, why should it be any different on a college campus? After all, its like a little village of its own.
I am a gun owner myself but i have enough selfcontrol to not bring a gun to school. If schools were as safe as airports and airplanes are now then this topic wouldn't be here. If people didn't do stupid things then the world would be a better place.
I think it's great that in the few examples provided killers were prevented from taking more innocent lives. However, any life taken is a loss. I think it was wrong for you to say "Happily, he was only able to kill two people." It's great that no more were killed, but I don't think it's right to say "happily." I'm sure the families of those to victims weren't looking at the situation in a "happily" kind of way.
These examples do a good job of proving the point that they guns should be aloud on campus, but i can't help but notice that if guns were illegal in the first place then the problem would never had originated. And i just won't except the argument that we need guns to keep us safe from the criminals that will get guns illegally. There has to be a more mature solution then that.
All one need do is simply look at the UK. They have outlawed gun ownership and their gun crime continues to skyrocket. You are now far more likely to be shot in London than in New York City.
Just as prohibition failed because you can't outlaw something that has already been legal it wouldn't work. that is even if you completely ignore the fact that owning and carrying a gun is an enumerated RIGHT listed in the US Constitution.
People like to say that if everyone has a gun, it will be like the old west. I say good! The old west was a vastly safer place than the modern day US. Tombstone was one of the most notorious and dangerous towns in the old west. On its worst and most violent year, Tombstone had 4 murders. Just 4. I will take that over the typical violent crime rate of just about any town in America today.
Has anyone else had a gun when Collen Furgeson (sp?) decided to kill people on the Long Island Railroad the shooting spree would have come to a swift halt. But, since no one else was armed, people could do nothing but cower and wait to be shot as they were trapped in a moving train car with a man who was armed and bent on killing.
If you have a gun and know how to use it, you can defend yourself and your loved ones. If you are unarmed when evil is present, all you can do is cower and hope the bad guy runs out of ammo before he gets to you. And that is no way to live.
Words that no one EVER wants to hear. When you say, --if guns were illegal-- I feel you, but it is a fact that they DO exist and to wish otherwise is just so much fantasy. The world can be an ugly place and to know and understand this is the only REAL defense. To accept where you are is to know how to best proceed. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms as well as the right to choose to leave your protection in the –limited-- hands of others. But if you abdicate your responsibility in deference to the state, then you get what you get--fat campus police in swat gear hiding behind trees while your loved ones are being gunned down inside.
But I don't believe that guns in book bags are the answer either. I would advocate a --volunteer only-- campus home guard. It could be staffers, faculty and administration. The college could vet, set parameters and police them. In the cases cited, it was an individual who understood lethal force and used it in defending the innocent.