BCT Editorial – 4/23/07

This page was last updated on April 24, 2007.

Free-fire zone; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 23, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech, some people are calling for laws that allow teachers and students to carry weapons.”

[RWC] As an alleged news outlet, I would expect the Times to know this is nothing new.

In 2005, a VT (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) student with a carry permit was disciplined for carrying his handgun on campus. As a result, House Bill 1572 was introduced in the General Assembly to prohibit “rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun”, but was defeated in the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety in 2006.

“The thinking behind this proposal is that Cho Seung-Hui might not have killed as many people as he did if someone who was armed had gunned him down.

“The argument falls down on two points.”

[RWC] Remember, logic is not a strong suit of Times editorials.

“First, if some students, teachers or others who were in those buildings last week had been armed and did start firing at Cho, the buildings would have been turned into free-fire zones.”

[RWC] Both locations were already “free-fire zones.” Cho was free to fire at everyone at his leisure because all his victims were defenseless. Several empty ammunition clips were found at the second location, so it’s possible the killing stopped only because Cho had used all his ammunition.

“What was to stop those who were armed from shooting at anything that moved? Police receive extensive training to help them deal with situations like this so that they can distinguish between good guys and bad guys. The training course where cardboard cutouts representing innocent bystanders and criminals pop up as officers move down a street or through a building is used so often in movies it’s become a cliché. Civilians don’t have this training and could make a tragic situation even worse.”

[RWC] The editorial is talking about “friendly fire.” The idea a few armed students trying to defend themselves could be worse than a murderer easily executing his 32 victims is a bit beyond me.

“Second, how do law enforcement officers distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys when they arrive of [sic] the scene and both sides are firing away at each other? These scenes are chaotic and information is scarce. Police officers don’t have the time to try to figure out who’s who in a firefight. All they see are people with guns trying to kill each other.”

[RWC] By the time the police arrived at both locations, the killing had already stopped. Unfortunately, that’s the case with most mass murders of this type. That’s not a criticism of the police; that’s just a fact of life because the police can’t be everywhere. To sacrifice innocents just to make it easier for the police to identify the murderer makes no sense to me.

“As tragic as the Virginia Tech incident was, let’s not overreact and create a bigger problem.”

[RWC] Don’t get me wrong. I don’t propose arming all students and school employees. The point of the critique was to show the shallowness of the editorial’s reasoning.

Even if everyone had the right to carry a weapon on campus, I suspect only a small number actually would. If the state says it’s OK for a citizen to carry a concealed weapon, why should that state’s government schools be able to take away that permission? It would be OK for a private college because that’s private property. VT, however, is a state-funded university.