It has been nearly a year since the tragic Virginia Tech massacre and that fact is dominating the current news cycle.
As the debate rages on about how best to proceed, perhaps this is a good time to review what led up to it.
(flip)
I view Virginia Tech as a glaring example of the failure of ill-conceived policy. There were only so many different ways this instance could have been averted or at least mitigated. A look at what could have been done differently...
Idea #1: The guns used might not have existed.
Obviously this is not a realistic possibility. Guns exist. There is no way to get rid of them all without violating peoples' rights. Additionally, the police and military must have firearms in order to function. So long as they exist, the possibility of their falling into the wrong hands will also exist.
Idea #2: He might have been denied access to them. An excellent idea on paper, and progress has been made in this area. However, this is one of the critical failures that led to the tragedy in the first place.
Cho had been adjudged mentally incompetent and was not supposed to have access to those firearms, yet he did.
This is a failure of the system; an incomplete database coupled with an "honor system" based form that sadly expected criminals and irrational people to tell the truth.
Brady needs work if it is to ever fulfill it's function. There must be a more coherent and complete reporting trail to NICS. There also needs to be a transparent appeal process to correct mistakes and oversight to safeguard the data from dissemination and abuse.
Idea #3: The emergency response should have been more timely and effective. No progress has been made in this area, and truthfully isn't likely to ever be made. Another glaring flaw in the system; the idea of the emergency lockdown. The students had been instructed to hide under their desks and await the arrival of the cavalry, but the response time of the "cavalry" proved to be simply too long. This is exacerbated by the ongoing debate about arming campus security.
When somebody opens fire in a crowd of docile, submissive victims, the only effective countermeasure is to put the perpetrator down as rapidly as possible. The method by which this is done must negate the threat of the perpetrator's weapon. You can't tase him or hit him with pepper spray or wrestle him to the ground. You must shoot him.
Campus security must be well-trained, armed, and capable of performing this duty within minutes.
Idea #4: The students and faculty should have been permitted to defend themselves.
This indicated the most heartbreakingly ineffective gun control measure of them all: The "gun-free zone". Time and again, they make juicy targets for the rampage precisely because there is nobody around capable of stopping them.
There are a few people around whose innate fear of weaponry itself allow that fear to override their reason. I need to stress this point in order to keep the focus on policy rather than feelings: There is no such thing as a "gun-free zone"! The bad guy doesn't care what you call it. He will not let that deter him. The only people who are disarmed through this policy are the law-abiding, conscientious citizens who are best-positioned to save themselves and end the bloodshed quickly.
Violence exists in the mind of man, not the means through which it's dealt. To that end, concealed carry on campus is a policy that should be promoted rather than feared.
The people who obtain CCW permits are the most conscientious, law-abiding people in our society. They are more trustworthy with a firearm than even the police or military. As well they should be; they have to go through multiple background checks, proficiency demonstration, and training merely to prove their worthiness to go about their day armed.
So why not let them do so on campus? They're not shooting up the streets anywhere else and there's no reason to think they'd do so on school grounds.
More to the point, their presence has been helpful in every situation in which they've played a part. "Concealed" carry means that nobody knows who's armed unless there's a life-or-death emergency. When that emergency comes up, they are the folks everybody's glad to gave armed.
There has been some progress in this area as well. I am hopeful that it will continue. I would like to see some standardization in the process so that we are all aware exactly what standards are used to judge applicants and secure in their trustworthiness and abilities.
But the idea of the "gun free zone" is one that must be laid to rest for the sake of everyone. It's killing our kids.
#Edit# Forgot idea #5...
Idea #5: The students might have not been waiting around to get shot.
This is an idea that is foremost in the minds of everyone, particularly the CCW carriers listed above. If at all possible, get yourself and your loved ones away from a threat.
The lockdown policy is an inherently bad idea. Students should never be instructed to stay inside a school building when threatened unless the danger outside is greater than the danger inside.
This is a natural response to the concept that the faculty is responsible for the students' well-being. In truth, the teacher is not responsible for your safety. Neither are the police or campus security. It is up to each of us as individuals to safeguard our own well-being.
If you are capable of getting away, get away!
No progress has been made in this area either. I hope that the campuses nationwide will take a lesson from the horriffic mental image of this guy coldly stalking from room to room, mercilessly plugging students who didn't have to be there...
Conclusion: If you can't tell, I'm a very pro-2nd guy :D
That doesn't mean that I'm ambivalent about these atrocities. I want this sort of mindless bloodshed to end as much as anybody else.
Let's find truly effective rational responses to the problems we face rather than emotionally-based knee jerk reactions.
I would ask my opposites on this forum to set aside their fear of the firearm and focus on the people and the policy instead. The gun itself is neither good nor bad. It depends on who's holding it. I think we can all agree that guns in the hands of the good guys can be a force for good. So let's all strive to keep the good guys separate from the bad guys in our minds.
These problems can be solved without violating anybody's rights and without aggravating the situation by inadvertently making it easier for the bad guy. Let's set about doing it!