ridiculous attempt at politicizing the event
Mass shooting? I’d say this qualifies as a slight misrepresentation of the facts. By the accounts that have been published locally, the guy did not enter that bar hoping to wipe out a ton of people.
He was shot while reloading. That seems to imply that he wasn’t done yet. I’m glad the guy who shot him didn’t wait to verify that he was done.
And I do maintain a list of these incidents and someone always says something like well, you don’t know if this one case or that one case would have been a mass shooting. Of course I don’t. But I’m glad we don’t have to find out if they would have been.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Fair point. I hadn’t heard he was shot while reloading. The stories here basically said he was after the two guys he wound up killing. Thanks for the clarification.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Disgusting that they’re trying to downplay the actions of the CCW holder. A shooting is a shooting, and the quicker the bad guy is stopped the better. He saw an obvious threat and stopped it.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Actually, according to the police statement (found here), he had already reloaded and started firing again when he was stopped. He definitely was not done.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I just picked up a handout from our university’s “Behavioral Assessment Team”, instituted in response to VA Tech, etc.
a few select quotes of passages that irked me…
“…The probability of more serious types of violence occurring are reduced on most campuses by laws that prohibit weapons of any type, decreasing the likelihood of deadly force…”
Unsubstantiated bullsh*t; moreover, some deadly force (in self-defense situations against a rapist, say) is justified and actually a preferable deterrent to criminal violence, deadly or otherwise.
Teh st00pid really piles on here:
“Do not engage in behaviors which are potentially dangerous to you or the community:
(at the top of the bullet list is this doozy:)
*Bringing weapons of any kind onto campus increases the probability of their use”
Well, duh, but this makes do distinction between defensive use and criminal use.
I would hope that a CHL holder would produce and use his/her weapon in response to a criminal brandishing a weapon and threatening violence.
A gun concealed on your person is better than one locked in your glove box or in your nightstand at home.
I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on these local bureaucrats, since they’re just articulating what Texas State law is, and corresponding university policies, and the presumed logic behind both.
The other bulleted items on the “DON’Ts” list include
*Allowing third parties unregulated access to restricted university areas increases opportunities for difficulties
*Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs endangers everyone in the community, etc.
This is what they (our campus safety gurus) EQUATE with carrying a licensed, concealed firearm, which is otherwise legal in Texas, except for such “gun free zones” as schools, universities, and establishments who derive 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales, Federal buildings like Post offices, etc, and anywhere that a legal 30-06 sign has been posted by a private business.
I’m still very new here and I don’t have tenure (nor am I eligible), so for now I just bite my tongue upon hearing such inanities. If I were a faculty-status librarian, with tenure already granted, and more experience under my belt, I might be more vocal about speaking out against this crap in a professional context rather than ranting semi-anonymously online about it.