There was a concealed carry holder on campus, he had his gun, but was prevented from intervening by the school. Oregon seems to be like Pennsylvania, in the sense that it’s legal to carry on college campuses, but college campuses can still set policies for students, staff and faculty. He’s risking expulsion by coming forward with the fact that he was armed. Bad guys with guns can’t be stopped by good guys with guns if the good guys are locked behind closed doors and prevented from intervening. Our opponents were all atwitter yesterday about how there was a CCWer on the campus, as if to say “See! See! It doesn’t work!” Well, yeah, sure. It doesn’t work when it’s actively prevented from working.
Well, This Isn’t Going to Help the Preferred Narrative
Speaking of “preferred narratives,” what is concerning me at the moment is that I see the shooter being identified as a “Muslim sympathizer,” based on what seems to be extremely tenuous linkages. It very well could turn out to be true — or it could be evidence of antisemitism, or? — but what I see is a lot of people in “our” camp hoping and praying for a preferred narrative that will justify — what, exactly?
A also see samples of the shooter being identified as having “pagan” connections, and probably other connections based on people’s preferred narratives.
I’ve seen that too, and I agree it’s very tenuous at this point. I’m speaking of our opponents preferred narrative in this case, but that’s not to say people on our side don’t have falsities they’d like to drive forward as well.
Yes, I understood what you meant by “narrative”, but I had to comment because I have always advocated gun rights “purism” as a single issue, and it has always disturbed me when our issue has become linked to other agendas. I’m sure you’ll recall that more than once I’ve expressed the opinion that too often our issue is used only as a “decoy” by people seeking support for their other agendas.
I’m sorry but if I’m armed in that situation there’s no way anyone other than a LEO is going to stop me from trying to do something. I’m armed you’re not gtfo of my way or else.
“I’m armed you’re not gtfo of my way or else.”
Yes, adding a second shooter and another innocent body or two to the scenario would certainly have improved our situation.
And having to shoot a staff member would have been a given? That’s a hell of a stretch. I’ll place my bets on the staff backing down.
Excuse me for becoming argumentative, but aerodawg DID say “or else.” What does that mean?
And if someone with a gun had threatened staff with it, unless he/she subsequently worked a frigging miracle, my bets would be on staff being all over every network talk show right now complaining about it.
If, say, only five good-guys’ lives had been taken instead of nine, no one would know what would have been, it still would be billed a mass shooting, and staff that had been threatened would be implying the guy who threatened them had made things worse — speaking of narratives.
Speaking of preferred narratives, has anyone heard or seen yet what kind of rifle the Dead Loser used? Quite a bit of reporting has come out so far on his guns but no credible claims of any “assault weapon”, which makes me wonder if the DL used something like a Ruger 10-22. If true, that is also something which would not fit the preferred anti-gun narrative of the News Media.
You may want to look into this.
This guy gave two EXTREMELY conflicting interviews. One to Foxnews where he says this. And one to MSNBC where he said basically he wouldn’t go help because he was too far, didn’t know where SWAT was and decided to let them take care of it.
Of course the interviews were cut and selected by both sides. But it’s sort of funny this guy is being used as narrative by both sides at the same time.
Remember this: If you are holding a gun in your hand when the police get there they will assume that you are the bad guy. You run the risk of being shot by the responding police.
In order for a CC to stop a mass shooting, the following factors need to be present:
1. There needs to be a mass shooting;
2. There needs to be a CC in the vicinity of the mass shooting;
3. The CC needs to kill the mass shooter.
The probability of these occurring simultaneously is pretty much 0, since mass shootings are exceedingly rare, CC a small proportion of the general population, and it’s questionable if your average CC will leap in to save the day when he’s not personally threatened by the shooter. For example, if I thought there was a shooting occurring on campus, I’m going to run in the opposite direction, regardless of whether or not I’m armed.
Most likely CCW laws have no effect on stopping mass shootings. More CC could have a small substitute effect, where shooters are more likely to attack in gun free zones vs areas where CC could be present. Unfortunately, not every problem has a solution. Sometimes you just have to eat the loss.
Actually, the chances of a CC stopping a monster is a bit greater than zero, because there are a handful of examples of a CC stopping a monster.
Having said that, I would alter your list to two things:
3. The CC needs to stop (not necessarily kill) the mass shooter (because sometimes the murderous event stops just because someone shows up with a gun…), and
4. The monster needs to kill more than two or three people in order for the event to be considered a mass shooting, statistically. If I were in charge of stats, I would consider two things to consider this a mass shooting: did the shooter target strangers? and did the shooter show intent to hurt more people before being stopped?
The reality, though, is that statistics aren’t kept this way, and there are even examples of CC stopping monsters before they reached this magic threshold.
Yes, these events are rare, but the fact that we have CC showing an effect in stopping these things, despite the rarity, should give one food for thought.