VT Massacre: Gun Control Advocates Are Revolting

We're starting to get the 2nd level reaction to blogger assertions that allowing concealed carry on campuses might have lessened the number of victims in the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Oleg Volk is the source for the above ugly bloodsplatter image, which I personally think is disgusting.

Not because it is ugly, but because it is probably a reasonable representation of the scene in Room 204 at Noble Hall at Virginia Tech, and the massacre which occured there is disgusting.

Oleg Volk performed a service by giving us a graphic of the probably crime scene. It's something we can relate to, and provides a reminder of just how ugly the scene of a murder ... in this case, multiple murders ... will invariably be.

You can see Oleg Volk's article here, and I encourage you to visit it if only to read the comments. These are a curious mixture of people who suggest that the policy of disallowing carry of weapons for personal may have contributed to the horrible death toll, and people who are unable to re-evaluate their conviction that the only reason folks would choose to carry a concealed handgun is (I assume) because deep down inside they really want to shoot somebody.

As nearly as I can tell, this last group rejects the concept of personal defense, and would rather trust in such urban myths as 911 and "Police Protection".

Before we go any further, I would like to mention to this group that the police have no mandate to protect you or to prevent crime. Their job is to arrest people who may have committed a crime and present them for trial ... AFTER someone has been victimized.

This means, gentle reader, that if someone comes after you with a gun, you're on your own. The police may find, capture and present for judgement the guy who killed you, but you may find that scant comfort in your present circumstance (which is to say, in the hospital at best; six feet under in the "Worst Case" scenario).

As you read Volk's article (another sly reminder), pay attention to the two sides of the question which are vigorously espoused.

One side, call them SIDE "A", think that there is no legitimate reason to allow people to carry firearms on a university campus.

The other side, call them SIDE "B", think that there IS a legitimate reason to allow people to carry firearms on a university campus.

(You may pick the venue in which it either is or is not reasonable to 'carry concealed', but let us restrict the scenario to one which immediately comes to mind this week.)

As you read Volk's article, you might consider the comments section the most informative. Here, the SIDE "A" folks generally identify themselves as "Anonymous". Some of you (particularly those who tend to agree with SIDE "B" contributors) may think this is a cowardly way to make a statement without 'owning' it.

I don't think so.

I think these are the contributions of people who don't generally read RKBA websites, but who are daunted by the VT Massacre and have searched the Internet for references. When they happen upon a blog which supports Concealed Carry, they are outraged not only because it goes against everything they have been taught, but also because they are so appalled by the massacre that they reflexively reject ANY reason to have a firearm.

In other words, they have just had The Power of The Gun demonstrated to them, catastrophically, and they are in no mood to consider that there is a GOOD reason to Have A Gun.

I can't blame them for that. People who shoot People are the sorriest people in the world. It's not easy to distinguish between those who WANT to shoot people, and those who are WILLING to shoot people. Either way, the results are sad and nobody who has a modicum of social responsibility is willing to put himself in the place where the only choices ... kill or be killed ... are both bad. Generally, we just go about our daily lives and hope that we will not be called upon to make this choice.

In fact, there are people (trust me on this) who, presented with these two unpalatable choices, would submit to being murdered rather than to defend themselves by killing their aggressor.

Some of you may find it difficult to believe this, but I again point you to the evidence which we see on Volk's Blog.

In fact, I point you to a comment on my own blog, where a reader of my initial comments on the VT Massacre reacted (anonymously) in the following fashion:

Let's just issue everyone an ak-47. That makes sense! Don't regulate weapons of death, why it's perfectly pratical [sic] to have a semi-automatic handgun that can fire 20 rounds in a matter of seconds...someone might steal my dvd player. Idiot.

I assume that this outraged comment was in response to the transcript from the Lars Larson radio talk show, which discussed Concealed Carry as a legitimate self-defense measure ... even on a college campus. The implication is clear, if unexpressed, that I support the preposition of the Radio host: if faculty and staff (and students) at VT had been allowed to be armed, they may have been able to stop the murder of literally dozens of innocent victims.

But really, the issues go beyond this.

Professor Liviu Librescu ( Professor, Engineering Science & Mechanics), a 76 year old Holocaust survivor, heard the shots and screams from the classroom next door and realized what was happening. He used his own body to prevent the .... shooter (the only term universally acceptable) ... from entering while he encouraged his students to jump out of the windows of the second story classroom. Nine students successfully escaped; at this time, it appears that 3 or 4 or 5 students were still inside the room when Cho killed Librescu and gained entry to the room, killing everyone who had not yet managed to escape.

Librescu is a hero. He held he door as long as he could, interposing his body to save his students. The remaining students were killed, we still don't know if they were trying to escape when Cho entered the room, or what their actions were.

Again, at this point we don't know what the students were doing; they may have been trying to escape, they may have been attempting to hide, they may have been rushing Cho in an attempt to overwhem him.

Sadly, there is yet no evidence that any of the students attempted resistance.

I hope and pray that at least some of the students were resisting the murderer, and we are still waiting for forensic analysis of the crime scene for any suggestion that this was the case. Early reports have not addressed this question, but it would be a comfort to learn that not all students were submissive to their fate.

But Professor Librescu is the hero of the hour. He recognized Evil knocking at his door, and realized that the only way to resist evil is to stand up to it. Which he did, in the finest Horation at the Bridge style.

John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

In giving up his life for the lives of his students, Professor Librescu has taught the greatest lesson of this or any other university.

We can only hope that his students, and all of us, have learned from his example.