My GUESS is that we would stop life as we know it as a campus? Come on now. And a response to such an incident on campus would be precisely that, a response. Police rush in as people die like sitting ducks, unarmed. I certainly don't advocate the wholesale permission of firearms on campus. But just as with all the frequent workplace and campus shootings - had one of those teachers (or God forbid, a student) been armed with a concealed firearm - there would have been 2 casualties - the shooter's first victim, then the shooter himself. Schools and workplaces are prime candidates for psycho disgruntled individuals like this guy to rampage and take innocent lives. The fact that the bad guys know students and teachers are unarmed only makes it that much easier. It's about time private institutions begin to recognize state concealed-carry permits for law abiding upstanding citizens who, heaven forbid, choose to arm themselves with a handgun. And if institutions everywhere refuse to get with the times and allow us to protect ourselves, I'd say I'd rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6.

By allowing and endorsing more students to carry guns, you allow people like the shooter much easier access to firearms and therefore facilitate their rampages. The casualties would have been scores of times greater if he was working with another shooter. Furthermore, carrying a gun does not mean that you will be able to shoot it at a person. It takes YEARS of training and practice to be able to shoot and kill somebody, especially if you are in a situation where the shooter just walked into a classroom and started randomly killing people. By the time that one person who was armed would find the gun in their bag, take it out of the holster, and take the safety off (do those things without mistake even though it is a rather scary situation), that would give the shooter plenty of time to kill him. Advocating looser gun laws is just ridiculous.

[QUOTE id="7efd0c4d-d7a0-45db-b616-ff97ead43cc0"]"My GUESS is that we would stop life as we know it as a campus?" Come on now. And a response to such an incident on campus would be precisely that, a response. Police rush in as people die like sitting ducks, unarmed. I certainly don't advocate the wholesale permission of firearms on campus. But just as with all the frequent workplace and campus shootings - had one of those teachers (or God forbid, a student) been armed with a concealed firearm - there would have been 2 casualties - the shooter's first victim, then the shooter himself. Schools and workplaces are prime candidates for psycho disgruntled individuals like this guy to rampage and take innocent lives. The fact that the bad guys know students and teachers are unarmed only makes it that much easier. It's about time private institutions begin to recognize state concealed-carry permits for law abiding upstanding citizens who, heaven forbid, choose to arm themselves with a handgun. And if institutions everywhere refuse to get with the times and allow us to protect ourselves, I'd say I'd rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6.[/QUOTE] Or there would have been even more casualties, as police tried to sort out which of the gun weilding students was the shooter and which was the victim with the John Wayne hero fantasy. It seriously disgusts me that people can't even wait for the blood to dry without making this a referrendum, pro or anti-gun control, on thier own personal views, yet I feel compelled to respond to the sheer stupidity of your comment. President Bush and his shout out to the NRA at his very first press conference following this tragedy included. Stay classy George. First off, this morbid argument you make assumes not only that all the students in this appalacian campus follow the University's gun policy, but that even the most fervent gun owner would think to take their gun to their morning ENGINEERING CLASS. It further assumes that these skilled and responsible gun owners who just happened to think, "Wow, maybe I'll take my gun to class just in case some crazy guy bursts in and unloads two clips into the crowd," would just happen to have that gun sitting in their lap and not packed in their bag, and just happened to be staring directly at the door and not taking notes or listening to the lecture when some crazy guy did, in fact, burst in with both barrels blazing. And we can assume that they were still not too busy hiding behind his or her desk and/or bleeding to death to do any good.

My guess is that we would stop life as we know it as a campus, Rush said. Kind of a weird choice of words, wouldn't you say?

For example, there is currently no way to alert the entire University of an emergency through a campuswide e-mail... It's 2007 and Penn still hasn't figured out how to email everyone on campus? Even though PENN PROVIDES THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES? How ridiculous is that? If anyone doubts that Penn's "decentralized" approach to computing has been a failure, they need look no further than this ridiculous statement.

[QUOTE id="ba84df42-e48c-4aec-83d7-53f69c36301e"]It's 2007 and Penn still hasn't figured out how to email everyone on campus?[/QUOTE] Emailing everyone at Penn is possible and is done a few times a year. The real issue is that sending tens of thousands of emails takes time -- time to send, time until people read them, time until believe the threat -- and is not the best way to notify people quickly in the middle of an emergency situation. Faculty who are teaching and students in class (or on their way to class) are probably not reading their email.

I'm confused why the focus always seems to be gun control when it seems to me that it is mental health that needs to be taken more seriously. With respect to gun control, perhaps a mental health screen needs to be incorporated in the firearm application process. And I don't understand the point of relying on e-mail for campus-wide alerts, when sirens seem to be the most effective means of communicating a danger threat. I don't want to hear by e-mail that my building is on fire and the same goes for a potential gunman in the area.

Security at this university is a fucking joke! Anyone can walk in unabated to numerous campus buildings. Meyerson Hall, Fisher Fine Arts, Williams Hall, etc. have no guards, no restricted access. It's a miracle nothing like this hasn't happened here.

I remember reading about a sort of bluetooth text messaging system (sorry for the imprecise non-technical description) for advertising around retail stores. The premise being that a text message emanates from the store and anyone within a given radius receives it. Since a crazed gunman would affect everyone in the vicinity and not solely students, would there be some possibility of such a system at penn?

[QUOTE id="bee96fe2-b85f-4432-8066-987caf1ce66c"]I remember reading about a sort of bluetooth text messaging system (sorry for the imprecise non-technical description) for advertising around retail stores. The premise being that a text message emanates from the store and anyone within a given radius receives it. Since a crazed gunman would affect everyone in the vicinity and not solely students, would there be some possibility of such a system at penn?[/QUOTE] This is actually a really good idea, though there may be some problems with it... For starters, the bluetooth range is limited, so there would need to be quite a few transmitters. Additionally, they require the reciever to accept the pairing. I live in NYC (hence the handle) and the stores and billboards of Times Square try to do this, and I summarily reject them. However if there were some clear emergency name on the pairing request, I might accept. Of course, someone could also maliciously pair using a fake emergency name. I think this is a system that warrants looking into, especially given the pervasiveness of bluetooth phones.

This is a real tragedy and such a waste of life. I expected uneducated people to bring up gun control, which is irrelevant to this issue. The real issue is: where in the hell was armed security and the police and why did take so long for them to arrive? Lawsuits are standing by.

NYC Alum, I'm going to say it's safe to assume that you don't own a firearm or know how to handle one for that matter. A responsible carrier of a handgun does not keep it where she/he can not get to it. IE: They don't put them in their backpack, but rather keep them holstered in what is known as an Inside-the-waist-band holster. Your argument on having to release the thumb safety is flawed, also. First, a thumb safety takes less than a second to switch from safe to fire. Second, not all firearms have external safties. Glock produces weapons that have the safety inside the trigger. And no, Glocks do not have a history of accidental discharges. The application that Alum brings up is not that far fetched. West Philadelphia, where Penn and Drexel are located, has had increases in crime. So why wouldn't the most fervent gun owner carry it with them? A responsible gun owner in the situation above is not flailing the firearm around, but is rather sitting there taking notes, paying attention, and noone around them is the wiser to the fact that they are responsibly handling a firearm. Which brings us to the point that a responsible gun owner who fires his weapon is either going to a) Holster the weapon once the threat is no longer one or B) Drop the weapon if ordered to do so by police.

hey stevko, call me uneducated if you wish, but my degree says the same exact thing your's says, so what does that make you? p.s. i've seen quite a few of your recent posts listing your full name and all, and i can't help but ask...are you trying to run for office or something?

Other Side of Chestnut, you guessed wrong, though for obvious reasons, I do not keep a weapon in NYC (a concealed carry permit is virtually impossible to obtain). Nor would I, as I am unconvinced that having one on me would keep me particularly safe. I enjoy hitting the range, and have even been Turkey hunting. I don't think casual gun ownership is a guaranteed right, but I understand that America has an unnatural fetish for the killing machines, and as such, and as a responsible adult, I do not object to myself or others owning them. Most responsible gun owners that I know keep thier weapons locked away in cabinets, and most of the folks who don't for "self defense" purposes do little to inspire my confidence in the prudence of thier daily carrying. Your response does little to dissuade my view that your cowboy fantasy holds very little water in real life, and even less to convince me that your knee-jerk response to politicize this tragedy is anything less than offensive. Furthermore, the fact that you harbor this fantasy and believe carrying a gun to class is a smart way to stay safe in Philly makes me question your judgement as a "responsible gun owner". Yes, I question the judgement of anyone paranoid (or imbued with hero-fantasy) enough to show up at 9am computer science lecture with a holstered weapon. Last week, there were commenters questioning the manliness of anyone who, as suggested in an editorial, would call an escort? Even more so, I question the judgement of anyone who thinks turning a play for thier wallet into a gunfight is a smart move. Sorry, but it's just how it looks to me.

[QUOTE id="04151cb5-8dc9-4eca-a5d8-3b71a545ac49"]This is a real tragedy and such a waste of life. I expected uneducated people to bring up gun control, which is irrelevant to this issue. The real issue is: where in the hell was armed security and the police and why did take so long for them to arrive? Lawsuits are standing by.[/QUOTE] I rarely agree with you Steveko, but I do here, at least with respect to your first point. It's obvious that I believe in a certain degree of gun contol (clearly everyone does on some level -- noone is defending my right to own a nuke), but I think it's particularly disquieting that anyone on either side of the issue would raise it at this particular juncture. Let's wait a few days at least to the let the prayer services wrap up. I find all this morbid post-chest thumping and monday morning quarterbacking gross. Situations like this are so random and rare and unconscionable that to assume on any level that had you been there, or been the one in charge things would have turned out differently is self-deluded. There will be time to analyze the events and try to come up with protocols to improve safety. And of course these will have to be balanced against real world costs and benefits. I can promise you something like this WILL happen again. It will happen in a place with armed students, and one without. Somewhere someday an armed security guard will use a weapon in error and there will be hell to pay, and somewhere someday an unarmed one will stay in a vestibule because he is afraid.

Casual gun ownership actually is a guaranteed right of law abiding citizens. A person's concern for their well-being doesn't necessarily mean they lead imprudent lives, but rather are in a situation where they feel their well-being is at risk. But if I were to use your logic, then the prudence of your daily life is questionable if you associate yourself with people who you don't deem to be prudent. However, doing so would be as asinine as the statement itself. I wouldn't expect my response to dissuade your point of view. Politics always arise out of tragedies; it's the nature of the beast. If that offends you, then I don't know what to tell you other than don't read my posts, because I'm certainly not sorry that you find what I say to be offensive. Your definition of "responsible gun owner" must be different from that of a responsible gun owner. First off, let me say that I'm not toting a pistol to class. God forbid someone get the wrong impression. Amongst other things, a responsible gun owner is, like I mentioned before, not acting like he has a gun on his person, and is of sound mind to not go on a killing spree. I wouldn't question the judgment of someone showing up to class with a holstered pistol, but rather the judgment and sanity of the one who shows up with it already unholstered. I would also call into question the judgment of anyone who thinks that all a criminal wants is money, and may not also wish to inflict physical harm on your well-being in the process.

While I do agree that Penn Police would have done a far greater job at maintaining and isolating the situation, I do not, however, believe that anything could realistically be done to stop such a random atrocity from happening... The disturbing reality is that it could basically happen anywhere. On another note, one can only wonder what kind of impacts such events would have on admission policies far into the future. Would we have to submit records of mental and social health or even go as far to conduct genetic testing to analyze the risks arising from antisocial traits? Probably not. But from the way policy-makers spin things, it's not too far from a reality. We should all take a little time to reflect on why these things happen, and then proceed to do something about it...

Where in "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." do you see anything that says it isn't guaranteed? Perhaps it's in that "shall not be infringed" part. I don't carry a gun to class primarily because I'm not in class, but I do carry it with me when I go to work. I don't think the gunman in VA Tech would've been dissuaded by the potential that someone else was armed, but he may not have been able to kill 32 people before he was done wreeking terror either had one of them been. Unfortunatly, we'll never know and a tragedy has taken place. If a tree falls in a forest...noone said you had to stay to watch more trees fall. Not everyone wets their pants and admits defeat the moment they are faced with a situation that calls for extraordinary actions to be taken. The teacher who used his body to prevent the shooter from entering the classroom acted heroicly by doing what he could with what he had. It's probably safe to say that he wished he had a gun on his person during the incident. I sincerely hope that noone tries to rob anyone, but realisticly it doesn't happen that way. Deadly force is justifiable when presented with the imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, which is exactly the state you're in when being robbed. I have extensive training in recognizing and responding to threats to my well-being and the well-being of others. I've also had the misfortune of having to use said training. So this "hero fantasy" you keep alluding to me having has been my reality. As far as me being insane, I've been diagnosed to be of sound mind, before I began training and after I had to use it, by individuals who's job it is make those decisions based on something other than a moral soapbox and elitist attitude.

I can read, but I'm sorry, it's the "well organized militia" part that gets me. I understand your presumed argument that gun ownership is guaranteed to defend against the "well organized militia", but I don't subscribe to the view that this is the intent, nor the view that this is relevant in today's context. Hence my point that this is debatable, even amongst the most learned constitutional scholars. There is nothing casual about being well organized. You carrying a gun to class has nothing to do with a well organized militia anyway--joining one or defending against it. Moreover, I am perfectly capable of reading things that offend me. That doesn't mean they aren't offensive. Whether I respond or not, you are still a low-life opportunist to sully this tragedy with your political agenda. You've used deadly force to defend yourself (not at war or in the capacity of a law enforcement officer)? I'm calling shenanigans. If it's at war or otherwise in uniform, than thank you for your service, but this hypothetical is not analagous. If it's not at war, than frankly, you'll have to deem me skeptic for now. Can we add dishonest to the list of qualifications you supposedly have? Frankly, I'm glad I don't work with you, and if you worked for me, your tenure would be short lived. I guess I'll just have to take my chances that noone busts in guns blazing on me. I like the odds of this better than sharing an office with a cowboy who thinks taking his piece to the office is acceptable or prudent. Again, if your office is a military base or police station, than my judgement does not apply, however you'll have to forgive me for pointing out that your story then becomes irrelevant. I'm actually guessing it's not the latter since your position flys in the face of everything most law enforcement officials I know (the only people I willingly associate with who carry guns full time) believe.

Oh, and your "elitist soapbox" commment is cute, given the way you've chosen to exploit this tragedy almost immediately. I'm actually fairly neutral on gun control, but your fixation certainly isn't very reassuring.

[QUOTE id="7efd0c4d-d7a0-45db-b616-ff97ead43cc0"]"My GUESS is that we would stop life as we know it as a campus?" Come on now. And a response to such an incident on campus would be precisely that, a response. Police rush in as people die like sitting ducks, unarmed. I certainly don't advocate the wholesale permission of firearms on campus. But just as with all the frequent workplace and campus shootings - had one of those teachers (or God forbid, a student) been armed with a concealed firearm - there would have been 2 casualties - the shooter's first victim, then the shooter himself. Schools and workplaces are prime candidates for psycho disgruntled individuals like this guy to rampage and take innocent lives. The fact that the bad guys know students and teachers are unarmed only makes it that much easier. It's about time private institutions begin to recognize state concealed-carry permits for law abiding upstanding citizens who, heaven forbid, choose to arm themselves with a handgun. And if institutions everywhere refuse to get with the times and allow us to protect ourselves, I'd say I'd rather be judged by 12 of my peers than carried by 6.[/QUOTE] Casual gun ownership is a right, but not one guaranteed by the constitution in my view. We can debate the meaning of second ammendment, but to say it guarantees this in the way you do is far from from fact. And no, I don't generally hang out with people who carry guns on a daily basis. I wouldn't, and frankly, I wouldn't feel comfortable around you. By your own admission, you don't tote a gun to class -- so much for your hero fantasy. Do you think that this young man would have been dissuaded by the threat that someone MIGHT have a gun? Doubtful. As far as avoiding your comments to avoid offense... if a tree falls in a forest... is it still offensive? You compound your offesniveness by being dead wrong. Your use of this tragedy in this manner is opportunistic, and your monday morning heroism is pure fantasy. Most reasonable people can see this quite clearly. I sincerly hope for your sake noone ever tries to rob you. The use of deadly force to defend property is illegal, and with good reason. Though the fact that you assume that a causal criminal desires to inflict harm for any other reason that to facilitate this makes me think you might be a good candidate for an insanity defense, though sadly, not a shining example of someone I'm comfortable knowing is carrying a gun.

I should add, that even the genereally classless NRA had the good sense to point out that yesterday was not the time to debate this issue. So much for George Bush and evidently some Penn students.

It's well regulated, not well organized. Though I highly doubt an internet forum is going to settle our take on the semantics of it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm alot of things, but dishonest isn't one of them. I can sit here all night and type, but nothing is going to change your mind if you feel I'm lying from the other end of the net. My training was provided to me by the United States Marine Corps. I've used deadly force while on duty and while on liberty. Neither time was I brought up on charges of overstepping my bounds. Deadly force doesn't strictly pertain to weapons, but rather the level of force that is applied. Funny thing about the training they provided is that you don't forget how and when to use it simply because you're not wearing cammies at the time. Keep hurling your insults for they remind this "low-life opportunist" that the rights I proudly helped defend have not all been given up. Would you say the fact that I'm no longer in the service means I'm less qualified than I was when I wore the uniform? The odds of your office being shot up by a crazy gunman I don't know, but the odds of yours or any other workplace being shot up by me are zero. In a perfect world we wouldn't need or have guns; however, the polar opposite would be only allowing a select group to have them. A state where only police carry guns is a police state. And that scares me just as much as the Patriot Act and every other gov't attempt to take away our civil liberties.

Well, let me thank you again for your service. While it clearly is not analagous (West Philly, or Blacksburg is not Kabul), it does take quite a bit of courage to serve and protect. I've seen quite a few keyboard commando's posit the same argument you have, with the same tasteless sense of timing, but assuredly quite few, if any, have made the sacrifice that you have. This is heroism, not the hero-fantasy of an imagined world of vigilante professors and students. I'm curious about your story of deadly force on liberty. Care to elaborate? Was this a situation of stranger, here in America, attacking you with the sole purpose of inflicting harm? Did your deadly force involve a firearm? You make a distinction between well organized, and well regulated. By that then, am I correct in assuming that you believe gun regulation is not only prudent, but necessary and constitutionally obligated? I never said we should ban guns outright--it was you who chose this unfortunate opportunity to raise the topic of gun control. I could easily have pointed out that this young man purchased both his guns legally. Yes, banning guns will never bring the incidence of gun crime in this country to zero. But I could have made the case (very likely true in this specific instance) that he would not have had the means to carry out this crime were handguns completely banned. I did not, because it was not approrpiate. I'm sorry if I offended you with my names -- I think I've heard too many fake hero fantasies in the last few days to keep me from recognizing that sometimes these fantasies are posited by real heroes. Let's be fair, you've made a few incorrect assumptions about me as well. You are definately an opportunist, but the body of your life's work, that I am aware so far, prevents me from being able to judge you a "low-life" in the extreme. I would not say you are any less qualified to handle a gun having left the service, but being qualified and being appropriate (or exercising good civilian judgement) are very diffent things. Workplace and campus shootings are not frequent as you say, and just this week, a secret service member's glock accidentally discharged inside the White House gate. While this is not the time nor place for a debate the statistical probabilities of these issues, calling on private institutions to open thier doors to firearms is no panacea. Your gun, regardless of your good work, is not welcome loaded in my home or at all in my office. But I might take you hunting with me. I'll bet you're a sick shot.

I understand your encounter with keyboard commandos, and the frustration that follows. Thank you for your gratitude for the service. I wouldn't trade the experience for the world. I may come off as opportunistic, but you must realize that this page is a very small part of my daily life. While I didn't personally know anyone killed in VA Tech, my heart does go out to them. My little cousin's best friend is the sister of the young man, last name McQuade (not sure if I spelled it right), from NJ who was wounded by the shooter. I'll elaborate somewhat on my incident while on liberty. I was stationed overseas in Okinawa, and not everyone over there shares the sentiment that Americans should occupy parts of the island more than 60 years after WW 2. Anyway...what started as rude comment in broken English at an off-base bar eventually escalated into a knife being pulled on us. I'm not particularly proud of the injuries that man sustained, but I'm proud to say none of my friends were hurt. My on-duty incidents I generally keep to myself unless prompted by pillow talk as an attempt to know me on a deeper level. Even then I'm not quick to open up. I'm wholeheartedly agree that regulations on firearms are necessary. With the rights we have comes responsibilities. The shooter in VA should have never been able to legally purchase firearms, especially with the documented background he had. No worries on the name calling, I've been called worse. I did make an unfair assumption as to your background and views on guns as well, and for that I apologize. I consider myself more of a stoic than an opportunist, though I can see how it could be misconstrued that way, especially online. My loaded weapon not being welcomed in your home is a view I respect and comply with. I don't think their should be any say on which rights you choose or don't choose to use inside your own home. When I swore to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic I took it to be a lifelong oath regardless of how long I stayed in. I also took it to mean enemies who wear suits and speak smoothe.