Carry paper

[Jeremiah]

I am writing an argumentative research paper for an English class. I intend to assert that, if nothing else, if people were allowed to carry on school campuses events like Virginia tech would have impacted less lives directly.

I want this to be a paper that is worth of sitting in front of every dean and administrator, of every college in Indiana, and every State Legislator.


I would like INGO's help. What I am requesting is definitive or extremely moving pieces of research to support this claim.

a direct link to Indiana's most current laws relating to carry on campus ( I know the state does not forbid it, only the colleges do)

I would also like those who feel inclined to provide a list of the ten most common arguments they hear from anti-gun people, or the strongest arguments you have encountered from the Brady campaign.


* I am trying to write this from an un bias prospective and why I am asking for help with the research, I would like to here the Firearms community of Indiana recommended important pieces pro gun information, they have assessed as important, factual, and relevant.


Also if any member of this board is ,or knows a sheriff,LEO, legislator, prosecutor, or dean, and would be willing to give an offical statement for or against carry on campus that I can use for the paper that would be wonderful. If In LE please make sure you obtain some form of authorization from the cheif or commissioner, for legitimacy's sake. While I know Many LEO's that support ending gun free zones, their opinion will not trump a police departments opinion in the eyes of the administrators i will be targeting.


Thanks in advance.

 

[mrjarrell]

You might look for info on campus carry from Utah sources, where it's legal. I also remember some controversy out of Fort Collins, Colorado area when their regents went against campus carry and the local head of police stated that he would refuse to arrest anyone caught carrying. Google should help you out on the stories and names and then you could contact them using their department names, etc...

 

[G_Stines]

Might I suggest the SCCC (Students for Concealed Carry on Campus) website? You might be able to get in touch with them to assist you as well. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com

Edit: I strongly suggest the sections entitled Campus Crime, and Common Arguments. Campus Crime has citations for it s sources, and several of the Common Arguments do too. They also make very excellent points.

 

[pudly]

This should be a good resource for you. It isn't specifically about college carry, but there are excellent references debunking many gun myths. Gun Facts.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Also if any member of this board is ,or knows a sheriff,LEO, legislator, prosecutor, or dean, and would be willing to give an offical statement for or against carry on campus that I can use for the paper that would be wonderful. If In LE please make sure you obtain some form of authorization from the cheif or commissioner, for legitimacy's sake. While I know Many LEO's that support ending gun free zones, their opinion will not trump a police departments opinion in the eyes of the administrators i will be targeting.


Thanks in advance.

I'm sure you could get some good anti-2A statements from Mayor Ballard, Frank Straub, and Ben Hunter (the "chief" of Butler University PD).

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm sure you could get some good anti-2A statements from Mayor Ballard, Frank Straub, and Ben Hunter (the "chief" of Butler University PD).

I'm sure, I have a good one, ( when I get vid to confirm it) from the "cheif" of the Purdue PD against carry something to the effect of- we wouldn't know which student to shoot. ( in context he meant they are unprepared to handle an active shooter, but it sounded bad)

 

[Hammerhead]

Contact Det. Sgt. Matt Wietbrock (pronounced white-brook) at the Purdue Police Dept. He's the contact I know at PPD. He might be able to help you with their stance or policy.

 

[Jeremiah]

Thanks for all the suggestion so far, Utah looks like a wonderful test case/example of what could be.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Jeremiah,
My name is Harry Thomas, and I’m a retired lieutenant from the police department in Cincinnati, Ohio. I served three terms on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association, three terms on the board of directors of the Ohio Gun Collectors Association, and I was the founding vice-president of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. You can learn more about me if you Google me.
This bunk from campus police officials about how they “won’t know who to shoot” is exactly that…bunk.
That argument has no more validity on a college campus than it has in any other venue. Forty-eight states now have concealed carry in some form. Intervention of an armed citizen in a violent crime is more probable now than at any time in history. The likelihood of misidentification of a shooter by law enforcement on a college campus is no greater than it would be in a restaurant, store, sporting venue, park, street corner, mall, playground, or anywhere else.
As a retired LEO command officer I can confidently say that it’s hard to imagine a worse venue for a spree shooter than a college campus. The shooter can move quickly and unobtrusively from one campus building to another well ahead of telephone reports being made to law enforcement about his activities and whereabouts. Responding officers will find it extremely difficult to positively identify him due to the fact that the student body is comprised of a group that is similar in age, dress similarly, and have few distinguishing characteristics. Since both genders and all races are well-represented on any large campus, not even those features are very helpful. Searching a building for such a suspect is a nightmarish prospect. The shooter KNOWS that he blends into the student body and will take full advantage of it. It will take campus police many minutes to get on top of the situation, minutes that will cost lives.
FULLY ONE-HALF OR MORE OF PEOPLE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ENCOUNTERS IN A CAMPUS BUILDING WILL HAVE TO BE TREATED AS A SUSPECT UNTIL THEY CAN BE POSITIVELY ELIMINATED, AND THE ONLY CERTAIN WAY THEY WILL HAVE OF IDENTIFICATION IS TO CATCH THE SHOOTER IN THE ACT. HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE?
The solution is clear, not only on a campus but anywhere else: the only way to stop a spree shooter who is determined to kill people until he is stopped is for him to BE stopped, and quickly, and that can only be done in a timely manner by someone who is actually there, is willing to engage the shooter, who is competent to do so, and who is ARMED with a weapon sufficient to do the job.
It is always incumbent upon LEO’s to know who the bad guy is before using deadly force. There is nothing new about this, and it is not unique to college campuses. It’s not easy. It’s stressful and nerve-wracking. I’ve been there and done that. It’s part of the game and the possibility of encountering such situations is part of law enforcement training. I killed some innocent citizens during role-playing scenarios during training as did my classmates, and it was a sobering experience, one that assured that none of us would do it when we were out on the street.
I personally find it disgusting that campus law enforcement officials who are more concerned about political correctness than about protecting their students use this argument to deny students the right to survive.
You have my permission to use this information any way you choose.

 

[Jeremiah]

RMGO Lawsuit against Gun Ban wins -- CSU backs down! - 2010 News - Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

found this pretty interesting, perhaps down the road, Ingo could assemble a legislative committee to use Indiana's Constitution to prevent colleges from prohibiting CC on campus

 

[EnochRoot43]

Here is a paper I wrote for a class a few years ago. Feel free to borrow liberally from my approach, verbiage, and references. It is far from my best work, but it got an A, and I am ok with that.

[FONT=&quot]In the early morning hours of April 22nd, 2007, an international student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State College named Seung-Hui Cho armed himself with two semi-automatic handguns and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition, and set out intent on carrying through the bloody plot he had developed over the course of several months. His first victims were gunned down at 7:30 a.m., at which point Cho returned to his dormitory to resupply and mail a package to the media containing photos and video describing the crime he was to commit. Making his way to Norris Hall, Cho gained entry, chained the doors shut to prevent anyone from entering or leaving, and began randomly shooting any human who crossed his path. By the time he finished his murder spree by shooting himself in the head, dozens of students and faculty had been shot, 33 of them fatally. On Tuesday, April 20th, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, students at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado, entered the school before lunch and began an infamous massacre that claimed the lives of 11 students, one teacher, and resulted in 23 other people being wounded, before the shooters turned guns on themselves. These horrendous crimes generated an avalanche of media coverage, as the nation mourned and attempted to make sense of these atrocious acts. Often absent from discussion, however, is how events may have been different if an armed and trained teacher could have had the ability to intervene and neutralize a shooter before any more violence could occur. Not often mentioned by media is the shooting at Appalachian School of Law that was ended by two armed students, former police officer Mikael Gross and sheriff's deputy Tracy Bridges (Jost, 2007), after the shooter, Peter Odighizuwa, had killed the Dean, a student, and a professor. The possibility that the armed students thwarted the killer before he could continue his rampage deserves an honest reassessment of the federal law that enforces the policy that school campuses are gun-free zones, with the exception of licensed security guards and police officers. Teachers and adult students who receive appropriate training, and hold a valid concealed carry license, should be permitted to carry a weapon on an educational campus because knowledge of a potentially armed population deters violence, because a delay exists between the time a shooting begins and law enforcement can respond, and because an armed civilian possesses an element of surprise and can immediately respond to violence in defense of his fellow man. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One idea that seems obvious to most people is that the knowledge that armed people being present has an effect of deterring violence. This is the reasoning behind the presence of guards, and it would take an exceedingly foolish or mentally ill individual to believe that committing a violent crime is a good idea at a shooting range or police station. Michael Huenmer (2003) writes “Increased availability of guns to citizens, including the ability to carry concealed weapons, increased the risks to would-be criminals of experiencing undesired consequences as a result of attempting a violent crime.” (pp. 49-50). Schools are an attractive target for a person committed to carrying out an act of extreme violence because currently, it is unlikely the person will meet armed opposition. A student who does not know what teacher may possess a firearm may be less likely to begin a massacre at school in the first place. Within a college environment, where many students are above the permitted age to possess a handgun with a concealed carry license, a shooter would realize that his attack may be stopped immediately, and his dream of murder ending in suicide must now be tempered with the prospect of surviving a defensive gunshot and spending life in prison.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Another factor is that law enforcement usually only becomes involved after the worst has happened, and then a delay exists between the call for help and the arrival of officers. According to a report published by the U. S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education (2005), “Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most attacks were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.” An armed responder in a classroom can immediately prepare to take action, and end the violence rapidly. Imagine the lives that could have been spared if a student, perhaps an off duty officer, responding in a similar fashion to the incident at Appalachian School of Law, would have been able to end Cho’s attack with a well aimed shot. By the time law enforcement responded to Cho’s attack, over a dozen people had been killed, and the police were powerless to intervene because Cho had chained the entrances shut. Police officers would likely prioritize a school shooting episode, but it is difficult to forget that in a recent year, police officers failed to respond within one hour to 168,881 crimes of violence (Woods, 2005). In the case of Columbine, an armed staff member could have engaged the young killers in a gun battle, perhaps killing them, but perhaps buying time for more students to escape the fatal crosshairs of Harris and Klebold. The delay of law enforcement response in shooting incidents shows that a properly armed person can be the only factor separating a shooter with murderous intent and his targets for many minutes. As the aphorism goes, when seconds count, police are only minutes away.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Related to both of these points is the simple reasoning that an armed citizen is much more likely to be in a position to effectively end an attack before a murder becomes a massacre. The element of surprise that comes with carrying a concealed weapon allows the armed citizen anonymity until the weapon is needed. If shots are fired in a the next room over, a trained student or teacher can prepare for combat, but maintain the appearance of an unarmed victim until the opportunity to take a safe course of action presents itself. The idea is not that armed cowboys seek out chances to be a hero, but that an individual with the correct presence of mind can save lives with a surgically precise shot.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The overwhelming argument is that firearms are inherently unsafe, and that the possession of guns is an accident waiting to happen. Gun accidents do indeed happen, but most often the responsible parties are either uninformed of the safe handling of firearms, or ignore precautions and treat deadly weapons in a nonchalant fashion. As a rule, the vast majority of those who legally carry concealed weapons are well versed in safety, but in a high school environment these concerns can be alleviated by strict guidelines and policies concerning who may possess weapons on campus, and the degree of training they must receive. Included in this training would be the instruction to keep the fact of who may or may not be in possession firearms confidential. Guns possessed at school could also be kept inert until needed. This simply means that there is no chance of an accidental shooting, because the gun is carried unloaded, with ammunition carried elsewhere on the person. An example would be the pistol kept in a leg holster with the magazine kept in a pocket or purse. Keeping the firearm inert until emergency action is warranted reduces the chance of a tragic accident to virtually nil.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Students and parents do not enjoy imagining these tragedies occurring in their community, but the difficult truth is that violent incidents have occurred in the past and may again in the future. Although preventative measures such as conflict resolution training and metal detectors have provided a sense of security to students and parents, mentally ill people intent on engaging in mass murder cannot be predicted or stopped with available methods. Before relying on the emotional argument that weapons have no place in schools, an informed populace should carefully examine the issue, and decide whether it is appropriate to give loved ones in America’s school and university systems a final line of defense against those who cannot currently be defended against. Safe and secure possession of firearms by trained civilians in a school environment can offer this defense for the moments until law enforcement arrive, and also hold the potential of deterring an attack from occurring at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]References[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. Examining school shooting incidents. (2005).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Contemporary issues companion: School violence[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Retrieved February 26, 2009, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Huemer, M.. (2003). Laws that allow concealed weapons protect society. Opposing viewpoints: Gun control (pp. 45-51). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jost, K. (2007, May 25). Gun violence. [/FONT]CQ Researcher[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]17[FONT=&quot], 457-480. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from CQ Researcher Online,.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Woods, G. (2005). Right to bear arms. New York: Facts On File, Inc.[/FONT]

 

[octalman]

Unconventional Argument?

Suggest you consider what might be considered a bit unconventional. Research historically accurate accounts about the West - NOT the dime store novel accounts of very rare events. Indeed, there were criminals and outlaws. However, when confronted with armed law abiding citizens the criminal element moved on to find un-armed victims. It is a myth that the West was a routinely violent place. People led harsh and difficult lives. The vast majority that carried weapons did so for protection from wild animals and to hunt for food. Read the history of the Texas Rangers.

 

[DemolitionMan]

I just took a moment to re-read accounts of Columbine and Virgian Tech, and it reminded me of a single powerful reason to allow for concealed carry by law abiding citizens. In each case, the shooter(s) had plenty of time to kill people, including time to reload and revisit rooms they had been in before. They had no reason to hurry or be afraid. They took their time, sought out targets, and in the Columbine case even took time to taunt their victims before killing them. The Columbine killers were overheard talking about being bored with shooting people and considering using knives since that might be more "fun".

People on this forum often quote the old adage "when seconds count, police are minutes away." That simple truth is made more evident by cases like these, where one armed citizen could have ended the violence moments after it began.

 

[brotherbill3]

I just took a moment to re-read accounts of Columbine and Virgian Tech, and it reminded me of a single powerful reason to allow for concealed carry by law abiding citizens. In each case, the shooter(s) had plenty of time to kill people, including time to reload and revisit rooms they had been in before. They had no reason to hurry or be afraid. They took their time, sought out targets, and in the Columbine case even took time to taunt their victims before killing them. The Columbine killers were overheard talking about being bored with shooting people and considering using knives since that might be more "fun".

People on this forum often quote the old adage "when seconds count, police are minutes away." That simple truth is made more evident by cases like these, where one armed citizen could have ended the violence moments after it began.

You could add the Lubby's Cafeteria Incident at Killeen TX (just outside of Fort Hood) to this too. One victim (who lived) watched her dad (or parents) die, knowing that her gun was locked in her car LEGALLY outside. TX didn't have legal concealed carry at the time, if I recall correctly. She played a major role to allow carry in TX; because she could have ended the shooting. Same thing at the mall a year or two ago in Oklahoma ...

... or the church in Utah ... oh wait ... it actually happened there.
ok she was an off duty officer ...

 

[Jeremiah]

Suggest you consider what might be considered a bit unconventional. Research historically accurate accounts about the West - NOT the dime store novel accounts of very rare events. Indeed, there were criminals and outlaws. However, when confronted with armed law abiding citizens the criminal element moved on to find un-armed victims. It is a myth that the West was a routinely violent place. People led harsh and difficult lives. The vast majority that carried weapons did so for protection from wild animals and to hunt for food. Read the history of the Texas Rangers.

that argument has been coming to the limelight more and more. there is a book out there titled" the not so wild west" and cracked.com recentley pointed out that an average of 1.5 people were murderd in many wild west towns, I think they claimed 3 was the total count for homicides in tombstone the year of the shoot out at OK corral.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You could add the Lubby's Cafeteria Incident at Killeen TX (just outside of Fort Hood) to this too. One victim (who lived) watched her dad (or parents) die, knowing that her gun was locked in her car LEGALLY outside. TX didn't have legal concealed carry at the time, if I recall correctly. She played a major role to allow carry in TX; because she could have ended the shooting. Same thing at the mall a year or two ago in Oklahoma ...

... or the church in Utah ... oh wait ... it actually happened there.
ok she was an off duty officer ...

Bill, the lady you're referring to is Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp, (she's a chiropractor) who later became a great champion of the 2nd Amendment and who served 10 years in the Texas House of Representatives.

Some years ago I was asked by Mr. John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences, to come to Jefferson City, Missouri to testify before their state legislature in favor of concealed carry reform in that state (this was years before it passed.)

As we entered the statehouse I was introduced to a beautiful young woman who was to testify as well. It was Dr. Gratia (she was not yet married at this time).

We were seated side by side at a witness table and I no longer remember which of us went first, but during Dr. Gratia's presentation a particularly moronic anti-gun legislator piped up and said that if a gunman were to enter the chamber at that moment and begin shooting, that the last thing he (the legislator) would want would be for an armed citizen to return fire since that would only take a bad situation and make it worse.

Dr. Gratia rose from the table, stepped around it and strode up to the idiot until they were nearly nose to nose. She then called him on his stupidity and proceeded to give him one of the most admirable ass-chewings it was ever my pleasure to witness.

I'll never forget it and I'm sorry as hell that you guys didn't get to see it.

 

[Jeremiah]

Does anyone have any information on students stopping a shooting with their carry guns? I remember hearing such a story, I just can't find a link.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Does anyone have any information on students stopping a shooting with their carry guns? I remember hearing such a story, I just can't find a link.

Appalachian School of Law shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jeremiah]

what I have so far, thoughts

It is obvious that student safety is a marginalized concern amongst colleges throughout the state of Indiana. Many disastrous situations cannot be prevented. Fires, tornados, bombings all have an undeterminable impact level. In the event of such a tragedy many things can help reduce the loss of life; fire extinguishers can help contain a fire, multiple exits can prevent people being trapped, and earlier detection can help people get into safe areas. However, on potential tragedy is not being addressed. Spree shooting has become a real fear, while uncommon; such a deplorable event has proven time and time again to be possible. In nearly all cases of public shootings resistance is nearly nonexistent, as they happen mostly in locations where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited, or reserved for law enforcement only.
In Indiana this a peculiar as no law prevents citizens from carrying a firearm on college campuses. Article one, Bill of Rights Section 32 declares, the people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Which indicates a right of the people of Indiana to defend themselves with the aid of a firearm. If a right is outlined in a constitution, it is to be understood that the right is protected from government restriction. In article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution, claims that, “all power is inherent in the people.” Furthermore Indiana has taken a step that many declare as unconstitutional to issue licenses for the carrying of handguns, per Indiana legal code, IC 35-47-2, or the regulation of handguns. This code outlines the types of permits issued, the fact that a permit can be obtained at age 18, and IC 35-47-9-2 outlines where people can’t carry. Schools, school functions, and busses are on this list. According to the decision of Pridgeon v. State, 569 N.E.2d 722, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) School properties does not include the campus of a college or university.
Advice from the Students for concealed carry on campus website indicates, that carrying a handgun on a college campus in Indiana is neither clearly lawful, nor expressly forbidden. They recommend that students not carry on campus for legalities sake, yet ask students to push for administrative change to allow such activities.
Current legal code and is fairly ambiguous, however colleges are not. Most every notable college or university has a clearly stated weapons policy, which expressly forbids weapons on campus. For staff caught violating this policy, termination of employment is all but guaranteed, for students expulsion, a ban from campus, and a block to the transference of academic records is all possible. Many consider this a logical and reasonable policy. A growing number of concerned students and staff have begun working to change these policies, many of them by joining the students for concealed carry on campus. While this policy, taken at face value, could prevent the presence of weapons on campus. For some reason inanimate objects, are to be feared. Although a cursory glance at most students and staff on any campus in Indiana will yield a sizable number of people carrying pocketknives, which evidently are only considered weapons while being used to attack someone. Purdue university’s weapons policy states, "The possession, use, or distribution of any explosives, guns, or other deadly or dangerous materials or weapons reasonably calculated to cause bodily injury is prohibited in University Facilities” The term reasonably seems to be a cause for concern. The term is self is very vague, and it leads to the assumption that most everyday tools have been evaluated by some unknown person to fit along a graded scale of what is possibly a weapon, and what is definitely a weapon.
It is amazing that students are either openly disregarding this policy, or violating it through a different assertion of what a weapon is and is not. While most everyday objects can be used to create bodily harm: pens, scissors, and chairs for example, few are as colleges across the state report crime statistics well beneath the state average. Since students carrying various types of pocket knives can be readily observed, what perhaps are these same, or other, students concealing? Searches or person and bags is rare, and metal detectors and x-ray machines are nonexistent at most campuses, how is it safe to presume that students are not carrying handguns? Perhaps since students are not using items such as pens, and scissors to attack their fellow students, is safe to assume that they can be trusted with real weapons as well.
What rationale can explain a reason to ban a practice clearly asserted as a right of every Indiana citizen? Furthermore, how can the Indiana State legislature support organizations such as Purdue University and Indiana University, with public funds, while they hold policies that violate the rights of the very people that foot part of their operating costs? These are questions that are difficult to answer and require further and separate studies, grounded in the history of these colleges and universities.
What can be dealt with is the implication of these firearm prohibiting policies. In events have transpired at Columbine highschool, Virginia Tech, and many other locations were spree shootings have occurred, lack of armed resistance has led to these tragedies playing out for extended periods of times, and having higher death tolls than need be. College administrators or state legislators that allow such a gun free zone should feel some blame to the intensity of these tragic events. In the words of retired Cincinnati Ohio police department Lt. Harry Thomas, “As a retired LEO command officer I can confidently say that it’s hard to imagine a worse venue for a spree shooter than a college campus. The solution is clear, not only on a campus but anywhere else: the only way to stop a spree shooter who is determined to kill people until he is stopped is for him to BE stopped, and quickly, and that can only be done in a timely manner by someone who is actually there, is willing to engage the shooter, who is competent to do so, and who is ARMED with a weapon sufficient to do the job.” Lt. Thomas also commented that due to the near equal representation of men and women of the various races and colors, it is difficult to positively identify a shooter who is a student. Combine that with the fact that students dress similarly enough to make positive identification by clothing and a spree shooter has the advantage. He claims in any venue it is difficult to identify a perpetrator, on a college campus with students more closely related by age, than in many other high population centers this difficulty is intensified.
So with the difficulties clearly outlined, the question must be raised, “how can someone prevent one of these spree shooting on a college campus?” The answer is that it is impossible. It would be possible to station an armed guard in each classroom, or perhaps arm the Teachers themselves. Some schools use Off duty police officers as security for the campus, Larger schools simply make their own police force. On the surface these measures all seem helpful, but they are not all encompassing.
A few armed and centrally located police officers, or security guards is not a solution. As this can make them targets as a student deciding to engage in a shooting spree can target these guards prior to going on his rampage against the main population of the school. It can also provide students who make a decision to start shooting access to a firearm and extra ammunition, provided they can incapacitate the law enforcement officer on campus.
Another point to consider is arguments against a monopoly of force. Nothing guarantees police will not attack the students, unlikely as it may be, the possibility exists. Police misconduct is real, examine the case of Brian E. Dorian of Illinois, or David Bisard of Indianapolis. Dorian was arrested for a shooting spree which he is accused of perpetrating, in which he reportedly killed on person and wounded three others. Officer Bisard was in control of his police cruiser while drunk, and managed to run into two motorcyclists, killing one. Trusting the lives of students to police officers wholesale, appears to be a rather large risk.
The school board of Harrold Independent School district has allowed teachers to begin carrying concealed weapons to school.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You could add the Lubby's Cafeteria Incident at Killeen TX (just outside of Fort Hood) to this too. One victim (who lived) watched her dad (or parents) die, knowing that her gun was locked in her car LEGALLY outside. TX didn't have legal concealed carry at the time, if I recall correctly. She played a major role to allow carry in TX; because she could have ended the shooting. Same thing at the mall a year or two ago in Oklahoma ...

... or the church in Utah ... oh wait ... it actually happened there.
ok she was an off duty officer ...

The mall was in Utah (Trolley Square) and the shooting there was stopped by an off-duty, out-of-jurisdiction officer whose carry there was against the mall rules.

The church you're thinking of was in Colorado Springs and the parishoner who was part of the volunteer security force was Jeanne Assam, a former police officer from Baltimore, IIRC.

There were other mall shootings of course. Omaha, NE had one and Oak Brook, IL did as well. In NE, a sign outside the building made carry there a crime, so there were no armed defenders inside when the criminal slime came in with a stolen AK-pattern rifle. Pity, too, as I recall a story of a person who claimed to have had a great head-shot, but who, because of the sign's ability to make it a crime to carry in so many places, had never gotten his CCW permit and thus, was not carrying. Proof of concept of Col. Jeff Cooper's statement to the effect that unarmed, a person can only deal with a shooter by running away, and evil cannot be defeated by fleeing from it.

Bill, the lady you're referring to is Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp, (she's a chiropractor) who later became a great champion of the 2nd Amendment and who served 10 years in the Texas House of Representatives.

Some years ago I was asked by Mr. John Ross, the author of Unintended Consequences, to come to Jefferson City, Missouri to testify before their state legislature in favor of concealed carry reform in that state (this was years before it passed.)

As we entered the statehouse I was introduced to a beautiful young woman who was to testify as well. It was Dr. Gratia (she was not yet married at this time).

We were seated side by side at a witness table and I no longer remember which of us went first, but during Dr. Gratia's presentation a particularly moronic anti-gun legislator piped up and said that if a gunman were to enter the chamber at that moment and begin shooting, that the last thing he (the legislator) would want would be for an armed citizen to return fire since that would only take a bad situation and make it worse.

Dr. Gratia rose from the table, stepped around it and strode up to the idiot until they were nearly nose to nose. She then called him on his stupidity and proceeded to give him one of the most admirable ass-chewings it was ever my pleasure to witness.

I'll never forget it and I'm sorry as hell that you guys didn't get to see it.

Chiropractor? Huh. I'd always heard she was a veterinarian. Regardless, I would have loved to have heard her give that tongue-lashing. Don't suppose that's the one on youtube, is it? [noparse]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis[/noparse] (Warning, NSFW language)

Thanks for writing. Good info. Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill