VA Tech panel report blames everyone but the shooter

It is interesting to note the findings of the panel tasked with investigating the April 16 massacre at Virginia Tech. Their summary of key findings includes the following:

Cho exhibited signs of mental health problems during his childhood.

In 1999, after the Columbine shootings, Cho’s middle school teachers observed suicidal and homicidal ideations in his writings and recommended psychiatric counseling, which he received. It was at this point that he received medication for a short time.

During Cho's junior year at Virginia Tech, numerous incidents occurred that were clear warnings of mental instability. Although various individuals and departments within the university knew about each of these incidents, the university did not intervene effectively. No one knew all the information and no one connected all the dots.

University officials in the office of Judicial Affairs, Cook Counseling Center, campus police, the Dean of Students, and others explained their failures to communicate with one another or with Cho’s parents by noting their belief that such communications are prohibited by the federal laws governing the privacy of health and education records. In reality, federal laws and their state counterparts afford ample leeway to share information in potentially dangerous situations.

The Cook Counseling Center and the university’s Care Team failed to provide needed support and services to Cho during a period in late 2005 and early 2006.

Virginia’s mental health laws are flawed and services for mental health users are inadequate.

There is widespread confusion about what federal and state privacy laws allow.

Cho purchased two guns in violation of federal law.

Virginia is one of only 22 states that report any information about mental health to a federal database used to conduct background checks on would-be gun purchasers. But Virginia law did not clearly require that persons such as Cho—who had been ordered into out-patient treatment but not committed to an institution—be reported to the database.

Some Virginia colleges and universities are uncertain about what they are permitted to do regarding the possession of firearms on campus.

The Virginia Tech police may have erred in prematurely concluding that their initial lead in the double homicide was a good one...

This also allowed Cho to run around for several hours relatively unhampered before committing mass murder at the second location.

The police response at Norris Hall was prompt and effective, as was triage and evacuation of the wounded.

Too bad it wasn't prompt or effective enough to stop the slaughter.

State systems for rapidly deploying trained professional staff to help families get information, crisis intervention, and referrals to a wide range of resources did not work.

It certainly sounds like it was everyone's fault but the shooter's, who violated Virginia Tech's gun ban as well as the legal prohibition on murder when he committed the violence.

But what this report sorely lacks is the option of allowing students and staff the option of carrying their tools of self defense on campus.

Worse yet, the portion of the report that addresses Virginia Tech's gun ban is revoltingly subjective, relying on fears and speculation, instead of noted facts.

It admits that Virginia Tech has "of the tougher policy constraints of possessing guns on campus among schools in Virginia." It also acknowledges there is no enforcement of this policy. Therefore, obedient, law-abiding students and staff will abide by the regulation, while murderous assholes such as Cho easily disregard the rules. "Cho carried his weapons in violation of university rules," the report admits, "and probably knew that it was extremely unlikely that anyone would stop him
to check his bag."

The report further gives a bit of a history about VT's gun ban, which was instituted in a panty-wetting panic after a student who was playing the role of a patient in a first aid drill was discovered to have been carrying a concealed weapon. The student did nothing wrong. He threatened no one. As a matter of fact, this student is a Virginia Tech graduate with a master’s degree in engineering, who said he carried his weapon legally for self defense. Nonetheless, Virginia Tech officials decided their hoplophobia trumped this student's right to defend his own life and instituted the ban.

The report speculates - and I DO mean SPECULATES - that if "numerous people had been rushing around with handguns outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly."

Of course, there's no actual evidence that any accidental or mistaken shooting would have taken place. After all, there was only ONE obvious target - the one holding guns and shooting at students. And chances are, had anyone in those classrooms actually had a firearm as Cho was shooting random students, they would have had a fighting chance - certainly a better chance than without.

Of course the campus police also claim they would have shot anyone emerging from Norris Hall holding a handgun. Maybe if they understood that this could have been someone in legal possession of a tool of self defense, supported by a common sense university policy, they would avoid reactionary discharges at innocent people.

Data on the effect of carrying guns on campus are incomplete and inconclusive. The panel is unaware of any shootings on campus involving people carrying concealed weapons with permits to do so. Likewise, the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon.

AHEM!!! Hello!!! School shooting in Pearl, Miss. ... Joel Myrick... does any of that ring a bell? Let me refresh your memory.

Myrick, the assistant principal, was a former Army Officer and had a valid Concealed Pistol License, authorizing him to carry a handgun; however, due to the law, Myrick was not allowed to carry his pistol while on school property. When Woodham began shooting in the school, Myrick ran over 1/4 mile to his truck to retrieve his weapon. He then sprinted back to the school, where he confronted Woodham.

Maybe if Myrick actually had his weapon with him at the time, he could have saved even more lives. As it was, he stopped the shooter.

On the other hand, some students said in their remarks to the panel that they would be uncomfortable going to class with armed students sitting near them or with the professor having a gun.

So their "right" to feel comfortable trumps our right to defend our lives? Is that how it works?

People may get angry even if they are sane, law-abiding citizens; for example, a number of police officers are arrested each year for assaults with weapons they carry off duty, as attested to by stories in daily newspapers and other media.

And yet, officers are allowed and encouraged to carry their guns anywhere they deem necessary, while students who hold concealed carry permits and haven't had any problems on campuses where they are allowed to fully exercise their rights, are not.

Campus police chiefs in Virginia and many chief level officers in the New York City region who were interviewed voiced concern that as the number of weapons on campuses increase, sooner or later there would be accidents or assaults from people who are intoxicated or on drugs who either have a gun or interact with someone who does. They argued that having more guns on campus poses a risk of leading to a greater number of accidental and intentional shootings than it does in averting some of the relatively rare homicides.

This spurious, hysterical claim has already been debunked by the state of Utah, where students and faculty can carry concealed weapons on campuses at will. As a matter of fact, a recent report indicates these fears are unfounded.

...crime data obtained under the Clery Act, which requires all campuses to report crime statistics to the federal government, shows few incidents between 2001 and 2005 when weapons were found or used on campuses, and in those few incidents, rarely were students involved.

No incident reported during the five-year period involved a student brandishing a gun in a threatening manner, and of the 23 incidents on Utah college campuses involving guns, seven involved loaded handguns while the rest involved BB guns or paint-ball guns. The other incidents involved weapons that ranged from butterfly knives to brass knuckles to nunchakus.

The report says precious little about the possibility of giving students and faculty the chance to defend themselves effectively. It lays blame on the University for failing to see or act on Cho's insanity. It lays blame at the feet of allegedly vague laws that allowed Cho to purchase guns. What it doesn't do is place any responsibility on Larry Hincker and his ilk who aggressively lobby against armed self defense.

As far as I'm concerned, a large chunk of the blame can be placed right at Hincker's doorstep.