On April 16, 2007 on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, two tragedies occurred that day. Redundant, and slightly awkward in structure; alternate suggestions: "On April 16, 2007, two tragedies occurred on the Virginia Tech campus." or "Two tragedies occurred in Blacksburg, Virginia on April 16, 2007." The first: thirty-two students and faculty of Virginia Tech were murdered in cold blood by Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean who had moved to the United States at age eight and attended Virginia Tech as an English Major. Maybe "The first is well recognised; the premeditated murder of thirty-two Virginia Tech students and faculty by Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean who had immigrated to the United States at age eight." All were shot by Cho when he illegally purchased and carried handguns onto the Virginia Tech campus and committed these atrocious crimes. Were both purchases illegal? I was under the impression that one was obtained before he was found emotionally unstable. Either way, the sentence could be restructured a bit: "Cho illeagally purchased and brought onto the campus two handguns, which he used to kill his victims and, ultimately, himself." The second tragedy? I'd move this on to the second paragraph; see below
Not one of the students or faculty was able to defend themselves due to a campus-wide ban of weapons, even by those carried by an individual licensed to possess a concealed handgun."The second tragedy was that the victims were prohibited from providing for their own defense by a campus-wide ban on weapons, including lawfully concealed weapons carried by properly licensed individuals."
This is wrong, and a tragedy of its own. This might be a bit harsh, depending on the audience; we know it's wrong, and those who would disagree are likely to tune out at this statement. Show them that it's wrong without telling them directly. No law or policy should prevent a student or faculty member who holds a license to carry a concealed weapon from being able to carry their firearm on campus. "Laws and policies that disarm law-abiding citizens leave them defenseless and at the mercy of those who do not follow laws." As a slightly technical aside, laws and policies prohibit things, but they don't prevent anything. The Virginia Tech administration, in its infinite wisdom, passed a campus policy which prohibits just that. This comes off as a bit sarcastic; "The Virginia Tech administration, shortly before the incident, passed a campus policy which does just that." Even though holders of the concealed carry permit underwent a federal and state background check, took and passed any necessary tests, and are permitted to carry their weapons in many other public and private areas, including campuses that did not specifically prohibit concealed carry permit holders from carrying their weapons on campus, Virginia Tech found it necessary. "Although concealed carry permit holders in Virginia, who must pass state and federal background checks as a part of the licensing process, are permitted by state law to carry in many places, including college campuses, Virginia Tech found it necessary to single itself out." In 2005, a University spokesman said the University had “the right to adhere to and enforce that policy as a common-sense protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors.”
“Common-sense” is defined as, “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.” When one looks at all available statistics and factual knowledge in regard to concealed carry laws and the effect on crime, it is easy to see that the stance taken by Virginia Tech is, in fact, not common-sense. According to Don Kates, a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law and also a criminologist associated with the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, California, has this to say about restrictive gun laws:
“Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."
In addition, in every single state that has passed a concealed carry law, crime has either fallen or not risen at all, in contrary to the predictions of the anti-gun crowd. When Texas passed their concealed handgun license in response to the Luby’s Massacre, The serious Serious, or violent? crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average. Also, concealed handgun license holders in Texas are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public. It's probably best to cite a reputable source for the numbers in the text in this situation. Also, conviction rates, rather than arrest rates are probably better here. Someone had a set of statistics that also threw in convictions of law enforcement officers for violent and nonviolent crimes as well, which ISTR still came out in our favor; that might make for a nice addition if anybody here has the numbers and the source handy.
In closing, reviews of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Any law that prevents a student or faculty member who is a holder of a concealed carry permit from carrying their firearm on a school campus is fundamentally flawed. It is saddening that it took another tragedy to bring this issue back to the spotlight.
Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases. Maybe "Effective resistance to violent criminals saves innocent lives. Prohibiting the means to resist effectively costs lives"
