"If I Only Had a Gun" at Virginia Tech

[avestriel]

Hello All,

I received the following e-mail this week from SCCC HQ:
----
Dear Fellow Protectors of Freedom -

Our self-defense rights are under fire here at Virginia Tech, and
we're asking for your help in protecting them. The "Center for Peace
Studies and Violence Prevention" is holding its first event of the
semester, and they are making it clear that their idea of preventing
violence is achieved by disarming good people. The event involves a
screening of ABC's horribly-biased 20/20 special "If I Only Had a Gun"
(see critiques at the end of this letter) followed by a panel
discussion with Q&A - and of course, the panel is loaded with anti-gun
folks.

So, since the show is biased and the panel is loaded, in response we
need to load the audience with people who understand and respect the
right to bear arms and the right of self-defense. I understand this
is short notice, but since we just learned of the event, we too are
having to make adjustments to attend. If you can make time on
Thursday night for this, here's what we need people to do:

1) Expert Speakers -- If you are a CHP instructor, police officer,
lawyer, author, or otherwise trained and knowledgeable supporter of
Second Amendment rights and issues, we need you to speak up and engage
the biased "panel" that they have arranged.

2) Audience Supporters -- They claim they already have 50 attendees to
their event that aims to disarm everyone in the name of "peace and
non-violence" - we need to greatly outnumber them and show that the
large majority of Americans support the right to bear arms. We need
you to listen to the discussion and applaud for those statements that
you support. Please email us quickly to let us know you're coming
(sccc@vt.edu).

3) Helpers and Coordinators -- Since we expect a lot of people will
come to the event who are unfamiliar with the campus, we are asking
people to coordinate and carpool if possible to help everyone find
their way around. Also, we may need people to help hand out
information and direct people to the event at Squires Student Center.
Event info:
Thursday, Sept 24th 7-9pm (please arrive 30-60 min early to ensure good seating)
Haymarket Theatre, in Squires Student Center on Virginia Tech campus
(see attached map and/or
http://www.uusa.vt.edu/eventServices...ymarkettheatre)
Open to the public, respectful attire requested, 500 seats available,
and handicapped accessible

Also see the attached brochure on event

Event host: "The Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention" and
"Students for Non-Violence"

http://www.cpsvp.vt.edu/index.html - Note that nowhere in their goals
and mission do they talk about guns - are they trying to hide this
part of their agenda, but it's coming out in their first major event?
A few of us attended their first meeting, as we were interested in the
organization, but they directly attacked our group while we were in
the room saying that we wanted to "give out guns to unstable students"
- what a lie!

Notwithstanding, if you attend, please be respectful of everyone
regardless of whether or not they agree with you. Make points
succinctly and clearly, be respectful and courteous, and let them be
the ones to lose their cool when they see how that their objectives
are based on false premises; keep your cool just like you do when you
are carrying. Also, remember that we all have the same goal - to make
the world a safer place - we just disagree on how it should be done.
We are just going to show that our side has a lot more support and
reason behind it!

We hope to see you there, please bring others along with you, and send
any questions, comments, and RSVP's to sccc@vt.edu. Also, please
forward this message to other supporters right now - we need everyone!
This event is BIG so please make arrangements to make it out – our
rights depend on it.

Ken Stanton
Vice President of Leadership and Founder
Alyson Boyce
President and Campus Leader
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus at Virginia Tech
www.sccc.org.vt.edu

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Studen...h/127977409312
----
Being the reason-seeking person that I am, I sent the following e-mail to the contact posted on the flier for the event:

Hello,

I recently saw your flier for "If I only had a gun."

Can you tell me what you believe the point of a one-sided panel discussion might possibly be? It seems to have no educational value. It reminds me of the beef industry tells the US government that the hormones they use on cows are safe. Well, considering the source, I'm not terribly surprised at their opinions. If you really care about the safety of students on your campus and want genuine academic inquiry into the best ways to avoid violence and keep students safe - you would have invited someone to the table who represented those in favor of firearms. Many civilians undergo extensive firearms training to be able to say with confidence, yes we can, I can protect myself with a firearm if I have to. In no way does that mean that I am searching for a "gun battle" I just happen to be licensed, trained, and capable of defending myself with this particular kind of weapon. The facts are that mass shootings last upwards of half an hour and these shooters moved methodically from victim to victim, whereas a two person "shootout" (what might have happened if a student in the way of your school's all too recent tragedy had been legally armed) typically lasts about 10 seconds. We may disagree on the means, but everyone wants the same thing - a safe, peaceful learning environment. Students for concealed carry on campus promote this by looking into the idea that those of us who could legally carry firearms concealed in the day to day world could do so on campus without it ever making a difference, until that critical moment where somewhere someday that half an hour of slaughter might be stopped in its tracks, Criminals in prisons have been interviewed on the subject, they have said that they are not only less afraid of a police officer than an armed individual but also significantly less likely to attack someone they think might be armed - so the rules making it so that no one can carry a concealed firearm on campus really only call out to criminals "here is a safe place for you to attack and possibly kill others, all the law abiding citizens have been disarmed for your convenience" and sadly that seems to be how it is working out. Inviting only anti-gun coalitionists and family members of those killed in the VT tragedy facilitates a specific point of view. In no way does it encourage genuine insight into the subject matter. I believe you are making a terrible mistake, and that if you contact your local branch of SCCC you might have time to remedy it. You should have diversity in the conversation for it to be educational, the alternative is called propaganda. I hope you do not really imagine that every gunowner in these United States (an estimated majority of the population, not the minority) is a criminal or intends to harm or kill another individual. We are citizens of a free state exercising our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. I am in Pennsylvania where the "militia" argument is null because our state constitution specifies "for defense of self." Do you really want to be the organizers of propaganda that might concievably add to the danger? When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

I'm a strong proponent of freedom of speech and understand that you have the right to put on whatever kind of show you want. Do you realize that people with an opposing point of view are increasingly being denied that right? I attempted to form a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and was threatened with academic suspension by a dean, now attorneys have been speaking for months, and I am lucky that I did not get punished for promoting a point of view on public property (I attend a community college.) I have been lucky enough to have the support of some very hard working people at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the ACLU. They basically had to teach the solicitor of my college and (by proxy) the administration about first amendment rights. It has been a long and arduous task, which has ultimately been very educational for me. If you care about the increasing orwellian indoctrination of students, and revokation of First Amendment rights (not only or even largley on this issue but a broad spectrum of protected speech) check out the FIRE's website at www.thefire.org - check for your college to see if there are any unconstitutional speech codes active on your campus. This is VERY important, this a breech in the foundation of our nation's legal and ethical code. It takes integrity and guts to fight for your civil liberties; it is very easy to sell the idea that guns are bad on a campus where there was a school shooting.

I hope you have read this, rather than deleting it because you disagree. It is okay to disagree. Promoting a point of view based on conclusions drawn entirely from one side of a debate is propaganda. Please do not do this at such an important time for truth, on a campus that is unfortunately an example of just how much we really need to flesh this one out and reach a well-reasoned conclusion. Especially not when you have ample opportunity to contact your local SCCC chapter and find someone willing to be a part of the discussion. It's easy - just go to www.concealedcampus.org and search by state, find your college, and send your SCCC campus leader an e-mail.

Thank you for your time,

Christa Brashier
Campus Leader
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
Community College of Allegheny County
-----
I received a response saying that he would take my e-mail into consideration and get back to me, which of course he waited until after the event to sent the following incredible e-mail ->

Christa,

First of all, there has been no error. However, there has been a misinterpretation on your end.

Students for Non-Violence and Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention is a multi-disciplinary undertaking that stemmed from the shooting of April 16, 2007. The focus is on the prevention of violence, often long before guns even come into question. This is not only on an individual-to-individual level, like a confrontation between two people, but a national and international level. We are regularly engaged in third-world issues, such as education in Central Asia and its effects countering terrorism. But, because we live in the country with the most gun violence in the Western world, you'll bet we are interested in knowing about how safe we are when we give out guns to as many people as we can, especially if we are talking about a campus environment.

With regard to the panel discussion, please know the difference between a panel and debate. We did not intend to have a debate, but a panel of experts on gun violence and prevention. No one on the panel is against the right for law-abiding citizens to carry in due place and time. Speaking of law-abiding citizens who want to carry, you might find it interesting to learn exactly how well-trained and responsible these people are: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/...s-misdeeds.pdf

We will not be inviting anyone advocating guns on campus to our event tomorrow. We are very familiar with the misguided SCCC group here, and they have had events in the past advocating their cause to the masses and never considered inviting the alternative viewpoint. Maybe you heard they invited the man who is now responsible for aiding in three recent massacres, including ours, when he sold demented, twisted people firearms online. DId they support a debate on this with equal representation? No. Did we care? Nope. That's because SCCC can do what they want, and they wanted to host a presentation, much like we are doing tomorrow night. We have welcomed SCCC and company to our event of course, and are eager for them to learn something. Sure, we don't expect them to absorb any of it, but we welcome their feedback in the Q&A session following the screening. Again, just so you're clear, this is a panel Q&A session, not a debate league event. No one is advocating revoking the 2nd amendment, but we are advocating deeper thought into the issue at hand.

I would also like to point out that most people who obtain a license to carry aren't prepared to use their weapon in a crisis situation. Many states allow licensure via an online exam. In GA, you can purchase a firearm only after passing a background check, so blind people are welcome to carry. The most highly-trained snipers can't manage to hit their targets a majority of the time. Imagine a classroom setting and a gunman barges in suddenly. Do you honestly think that you're going to jump up and save the day, a student who has had minimal experience compared to a SWAT team? There's no need to be surprised that survivors of our tragedy are very much against concealed carry on campus and can say with factuality that when you're in that situation, the last thing on your mind is self-defense, even if you would have a gun. Your point is only theoretic as you haven't been in that situation, and hopefully never will.

And the best way to keep you out of that situation is to prevent people from having guns to attack you in the first place.

John Welch
Director of Communication
Students for Non-Violence
Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention
Virginia Tech
205 Norris Hall (0911)
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Direct: (540) 231-2345
Fax: (540) 231-0929
Cell: (703) 470-0528
johnwelch@vt.edu
http://www.cpsvp.vt.edu/
Follow us on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/vtsnv

----
I've just sent the following - feel free to follow up if you agree :

John,

I am surprised by the many erroneous assumptions made by your e-mail. I never implied that your panel discussion was meant to be a "debate" - but as you said, experts on gun violence and prevention. In my own state, on my own campus, I have provided the opposing point of view - if your campus leader has not it is a matter of personal decision making. I personally believe that the best education on the matter can be gained by entertaining all possible perspectives. I am still in the process of becoming a recognized student organization on my campus because a dean decided to tell me that fliers with a picture of a gun (a cartoon gun, wearing a graduation cap, which is the insignia of SCCC) was dangerous, and that fliers of this sort could not be passed out on her campus. It has been a long and arduous task of teaching my college about the 1st amendment without taking the ACLU up on their repeated invitations to take them to court (something I feel would be a tremendous waste of tax dollars.) Meanwhile I have gotten in touch with the chairman of Firearms Owners Against Crime, Kim Stolfer, who is an expert on gun violence and also acting chairman of PA's largest pro-gun Political Action Committee which is a grassroots non-profit and he has agreed to come to my campus for a debate. I have also gotten in touch with Pennsylvania Cease Fire, a government funded PAC in favor of stricter gun regulations, who have agreed to send someone to debate Mr. Stolfer. So you see, I am interested in providing ALL points of view, for an educational experience.

Many of the firearms enthusiast I know have logged more hours of practice and training with a sidearm than is required for a SWAT officer. My brother, who is an example of this ideal, has in fact been robbed at gun-point. Unfortunately he was working in a convenience store at the time and it was against work policy to bring a "weapon" to the store. He did manage to press the alarm which brought the police. There was a shootout which he was in the middle of, and was unnervingly close to the propane tank storage. It really burdens me to know that the robber got away though something like 30 rounds were fired at him. It pains me to imagine a similar circumstance where the assailant's intent is to harm people rather than to gain money, and the intended victim's hands are tied because of a misguided administrative policy meaning that what is legal on the street is no longer allowed on campus premises, as though the signs will stop an armed violent attacker who came for that sole purpose.

You call SCCC misguided, but in the same turn say that you have nothing against 2nd amendment rights. This is an oxymoron. Evidently you are more interested in feeling safe than being safe, there is a difference. Looking at the facts and numbers, keeping an eye on Utah, discussing it with every side of the issue, and reaching a reasoned conclusion will be possible in our generation. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, it closes you off from the possibility of being part of that dynamic solution - whichever direction it may be in.

getting your gun "facts" from the Brady campaign is another one of those situations like the Bush administration trusting the American Beef Industry when they release a report that Bovine Growth Hormone is perfectly safe, or for a more collegiate reference point it's like citing wikipedia as a source for a research paper. It's poor form, and really sadly biased and incorrect. Try taking a look at any of these:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

http://www.rense.com/general2/gunfact.htm

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/guns.shtml

The Brady campaign is not an unbiased informative source, it is propaganda for political grandstanding. The politicians involved are bent on increasing gun control because it is easy to make those who do not know the facts believe that they are going to make the US safer. When people think you can keep them safe they give you money and vote for you. I'm sure you're going to ignore this, but I have to make my best effort not to leave anyone so misinformed on such an important topic.

Thanks again,

Christa
----
I am continually shocked at the misguided arrogance of others. He sent me to the Brady campaign's website! I do my best to be patient and not judgmental of others in their opinions, but it really strains my patience when people claim to be unbiased while presenting "information" to impressionable college students. It is not fair to present ideas to students who may not have had the time or experience to form an opinion of their own as though it were factual when it is in fact propaganda.

- Christa

[RyanXD]

interesting...

[ksig1869]

interesting indeed. They really have been looking at biased info for their data

[truecrimson]

And the best way to keep you out of that situation is to prevent people from having guns to attack you in the first place.

That statement pretty much equates to we need to take all guns away from everyone to make us safe. So much for their agenda being anything but gun control.

And how, exactly, would he propose to do that when the government can't stop people from robbing, killing, stealing, smuggling in millions of tons of drugs, shipping out thousands of stolen cars to other countries, etc, etc, etc.

[avestriel]

The final response I recieved:

Thanks for your email.

Our event was very successful and there was good attendance by both those who supported our work and those who felt anyone should have a gun without education or training or background checks. It was very civil and rather constructive and it was clear that both the SCCC attendees and our panel agreed on a majority of issues, like mandatory training and the need for background checks.

Have a good one,

John Welch

PS. Best of luck to you in your lawsuit, I do agree that you should have the right to share your beliefs and opinions on your campus, we are all behind you there.
-----
Wow... Who here supports concealed carry for blind people who have never handled a firearm before and have possibly been convicted of felonies? That should almost get it's own club. I'm baffled.

- Christa

[Al-Mumit]

And how, exactly, would he propose to do that when the government can't stop people from robbing, killing, stealing, smuggling in millions of tons of drugs, shipping out thousands of stolen cars to other countries, etc, etc, etc.

Never once have I heard a satisfying counter for that argument. Why do the antis not understand that prohibition does not work, never has worked and never will work? Be it booze, drugs, sex, guns or mini-motorcycles you cannot make people stop wanting something by calling it 'bad'.

[Jon1911]

Ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again.

In order to succeed in this battle we must sue those who ban guns. Anyone who has suffered a loss due to a shooting in a "gun free zone" needs to sue the organization that made the area a gun free zone, disarming their friend/family member and then subjecting them to harm because they failed to disarm the evil-doer.

We need to make it more expensive to ban guns than they could have ever imagined. If not, we'll continue the current trend of slow infringement until we are just like western Europe.

[Shawn.L]

they are well funded, have a strong political backing, and a large number of "useful idiots" and those engaged in using the government to satify their emotional wants.

we have to keep taking the fight to them.

put them on the defensive

no compromise's

no quarter

Your fighting the good fight. If we could only get one in ten gun owners in this country involved even in the slightest (no, just sending a few bucks to the NRA every year doesnt count) they wouldnt stand a chance.

[XD40coyote]

would also like to point out that most people who obtain a license to carry aren't prepared to use their weapon in a crisis situation. Many states allow licensure via an online exam. In GA, you can purchase a firearm only after passing a background check, so blind people are welcome to carry. The most highly-trained snipers can't manage to hit their targets a majority of the time. Imagine a classroom setting and a gunman barges in suddenly. Do you honestly think that you're going to jump up and save the day, a student who has had minimal experience compared to a SWAT team? There's no need to be surprised that survivors of our tragedy are very much against concealed carry on campus and can say with factuality that when you're in that situation, the last thing on your mind is self-defense, even if you would have a gun. Your point is only theoretic as you haven't been in that situation, and hopefully never will.

Our event was very successful and there was good attendance by both those who supported our work and those who felt anyone should have a gun without education or training or background checks.

Every time I read crap like this, the more I like my dogs. Some people are just so fuggin clueless and refuse to open their eyes. Dogs may be kinda stupid, but "my australian cattle dog is smarter than your anti gun spokesperson".

[CerealKiller]

Every time I read crap like this, the more I like my dogs. Some people are just so fuggin clueless and refuse to open their eyes. Dogs may be kinda stupid, but "my australian cattle dog is smarter than your anti gun spokesperson".

Seriously. The untrained gunman who shot the hell out of everyone did just fine without any training...