Mutually Assured Destruction

[mikeb302000]

http://www.roanoke.com/columnists/casey/wb/299773">The news of the day was that the pro-handgun Virginia Citizens Defense League would soon demonstrate at Tech, and at some other state universities, for the right to carry concealed handguns on campus.

The gun-rights folks don't seem to be very welcome on the VA Tech campus, students, teachers and administrators all agree they don't want guns there. Nevertheless, the pro-gun crowd can't help themselves from pushing for what they think is right.

Their best argument is the deterrent one. Armed good guys on campus would make the students safer , because "evil-doers won't know whether their potential victims are armed. That will deter bad guys."

This is pretty much the same brutally cold thinking that led to the security doctrine known as Mutually Assured Destruction, a charmer whose fitting acronym is "MAD." It posits that the more nuclear weapons the world has, the safer we are because there is less chance they will be used — otherwise, everybody dies.

That logic launched an arms race to build weapons of mass destruction for the stated purpose of never using them. The hitch to it is that now, governments all over the world are frantically trying to keep those nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of suicidal terrorists who care little about game theory or logic.

Isn't that a wonderful analogy? Nuclear weapons were produced in excess for the legitimate reason of deterring others from using theirs. Just so, we should arm as many good guys as possible, even on college campuses in order to deter the bad guys from using theirs. MAD madness, indeed.

The big difference is, thanks to the severe controls and restrictions placed upon the nuclear programs, these terrible weapons have been kept out of the terrorists' hands. Not so with guns, I'm afraid. Guns have been produced in excess and continually slip into the hands of criminals.

So, wherever the pro-gun crowd succeed in pushing their nonsense on people, the gun flow problem in exacerbated. And not only the problem of more guns slipping into the criminal world, all the other ways guns get misused are increased too. It's simple arithmetic.

What's your opinion? Is the Mutually Assured Destruction theory a good one to apply to gun ownership and CCW proliferation? Would that work in the long run?

Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[petronius]

1. No, actually, MAD is not a good analogy for the CCW discussion, for two reasons

First, the best and primary argument in favor of CCW is not that it's a deterrent or that CCWers might protect others, but rather that individuals have the right to protect themselves.

Plus, the secondary argument that CCW may provide a general safety benefit isn't based on deterring the criminal from acting (as in MAD), but rather on the notion that a crime may be stopped in progress by a quick armed response...

[SteveM]

2. About....sums it up. Next! nt

[ileus]

3. Do you even know where VT is?

[LAGC]

4. Nope, he sits back in his comfy home in Italy and thinks he can lecture us Americans...

...about what we should do in our country.

He's an outsider looking in.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. The simple fact is this:

The simple fact is this: If I am judged by the state to be eligible to carry a firearm down main street while surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, there is no reason why I can't walk across campus the same way.

There is nothing magical that happens to a CCW permit holder when they walk onto a college campus.

Comparing guns to nuclear weapons is idiotic.

[spin]

6. No, we should not arm every "good guys" everywhere but we should do away with ...

gun free zones.

This might simply mean making sure that gun free zones such as colleges have adequate armed security in their buildings.

No matter how much you dislike the thought of allowing firearms on campuses, the fact remains that a gun free area can be viewed as a shooting gallery to a mentally unstable individual who hopes of rack up a high score of "kills".

Let's examine the Virginia Tech shooting.

Virginia Tech massacre

***snip***


Norris Hall shootings

About two hours after the initial shootings, Cho entered Norris Hall, which houses the Engineering Science and Mechanics program among others, and chained the three main entrance doors shut. He placed a note on at least one of the chained doors, claiming that attempts to open the door would cause a bomb to explode. Shortly before the shooting began, a faculty member found the note and took it to the building's third floor to notify the school's administration. At about the same time, Cho had begun shooting students and faculty on the second floor; the bomb threat was never called in.<1><20> Within one or two minutes of the first shots, the first call to 9-1-1 was received.<21>

According to several students, before the shooting began Cho looked into several classrooms. Erin Sheehan, an eyewitness and survivor who had been in room 207, told reporters that the shooter "peeked in twice" earlier in the lesson and that "it was strange that someone at this point in the semester would be lost, looking for a class".<22> Cho's first attack after entering Norris occurred in an advanced hydrology engineering class taught by Professor G. V. Loganathan in room 206. Cho first shot and killed the professor, then continued shooting, killing nine of the 13 students in the room and injuring two others.<1> Next, Cho went across the hall to room 207, in which instructor Christopher James Bishop was teaching German. Cho killed Bishop and four students; six students were wounded.<1> Cho then moved on to Norris 211 and 204.<21> In both of these classrooms, Cho was initially prevented from entering the classroom by barricades erected by instructors and students. In room 204, Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, forcibly prevented Cho from entering the room. Librescu was able to hold the door closed until most of his students escaped through the windows, but he died after being shot multiple times through the door. One student in his classroom was killed.<23> Instructor Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and student Henry Lee were killed in room 211 as they attempted to barricade the door.<24>

Cho reloaded and revisited several of the classrooms.<21> After Cho's first visit to room 207, several students had barricaded the door and had begun tending the wounded. When Cho returned minutes later, Katelyn Carney and Derek O'Dell were injured while holding the door closed.<26><27><28> Cho also returned to room 206. According to a student eyewitness, the movements of a wounded Waleed Shaalan distracted Cho from a nearby student after the shooter had returned to the room. Shaalan was shot a second time and died.<29> Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have protected fellow student Guillermo Colman by diving on top of him.<30> Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of being shot. Multiple gunshots killed Lumbantoruan, but Colman was protected by Lumbantoruan's body.<31><32>

Students, including Zach Petkewicz, barricaded the door of room 205 with a large table after substitute professor Haiyan Cheng and a student saw Cho heading toward them. Cho shot several times through the door but failed to force his way in. No one in that classroom was wounded or killed.<33><34><35>...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Now let's assume that one or more armed guards had been present in Norris Hall. Cho could have been stopped early on in his attack.

Or let's assume that one or more students or professors would have been armed that day. Obviously the students in several classrooms were well aware that a shooter was in the building as they had time to barricade the door to their classroom. After the door was secured, an armed student or professor could have taken cover behind a desk and waited for the shooter to force entry. The armed student or professor would have had time to be sure that it was actually the shooter and not an innocent person before opening fire. With any firearm experience at all, he should be been able to hit his target effectively. The range would have extremely close and the armed individual could have been shooting from a solid rest which would have aided accuracy.

I would have no problem with requiring a higher level permit to carry in on a college campus. The permit might require a metal evaluation and training for exactly what action to take if the permit holder found himself in a building with a person intent on committing a mass murder. It could also require that the permit holder prove a greater level of proficiency with his weapon than required for the average CCW license.

It should be pointed out that if a mentally unstable person who still had the capacity to plan an attack might chose to avoid an area if he felt that he would encounter armed resistance. Shooting at targets can be great fun but things change quickly when the targets can shoot back.

[PavePusher]

7. So, what procedures/facilities have VT put in place to remedy their restrictions....

on my ability to defend myself? Are they effective? WOuld my being legally armed endanger others?

[Iktomiwicasa]

8. Unrecced...

for trolling and bullshit.

[rl6214]

9. MAD, yup, that's about how I would describe this theory

put forth by this anti-gun zealot writing this story and supported by you. I don't see anyone out there on the pro-RKBA side putting forth anything like this. We only say if you want the opportunty to defend yourself, you should have it. It is the anti-gun zealots that put the 'arm everyone' crap out there. Those lies have already been exposed and debunked.

No blind links in this one again, nice job mikey. You are finally learning if you want anyone to read what you write, you have to post it.

[rrneck]

10. And you work for the UN? Christ.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_terrorism

After several incidents in Pakistan in which terrorists attacked three of its military nuclear facilities it became clear that there emerged a serious danger that they would gain access to the country’s nuclear arsenal, according to a journa published by the US Military Academy at West< 22> Point.< 22> In January 2010 it was revealed that the Point. In January 2010 it was revealed that the US army was training a specialised unit and snatch back" Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event that militants would obtain a nuclear device or materials that could make one. Pakistan supposedly possesses about 80 nuclear warheads. US officials refused to speak on the record about< 23> the American safety plans.< 23> the American safety plans A study by Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University titled'Securing the Bomb 2010', found that Pakistan's stockpile "faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any otheother< 24> nuclear stockpile on earth".< 24>

According to Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former nvestigator with the CIA and the US Department of Energy, there is "a greater possibility of a nuclear meltdown in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world. The region has more violent extremists than any other, the country is unstable, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons is expanding."< 25> Nuclear weapons expert 'Peddling Peril' has also expressed concerns that Pakistan's stockpile may not be secure despite assurances by both Pakistan and U.S. government. He stated Pakistan "has had many leaks from its program of classified information and sensitive nuclear equipment, and so you have to worry that it could be acquired in Pakistan," < 26> could be acquired in Pakistan,"

2010 study by the Congressional Research Service titled 'Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues' noted that even though Pakistan had taken several steps to enhance Nuclear security in recent years 'Instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into question.'< 27> these reforms into question.'< 27> these reforms into question. "

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Nope.

[Common Sense Party]

12. WHAT??? WTF??

"students, teachers and administrators all agree"

They do? Since when? About what? You are saying that they ALL agree. All of them? Every single student, every teacher, and every administrator at that school are ALL in 100% agreement that they don't want guns on campus?

How, exactly, do you know this from your throne in Italy, Re Michele?

I think you may be full of merda.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. I know. Sounds like something from the old Radio Tirana.

For those who never got a chance to hear it on shortwave, Radio Tirana could be described by saying: They made Kim Jong Il and His Pyongyang Posse sound calm and reasonable...

[ileus]

14. remember the king speaks for all...

[Francis Marion]

15. pssst...It's the Supreme Law of the Land. Very sorry!

You claim:
"The gun-rights folks don't seem to be very welcome on the VA Tech campus, students, teachers and administrators all agree they don't want guns there."
An outrageous overreach, unless you have, in fact, interviewed ALL VA Tech students, teachers, administrators on this subject. Could we see that documentation, please?

Here's my opinion: Students' Constitutional rights don't evaporate within the confines of their university. Students should be able to choose when, where, and how to exercise their Constitutional rights.

What's next, censorship of speech?
No more standing in the quad with friends?
Waterboarding for failing a class?

And why is it OK for campus cops to walk around with guns? Maybe they should de-escalate and lose their sidearms.

To study the merit of private gun ownership, compare a control group to a test group. I'll helpfully volunteer the 'no gun' crowd for the control role, because it's too dangerous for me to want to try.

Control group: Randomly selected households whose occupants oppose private ownership and use of guns. The control group will document their gun status publicly, with a large sign posted on the front door:
"People shouldn't have guns; there are no guns here."
Add, for the benefit of our illiterate friends, a nice silhouette of a revolver with a red X over it.

Test group: An equal number of randomly selected households with unmarked doors.

Over time, rates of robbery and murder reveal which group leads a healthier life.

[Callisto32]

16. y MAD works...

so long as all parties are exercising rational self-interest.

But it doesn't apply here. The biggest problem with the analogy is the A in MAD. See, when an ICBM is launched, you can't really get the drop on the rest of the world too well, because other folks are watching really hard for ICBMs. Then it takes time for the missile/plane/whatever to get there, giving the other guy time to launch his own missiles/planes. Firefights don't generally work this way.

At best the firearm deterrent theory should be called something like MMD. (Maybe Mutual Destruction)

[petronius]

17. That's a good point - no matter the level of firearms tech or the operative

laws, mutual destruction is not assured at all.

Another thing that struck me later, that makes MAD a bad analogy here, is that in MAD both parties are suspected of contemplating (or even desiring) the conflict - they're arming up to deter each other. When it comes to self-defense firearms, only one party (the criminal) is actually seeking the confrontation. And so, bilateral arms control isn't really the answer...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Hardly seems that the destruction would be mutual or assured

if one side of the debate insists on remaining unarmed. Never bring a kni -- er -- fist to a gunfight.

just sayin'