Wow. Republicans in Legislature finally propose a good gun bill.

Rarely, if ever, do I agree with any piece of legislation proposed by right-wing bogeyman Russell Pearce.

But his proposal to allow people with concealed carry permits to carry weapons on college or grade school campuses makes a lot of sense.

Had any of the students had a concealed weapon available when Steven Kaczmierczek opened fire this week in a classroom at Northern Illinois University then maybe some of the five people he murdered or the eighteen people he wounded would have been spared the carnage that he inflicted in what according to all accounts lasted less than two minutes.

The University had put in place a plan for dealing with such an eventuality after the Virginia Tech shootings last year, and by all accounts the system worked as it should have. The police were on the scene within minutes, the campus was placed on lockdown and computers sent the news and the alert zipping around campus.

However, in spite of the quick response, it was too late. Kaczmierczek had already taken his own life at the end of the rampage even before the police arrived.

Contrast that to what happened several weeks ago in a church near Colorado Springs. A man named Matthew Murray, armed with over a thousand rounds of ammunition and several weapons entered the building after murdering two people the night before and two more in the parking lot, clearly intent on carrying out a massacre. But he failed, because Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at the church, had a gun which she used to take him down after he ignored her order to halt. Dozens, scores, or maybe even hundreds, of lives were saved thereby.

Fred Boice, the director of the board of regents for the University system in Arizona was quoted in today's Arizona Republic as expressing concern about allowing eighteen to twenty-five year olds on campus with a firearm and apparently raising the specter of tempers flaring into a firefight compared with a 'one in a million' chance. Of course on a grade school campus it would generally be only the teachers and staff who might have a CCW permit, so let's focus on universities, where he presumably is concerned about eighteen to twenty-five year old students.

Wrong on both counts. On the first count, getting a permit requires an evaluation and is not something you can do on a whim. Further, soldiers in the armed forces carry weapons all the time and don't start gunning each other down because of a dispute over a parking place or a seating arrangement. Why would military members be more mature about stuff like that than college students? They're not. Both groups are mature enough to be trusted, especially if they've gone to the length of getting a CCW permit. Of course it is true that if someone started firing at everyone in an army barracks, then they would obviously be killed themselves before they got very far-- but that's exactly the reason why maybe we SHOULD allow firearms on college campuses.

As to the 'one in a million' chance-- that is dead wrong as well. There are less than 200 division I colleges, and since 1991 we've seen mass shootings (which I will define as three or more murders, not counting the shooters themselves) at the University of Iowa, San Diego State University, The University of Arizona Nursing College (remember that), Virginia Tech and now Northern Illinois University. That is more like a 'one in forty' chance than 'one in a million.' Certainly enough of a chance to take very seriously.

To put it in perspective, the five incidents that I just listed are more than the number of major fires that have killed three or more people at the same universities during the same time frame, but we would never think about letting students go to school in universiites that did not include fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escapes and other features that are part of the building code.

I've certainly been critical of Republicans in the legislature (especially Pearce) and even on second amendment issues, where I'm most likely to agree with them they've been kind of nutty in the recent past. For example they passed a bill last year (which was vetoed, because our Governor at least is sane) requiring businesses to provide gun lockers or else allow customers to walk around with weapons on them. This would have required, among other things, a late night clerk working alone at a convenience store to allow someone to literally walk right up to the counter brandishing a weapon or else step out from behind the counter to take the weapon and store it. This of course would have negated their silent alarm, weapon under the counter or whatever other security system they had in place (why not call it the 'hello, my name is Rob' bill?)

But this bill makes sense, for once.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda,... Should they, Could they, Would they?

What would they do at Virginia Tech if they could go back to last week? What would they do, what should they do, and perhaps most importantly what could they do? We've learned that Cho had been identified as a mentally disturbed student who had stalked and harrassed other students, and had been counseled. We keep hearing that 'he couldn't be forcibly committed,' since he had at that time never actually attacked anyone. And thank God, I might add, in what might seem an inappropriate place to express this thought-- but that's why it's appropriate-- that we don't live in a society where anyone can be locked up because of concerns about what they might do or might be considering.

But that's what makes the story today out of the University of Colorado a classic 'gray area.' Today during a classroom discussion of the Virginia Tech shootings, student Max Karson said that he "understood why someone would kill 32 people." This comment frightened other students in the class, and one female student asked Karson directly if she should fear violence from him if she came to class Thursday. His response, "not this Thursday," (emphasis on the word, 'this,' with the suggestion that she might have to fear it some other Thursday) together with the original comment caused the University of Colorado to have him arrested and taken downtown.

Now, I have trouble understanding why Cho did what he did, but don't get all sanctimonious here-- I've read online over the past few years literally hundreds of comments in which people claim that they 'understand' why the perpetrators would commit mass murders, everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11 to the Haditha massacre, to the degree that if 'understanding' this is itself an indicator of future violence, then you need look no farther than the comment pages of some blogs to find literally scores of possible future mass murderers.

Karson's second comment is more chilling, with the implication that he might commit violence next Thursday, or the Thursday following, or some other Thursday (or some other day for that matter.) However, this fits a long pattern by Karson. It seems that he has been publishing a newspaper of his own for some time (called the Yeti news, similar to one called the Crux he published when he went to high school in Amherst, Massachusetts.) He has said some truly outrageous things designed to get a rise out of people, and they do. For example, he was once suspended from his high school after he wrote that 'he wouldn't have dated his (male) principal if he knew that he was a 'child molester,' and was defended at that time by the ACLU. Later, while at CU he wrote an article suggesting that women did not feel pain in their breasts or their vagina and describing sex in a manner that many felt lauded and condoned rape.

Max Karson, who bailed himself out, says that everything he says is satire. Some people who know him say that he is much more of a publicity hound than an actual threat. Max's dad, Michael Karson, who is a professor at the nearby University of Denver, defends Max's latest and says that Max was just making an 'academic contribution' to the class. Of course, what else would his Dad say? I'm not sure that I'd want to be in his dad's class though. Next thing he will say was that Cho was just 'donating bullets.' We haven't heard anything on this yet from CU's most controversial academic, Ward Churchill, but I'm sure we will soon.

Now, let's figure debate what the University of Colorado should do. If they do nothing, then they may take some criticism, but they won't have to worry that Max will sic the ACLU on them again (I might add that I in general support the ACLU-- I don't always agree with them, but thank God they are around to stand for people's rights in situations where no one else will.) If the University suspends him or takes other action which could damage Karson academically then they open themselves up to the possiblity of a lawsuit, maybe costing them hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars (remember that Max Karson has never actually hurt anybody.) Then again, if he is another Cho.... (and don't forget this is in Colorado, where the spectre of Columbine still haunts some people.) Then again, how many false alarms is it worth getting sued over in order to prevent one real one-- or do you prevent it? Could taking action like imprisoning a disturbed person end up being the catalyst that actually does push them off the edge.

I'd recommend that people who think 'hindsight is always 20/20' chew on this post. What should the University of Colorado do, within the framework of what is legal, about Max Karson?

Virginia Tech shooting

This has been a truly horrible day. Not only in Blacksburg, Virgnia, but in the whole of the U.S. It's been a horrible day in New York City, a horrible day in the Amish country of Pennsylvania, a horrible day in Oklahoma City and a horrible day in Littleton, Colorado. The victims of today's mass murder may be hundreds or thousands of miles away, but this is a day when America has reacted with unified shock and revulsion about as strongly as any day since September 11.

There will be plenty of time to assess blame. But let's not be too hasty to assign it. Let the university administration have a few days to explain why they didn't order a general evacuation. Let the police explain why they waited outside while shots were audibly emanating from the building. And more than anything else, let's remember that this was a rampage by a lone nut.

We know he was apparently a student from China who entered on a student visa. UPDATE: This information proved to be false. The student was Cho Seung-hui, a South Korean native. There will be those who will exploit this tragedy to try and further their own anti-immigrant agenda. That would be a cheap shot if they do. Yes, this man went crazy with a gun. But how many millions of immigrants come here and never do anything like this (or for that matter, how many apparently normal Americans do?)

There are those who will blame the guns. This is stupid, since if the guns were legally confiscated, those who wanted to do something evil would still be able to come by them (even if it was on the black market), and then things would go as they are now, or worse. To be honest, I favor CCW laws, with appropriate training and certification. One never hears about someone going berserk with a gun in an army barracks or a police station, for example. It's invariably where they expect to find defenseless (as in unarmed) people.

There are also those who will blame society (video games, music, etc.) Now I've got my problems with society, but if you hear someone say this then just keep in mind that this fellow was exposed to Korean, not American society earlier in life.

As I said, and with the recent example of the Duke rape case in mind, let's take a stop back, let the authorities do their job and see what we learn.