• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

When mass killers meet armed resistance.

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
33
Points
560
I suspect if more people were to adopt this point of view, not only would random mass murder be more rare than it is, but external agression from all sources; crime, alien ideologies and foreign agression would also be less willing to confront us either as individuals or a society. This is the same theme (although unspoken) in United 93; the passengers did not sit back and wait passively, but took matters into their own hands:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/

When mass killers meet armed resistance.

It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.
But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun” policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

That day there were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.
Labels: gun control


posted by CLS at 4/18/2007 01:14:00 AM 
 
a_majoor said:
I suspect if more people were to adopt this point of view, not only would random mass murder be more rare than it is, but external aggression from all sources; crime, alien ideologies and foreign aggression would also be less willing to confront us either as individuals or a society.
I wish more people had that view at VT. Perhaps it may not have escalated into what it became, a bloodbath. I see no problem with gun control, or guns. Guns do nothing persay, it is the person who points it and pulls the trigger who does the killing.
 
But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>

I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.

 
rz350 said:
But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>

I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.

I have always thought that currently serving and retired LEO's and Soldiers should be permitted to carry concealed weapons.  These folks have spent their life learning and applying the correct techniques regarding application/escalation of force in the defense of their fellow citizens - why not make the streets safer by using their training??

If you want to include psychological testing of some kind prior to granting the license, I'm fine with that too.

I'm not comfortable with the thought of ALL persons being legally allowed to carried a concealed (or other) weapon - I draw the line somewhere on the left side of the NRA - but not THAT far left.

I suppose this point of view makes me a "red-neck gun-supporter" in Canada, and a "left wing, freedom hating gun suppressor" in the United States - but it remains my point of view.


Roy

Edited to make the third paragraph somewhat more clear.
 
The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.
 
The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.

I think you need to do a little more research, all the way around....
 
FascistLibertarian said:
The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.

Well now, If you had read almost anything or watched any of the news that has been on 24/7 since the shooting, you would have noticed that he was in fact NOT an upstanding citizen. He was placed (non-voluntary) into centers for mental problems and deemed a threat to himself and others. This was stemmed after calls were made to the police from women he was stalking at the time.
  What would lead you to believe that ONLY police/military/security should be permitted to have a handgun? In each one of these incidents mentioned in the article, an otherwise normal citizen armed with a gun stopped the shooters from shooting anyone further.
  If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

 
FascistLibertarian said:
The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.

The killer was NOT a good upstanding citizen...he had been taken in for mental evaluation shortly before the shooting and they let him go. He had numerous stalking complaints against him. There is more....listen to the news!!

If America disarmed their population their murder rate would at best stay the same, if not go up. Stop living like a sheep!!
 
Something similar happened in the Pearl, Missouri school shooting where the assistant principal stopped the shooting by retrieving his pistol from his car and holding the shooter for police.  There was very little media coverage of his actions as well.  If one student would have been carrying a concealed weapon the shooter could have been stopped, however Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone"

I found this:


feelsafe.jpg


Planes
 
I_Drive_Planes said:
Something similar happened in the Pearl, Missouri school shooting where the assistant principal stopped the shooting by retrieving his pistol from his car and holding the shooter for police.  There was very little media coverage of his actions as well.  If one student would have been carrying a concealed weapon the shooter could have been stopped, however Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone"


Planes

This was mentioned inside the article... I know it was a long read, but still  ;)
 
rz350 said:
But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>

I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.

but then you would have to get a transport permit (restricted weapons) every time you take it anywhere  ::)
 
NL_engineer said:
but then you would have to get a transport permit (restricted weapons) every time you take it anywhere  ::)

There is a permit, called a type 3 ATC that does exist within Canadian Law.  It is essentially a concealed carry weapon permit (type 1 is for armoured car drivers etc. and type 2 is for people working in the wilderness).  They type 3 is not even on the ATC form, but it does exist.  Unfortunately you really have no chance of getting it unless you are a judge or other person with power who feels "threatened".

Planes
 
NL_engineer said:
but then you would have to get a transport permit (restricted weapons) every time you take it anywhere  ::)

Well, in a logical world (OMFG think of that!...politicians using logic) we would make it easier to get the permit to carry. Not dumb easy, but not basically impossible, somewhere in the middle, so as was said, LEO and Soldiers can carry right off the bat, and civilians can at their own expense, pay for training and testing and back ground checks to be allowed to as well.
 
My concern is not with people being able to conceal weapons or not.  It's how this yahoo was able to get a gun in the first place.  Virginia has some of the most lax gun control laws in the US. Go have a look at them.  They are ridiculous. He was able to legally purchase two pistols despite having a mental history.  The article in this thread makes a good point about armed resistance though.  I think it's a good thing given the gun culture in the US.  Good citizens rarely commit crimes the criminals do and they use guns whether they have them legally or not.  Citizens should be able to protect themselves accordingly.

One small thing though that that article fails to mention.  The two "students" who apprehended and stopped Odighizuwa were both former LEOs.  they knew what they were doing and were trained for it.  Something the pro gun camp doesn't mention too often when proving their point using this case.  They only mention how two students who had legal guns stopped him.
 
rz350 said:
Well, in a logical world (OMFG think of that!...politicians using logic) we would make it easier to get the permit to carry. Not dumb easy, but not basically impossible, somewhere in the middle, so as was said, LEO and Soldiers can carry right off the bat, and civilians can at their own expense, pay for training and testing and back ground checks to be allowed to as well.

I like the idea, but I will have to take the company line on lobbying the government.
 
The only CRIMINAL problems he had was a speeding ticket...... He (very likely) had some kinda of psychological problem, I could be wrong but I do not think that is a factor in getting a gun in Virgina. He got the gun LEGALLY.

Countries which ban handguns have lower murder rates.
Over half of all murders in the US involve guns, nothing else even goes over 20% (knives are the next highest).
Edit: US Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report 1996

The US has +10,000 handgun murders a year (doesnt need citing)

In the US people with guns in their house are 2.7 times as likely to be murdered (usually by someone they know) than those without guns
Edit: Kellermann 1993 Gun ownership as a risk factor for homocide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine 329, 198401991 p347
ibid 1997 Comment: gunsmoke- changing public attitudes towards smoking and firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 910-912 p345

Canada has less murders than the US per capita and our murders using guns is about 25% of all murders (slightly more people are killed with knives, slightly less with blunt objects).
Edit: Statisitcs Canada Iniform Crime Report 1996

Draw your own conclusions.

more hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means also means more people killing themselves...
Houses with guns have x5 higher sucide rates than houses without guns.
One study found that amoung over 200,000 people who bouggt guns, sucide by gun was the elading cause of death (25%) in the next year.
(Taubes G (1992) in Science 258, 213-215 pp 346 "Violence: epidemiologists tests of hazards of gun ownership")

Bottem line, people having guns makes it easier to kill. In the data you cited at no time did the crime rates become lower in the US than in countries which heavily restrict gun access.
The killer here only had a speeding ticket before he shot up the place, he was a law abiding citizen. By the logic there was nothing wrong with him buying 2 guns.
 
(Sigh)

In Switzerland, every able bodied male is required to have an assault rifle and 200 rounds in his home, yet there are very few recorded instances of gun crime in Switzerland.

The message in the article is very clear that citizens who are able and willing to take action are the primary means of nipping events like this in the bud; if you or I were confronted with a gun weilding assailent our options would be very limited (to say the least) if we did not have some means to take action.

The availability of guns is a moot point, my home town of London ON has seen an explosion of gun crime in the past five years despite being in Southwestern Ontario (where all Canadian restrictions apply). Indeed I have seen an overlay map which shows the availabilty of firearms in Ontario vs the gun crime occurances in Ontario; there is a virtual overlap of gun crime over the areas of least/most restricted gun ownership.

What the argument then is becomes:

Should we take action against threats?

How best should we take action?

I certainly would not advocate for wide ownership of guns, indeed based on observation I could make a strong case to restrict CAR ownership! What I am advocating is developing a culture which encourages responsiblity and self sufficiency.
 
FascistLibertarian said:
The only CRIMINAL problems he had was a speeding ticket...... He (very likely) had some kinda of psychological problem, I could be wrong but I do not think that is a factor in getting a gun in Virgina. He got the gun LEGALLY.

Oh yeah, stalking complaints are totally not a criminal problem. Right.  ::)

more hand guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means also means more people killing themselves...
Houses with guns have x5 higher sucide rates than houses without guns.
One study found that amoung over 200,000 people who bouggt guns, sucide by gun was the elading cause of death (25%) in the next year.
(Taubes G (1992) in Science 258, 213-215 pp 346 "Violence: epidemiologists tests of hazards of gun ownership")

There is NO causal link whatsoever. If anything, it proves that people who want to kill themselves go out and buy guns. Yay, totally made your point. NOT.

Bottem line, people having guns makes it easier to kill. In the data you cited at no time did the crime rates become lower in the US than in countries which heavily restrict gun access.

Again, you bring no causal link. Maybe countries that are likely to ban guns also have more peaceful people; it would not prove that guns have any impact with any of that. Maybe if you outlaw guns in the US, people will kill each other and themselves with knives instead.

Both ideas are equally as valid as yours, because all you can prove with the data you cited, is that countries that have less murders have banned guns. Maybe they banned guns because they had no murder, too?

The killer here only had a speeding ticket before he shot up the place, he was a law abiding citizen. By the logic there was nothing wrong with him buying 2 guns.

As I've said, the guy had complaints for stalking against him; however, the women had decided not to push charges. He was still put in a mental institution and was deemed a risk. Hardly "a law abiding citizen."

Aaaaaaand +1 Mr. Majoor
 
Back
Top