Montana Politics

CHS Lockdown, Bullock Veto

Shares

Monday, Steve Bullock vetoed a bill that would have allowed guns on college campuses. Also on Monday, we had a lockdown at CHS, which was, fortunately, not the result of any real danger. However, it did result in one of my students who happened to be in the hallway at the time being put on the ground and frisked, guns on him the entire time. Fortunately and quite reasonably, he did not have any kind of weapons and was put in a classroom until the situation was cleared.

I’m trying to imagine this situation on a college campus – a similar situation, but if that particular student (or teacher) had a concealed weapon. He may have kept it concealed in the case of an emergency situation like a campus shooter, but that would leave him in a bad situation if he actually was confronted with a shooter whose gun was already drawn. Upon being frisked by police, then, such a student would have to be disarmed and temporarily apprehended (lest he be in fact a perpetrator who had merely put his gun away). No benefit gained from the concealed weapon, and more precious time lost by the officers in charge of ending the crisis.

Imagine, though, that our hypothetical concealed carrier had in fact drawn his weapon, hoping to defend himself. That person, when suddenly confronted with police coming around the corner, is suddenly in a very dangerous position. The fight-or-flight instinct, to either attempt to escape the situation or prepare to confront a potential enemy, is exceedingly strong, and if our concealed carrier acted on instinct before listening to police instructions, tragedy is likely, especially with a police force expecting to come across a dangerous shooter who needs to be neutralized.

This danger exists even (especially?) in false-alarm situations, which are thankfully more numerous than actual crises. Therefore, any potential benefit in case of an actual shooting of extending concealed weapon rights to campuses (or bars, for that matter) seems far more dangerous than it’s worth, and we ought to congratulate Steve Bullock for his wisdom in vetoing this bill.

About the author

The Polish Wolf

9 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • Have you ever picked up a weapon Polish Wolf ?

    It doesn’t sound like it.

    I assure you, that my cocked & locked Colt 1911 is usually within reach, and if I confronted a gunman I could solve the problem.

    And any of his potential victims would be safer.

    • The most terrifying thing about gun fanatics is their totally unwarranted self-assurance that their gun skills would “solve problems,” despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    • And, I might add, I’m getting a little sick of the condescending ‘have you ever fired a gun?’ business from certain quarters. Yeah, I have, and I’ve also gotten some very basic firearm safety training. They emphasized pretty clearly 1. Don’t point at things until you’re sure you want to shoot them and 2. Don’t shoot until you know exactly what you’re shooting and what’s BEHIND what you’re shooting. Now, if you follow those rules during a shooting, obviously you will probably die. And Eric, perhaps you have received some military and/or police training, I don’t know. But if you haven’t, then going into a firefight without that training is likely to either get you killed, or someone else killed, or both (note that even police with extensive training and experience frequently shoot innocent people accidentally or as a result of misunderstandings. One could reasonably question whether our police force relies too much on firearms, to say nothing of adding more armed civilians to the mix.

  • Yes, Eric, I’ve picked up a weapon, though that’s rather irrelevant. I am having a hard time believing you are not just a parody of yourself right now. Have you really thought this through, tactically?

    i keep a gun in my home and would potentially use a gun to defend my home because, it’s my home. It’s small, familiar, and I know who belongs there and who doesn’t. But even imagining you are the Clint Eastwood you think you are, Eric, wandering around a school with a gun looking for a gunman, you are at an enormous tactical disadvantage. Even imagining that you have your gun cocked, loaded and drawn (which puts you in fair danger of being shot by police, or by a fellow Clint Eastwood), when you come upon a potential target, you have to make an immediate friend-foe determination, with literally no idea who your foe is. A potential shooter, on the other hand, need make no such determination. He or she can fire at whatever – everyone in the school is a target. This is an enormous disadvantage you’re at, but not the biggest one.

    Of course, if this is a good action movie, the cops are all outside and you’re a loan defender of American Freedom. But introduce into this scenario police and other armed vigilantes, and the situation changes, don’t you think? After all, now your foe identification is almost impossible, because you there may well be other armed individuals out of uniform walking around looking to shoot down…armed individuals out of uniform? And of course even if the police don’t shoot you on sight (which they could be forgiven for, given that you’re carrying a Colt 1911 in a school), they have to use their precious time and resources securing every action star prowling the halls when really their ideal situation is empty hallways they can easily secure.

  • Like most of the ‘Clint Eastwoods’ out there, Eric isn’t just being tactically clueless, but rather strategically as well. Strategically speaking, there is only one effective goal of concealed carry, That goal is to protect *oneself* against immediate threat. If one is ~really~ interested in defending others, than concealing a handgun on your person is an an extremely poor choice for going about it, for precisely the counter-productive reasons you describe, Matt.

    It is a strategy based on self-aggrandizing fantasy. The strategy, at that point, is not to defend innocents, but rather to ‘take down the bad guy’, be a hero, kill somebody. These people don’t think they are Clint Eastwood. They imagine themselves to be the G*dd***ed Batman, without ever realizing that he’s a comic book character. As are they.

  • A pistol has a function – instantaneous personal defense at close range, without advance warning.

    Your basic premise that you are less safe if someone has a weapon is very flawed.

    Looking at the shootings you’re thinking of, in gun free zones no less, an armed security officer would have had lots of opportunity to change the outcome. The police arrive after the carnage is over.

    Before I got bifocals I once was walking back to the truck with an empty rifle, a deer jumped up, ran a half-circle around me and stopped to look, and I pulled out a 4 1/4″ barreled Llama .45 and scored a neck shot at 45 yards and I have a witness to prove it.
    BTW – the deer never stepped out of it’s tracks. That was a great shooting pistol until I wore it out.

    I don’t shoot 6000 rounds a year anymore – I couldn’t afford it even if I could find the reloading supplies, but I think if you want to go shoot bullseyes that you would have to work hard to beat me.

    I would fully support a mil-levy for schools to put an armed security officer or two in every school in the State.

    I’ve decided that violence is hard-wired in our society, and we need to get serious about protecting the defenseless.

    I’m glad you protect your home & your family Polish Wolf – I recommend a good short-barreled 12 gauge for that purpose –

    • That is impressive, Eric, but the issue is neither your aim nor your reaction time – it’s your target selection. A person attempting to end a shooting and a person perpetrating it are visually indistinguishable.

      Now, I don’t know that armed guards are the answer, either, but certainly uniformed security personnel, police or otherwise, do not present the same problem in target identification as a civilian with a concealed weapon.

%d bloggers like this: