| ____________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
| Critique Of The Virginia Tech Review Panel: Nothing Has Changed.
Nothing. The don't-do-anything-until-we-get-there policy is still very bad advice. New Year's Eve, 2007 _________________________________________________ In analyzing the Virginia Tech Review Panel's Report to the Governor since it came out, I have praise for the overall analysis. I have praise for the Police and EMS who responded with a well-organized response plan. It was a good report, but I have criticisms for Virginia Tech itself, of course, for her conclusions. I have said for a very long time that one of the greatest fears of citizens in a free country is abuse of powers and the assumption of powers not granted. The Review is replete with mistaken assumptions, not in the reporting, but in conclusions, perhaps well-meaning, perhaps hostile, but in the end, immaterial, because it refuses to address one of the most effective and legal ways to meet the problem of school shooters — especially in Virginia. In this edition of Good For The Country, I am critiquing in only general terms. A more specific analysis of this review as part of a Safe Streets treatment in a sixty-page monograph I am making available to organizations to buy in bulk for their attendees at their patriotic, spiritual, business and women's events. The monograph is titled, Citizen Oversight, Safe Streets and the Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns. For that monograph in bulk, please visit www.ContrastMediaPress.com The objection to the Panel's conclusions is one of my chief complaints, which is of freezing the citizen out of the process of disaster preparedness, in this case, a mass shooting. Students die at the hands of shooters almost entirely due to freezing the citizen out of the planning. This has become a nationwide policy, with the exception of some campuses elsewhere who affirm and support armed students on campus contrary to the V-Tech conclusions (such as Utah's nine state colleges). In the Acknowledgments Section, the Panel cited who it consulted and thanked. It consulted attorneys, law enforcement, some community citizens, psychologists and psychiatrists, and other Universities. (But not, evidently, Virginia's own Blue Ridge Community College at Weyer's Cave, VA). Nowhere does the Review reflect that it consulted gun owners. This is the equivalent of CBS, NBC and ABC associating only with other newscasters in their sphere. Nothing new is ever learned this way (how could it be?), and old beliefs are reinforced. The Review reflects that same habit. In general, the Review does a wonderful job of explicating the timeline, the response, the true pain of the incident, and the profile of the shooter, and even some instructions for the next time, but the conclusions accomplish little, because there will be a next time for someone. In the section of what to do in the case of another shooter for that next time, students are well advised, and I have praise for the formula handed them, but one ingredient is missing: that ingredient is how to stop the shooter in the few moments he needs.. The entire review is reactive, and not proactive. It prepares to react, but does not prepare to respond. Instead, the entire policy is to do nothing but wait for police. This is, in fact, no preparedness at all. Nothing has changed. I’ll say it again: no campus will stop the next shooter by psychoanalyzing and profiling any of them: even if they could be recognized, they couldn’t be stopped in time under the don’t-do-anything-until-we-get-there policy: No, friends, the next shooter will be stopped by preparing his next target to be his last target. The optimal policy would be, of course, not only to react but to respond, and this recommendation to the Governor excludes this. In a nation of self-rule where police serve at the behest of the people and not the other way around, consulting law enforcement is only part of utilization of available resources. What irks many Americans is their exclusion from the process altogether. EMS and Police are referred to as Assets. Well, the University overlooks one tremendous Asset - the armed citizen. Such recommendations without consulting the armed citizen of some 80 million adults embody a philosophy of administration self-interest over the interests of the students they serve. Other Universities agree with the gun owner viewpoint and not Virginia Tech's entirely. Utah is one example. They consulted. In excluding armed students as the review posts in specific paragraphs, the subject of armed students was sentenced in absentia, so to speak, on incorrect assumptions. Ignored. The Review's authenticity and contribution could have been greatly enhanced if, as a University of welcoming all ideas, the armed student were consulted. Without their input, the review is lacking. Instead, the Review is based entirely on input from other bureaucracies with some very mistaken notions about gun owners on campus. Some outright incorrect. Such bureaucracies in America have no more authority than we grant them, (something the lawyers consulted overlooked?) and though they may be knowledgeable in their field, they do not have the ultimate authority that belongs to the people. They cannot speak for us. They speak only for themselves. Can you say Public Trust? The Review can be downloaded from their website at http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html Citizen oversight of this review was specifically excluded. Citizen Oversight. Consulting law enforcement, profilers, lawyers, other schools and some local constituents friendly to a no-guns, victim disarmament policy was hardly an enlightening discussion. What should begin the education and the report to the Governor is that Virginia state law doesn't exempt Virginia Tech from personal handguns. The Administration takes it upon itself to do that. It is silly to build a report to the Governor around doing nothing while the shooter completes what he came to do. The next shooter to visit murder upon innocent students will count on the four minutes he or she needs to operate unstopped. The Review has as much as announced that. __________________________________ |
 |
| Why is this old man crying?
When do anti-crime measures become boondoggles that betray and defraud the American public? When they become unreasonable, illegal and exclude the citizen from the process, writes syndicated columnist and author John Longenecker. National ID Cards, RFID Chips, Zero-tolerance, the Fairness Doctrine, and other imposing policies attack personal liberty as the only force standing up to the increasing compelled dependency on agencies who claim to fight crime. Pick up a copy today to learn how Gun Control Policy steals our greatest wealth . . . |
 |
| . |
 |
| Get your best price at Barnes & Noble online |
 |
| Author and Columnist John Longenecker |