A recent article in the Cincinnati Enquirer titled “College Security Carries A Price,” outlined several ideas for preventing mass murder on college campuses.  It also bemoaned the potential cost of the programs, estimated by the task force studying the issue to possibly be in the millions of dollars.  The suggestions made in the local study were similar to other more publicized reports such as the recently released task force study on the Virginia Tech murders, and another report made to the President which was developed by the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education.

     All of these reports detailed suggested measures to prevent future mass murders of this type on college campuses.  They were also striking in that they all came to some very common conclusions, most of which I do not have a problem with.  They all outlined issues in communication and information sharing, particularly with reference to Cho Seung-hui's failing mental health and the application of existing gun control laws.  Improved enforcement of the existing law is fine with me.  Perhaps if Cho's mental health status had been discovered during background checks he underwent while purchasing his two firearms, he would have been prevented from obtaining those weapons.  Of course these measures could not guarantee that Cho, who obviously had no compunction with violating existing murder statutes, would not have found a way, legal or otherwise, to obtain firearms.

     Other recommendations in these reports discuss ways to close gaps in the mental health system, in order to ensure those who need help receive it in a timely manner, and do not fall through the cracks, as Cho obviously did.  The problem is balancing the various federal and state health information privacy laws and the need for authorities to be able to access mental health records and information in the interest of public safety.  Fine.  I'm certainly in favor of applying a little common sense when deciding if we should allow a violent maniac walk the streets versus maybe hurting his feelings a little by peering into his mental health records.  If the law prevents the application of common sense, amend the law.

     All in all, the recommendations contained in these post-incident reports are about beefing up infrastructure and systems to detect and warn of potentially violent behavior.  That is all well and good, but on the whole these recommendations have two common shortcomings:  all require the expenditure of more taxpayer money, and none address how to deal with a violent incident of this type as it is occurring, after all of the preventions and warnings have failed.

     As far as the expenditure of tax dollars on these solutions, my issue is not the money.  I just question the effectiveness of all these systemic changes in stopping a determined would-be murderer from carrying out his crime.  Unless we as a society are willing to return to the days where the violent mentally ill are preemptively locked away from society, I doubt that we can devise a system which will have much impact on individuals like Cho.

     And that's the crux of the problem.  How do we as a society predict and prevent violent behavior by the mentally ill who are by definition, unpredictable.

     My suggestion is this:  make prevention and prediction moot points by allowing individuals their 2nd Amendment rights on college campuses.  If law-abiding concealed carry permit holders were allowed to carry a firearm on campus, prediction and prevention of violent behavior becomes less important, because now there exists the capability to respond to the violence as it is observed.  When someone walks into your classroom and shoots a student, prediction and prevention of his behavior is no longer required.  You have observed his behavior in real time.  The only question which remains is what to do about it.  If you are unarmed your options are to either fight a high risk fight against an armed attacker, or submit and throw yourself on his mercy.  If you are armed, you may still submit if so inclined, or you can resist the attack with a much-improved chance of survival.

     By most accounts, Cho began shooting in Norris Hall at 9:40 AM.  By the time police dispatchers had received and correctly routed 911 calls and dispatched police, it was 9:45 AM.  The first two police officers arrived on scene three minutes later, at 9:48 AM.  (Bear in mind that the quick response was due in part to the fact that police were already nearby investigating the earlier shooting at West Ambler Johnston Hall.)  After unsuccessfully attempting entry through three chained doors, police finally gained entry on their fourth attempt.  Most estimate that the shooting continued for another 1-3 minutes before Cho committed suicide, so the shooting lasted anywhere from 9-12 minutes.  During those 9-12 minutes, the faculty and students in Norris Hall were on their own against a deranged gunman, and were unarmed.

     There is a reason that attacks like this happen mostly in schools.  It's because schools are chock-full of defenseless, disarmed victims.  When was the last time you heard of a mass murder at a gun range?  So we can spend the estimated millions of dollars to implement procedures aimed at predicting and preventing violent behavior, and we can spend more on memorial services for the victims of the failures of those systems.  Or, with nothing more than the stroke of a pen, we can abolish the restrictions on legal firearms carry and begin to reduce the number of people who are required to be victims.