more disinformation from the local MSM

Eamonn

NES Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
88
Likes
33
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Experts say Mass. gun laws may thwart campus crises
By Jessica Fargen
Boston Herald Health & Medical Reporter
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - Updated: 01:36 AM EST

The Bay State’s tight gun controls make a mass shooting far less likely at a local school, experts said yesterday, even as the tragic Virginia massacre galvanized the Boston Police Department and area universities to examine their security protocols.
Virginia Tech shooting
AP video: Complete coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre
Rhode Island victim Daniel O’Neil Web site
AP: Live stream of the convocation ceremony at Virginia Tec
MSNBC: Voices from the shooting
“There are way more guns on college campuses than you think, but there are far fewer guns on Massachusetts campuses than most other states,” said John Rosenthal, founder of Stop Handgun Violence in Newton.
Massachusetts state law prohibits anyone, except an on-duty police officer, from bringing a gun on a school campus. But Virginia, where the National Rifle Association is headquartered, has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, experts noted. Virginia residents can buy guns without a background check and carrying a concealed weapon requires only a permit from local police.
Boston police Commissioner Edward Davis said he’s doing his part to make sure the city and colleges are prepared. He met yesterday with more than 50 representatives from 24 Boston-area colleges, including Wellesley, Boston University and Bunker Hill Community College. The BPD will offer college police training in dealing with so-called “active shooters” and will make sure the city and colleges share radio frequencies.
“Every university, every institution ought to take a good look at this situation,” said Drew O’Brien, vice chancellor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, who met with Davis.
In addition, yesterday Gov. Deval Patrick called on public colleges and universities to review safety procedures.
Gil Noam, a child and adolescent psychologist at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital, emphasized that there’s more to safety than law enforcement. Colleges should do a better job of pinpointing troubled students and getting them help, Noam said.
“There are typically many steps before someone is ready to give up on his life and is ready to kill other people,” he said. “These kinds of people don’t reach out to college health services. There has to be a way to reach out to them.”

This "reporter" is so evidently a moron, it boggles my mind. How the hell could she write an article like this and not know guns are illegal at VT? And relying on rabid anti-gunner Rosenthal as a source of "expert" testimony? I can't believe how completely bogus this entire article is. The Herald is becoming the joke the Globe already is.
 
I already emailed her...

Jessica,

One question for you. If the law against mass murder didn’t stop this nut job,
why would a campus law against guns have stopped him?

The Herald, taking bias to new levels daily…

Derek Hoskins
Fitchburg, MA
 
“There are typically many steps before someone is ready to give up on his life and is ready to kill other people,” he said. “These kinds of people don’t reach out to college health services. There has to be a way to reach out to them.”

About 300 million in the US today.

Take a way-high number for actual cases of mass-shooting perpetrators of 30 such individuals per year (excluding drug war shootings, gangs and the "normal" multiple homicides).

Find psychological/behavioral indicators that will detect 1 in 10 million. Or even identify 10-fold more "high-risk" individuals at 1 in a million.

Ain't no how, no way, you can screen out the few who may crack and kill in mass. Not unless we hang signs in front of all our doors that say "Funny Farm" and strap straight-jackets on every 3rd person who walks through those doors. If you commute by public transportation even a few minutes each day, you see whackos routinely. If you work with the public at large, you find 1 in 10 are a bit off, and 1 in 100 are way off.

So forget the profiling idea. Help people who need help, but not because they might become homicidal sociopaths.
 
About 300 million in the US today.

Take a way-high number for actual cases of mass-shooting perpetrators of 30 such individuals per year (excluding drug war shootings, gangs and the "normal" multiple homicides).

Find psychological/behavioral indicators that will detect 1 in 10 million. Or even identify 10-fold more "high-risk" individuals at 1 in a million.

Ain't no how, no way, you can screen out the few who may crack and kill in mass. Not unless we hang signs in front of all our doors that say "Funny Farm" and strap straight-jackets on every 3rd person who walks through those doors. If you commute by public transportation even a few minutes each day, you see whackos routinely. If you work with the public at large, you find 1 in 10 are a bit off, and 1 in 100 are way off.

So forget the profiling idea. Help people who need help, but not because they might become homicidal sociopaths.

Excellent point. And it illustrates, in my mind, a danger as great as more gun control. Because there is no way to identify the tiny number of people who will at some point engage in an act of mass murder, the advocates of "prevention" will therefore find themselves in an unavoidably Orwellian task: investigating everyone, and assuming guilt unless proven otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom