Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a young lady who faced tragedy at Virginia Tech before channeling her grief into a positive campaign to keep America’s campuses safe.
On the morning of April 16, 2007, Megan Meadows was sitting in her Media Writing class at Virginia Tech when a friend turned to her and said, “Something’s happened.” For the next four hours, her class was in lockdown as word spread about a shooting at West Ambler Johnston Hall. She and her fellow students spent that time watching CNN for developing news and hiding under their desks for protection.
During this time, Megan began calling her close friend Reema Samaha to see if she was okay, but there was no answer. Hours later, she would go to the Inn at Virginia Tech, where many families who could not get in touch with their loved ones had congregated. When she saw Reema’s brother there, she knew immediately—Reema was one of those killed at the shooter’s second stop that day, Norris Hall. In Megan’s own words:
“That was the most awful place I have ever been in my life. Just hoards and hoards of sobbing people, crying out names… I was so fixated on the one person I lost, that I couldn't even fathom the real number of people killed at the hands of one person until later.”
“No one should have to go through this, especially at their own school,” she thought.
Shortly thereafter, Megan saw a letter from a new group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in Virginia Tech’s school paper, the Collegiate Times. “I was not aware that allowing guns onto campuses was even being considered,” Megan remembers, “and when I saw this letter in support of allowing guns into schools, I became quite angry. I did not understand how after having such a tragedy happen because of guns at our school, how anyone would want to support more guns on campus. I knew I had to be a part of taking a stand against it. I knew Reema would not want this and I knew her family would not either.”
Megan met with Reema’s family soon thereafter and her suspicions were confirmed. Together with Reema’s siblings, Omar and Randa; VT survivor Lily Habtu (who was shot three times in Norris Hall); and another close friend of Reema’s, Brian Hickey; she would form Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS).
Why does SGFS object to the presence of concealed handguns on campus? “I don't want to be forced to go to school where someone sitting next to me could possibly be carrying a weapon, and having to worry about it in class,” Megan said. “Unless that person is a police officer, I think they have no right carrying in a campus setting. The college learning environment is such a sacred thing…allowing guns—or any weapon for that matter—in schools is essentially promoting violence in that environment.”
SGFS stresses that America’s campuses remain some of the safest places in the country, with an extremely low rate of homicide. They would prefer to see a focus on tightening gun control and mental health laws to prevent future Seung-Hui Chos from committing horrific acts. “That doesn't mean that I don't think people shouldn't be able to have guns,” Megan says. “I am just saying that guns by nature are lethal weapons and we shouldn't be handing them out like an ice cream truck does popsicles.” Megan also regrets the many warning signs that were missed with Cho. “I don't think he was able to help himself, and I think the people around him at school just didn't know what to do,” she says. “There is nothing shameful about being sick, and I think this is a lesson for everyone—speak out if you know someone who needs help, who might be capable of hurting themselves or others. The SPEAK OUT campaign by PAX is a powerful resource, and I think their anonymous hotline (800-226-7733) where people can report potential threats is a step in the right direction in 
preventing future tragedies.”
Students for Gun Free Schools is welcoming students across the country to join their group on Facebook and become involved on their campuses. “Students can make a difference by becoming educated,” Megan says. “I think if more students were aware that state legislators could force their schools to allow guns in their classrooms and dorms, they would take action on this issue.” What can students do to make a difference? “The first step could be contacting your Members of Congress or state legislators, writing a letter to your campus newspaper, organizing a discussion on your campus to inform others of what you have learned, or starting a chapter of Students for Gun Free Schools at your school!” Megan says.
In the end, the issue is very simple to Megan: “The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want guns on campus, so why should we let a small contingent control legislation that will greatly affect our lives?”
August 25, 2008
"No one should have to go through this..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm SO PROUD of you guys. I hope your word spreads out to every single person in this world so ""No one should have to go through this""
ReplyDeleteYes! Students for Gun Free Schools is the first step to getting our country in a good direction when it comes to our thinking on gun laws!
ReplyDelete“I don't want to be forced to go to school where someone sitting next to me could possibly be carrying a weapon, and having to worry about it in class,” You are not “forced” to go to school, that is your choice. But somehow it is OK for me to be forced to go to school without a means of self defense, my gun, and that is OK. Why would your desire be more important then mine. Your desire is less important then mine, for one reason. Your desire affects people other then yourself, my desire only affects myself. Therefore your desire has less value then mine as it impacts the freedom and liberty of others.
ReplyDelete“Unless that person is a police officer, I think they have no right carrying in a campus setting.” Wrong! The “Right” comes from two places. For one, the Natural Right of self defense. Which in an undeniable right, and I am sure you would not contest. No one would ever argue that a person is obligated to be a victim. When faced with death or rape, should you only be allowed to die or be raped? Would you choose to die or be raped for yourself? Would you then say that the victims at VT had no right to live when faced with their murderer? Second, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is specifically enumerated in our Constitution, and if you were not paying attention the US Supreme Court just declared it an Individual Right. So that person sitting next to you in class is, you guessed it, an individual with the Right to be armed. As state colleges are political factions of the state that created them and as the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution applies the enumerated Rights to the States, the 2ndAmendment does apply.
“The college learning environment is such a sacred thing…allowing guns—or any weapon for that matter—in schools is essentially promoting violence in that environment.” Sacred? Hardly, but I would say those who would murder people in mass are doing more to offend your sacred place. I would say people that would impair others of taking responsibility for themselves is doing more to offend your sacred place. That is what college is about, it is the last step in preparing our youth for adulthood and the responsibilities that go along with it. An adult is responsible for their financial security and their physical security, as well as other things. Of all the things an adult is responsible for, their life is certainly a primary one. In the face of violent crime a responsible adult needs a means to defend themselves in the effort to be responsible for their life, a gun is the most effective tool for that defense.
“The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want guns on campus, so why should we let a small contingent control legislation that will greatly affect our lives?” Well how about this for a quote:
The overwhelming majority of Americans do want guns for self defense, so why should we let the uninformed and ignorant contingent control legislation that will greatly affect our lives?
I couldn't have said it better myself. It's about time we have some common sense gun laws in this country. The first step we need to take is addressing the real problems rather than just adding guns to the equation.
ReplyDeleteNo one should have to go through this.
ReplyDeleteStop Crime, you seem to demand respect for what you consider to be your rights, but demonstrate little—or no—respect for the rights of others.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis on many points is flawed, and sometimes blatantly mistaken in fact:
1) If you wish to carry a concealed handgun on a college campus, and make unilateral decisions about when to open fire in that environment, then your “desire” is certainly not only affecting yourself. It is affecting all those students and faculty around you who might be caught in your line of fire; particularly in the instance of a chaotic and panic-filled event like a mass shooting. In the words of University of Cincinnati Police Chief Gene Ferrara: "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying." Furthermore, your “desire” is going to affect all those who students and faculty who would feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that you or others might be armed in their classrooms and dormitories—and who would feel safer letting security duties on campus be handled by trained law enforcement. Given that no concealed carry permit holder is required to have more than a day-class in training—if they are required to have training at all—that fear is not unreasonable.
2) The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller lends no support whatsoever to your agenda to extend concealed carry into public spaces. The lower court decision that was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Heller (Parker v. District of Columbia) stated explicitly: “As we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82.” Justice Scalia did not challenge this assessment in the Heller ruling, writing, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
On a side point, you are mistaken in asserting that the Second Amendment has been held to be incorporated against the states—it has not. It was a question left open by Scalia in the Heller decision.
3) The purpose of college is not to “prepare our youth for adulthood and responsibilities that go along with it.” The experience might serve to further that goal, but the purpose of a college or university is to educate, and to provide its students and faculty with a safe environment for learning. Statistics indicate that our college and universities have succeeded in this goal—their campuses are currently some of the safest places in America. Furthermore, if our goal is to prevent mass shootings on campuses (as opposed to “winning” shootouts), we might want to take a look at the weak gun laws that have allowed individuals with long and established histories of mental illness (Seung-Hui Cho, Steven Kazmierczak) to legally buy guns with no problems whatsoever.
4) Your “uninformed and ignorant” slander applies to the 94% of Americans who do not want guns brought onto our nation’s campuses. It also applies to the Virginia Tech Review Panel, which interviewed more than 200 individuals involved in the shootings (including representatives from local, state and federal law enforcement), reviewed thousands of documents, and stated, “The panel recommends that guns be banned on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law.” The panel further stated that it should be the right “of every institution of higher education… to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires.” - CSGV
"1) If you wish to carry a concealed handgun on a college campus, and make unilateral decisions about when to open fire in that environment, then your “desire” is certainly not only affecting yourself."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. The affect might be that they will survive the encounter -- when they might not have without someone using a firearm.
"Furthermore, your “desire” is going to affect all those who students and faculty who would feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that you or others might be armed in their classrooms and dormitories. . ."
Concealed carry holders are present in almost all other locations in a person's life -- few are made uncomfortable by it.
I know that I'm uncomfortable with the knowledge that in order to obey the law, I must succumb to anyone who uses violence against me -- due to being disarmed.
". . and who would feel safer letting security duties on campus be handled by trained law enforcement."
Police have no requirement to protect individuals. Period. They only protect society at large; they are not personal bodyguards. Also, their response times are much longer than most gunfights.
"Given that no concealed carry permit holder is required to have more than a day-class in training—if they are required to have training at all—that fear is not unreasonable."
Let me encourage you to participate in a concealed carry class in your area, if you haven't. I found that it was quite easy to learn to use a firearm accurately.
I find it interesting that folks use the "lack of training" and "panic/chaos" arguments against those who would defend themselves, but it is obvious from knowing that attackers are hitting their targets while under that same surge of adrenalin that it is quite possible to shoot what someone wants to shoot -- even in these kinds of situations. Columbine is a good example of this as the attackers were targeting specific people. The attacker must direct their attention to everyone around them in order to avoid being stopped; the defender only need direct their attention to one person in most cases.