This article is from the October 11, 2007, issue of National Review.
THERE’S A REASON THEY CHOOSE SCHOOLS
TIMOTHY WHEELER
1
Wednesday’s shooting at yet another school has a better outcome than most in recent memory. No one died at Cleveland’s Success Tech Academy except the perpetrator. The two students and two teachers he shot are in stable condition at Cleveland hospitals.
2
What is depressingly similar to the mass murders at Virginia Tech and Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, and too many others was the killer’s choice of venue—
3
This latest shooting comes only a few weeks after the American Medical Association released a theme issue of its journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. This issue is dedicated to analyzing the April 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, in which 32 people were murdered. The authors are university officials, trauma surgeons, and legal analysts who pore over the details of the incident, looking for “warning signs” and “risk factors” for violence. They rehash all the tired rhetoric of bureaucrats and public-
4
Sheldon Greenberg, a dean at Johns Hopkins, offers this gem: “Reinforce a ‘no weapons’ policy and, when violated, enforce it quickly, to include expulsion. Parents should be made aware of the policy. Officials should dispel the politically driven notion that armed students could eliminate an active shooter” (emphasis added). Greenberg apparently isn’t aware that at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 another homicidal Virginia student was stopped from shooting more of his classmates when another student held him at gunpoint. The Pearl High School murderer Luke Woodham was stopped cold when vice principal Joel Myrick got his Colt .45 handgun out of his truck and pointed it at the young killer.
5
Virginia Tech’s 2005 no-
Page 617
6
“Virginia Tech’s . . . no-
In Cleveland this week and at Virginia Tech the shooters took time to walk the halls, searching out victims in several rooms, and then shooting them. Virginia Chief Medical Examiner Marcella Fierro describes the locations of the dead in Virginia Tech’s Norris Hall. Dead victims were found in groups ranging from 1 to 13, scattered throughout 4 rooms and a stairwell. If any one of the victims had, like the Appalachian School of Law student, used armed force to stop Cho, lives could have been saved.
7
The people of Virginia actually had a chance to implement such a plan last year. House Bill 1572 was introduced in the legislature to extend the state’s concealed-
8
It is encouraging that college students themselves have a much better grasp on reality than their politically correct elders. During the week of October 22–
9
School officials typically base violence-
10
AMA journal editor James J. James, M.D., offers up this nostrum:
We must meaningfully embrace all of the varied disciplines contributing to preparedness and response and be more willing to be guided and informed by the full spectrum of research methodologies, including not only the rigid application of the traditional scientific method and epidemiological and social science applications but also the incorporation of observational/empirical findings, as necessary, in the absence of more objective data.
Got that?
11
I prefer the remedy prescribed by self-
Page 618
AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN ETHICAL ARGUMENT
According to Wheeler, what is “depressingly similar” about the mass murders committed on campuses (para. 2)?
What is Wheeler’s attitude toward those who said that “guns are the root cause of violence” (3)? How can you tell?
Why, according to Wheeler, do college administrators and bureaucrats continue to ignore the answer to the problem of violence on campus? How does he refute their objections?
Do you find Wheeler’s argument in support of his thesis convincing? What, if anything, do you think he could have added to strengthen his argument?
How does Wheeler’s language reveal his attitude toward his subject? (For example, consider his use of “gem” in paragraph 4 and “politically correct” in paragraph 8.) Can you give other examples of language that conveys his point of view?
How would you characterize Wheeler’s opinion of guns? How is his opinion different from Villahermosa’s?
How do you think Wheeler would respond to the ideas in “Warning Signs: How You Can Help Prevent Campus Violence”? Which suggestions do you think he would support? Which would he be likely to oppose? Explain.