VA Tech Review Panel Key Findings and Recommendations

JonJ

JonJ

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
13,068
Likes
353
Location
Plymouth, MA
Feedback: 11 / 0 / 0
At the bottom of the article is a link to the full report. From what I read so far, "Ai caramba!"

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=7003784&nav=menu368_2


Key findings and recommendations by the Va. Tech review panel

Associated Press - August 30, 2007 5:15 AM ET

Key findings and recommendations by the state panel that reviewed the Va. Tech shootings:

FINDINGS:

Tech administrators failed to notify students and staff of a dangerous situation in a timely way; the first message sent by the university to students and faculty could have been sent at least an hour earlier and been more detailed.

Virginia Tech's emergency response plan did not anticipate a mass shooting and police were not in the emergency decision-making hierarchy.

The university's protocols for sending emergency warning messages was "cumbersome, untimely and problematic" and police didn't have the ability to send such a warning on their own.

It would have been extremely difficult to lockdown the campus because there weren't enough law enforcement officers to do so and there were no electronic controls on doors or most buildings.

Gunman Seung-Hui Cho's early schooling helped him with his problems. Both his family and local schools saw he needed therapy for extreme social anxiety, acculturation and communication. His school, therapist and psychiatrist coordinated well with one another. Those positive influences ended when Cho graduated from high school.

At Tech, information and concerns about Cho were not shared among faculty, the administration and police; instead they were largely compartmentalized.

State and federal academic and health privacy laws are poorly understood.

University and Blacksburg police "did an outstanding job" responding quickly to Norris Hall thanks to frequent joint training.

Emergency medical response overall "was excellent, and the lives of many were saved."

The process of notifying victims' family members and support for them were "ineffective and often insensitive."

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Provide instant campus-wide alerts with explicit information at the onset of an emergency, and have numerous ways of getting the message out.

Include plans for closing the campus or canceling classes in every college's emergency operations plan.

Require faculty and residence hall staff to report "aberrant, dangerous or threatening" student behavior to the dean, and report persistent alarming behavior to an on-campus counseling center and the student's parents.

Require background checks for all firearms sales, including those at gun shows, bazaars where registered dealers, collectors and enthusiasts sell and trade weapons.

Everyone judged mentally defective by a court must be entered into a nationwide database of people who can't buy firearms.

Ban guns on all campus grounds and buildings.

Hold yearly regional disaster drills that involve universities, the Regional Hospital Coordinating Center, state and local police and the medical examiner's office.

Train police on college campuses to deal with active shooters, as Virginia Tech's police were.

Give magistrates power to issue temporary detention orders based on evaluations conducted by doctors trained to perform emergency psychiatric examinations; lengthen detention times to allow for more thorough evaluations.

Because of widespread misunderstanding of privacy laws among law enforcement officials, the state attorney general should provide police guidance and training on the issue.

Congress should create an exception in the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for on-campus counseling clinics to share information in the case of potentially dangerous patients such as Cho.

Train police officers on how to notify next of kin of deaths in large disasters or attacks.

Form college campus threat assessment teams that include police, students and faculty representatives, attorneys and mental health professionals who can identify risks such as Cho and warn others about them.

Source: Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel.

Online: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm

End List
Click to expand...
 
Foxnews had an "expert" who was hyping his product which could notify all the students via text message. The reporter commented, "Every college kid has a cell phone" and my just graduated from college daughter said to me "No, not every kid has a cell phone. Some don't have any, and some don't have text messaging". Of course a service like that would be tacked on to the fees students pay as well. Not to mention that the kids would have to put their phone numbers into some sort of central registry.

And on and on and on. Derek's right, they just don't get it. Guns already WERE banned on the VT campus. Lot of good that did.

Such bullshit.

Gary
 
Hey, those findings include some very good inside-the-box recommendations. Too bad the most effective solutions to many problems, like "gun violence", are found outside the box.
 
Transporter said:
I saw this on the Foxnews website this morning, and I read the .pdf that had the summary or the recommendations. Banning guns wasn't on the list. I wonder if maybe the AP either has a different version, or an agenda.

Link:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/vatechkeyfindings.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I saw the same thing and was about to go back and check. That statement - "Ban guns on all campus grounds and buildings." - is not like the rest of the recommendations in that it is a simple one-liner with that is not as "wordy" as the rest. I bet they tacked it on.

Also, weren't guns banned already?
 
EddieCoyle said:
Thanks for the link. I saw the same thing and was about to go back and check. That statement - "Ban guns on all campus grounds and buildings." - is not like the rest of the recommendations in that it is a simple one-liner with that is not as "wordy" as the rest. I bet they tacked it on.

Also, weren't guns banned already?
Click to expand...

Now they'll have to ban guns twice.

Just to be sure.

Stern warnings will be posted at campus entrances. [rolleyes]
 
Looking through the actual report and then the news report it is quite clear that the news report is, shall we say, rife with factual errors. Many (most?) of the findings and recommendations in the news article are, at best, loose paraphrases of what the report actually says, and in some cases, like the ban all guns comment, are flat made up. Yet another example of MSM B.S. and bias.
 
I just read the article in today's Boston Globe where the VT President was refusing to resign or to fire that inept campus police chief.

Unbelievable! That man has no sense of what it means to be a real leader. @sshole!
 
I too prefer to ignore the talking heads and go straight to the source. Here's the relevant set of recommendations from the actual report:
VI-5 The Virginia General Assembly should adopt legislation in the 2008 session clearly establishing the right of every institution of higher education in the Commonwealth to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires. The panel recommends that guns be banned on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law.

VI-6 Universities and colleges should make clear in their literature what their policy is regarding weapons on campus. Prospective students and their parents, as well as university
staff, should know the policy related to concealed weapons so they can decide whether they prefer an armed or arms-free learning environment.
Click to expand...

Note that, while the panel does recommend a ban in VI-5, VI-6 explicitly accepts the idea that some institutions might decide to allow students and employees to carry on campus.

Ken
 
Ken, can you post a link for that? I've been looking on the Virginia.gov site, reading the Governor's panel report, and I can't find those specific recommendations.
 
KMaurer said:
VI-6 Universities and colleges should make clear in their literature what their policy is regarding weapons on campus.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! The Review Panel found the source of the problem! What they needed was a clearer description of their policy, perhaps adding some helpful tips too?

"Virginia Tech prohibits firearms on campus. Additionally, Virginia Tech frowns strongly upon the murdering of students, faculty, or other university personnel."

If only Cho had a university code of conduct that was more clear! It would have saved lives. Thank you, Review Panel![bow]
 
Kind of ironic since "ban guns on all campus grounds and
buildings" part was already implemented, which can be
argued that it certainly didn't HELP things here, since mass
murderers really don't give a shit about the "rules".

-Mike
 
The simple solution that we all know is the best solution is to allow students and staff to carry concealed handguns. The shooter starts on his shooting spree and shortly after someone in the crowd takes down the shooter with his/her CCW. Instead of 30+ dead it's maybe half a dozen or so.

The problem is the libs want a solution that fits into their perfect little dream world where we all get along in perfect harmony. They will say that our plan is flawed because well 6 people are dead. After the incident we can't prove that 25 people were saved, because there is no way to know if the shooter would have stopped on his own after 6, he/she could have missed subsequent shots and people could have escaped. Any solution in their mind has to be able to reduce the death toll to 0. The only way to reduce the death toll to 0 in a mass shooting is for the shooting to not take place at all. The problem is this is impractical and will never work.

Personally I'd rather someone running through the halls with a gun shooting people than a bomb hidden in the basement.
 
Transporter said:
Ken, can you post a link for that? I've been looking on the Virginia.gov site, reading the Governor's panel report, and I can't find those specific recommendations.
Click to expand...

Governor's Panel Report, page 76. Recommendations are included at the end of each chapter. These, as indicated by the "VI-" prefix, are the recommendations from Chapter 6, Gun Purchase and Campus Policies.

Ken
 
Illinois Takes Action on Background Check Records After Virginia Tech

Illinois Takes Action on Background Check Records After Virginia Tech

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Aug. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Governor Rod
Blagojevich today signed into law an important measure to close a loophole
in Illinois' gun laws. A comparable loophole in Virginia allowed the
Virginia Tech shooter to purchase the guns he used to murder thirty-two
people, despite his record of mental instability and a ruling by a judge
that he constituted a threat.
With Governor Blagojevich's signature, Illinois officially became the
third state to close the loophole since the Virginia Tech shootings,
requiring that all court records on prohibited purchasers will be shared
with the National Instant Check System (NICS). Virginia's governor took
executive action in April, and Missouri has passed a law similar to the
Illinois bill.
"Loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy guns need to be closed
quickly. Governor Blagojevich, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, State Senator
Dan Kotowski, and State Representative Henry Osterman should be commended
for leading the way in Illinois," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady
Campaign. "We make it too easy in this country for dangerous people to get
guns. We saw that at Virginia Tech, and we see it every day."
The bill, initiated by Attorney General Madigan and sponsored by
Osterman and Kotowski, passed both houses of the Illinois Legislature with
strong bipartisan support earlier this year. It ensures that persons who
are judged to be prohibited purchasers in the state of Illinois won't slip
through the cracks of the National Instant Check System.
"There was an outpouring of support from victims of gun violence from
all over Illinois to help get this bill passed," said Jennifer Bishop,
Illinois Field Director for the Brady Campaign. "They are sure that this
will help to prevent more people from falling victim to gun violence in the
future."
A key committee of the United States Senate has recently endorsed a
measure to close the loophole on the national level. That bill has already
passed the U.S. House of Representatives.
Shortly after the Virginia Tech massacre, the Brady Campaign called for
every U.S. state to quickly and thoroughly review all of its procedures for
entering critical mental health and other pertinent records into the
Federal system.
For continuing insight and comment on the gun issue, read President
Paul Helmke's blog at http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/. And visit our
website at http://www.bradycampaign.org.
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading
the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its
dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an
America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at
school, at work, and in our communities.
Contact Communications in Washington: 202-289-5792 or Jennifer Bishop
in Chicago, 312-730-8935


SOURCE Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Click to expand...
 
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bi...&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=14844&SessionID=50&GA=94
Creates the Gun-free Zone Criminal Conduct Liability Act. Provides that any person, organization, or entity or any agency of government, including any unit of local government, that creates a gun-free zone is liable for all costs, attorney's fees, and treble damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. Defines "gun-free zone". Effective immediately.
Click to expand...

http://www.justicelearning.org/just...Section=10&TimelineID=72&TimelineEventID=1816
1995
Gun-free School Zones Act found unconstitutional

Alfonso Lopez, Jr. brings a .38-caliber handgun into his San Antonio high school. Upon confrontation by a school official, he admits possession, surrenders the gun, and is charged with possession of a firearm under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Lopez argues that the federal government has no authority to pass legislation regulating firearms in a school zone because it is a matter of crime control and education, which generally are left to the states. The government counters that possession of a firearm in a school zone often leads to violent crime, which adversely affects the economy and detracts from the educational environment. Thus, regulation is warranted under the Commerce Clause. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the government’s argument and rules that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it passed the 1990 law. The Court finds that the punishment of gun possession and gun use near schools is a matter for each state to regulate. The decision is the first in more than half a century to scale back on the interstate commerce clause. This restoration of states rights becomes a hallmark of the Rehnquist Court
Click to expand...


So, if I am denied the right to protect my life and liberty due to state laws or restrictions enacted at work that prohibit firearms, is it not the state's or the institution's responsibility to provide the adequate protection necessary to ensure my rights? And if they are negligent, liable for any harm caused? [thinking]
 
In_God_We_Trust said:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bi...&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=14844&SessionID=50&GA=94


http://www.justicelearning.org/just...Section=10&TimelineID=72&TimelineEventID=1816



So, if I am denied the right to protect my life and liberty due to state laws or restrictions enacted at work that prohibit firearms, is it not the state's or the institution's responsibility to provide the adequate protection necessary to ensure my rights? And if they are negligent, liable for any harm caused? [thinking]
Click to expand...

[rofl][rofl][crying][crying] Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh.

That would be a logical conclusion, however numerous court decision have said exactly the opposite. This site lists some of the more notable ones.
 
Come on, people.

Just what did you expect them to say?

Something that would really work? They can't, it won't fit in with their agenda. So, they just repeat their same old slogan, redouble their efforts, and try to make Comrade Stalin's 5 year plan work.

They don't want it fixed. They want full power and total control over the US. THey are just simply using fear to accomplish that objective.

Write your papers (letters to the eidtor or opinion) and tell them what you think. You will reach a few people, and that's a start.
 
Here's Lott's take on it:

Article published Tuesday , August 28, 2007, at Fox News.

More Guns, Not Less, Would Prevent Shooting Massacres

By John R. Lott, Jr. and Maxim C. Lott

Few tragedies make their victims feel more helpless than multiple-victim shootings.

Imagine the terror: Unable to escape, simply waiting for the killer.

With school starting, the April 16 attack at Virginia Tech that left 32 dead is still on many people’s minds. Some are looking for guarantees that such an attack won’t happen again.

But Virginia Tech’s just released report on how to stop future tragedies was pretty disappointing, and this coming week’s Virginia Governor’s task force report isn’t likely to be any better. The university proposes more counseling for mentally troubled students, internet based billboards to alert students of emergencies, putting both the police and fire departments into the same building to allow better coordination, more surveillance cameras, and locks that make it easier for students to get out of buildings.

Well, more cameras might help get campus police to the scene faster, but let’s hope that the next attacker doesn’t commit the attack where there are no cameras or that he doesn’t disable them first. Assuming that the doors to buildings are merely locked as they normally would be--and that the assailant has not blocked them or tied them shut with a chain-- easy to open locks could help.

If a current student is planning the next attack, gets identified as having mental problems and has treatment, and that the treatment is successful, more mental health resources could be helpful.

But one glaring omission remains: The report failed to ask whether there were any common features or similarities among the different multiple-victim public shooting tragedies. And what happens if these policies fail? Should there be some ultimate protection upon which the university can rely?

Of course, these horrors are hardly unique to the United States. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries-- including France, Germany and Switzerland-- have experienced multiple-victim shootings.

The worst, in Germany, resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators. Of course, since 1997 there have been multiple attacks in the U.S., with the 13 dead at Columbine.

Prior to Virginia Tech, the two previous most deadly shootings in the U.S. were the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas, which left 23 people dead, and the shooting at a California McDonald's in 1984, in which 21 people were killed.

All these attacks shared something in common: citizens were already banned from having guns in those areas. Indeed, every multiple-victim public shooting of any significant size in the United States has occurred in one of these gun-free zones.

The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws.

Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its gun-free zone policy and suspended students with concealed handgun permits who have tried to bring handguns onto school property, and it will continue to do so. Imagine what this means for a faculty member fired for bringing even a permitted concealed handgun on campus. It would be impossible for them to get another academic job at any other university. Similarly, a student who gets expelled for a firearms violation will find it virtually impossible to get admitted to another school.

But whether it is the suspensions and expulsions at universities, or even the three-year prison terms that can await those who take guns onto property of K-12 schools in most states, these penalties are completely meaningless for someone intent on killing and facing multiple life sentences or death penalties.

But citizens and police who pack heat do help, because they can stop a shooting while it is happening. Amazingly, opposition to guns on campuses is so extreme that some even oppose police being able to carry guns.

When, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, campus police at Brandeis University asked that they be armed to prevent similar tragedies, the president of the Brandeis Student Union even argued that, “the sense of community and the sense of safety would be disturbed very much by having guns on campus.”

The administration is now considering arming its officers but has not taken action. By Sept. 10, the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa will also decide whether to end an almost 30-year ban and allow campus police to again carry handguns.

Police with guns are certainly helpful, but there simply aren’t enough police to ensure that an officer will be at the scene when shooting starts. For example, this past spring at Virginia Tech, each officer on duty had to cover well over 250 acres.

Up until the early 1970s, Israel had to deal with the cold reality of terrorists who would take machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and Synagogues and open fire. That type of attack doesn’t occur any more. Why? Israelis realized that armed citizens could stop such an attacker before he did much damage.

About 15 percent of Israelis are now licensed to carry weapons, and determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombing.

Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect himself or herself increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed handgun, the probability that at least someone in the crowd will have a gun is very high.

There have been a number of attempted public attacks have been stopped by permit holders on streets, at universities, and public schools.

While right-to-carry laws-- now operating in 40 states -- do reduce violent crime generally, the effect is much larger for multiple-victim shootings. Normally about 2 to 6 percent of adults in any state have permits, and for most crimes that means some deterrence. But for a shooting in a public place where there might be dozens or hundreds of people, it will almost ensure that at least someone -- someone who is unknown to the attacker -- will be able to defend themselves and others.

People won't have to wait helplessly for the killer to get them.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime but, as this latest attack showed again, they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in America by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun.

Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so does the fact that victims can defend themselves.

Other countries wonder how millions of Americans can be allowed to legally carry concealed handguns. We must be crazy. Won't blood flow in the streets?

Many Americans also initially shared the same fears, but not any longer. The permit holders have proven to be extremely law-abiding. There is a reason no state that has allowed citizens to carry guns has reversed course.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends to harm you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying "This home is a gun-free zone"? Would it frighten criminals away?

Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

*John Lott is the author of the book, Freedomnomics and and is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland. Two of his sons are attending public universities in Virginia. Maxim Lott is a college student in Virginia at the College of William & Mary.
 

Similar threads

VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
180
Reptile
Reptile
Stripped Screw Head Help/Recommendations
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
mac1911
M
Thompson Center 45 cal. Value and interest
Replies
8
Views
254
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Recommendations for frame engraving service (MA)
Replies
18
Views
467
JRLB
JRLB
Gas key leaking?
Replies
7
Views
444
Nico9283
N
Back
Top Bottom