Critique Of The Virginia Tech Review Panel: Nothing Has Changed

Nothing.

John Longenecker

In analyzing the Virginia Tech Review Panel's Report to the Governor since it came out, I have praise for the overall analysis. I have praise for the Police and EMS who responded with a well-organized response plan. It was a good report, but I have criticisms for Virginia Tech itself, of course, for her conclusions.

I have said for a very long time that one of the greatest fears of citizens in a free country is abuse of powers and the assumption of powers not granted. The Review is replete with mistaken assumptions, not in the reporting, but in conclusions, perhaps well-meaning, perhaps hostile, but in the end, immaterial, because it refuses to address one of the most effective and legal ways to meet the problem of school shooters — especially in Virginia.

In this edition of Good For The Country, I am critiquing in only general terms. A more specific analysis of this review as part of a Safe Streets treatment in a sixty-page monograph I am making available to organizations to buy in bulk for their attendees at their patriotic, spiritual, business and women's events. The monograph is titled, Citizen Oversight, Safe Streets and the Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns. For that monograph in bulk, please go HERE.

The objection to the Panel's conclusions is one of my chief complaints, which is of freezing the citizen out of the process of disaster preparedness, in this case, a mass shooting. It is my assertion that students die at the hands of shooters almost entirely due to freezing the citizen out of the planning. This has become a nationwide policy, with the exception of a few campuses who affirm and support armed students on campus contrary to the V-Tech conclusions.

In the Acknowledgments Section, the Panel cited who it consulted and thanked. It consulted attorneys, law enforcement, some community citizens, psychologists and psychiatrists, and other Universities. Nowhere did it consult gun owners. This is the equivalent of CBS, NBC and ABC associating only with other newscasters in their sphere. Nothing new is ever learned this way (how could it be?), and old beliefs are reinforced. The Review reflects that same habit.

In general, the Review does a wonderful job of explicating the timeline, the response, the true pain of the incident, and the profile of the shooter, and even some instructions for the next time, but the conclusions accomplish little, because there will be a next time for someone. In the section of what to do in the case of another shooter for that next time, students are well advised, and I have praise for the formula handed them, but one ingredient is missing: that ingredient is how to stop the shooter in the few moments he needs..

The entire review is reactive, and not proactive. It prepares to react, but does not prepare to stop. Instead, the entire policy is to do nothing but wait for police. This is, in fact, no preparedness at all. Nothing has changed.

I'll say it again: no campus will stop the next shooter by advance psychoanalysis and profiling: the next shooter will be stopped by preparing his next target to be his last target.

In a nation of self-rule where police serve at the behest of the people and not the other way around, consulting law enforcement is only part of utilization of available resources. What irks many Americans is their exclusion from the process altogether. EMS and Police are referred to as Assets. Well, the University overlooks one tremendous Asset - the armed citizen. Such recommendations without consulting the armed citizen of some 80 million adults embody a philosophy of administration self-interest over the interests of the students they serve. Other Universities agree with the gun owner viewpoint and not Virginia Tech's entirely. Utah is one example. They consulted.

In excluding armed students as the review posts in specific paragraphs, the subject of armed students was sentenced in absentia, so to speak, on incorrect assumptions. Ignored. The Review's authenticity and contribution could have been greatly enhanced if, as a University of welcoming all ideas, the armed student were consulted. Without their input, the review is lacking.Instead, the Review is based entirely on input from other bureaucracies with some very mistaken notions about gun owners on campus. Some outright incorrect.

Such bureaucracies in America have no more authority than we grant them, (something the lawyers consulted overlooked?) and though they may be knowledgeable in their field, they do not have the ultimate authority that belongs to the people. They cannot speak for us. They speak only for themselves. Can you say Public Trust?

The Review can be downloaded from their website at http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html

Citizen oversight of this review was specifically excluded. Citizen Oversight. Consulting law enforcement, profilers, lawyers, other schools and some local constituents friendly to a no-guns, victim disarmament policy was hardly an enlightening discussion.

What should begin the education and the report to the Governor is that Virginia state law doesn't exempt Virginia Tech from personal handguns. The Administration takes it upon itself to do that.

It is silly to build a report to the Governor around doing nothing while the shooter completes what he came to do.

The next shooter to visit murder upon innocent students will count on the four minutes he or she needs to operate unstopped. The Review has as much as announced that.

John Longenecker is President and CEO of Good For The Country Foundation, a patriotic non-profit organization.