Various world leaders are insinuating that the availability of handguns is what made the VA shooting so devastating, but you know what, if any of the students had had a gun, the shooter would be dead and a lot less students would be. S. Cho acted in a premeditated fashion, the gun had almost nothing to do with it.
So excuse me Mr. world leader, if you want to disenfranchise your citizenry, go ahead, Orwell's nightmare wasn't that bad. But as for me, I appreciate the fact I can defend myself freely, and you have another thing coming if you think you can pressure others into taking that right away.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Sorry, here is the AP article.
U.S. gun laws draw heat after massacre
By PAISLEY DODDS 7 minutes ago
The Virginia Tech shootings sparked criticism of U.S. gun control laws around the world Tuesday. Editorials lashed out at the availability of weapons, and the leader of Australia — one of America's closest allies — declared that America's gun culture was costing lives.
South Korea's Foreign Ministry said the government hoped Monday's shootings, allegedly carried out by a 23-year-old South Korean native, would not "stir up racial prejudice or confrontation."
While some focused blame only on the gunman, world opinion over U.S. gun laws was almost unanimous: Access to weapons increases the probability of shootings. There was no sympathy for the view that more guns would have saved lives by enabling students to shoot the assailant.
"We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country," said Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who staked his political career on promoting tough gun laws after a gunman went on one of the world's deadliest killing sprees 11 years ago.
The tragedy in a Tasmanian tourist resort left 35 people dead. Afterward, Australia's gun laws were changed to prohibit automatic weapons and handguns and toughen licensing and storage restrictions.
Handguns are also banned in Britain — a prohibition that forces even the country's Olympic pistol shooting team from practicing on its own soil. In Sweden, civilians can acquire firearm permits only if they have a hunting license or are members of a shooting club and have no criminal record. In Italy, people must have a valid reason for wanting one. Firearms are forbidden for private Chinese citizens.
Still, leaders from Britain, Germany, Mexico, China, Afghanistan and France stopped short of criticizing President Bush or U.S. gun laws when they offered sympathies to the families of Monday's victims.
Editorials were less diplomatic.
"Only the names change — And the numbers," read a headline in the Times of London. "Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"
The French daily Le Monde said the regularity of mass shootings across the Atlantic was a blotch on America's image.
"It would be unjust and especially false to reduce the United States to the image created, in a recurrent way, from the bursts of murderous fury that some isolated individuals succumb to. But acts like this are rare elsewhere, and tend to often disfigure the 'American dream.'"
Police started identifying the victims Tuesday. One was a Peruvian student identified as Daniel Perez Cueva, 21, according to his mother Betty Cuevas, who said her son was studying international relations.
Professors from India, Israel and Canada also were killed.
Liviu Librescu, 76, an engineering science and mathematics lecturer, tried to stop the gunman from entering his classroom by blocking the door before he was fatally shot, his son said Tuesday from Tel Aviv.
"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu said. His father, a Holocaust survivor, immigrated to Israel from Romania, and was on sabbatical in Virginia.
Indian-born G.V. Loganathan, 51, a lecturer at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, was also among the dead, his brother G.V. Palanivel told Indian media.
"We all feel like we have had an electric shock. We do not know what to do," Palanivel said.
Canadian Jocelyn Couture-Nowak, a French instructor, also died in the shootings, said her husband Jerzy Nowak, head of the university's horticulture department. "We're mourning," Nowak said.
The killings also hit a nerve for Virginia Tech alumni abroad.
"I think if this does prompt a serious and reflective debate on gun issues and gun law in the States, then some good may come from this woeful tragedy," said British Home Office Minister Tony McNulty, who graduated in 1982.
Britain's 46 homicides involving firearms last year was the lowest since the late 1980s. New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded 590 homicides last year.
"If the guns are harder to get a hold of, fewer people will do it," said Michael Dent, a 65-year-old construction worker in London. "You can't walk up to a supermarket or shop and buy a gun like in the States."
But even in Germany, where gun-control laws are strict, a teenager in 2002 shot and killed 12 teachers, a secretary, two students and a police officer at a high school. The shooter was a gun club member licensed to own weapons. The attack led Germany to raise the age for owning recreational firearms from 18 to 21.
"The instant I saw the pictures and heard the commentary, it immediately brought back our own experience," Gutenberg high school director Christiane Alt said of the Virginia Tech killings.
The Swedish daily Goteborgs-Posten said without access to weapons, the killings at Virginia Tech may have been prevented.
"What exactly triggered the massacre in Virginia is unclear, but the fundamental reason is often the perpetrator's psychological problems in combination with access to weapons," it wrote.
The shootings drew intense media coverage in China, in part because the school has a large Chinese student body.
"This incident reflects the problem of gun control in America," Yuan Peng, an American studies expert in China, was quoted as saying by state-run China Daily.
Only 7 percent of the more than 26,000 students at Virginia Tech are foreign, according to the school Web site. But Chinese make up nearly a third of that.
In Italy, there are three types of licenses for gun ownership: for personal safety, target practice and skeet shooting, and hunting. Authorization is granted by the police. To obtain a gun for personal safety, the owner must be an adult and have a "valid" reason.
Italy's leading daily Corriere della Sera's main story on the shootings was an opinion piece entitled "Guns at the Supermarket" — a critical view of the U.S. gun lobby and the ease with which guns can be purchased. State-run RAI radio also discussed at length what it said were lax standards for gun ownership in the United States.
"The latest attack on a U.S. campus will shake up America, maybe it will provoke more vigorous reactions than in the past, but it won't change the culture of a country that has the notion of self-defense imprinted on its DNA and which considers the right of having guns inalienable," Corriere wrote in its front-page story.
Several Italian graduate students at Virginia Tech recounted how they barricaded themselves inside a geology department building not far from the scene of the shooting.
In Mexico, radio commentators criticized the availability of firearms in the U.S. Others renewed Mexico's complaint that most guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the United States.
The killings led newspapers' front pages, with Mexico City's Dario Monitor reporting: "Terror returns to the U.S.: 32 assassinated on university campus." The tabloid Metro compared Mexico's death toll Monday from drug violence to the number of people killed at Virginia Tech, in a front-page headline that read: "U.S. 33, Mexico 20."
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Various world leaders are insinuating that the availability of handguns is what made the VA shooting so devastating, but you know what, if any of the students had had a gun, the shooter would be dead and a lot less students would be.
I'm not sure if that makes any sense whatsoever. The fact is that the high availability of handguns didn't save anyone's life in this situation.
I keep hearing people say "if one of the victims had been armed, they could have shot the bad guy and then the world would have been a better place."
But guns are legal, guns are available, and nobody ever shoots the bad guy.
So it ends up being a pretty hollow thing to keep saying. Every time this type of tragedy occurs.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Over and over again.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
And once again, I must further my argument that would it not have been better to go full on, and encourage these people to have the means to defend themselves. So that they could have.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It was illegal for any students to be armed on campus, so that is a false statement.
Not that I am advocating guns in classrooms, but I just wanted to be clear.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
no, I think guns in the classroom is not necessary, but perhaps the instructors, at least a few, ought to be trained and prepared for such an instance.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Various world leaders? I thought the only world leader to speak against the availability of hand guns in this instance was the Australian John Howard.
Sure, various newspaper editorials around the world were quickly to draw that connection (according to that article), but not world leaders.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
ah,
I see, yes, I assumed from their statements that the leaders were speaking as such.
I really dislike John Howard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The obvious other argument is that if the student who went on the killing spree had not been able to purchase a handgun in the first place, such a rampage never would have occurred, making the other weapons unnecessary.
He could have been stopped with a taser, I might also add.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
If he purchased the gun so far in advance, he could have easily acquired another weapon.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm going to go with the Simpsons on this one. If we took away all the guns, people would fall back on knives or boards with nails in them. I've had a gun in the house for I don't know how many years, and I've never shot anyone. It's obviously not the allure of the gun that does this. If people want to be violent, they will.
I think the question should be how do we stop the violent urges present in a small portion of over 300 million Americans? How do we find the crazies, and what do we do about it once we know they could be a problem?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a lot harder for a guy to go on a killing rampage with a knife than it is a gun.
I know the gun crime rate in other countries is VASTLY lower than ours. What about their murder rates in general?
If the murder rate, as a percentage of the population is the same overseas as it is here, then taking guns away from people won't matter. But if it's higher here, then maybe we should ask ourselves why we're making it so much easier.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
There are far better reasons to dislike John Howard than his stance on gun control.
This is one of the few areas of Australian policy where I do agree with him.
In the US however, introducing further gun control is simply closing the barn door far, far too late.
There's absolutely no good reason for Australia to relax its gun controls. We simply don't have easy access to guns here. Only farmers are really allowed to have guns on their property, shotguns, handguns and most other rifles must be kept at a gun club.
The average citizen simply cannot walk into a store and buy a gun without a license already in hand and 100 points of ID. In most cases you also need to show proof of the secure location - i.e. a gun club - where it'll be stored.
There is also no easy way for us to get guns illegally. Sure, the hard-core crims have them but look at it this way: anyone getting shot anywhere in the country is front-page news here. All over the country. It's just not something we have to worry about in our daily lives.
So you may well be better off in the US with ready access to all kinds of weaponry, but don't assume those conditions are the same all over the world.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I could score a gun in London and I'm probably not half as creatively obsessed as the psycho who shot up VT.
Legal availability of firearms is also almost a moot point in a country where there's many times more firearms than there are citizens.
This all needs to be taken into consideration, especially since the 'gun-free' counterexample of Europe still has plenty of people who score guns and shoot up schools about just as easily as they could in a country that allowed its citizens to arm themselves.
Guns won't just go away. The degree of draconian social control that would be required to wean america from its 'gun obsession' would not be worth it. Society certainly won't judge that cost to be balanced by an occasional school or workplace shooting. They will legislate as such.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Minor gun control is not unreasonable. I think folks should be psychologically evaluated before they can even get a handgun.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: ...you know what, if any of the students had had a gun, the shooter would be dead and a lot less students would be.
I'm not sure why you take this as a given. It's entirely possible that if some of the other students had had guns, they might have mistakenly shot each other, or someone else entirely, instead of the actual shooter.
I don't think you need to be able to actually hit a target with a firearm in order to be allowed to purchase a gun in Virginia.
Edited to add: In the larger debate, I agree with Troubador -- the cat's already out of the bag in the U.S.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Minor gun control is not unreasonable.
It's not, but I'm thinking that it shouldn't be sold to the public with a promise that it prevents these sorts of incidents.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I know the gun crime rate in other countries is VASTLY lower than ours. What about their murder rates in general?
This is just the statistics game that can prove anything you want it to prove. CBS death rates worldwide "In Tanzania, an estimated 500 elderly women accused of witchcraft — often connected with an event like crop failure were murdered every year, it said."
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: This all needs to be taken into consideration, especially since the 'gun-free' counterexample of Europe still has plenty of people who score guns and shoot up schools about just as easily as they could in a country that allowed its citizens to arm themselves.
I'm not sure if you can say Europe has plenty of people shooting up schools. The only school shootings I can remember are the one in Germany and some that have occurred in Northern Ireland back in the 90's (and the latter ones were part of a larger conflict).
Also, I don't think Europe can be said to be gun-free at all, the difference I guess is in the bureaucracy involved in getting a gun. In Switzerland, for example, all men who go to the army get to take their army weapons home after the army (and since army there is obligatory it's pretty much all men). In Finland and Sweden every other house in the countryside has an array of hunting rifles. I suppose what is different are the attitudes in that I've never heard anyone here say they need a gun to "defend themselves", rather they need it for hunting. Then of course there are places like Kosovo or Albania or Russia...
I also agree with Troubadour in that situations are different in different countries, and this applies to everything, including gun ownership. So this ought to be remembered when criticizing both the European (or Australian) and the American gun control situation.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Running, I agree with you completely. The fact that guns are easier to get in VA is irrelevant. If the shooter had to wait for a gun, we would have heard about this two weeks from now and not this week. This person had this planned out. If he could not legally obtain a gun, he probably would have illegally. I do not own a gun, but I do not like the idea of a law telling me I can not own one.
brojack17
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Minor gun control is not unreasonable. I think folks should be psychologically evaluated before they can even get a handgun.
I would not call being "psychologically evaluated" to be minor gun control. That's a major invasion of privacy.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I understand that our second amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
But this guy wasn't a citizen. So that didn't matter? Do "resident aliens" have the same rights in gun purchase as citizens?
FG
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I very much doubt that the kinds of people you would want in charge of such evaluation, Synesthesia, could ever objectively evaluate someone who wished to purchase a firearm.
------
That said, I think it's an absurd suggestion that random teachers should have firearm training. Are they teachers, or commandos? Please. The place for firearms is not in the classroom, unless you've got a cop coming in to visit and give a Just Say No speech or something like that. I for one would be very uncomfortable in class if I knew there was a gun in the room, even if it was under lock and key. Not because I'm afraid of guns, but because I don't know these people I'm taking the class with, or the teacher either.
-----------
And of course Twinky brings up a good point. Marksmanship is not to my knowledge a requirement for gun ownership anywhere.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I for one would be very uncomfortable in class if I knew there was a gun in the room, even if it was under lock and key. Not because I'm afraid of guns, but because I don't know these people I'm taking the class with, or the teacher either.
The same thing is true every time you have to interact with an armed policeman.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Farmgirl, yes, they can own guns unless convicted of a felony.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: ...you know what, if any of the students had had a gun, the shooter would be dead and a lot less students would be.
I'm not sure why you take this as a given. It's entirely possible that if some of the other students had had guns, they might have mistakenly shot each other, or someone else entirely, instead of the actual shooter.
<snip>
In the larger debate, I agree with Troubador -- the cat's already out of the bag in the U.S.
Those are precisely the same two points I have made, repeatedly, in discussing this issue in the past two days.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's true, Porter. However, with a cop I can generally make the assumption that they've had training in gun safety, marksmanship, and that they have a whole host of restrictions they (are supposed to) follow before they even draw the firearm, much less fire it. The same cannot be said of, say, a teacher of mine, much less the students in the room.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Various world leaders are insinuating that the availability of handguns is what made the VA shooting so devastating, but you know what, if any of the students had had a gun, the shooter would be dead and a lot less students would be.
Only if students or professors were in the habit of bringing loaded guns to their classes every day. I think very few college students, faculty, or administrators would consider such a thing even remotely reasonable. For instance, if I saw a professor teaching my class with a gun on his desk, I'd probably strongly consider switching out of his class.
quote:If he could not legally obtain a gun, he probably would have illegally.
How? Order it over the internet? This is not a career criminal we are talking about. This is a mentally-disturbed loner college student from suburbia.
You might as well say, why try to ban the proliferation of nuclear weapons when countries can just build them illegally anyway?
I suspect the real truth is this: If this student could not have legally bought those guns in this country, this shooting would not have happened. There probably would have been some other violent end-result, given how disturbed this student was - perhaps with knives or some other weapon, but I doubt that could have resulted in nearly as many deaths as this did. World leaders are correct to point out the connection between events like these and our gun culture - although there are plenty of countries with gun cultures that are far worse.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
>But guns are legal, guns are available, and nobody ever shoots the bad guy.
>So it ends up being a pretty hollow thing to keep saying. Every time this type of tragedy occurs.
Actually sometimes somebody *does* shoot the bad guy. What's true is that when this type of tragedy occurs nobody shot the bad guy, because if anyone had, the tragedy wouldn't have happened.
This happened last year in NC: armed students overpowered a schizophrenic student who was going postal. I can't even find a reference to it now, because thanks to these brave people, it didn't become big news.
[ April 18, 2007, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Year, Name of massacre, number killed, location, whether it was a no-gun area
1982 Woo Bum-Kon 58 Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea ----- ??? ----- 1983 Wah Mee massacre 13 Seattle, Washington ****NO-GUN???***** (gaming establishment) 1984 McDonald's massacre 22 San Diego, California ----- ??? ----- 1984 Milperra massacre 7 Sydney, Australia ****NO-GUN***** (Oz) 1986 Edmond Postal massacre 15 Edmond, Oklahoma ----- ??? ----- 1987 Hoddle Street massacre 7 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ****NO-GUN***** 1987 Hungerford massacre 17 Hungerford, Berkshire, England ****NO-GUN***** 1987 Queen Street massacre 9 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ****NO-GUN***** 1988 ESL massacre 7 Sunnyvale, California ----- ??? ----- 1989 École Polytechnique massacre 15 Université de Montréal ****NO-GUN***** 1989 Standard Gravure shooting 9 Louisville, Kentucky ----- ??? ----- 1990 Aramoana massacre 13 Aramoana, New Zealand ----- ??? ----- 1991 Strathfield massacre 7 Sydney, Australia ****NO-GUN***** 1991 Luby's massacre 23 Killeen, Texas ****NO-GUN*****. Texas bans handguns in restaurants 1992 Central Coast massacre 7 Central Sydney, Australia ****NO-GUN***** 1993 101 California Street shootings 9 San Francisco ----- ??? ----- 1993 Brown's Chicken massacre 7 Palatine, Illinois ----- ??? ----- 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre 6 Nassau County, New York ----- ??? ----- Is it legal to have a gun on the subway? 1996 Dunblane massacre 18 Dunblane, Scotland ****NO-GUN***** 1996 Port Arthur massacre 35 Tasmania, Australia ****NO-GUN***** 1997 Sanaa massacre 8 Yemen ----- ??? ----- 1998 Jonesboro massacre 5 Arkansas, United States ****NO-GUN***** 1999 Columbine High School massacre 15 Jefferson County, Colorado, United States ****NO-GUN***** 2000 The Wichita Massacre 5 Wichita, Kansas, United States ----- ??? ----- 2001 Nepalese royal family massacre 8 Katmandu, Nepal ----- ??? ----- 2001 Osaka school massacre 8 Ikeda, Osaka prefecture, Japan Not done with firearms 2001 Zug massacre 15 Zug, Switzerland ----- ??? ----- 2002 Erfurt massacre 17 Erfurt, Thuringia, Germany ----- ??? ----- 2003 Santa Monica Farmer's Market Massacre 10 Santa Monica, California, United States Not done with firearms 2005 Red Lake High School massacre 10 Red Lake, Minnesota, United States ****NO-GUN***** 2006 Goleta Postal massacre 8 Goleta, California, United States ----- ??? ----- 2006 Capitol Hill massacre 7 Seattle, Washington, United States !!!!!!!LEGAL TO HAVE GUNS!!!!! (private home) 2006 Amish school shooting 5 Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, United States ****NO-GUN***** 2007 Trolley Square Shooting 5 Salt Lake City, Utah, United States Shopping mall -- ****NO-GUN***** area 2007 Virginia Tech massacre 33 Blacksburg, Virginia, United States ****NO-GUN*****
--
From this I conclude that no-gun areas do not prevent mass shootings. If they did, most of the shootings would occur in other areas.
It might be that the no-gun rule causes shootings to be more common in such places, or maybe the no-gun rule and the shootings are more common in such places for some third reason.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If he could not legally obtain a gun, he probably would have illegally.
How? Order it over the internet? This is not a career criminal we are talking about. This is a mentally-disturbed loner college student from suburbia.
He would have obtained a gun the same way people obtain illegal drugs in suburbia. He would simply buy one from somebody. And it probably wouldn't take him that much effort or time to find one. If you want something bad enough to pay for it you can usually find someone to sell it to you.
In the US (even if we took all the guns away from all civilians), there is no way we could control inflow of guns from Mexico or Canada once the word got out how much you could charge for a handgun on the black market. We can't control the inflow of illegal drugs into this country, why should guns be any different?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:2003 Santa Monica Farmer's Market Massacre 10 Santa Monica, California, United States Not done with firearms
That was a horrible, horrible car accident. But calling it a "massacre" seems a bit of an overstatement.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Even with incidents such as VT happening, I am not more comfortable at the thought of students being free to bring firearms on campus, nor professors.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:He would have obtained a gun the same way people obtain illegal drugs in suburbia. He would simply buy one from somebody. And it probably wouldn't take him that much effort or time to find one. If you want something bad enough to pay for it you can usually find someone to sell it to you.
In the US (even if we took all the guns away from all civilians), there is no way we could control inflow of guns from Mexico or Canada once the word got out how much you could charge for a handgun on the black market. We can't control the inflow of illegal drugs into this country, why should guns be any different?
So would you suggest that banning drugs is pointless, and that they should all be legalized since many people can get them illegally anyway with some degree of effort?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's true, Porter. However, with a cop I can generally make the assumption that they've had training in gun safety, marksmanship, and that they have a whole host of restrictions they (are supposed to) follow before they even draw the firearm, much less fire it. The same cannot be said of, say, a teacher of mine, much less the students in the room.
Rakeesh, weren't you just arguing against giving teachers firearm training?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're not answering his question, Tresopax (although your point is a good one): why would guns be any different from illegal drugs?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes I was, Porter. Well, I'll say this: if teachers were to be given guns, and the teachers were given the same degree of training, restrictions, and responsibilities for handling those guns as were police officers, I would be much less uncomfortable.
That did not seem to be what was under discussion to me, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rakeesh -- are you saying that anything less than the full training that a full-time police officer receives is not sufficient?
What about part-time/reserve police officers? They receive training, although clearly not the same amount that the full-time officers do. Do you think they shouldn't have firearms?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If they did, most of the shootings would occur in other areas.
This doesn't necessarily follow, unless you assume that the presence of guns is the only factor driving the selection of target site.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be clear, I'm not talking about all the police training, just as it pertains to firearms.
But yes, yes I do think they should have that same level of training...and I think that PT/reserve cops should have to meet the same standards of tests and training as FT/active cops do.
Isn't that what we owe our civilian population?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's a lot harder for a guy to go on a killing rampage with a knife than it is a gun.
And it's a lot easier to kill a massive amount of people with homemade explosives and scrap metal than it is a gun. 9-11 terrorists managed to kill thousands armed with nothing more than plastic box knives.
AvidReader is right. Focusing on the means may buy us very little. Humans are ingenious and will figure out other ways (some even better no doubt) to kill each other. If we can get to the source of the problem, which is the factors that influence people to go on a killing rampage, then we might have a shot.
However, the left just focuses on removing the means by banning guns, and the right focuses on deterring people with 'tough on crime' laws and the death penalty. So here we are still having mass murder rampages. I don't know what the solution is though. *shrug*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How much do you know about how much firearm training policemen receive?
I certainly agree that it makes sense for there to be some minimum amount of firearms training for those we hope will use firearms to protect others, but what I wonder is how you came to the conclusion that the precise amount of training that police officers current receive is the exact right amount -- no less, no more.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:From this I conclude that no-gun areas do not prevent mass shootings. If they did, most of the shootings would occur in other areas.
Couldn't you just as easily conclude that lax overall gun control laws do absolutely nothing to prevent them either seeing as more than half of the cases you listed occurred in the United States? So if the easy availability of firearms in the US prevents such massacres from occurring in places where it's legal to carry guns, shouldn't countries where arms are more controlled by definition have more massacres in those areas also?
I'm not sure how much of an opinion you can draw one way or another from that list. I'm pretty sure that people intent on and capable of carrying out a massacre will find a way to do so whatever the legislation.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:He would have obtained a gun the same way people obtain illegal drugs in suburbia. He would simply buy one from somebody. And it probably wouldn't take him that much effort or time to find one. If you want something bad enough to pay for it you can usually find someone to sell it to you.
In the US (even if we took all the guns away from all civilians), there is no way we could control inflow of guns from Mexico or Canada once the word got out how much you could charge for a handgun on the black market. We can't control the inflow of illegal drugs into this country, why should guns be any different?
So would you suggest that banning drugs is pointless, and that they should all be legalized since many people can get them illegally anyway with some degree of effort?
Not at all. Maybe I mistook your point but it seemed like you were saying that because the shooter was just a suburban college kid he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of a gun if handguns were illegal in the US. My point was that suburban kids can pretty much get ahold of illegal drugs with very little effort and I see no reason why the illegal handgun black market would be different.
Honestly, I think focusing on the guns is the wrong thing at this point. I think this kid was seriously disturbed and he would have found a way to murder people even without a handgun. Maybe he would have even managed to become a serial killer and murder that many people without being caught be police. We just can't know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it depends on what region we're talking about, Porter. I haven't come to the conclusion that it's the exact right amount...but I've made a concious decision to acknowledge we've got to set it SOMEWHERE, and choose to be comfortable with that. If I didn't, I could never be comfortable around cops, could I?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, would it be fair to say that if teachers or students had firearms accessible, you think they should have some amount of training, but haven't come to any conclusion about what precisely that training should entail?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I must further my argument that would it not have been better to go full on, and encourage these people to have the means to defend themselves.
The idea that encouraging young people to carry concealed, loaded firearms into classrooms will somehow increase public safety is one that perplexes and baffles me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In this specific situation, I imagine that lives would have been saved had a significant portion of the population on that campus (I'm thinking 5%-10%) were armed.
I also imagine that if a significant portion of the campus population were similarly armed, other heated situations would become much more dangerous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In this specific situation, I imagine that lives would have been saved had a significant portion of the population on that campus (I'm thinking 5%-10%) were armed.
Well, sure. In this specific situation, lives might also have been saved if all Asian students entering the building were required to first amputate their hands.
I don't think the obvious cost of not just permitting but actively encouraging teenagers to carry firearms to school is worth preventing individual rare but horrific events.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think the obvious cost of not just permitting but actively encouraging teenagers to carry firearms to school is worth preventing individual rare but horrific events.
I can understand that, but your earlier post made it seem that you were rejecting RunningBear's notion that things would have turned out better in this situation if some of the other students had been armed.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You're not answering his question, Tresopax (although your point is a good one): why would guns be any different from illegal drugs?
My answer is that the two ARE similar - in that you can't make it impossible to get drugs or guns by illegalizing them, but you do make it considerably more difficult, and therefore less likely that he'd get a gun. That is why I think drug bans are useful, and why further gun restrictions would also be useful.
However, there is also another significant difference: Drugs have a use that makes them appealing to many college aged people. As a result, people dealing in drugs make themselves accessible to that demographic. Guns are far less useful to the average student. Only a tiny fraction of students would need or want one, so it is doubtful that an illegal gun dealer would be easy for a college student to find. The bulk of the profit for illegal gun dealers would not be coming from the suburban college student demographic.
quote:The idea that encouraging young people to carry concealed, loaded firearms into classrooms will somehow increase public safety is one that perplexes and baffles me.
I'd second that.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
At my college, students are allowed to have guns and other weapons as long as they register them and have them stored in a college-regulated area. So anyone can bring a rifle or bow or sword with them, they just cannot keep them in their rooms.
Now it being a small school and all, I am not sure how this is enforced. I've seen paintball guns and BB guns everywhere, yet they confiscated a bowstaff from one student.
Are other schools like this? Do they allow ownership of weapons on campus, but under lock-and-key controlled by the campus?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As a result, people dealing in drugs make themselves accessible to that demographic. Guns are far less useful to the average student. Only a tiny fraction of students would need or want one, so it is doubtful that an illegal gun dealer would be easy for a college student to find.
If you know someone who sells drugs, there's only 1 degree of separation at most between you and someone who would sell you a gun.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I doubt that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fractal Fraggle: In the US (even if we took all the guns away from all civilians), there is no way we could control inflow of guns from Mexico or Canada once the word got out how much you could charge for a handgun on the black market.
Here in Canada we manage to control the inflow of guns from the U.S. You're much bigger than us and have more guns, and our regulations are tighter. So it's possible, though I do agree that it would be really hard to do in the U.S. (like I said, that cat's already out of the bag).
quote:Originally posted by mr_porterio_head: In this specific situation, I imagine that lives would have been saved had a significant portion of the population on that campus (I'm thinking 5%-10%) were armed.
On what basis? My own thinking in this regard is that if that many of the students were carrying guns, and more than three or four of them drew their weapons and tried to go after the shooter, they would have been equally likely to mistake one another for the shooter, causing additional unnecessary deaths even if all of the armed students were excellent shots.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Twink -- I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were accidental deaths from the students in this hypothetical situation, but I seriously doubt that the amount of accidental deaths would even approach the lives saved by stopping his rampage early.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:My own thinking in this regard is that if that many of the students were carrying guns, and more than three or four of them drew their weapons and tried to go after the shooter, they would have been equally likely to mistake one another for the shooter, causing additional unnecessary deaths even if all of the armed students were excellent shots.
That was my thinking as well. If the police didn't know who the shooter was, how would the vigilantes?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Also, remember that the rumors pointed to the boyfriend of the girl who was first shot. If you had vigilante college students running about, they'd probably be going after that innocent student.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doubt it all you want Tres, but the dealer has to buy from someone.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Twink -- I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were accidental deaths from the students in this hypothetical situation, but I seriously doubt that the amount of accidental deaths would even approach the lives saved by stopping his rampage early.
You're still assuming that the rampage would have been stopped, though.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Doubt it all you want Tres, but the dealer has to buy from someone.
Yes, another dealer. But what makes you think that person is going to be in the business of selling guns to suspiciously angry suburban college students? I'd bet there is a pretty decent chance that the next guy up the chain will own a gun, but owning a gun is very different from selling guns. Somewhere up the chain there's somebody selling guns, but I suspect it is usually far more than one degree away, and I suspect they are smart enough to be more careful about who they are selling to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I doubt that.
quote:Yes, another dealer. But what makes you think that person is going to be in the business of selling guns to suspiciously angry suburban college students? I'd bet there is a pretty decent chance that the next guy up the chain will own a gun, but owning a gun is very different from selling guns. Somewhere up the chain there's somebody selling guns, but I suspect it is usually far more than one degree away, and I suspect they are smart enough to be more careful about who they are selling to.
I have spoken to numerous narcotics detectives, each of whom would attest to a link between drugs and guns.
Even though most drug dealers are not regular sellers of firearms, they do, as a general rule, know someone who would sell a person a gun. Most wholesalers have guns that were obtained illegally, know where to get more, and are perfectly happy to do a one-off sale to make an extra buck. I know of at least two handguns purchased just that way - through a college dealer who got it from his supplier based on a special request.
I've also seen numerous convictions of drug dealers who do not have a regular gun-selling business selling guns based on special requests.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You're still assuming that the rampage would have been stopped, though.
Yup. If 5-10% of the campus population were armed, I reckon that there's an extremely high probability that it would have been.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
A little background: I'm not anti-gun. I was taught to shoot old .22 rifles (at my Primary school gun club, no less) at the age of seven years old, and I love it. I've used handguns in target ranges in France, and my uncle and grandfather were both very into shooting and gun collecting. But I was also taught about the responsibility that comes with being armed, that it's not something to be taken lightly.
I'm torn on the issue of gun control, because I live in a country where eleven years ago the ban on handguns came into effect after the Dunblane massacre resulted in six very young children and a teacher being shot dead at their Primary school by a crazed ex-Scout leader, a licensed gun owner.
At the time, shocking as it was, I was very much against the ban - if they had to do anything, I'd much rather have had stricter gun controls than an outright ban which penalises responsible owners. But now, looking at it - gun crime has risen in the UK over the past few years. If you want to, you can still get a gun illegally.
But there hasn't been another massacre like that one, since.
Has the ban saved lives? It's impossible to know.
Would I rather that the government had decided to arm all Primary school teachers (or, hey, even the children, after all, I was an armed seven year old and I never shot anyone...)
Um,no.
As far as I can see, I think the main point is - could an attack like this have resulted in as many deaths if the attacker had been armed with a knife, or other non-projectile weapon?
And do you really want to live in a society where everyone is constantly armed 'just in case', even in restaurants, schools, the gym, and everyone, drunks, kids, those in need of anger management, has the ability to shoot whoever they please, whenever they feel like it?
Yeah, the bad guys will always have guns. Do we want everyone else, (people who are human and get upset and make mistakes) to also be carrying? Where every disagreement would then become a situation where you have to shoot first, in case the other guy is about to?
Yeah, okay, maybe I'm overstating it, but this sounds like a recipe for chaos and I don't see that the pro-gun lobby is doing themselves any favours by suggesting it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:You're still assuming that the rampage would have been stopped, though.
Yup. If 5-10% of the campus population were armed, I reckon that there's an extremely high probability that it would have been.
Hm. I don't agree. I definitely wouldn't take that as a given.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Even though most drug dealers are not regular sellers of firearms, they do, as a general rule, know someone who would sell a person a gun. Most wholesalers have guns that were obtained illegally, know where to get more, and are perfectly happy to do a one-off sale to make an extra buck. I know of at least two handguns purchased just that way - through a college dealer who got it from his supplier based on a special request.
I've also seen numerous convictions of drug dealers who do not have a regular gun-selling business selling guns based on special requests.
Eh, what can I say? That sounds foolish to me - risking their income for a one time deal that I'm guessing is much more likely to get them caught (particularly if that gun is later used in a mass killing.) But they are criminals, so I guess they don't mind the risk.
Still, I think all of that is considerably more difficult than going to a store to buy a gun legally. Enough so that I think it would greatly discourage gun usage, even among people like the VA Tech shooter. They haven't said anything about him using drugs, so we have no reason to believe he'd know who to go to get a gun. And without that knowledge, I suspect it is unlikely that a school shooting would still be the outlet for his rage. At a minimum, it would require many more steps on his part, and many more instances along the way where he could be caught.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That sounds foolish to me - risking their income for a one time deal that I'm guessing is much more likely to get them caught (particularly if that gun is later used in a mass killing.)
Not really. A person using a gun in a mass killing is unlikely to get a deal for informing on his source.
Just having a gun with illegal drugs makes one eligible for all sorts of nasty mandatory minimum sentences. The additional risk is negligible.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snail:
quote:From this I conclude that no-gun areas do not prevent mass shootings. If they did, most of the shootings would occur in other areas.
Couldn't you just as easily conclude that lax overall gun control laws do absolutely nothing to prevent them either seeing as more than half of the cases you listed occurred in the United States?
No -- that does not follow. I'll say it now so I won't be misunderstood: I am not saying that the data here proves that US gun law *does* prevent any disaster, either. I am saying the data here cannot address that issue. Here is why.
The population of the US is 300M (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/). Considering the pop of other countries listed, I will just use English-speaking countries because almost all non-US countries listed are English-speaking, also because we should expect them to be a little more similar culturally, we have UK+Oz+NZ+Canada=60M+20M+4M+30M approx= 115M. So if Wikipedia's list is accurate, we would expect the US to have about 3 times as many such events if everything but population were equal. Instead it is about the same. If we use these numbers then, and assume that gun control is the only relevant factor, then non-US tight gun control makes mass shooting about 3 times as likley to happen! If we add in Nepal, Germany, Switzerland, and South Korea, the US still shows an advantage: fewer mass shootings per capita.
But the idea that the legality of guns in the US *is* the reason for the US advantage also does not follow from the data. It is only a correlation, not a cause. There could be something else that is different about the US that makes the US show up less often in the list than we would expect it to.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I know an arms dealer. A guy I went to college with has the highest license you can get to own and sell all sorts of weapons. I don't particualrly like him, and I believe he has, in the past, been clinically depressed.
It scares the bejebus out of me when I think about the fact that he has so many guns (everything you can think of between "collectable" Nazi issue weapons ("Specially engineered for killing Jews!" --HIS words, not mine) to things capable of damaging armored vehicles).
Still, getting the guns out of America would be roughly equivalent to getting pee out of a pool.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Except in this case, we know exactly who is peeing in the pool.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not really. A person using a gun in a mass killing is unlikely to get a deal for informing on his source.
Wouldn't police and other authorities be under much more pressure to find the source of a weapon used to kill a bunch of people than they would be to find, for instance, the source of some drugs a group of college students were caught using?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not as much pressure as they'd be under to get the mass killer the death penalty, at least in Virginia.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Except in this case, we know exactly who is peeing in the pool.
Who? Everyone?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: no, I think guns in the classroom is not necessary, but perhaps the instructors, at least a few, ought to be trained and prepared for such an instance.
So because this sort of incident has happened exactly once on a US University campus in the past half century, University professors should carry guns and be trained to gun down attackers. That is insane.
Every time such an event happens, gun rights advocates jump on their soap boxes and preach about how they wouldn't happen if more people carried hand guns. These people make just as little, may be less, sense than the gun control advocates who jump on their soap boxes at such times.
A few weeks ago when a similar incident happened at Trolley Square in Salt Lake, not a single private citizen came to the rescue even though Utah has some of the most liberal laws for concealed weapons permits. It was an off duty policy officer who stepped up not a private citizen. Even though the news and hand gun advocates were quick to point to this officers actions as clear evidence of the effectiveness of concealed weapons, all such connections were denied by the police. Police statements indicated that the off duty police officer did not shoot the gunman and that although his efforts were heroic it was the active duty police that stopped the shooting spree.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: The population of the US is 300M (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/population/). Considering the pop of other countries listed, I will just use English-speaking countries because almost all non-US countries listed are English-speaking, also because we should expect them to be a little more similar culturally, we have UK+Oz+NZ+Canada=60M+20M+4M+30M approx= 115M. So if Wikipedia's list is accurate, we would expect the US to have about 3 times as many such events if everything but population were equal. Instead it is about the same. If we use these numbers then, and assume that gun control is the only relevant factor, then non-US tight gun control makes mass shooting about 3 times as likley to happen! If we add in Nepal, Germany, Switzerland, and South Korea, the US still shows an advantage: fewer mass shootings per capita.
Population of the EU is around 490K and there were only three massacres in that list that had occurred in EU countries.
This is of course assuming all massacres would have made the list. There's at least one Finnish case which isn't reported. (In it a woman shot three men and wounded one at a gun shooting club. In that case all the people on the club were armed but no one still managed to stop her and instead she was arrested by the police later from her home.) Still, the only major instance of gun violence within EU that I can remember since 2000 is the German school massacre which is listed there.
I agree with you though that you can't really say anything about the effect of such laws based on that list. I just don't think you can say anything about the locations where these things happen either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Except in this case, we know exactly who is peeing in the pool.
Who? Everyone?
There's .. what, three or four guns in America for each person living here?
There's a lot of pee in this pool.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It would be more like trying to get the Star Wars Kid video off the internet.
*sorry for the excretory analogy, hope this is better*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Twink -- I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were accidental deaths from the students in this hypothetical situation, but I seriously doubt that the amount of accidental deaths would even approach the lives saved by stopping his rampage early.
But what about other situations (like a burglary in a dorm) where innocent people could be injured/killed trying to hit the burglar. I'm guessing burglary is much more common than mass murder, well, just about anywhere.
I'm not implying that students are less mature/capable where gun ownership is concerned, just that in those sorts of situations, I could see a rise in incidental injury/fatality due to the charged nature of the situation.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But what about other situations (like a burglary in a dorm) where innocent people could be injured/killed trying to hit the burglar. I'm guessing burglary is much more common than mass murder, well, just about anywhere.
I brought that up myself in the first post where I discussed the idea:
quote:In this specific situation, I imagine that lives would have been saved had a significant portion of the population on that campus (I'm thinking 5%-10%) were armed.
I also imagine that if a significant portion of the campus population were similarly armed, other heated situations would become much more dangerous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You're still assuming that the rampage would have been stopped, though.
Yup. If 5-10% of the campus population were armed, I reckon that there's an extremely high probability that it would have been.
Hm. I don't agree. I definitely wouldn't take that as a given.
Seconded.
I think when police arrive on the scene with the knowledge that a shooter is on the loose, and no one really knows who he is, then ANYONE walking around with a gun in hand is going to set off alarm bells and create a situation ripe for accidental shootings. And cops are trained to deail with such situations.
Vigilante students however have no training required of them. They don't have to be trained to fire a gun, they don't have any training in recognizing or dealing with a threat. They might see someone with a gun and just let loose with bullets hitting whoever might be around.
Frankly if I knew that everyone around me had a gun it would scare the bejeezes out of me.
If we're going to talk about rules regarding guns, I think a lot of weapons should be restricted. There's no way we can take all the guns out of America, but we can start trying to reform the process. We don't need to sell assault rifles and machine guns here. And I think a background check and firearms training should be MANDATORY before you can purchase a weapon.
We don't let people drive without a license, and the license requires training. Guns, which have one purpose, are inherently more dangerous than a car, so I really don't know why we require training for cars and not guns as a prerequisite to own and operate one.
And to cut off the probable stream of people saying “but cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, more than guns do,” I would say yes, but there are still tens of thousands of gun related deaths every year, and MILLIONS of cars are used every day, not millions of guns. Can you imagine how much worse car deaths would be every year if there wasn’t any training required to drive one? I just don’t think we should be making it easy for mistakes and accidents to happen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We don't let people drive without a license, and the license requires training.
Of course, one big flaw in this analogy is that the constitution doesn't guarantee us the right to drive a car.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ah, missed that. So ultimately do you think it's worth it in the general case? I'm thinking it'll be a wash.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree with much you have to say, but definitely not that guns are inherently more dangerous than a car. Used stupidly--and cars and guns both are often used stupidly--cars can be just as lethal as guns can.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with twinky and Lyr.
And Olivet, although she won't be swimming in any pool I own. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Ah, missed that. So ultimately do you think it's worth it in the general case? I'm thinking it'll be a wash.
That is a very good question, and I don't have a good answer for you. I haven't come to a conclusion myself.
What I do know is that I don't want people flying off half-cocked and trying to make important policy decisions which are based more on emotion than on weighing the positives and negatives.
In other words, I think there are positives and negatives for any "solution", and I don't think it does us any good to deny that fact.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Mph-- Kennesaw (a town not far from where I live) passed a law requiring all homeowners to have a gun on their premises. At the time, home invasions were common in the area. (Home invasions are more common in wealthy areas where homes have security systems-- so the thieves break in while people are home and bully them into shutting them off. These are generally more violent types of crimes than simple theft or burglary.)
The law was controversial and highly publicized. It did have the desired effect, though-- home invasion rates dropped like a stone. The home-invaders didn't care for the odds.
I don't want to live in the Wild West Revisited. I'm not saying I like the way guns have saturated my country, but a 100% armed populace would probably bring a greater element of risk into play, from the perspective of the criminal.
ETA: I never said I would pee in a pool. My brother once had a friend come visit who spent a lot of time with his scuba gear in our pool. I don't know if he was sick or what, but the filter couldn't keep up with him. Even the shock chlorine treatment didn't help. We had to drain the thing. It was the nastiest thing ever. At least in my sheltered childhood.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The reason it makes sense to me to say something about the locations is that if no-gun locations are overrepresented, there would have to be a reason. I can easily understand why English-speaking countries are overrepresented in the sample: it's the English version of Wikipedia. Internet using countries would also be overrepresented. Big killings would also be overrepresented, since they're bigger and more newsworthy. But a killing of more than 10 people, say, is newsworth whether it happens at a private home, an auto mall, or a college campus. The no-gun aspect wouldn't make it more likely to show up on the list. (I never heard anyone make that categorization before this week, anyway.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not saying I like the way guns have saturated my country, but a 100% armed populace would probably bring a greater element of risk into play, from the perspective of the criminal.
From that perspective, you are right, and that's a good thing.
But a 100% armed populace would also make many common situations much more potentially deadly. That's a bad thing.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
It might make everyone more polite if they thought they'd get shot.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It might also cause some people to commit homicides who otherwise wouldn't if they always had a loaded firearm within arm's reach.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It might also cause some people to commit homicides who otherwise wouldn't if they always had a loaded firearm within arm's reach.
For more information, see this thread. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What I do know is that I don't want people flying off half-cocked and trying to make important policy decisions which are based more on emotion than on weighing the positives and negatives.
I completely agree.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I never said I would pee in a pool.
Good point. Ok, should I ever actually OWN a pool, you're back on the list. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I completely agree.
I don't think you're allowed to say that to me in a gun control thread.
One of us is losing their edge. Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote:The reason it makes sense to me to say something about the locations is that if no-gun locations are overrepresented, there would have to be a reason.
So where exactly are you allowed to carry a gun in the States? In Finland that would be to your own home and to the forest if you go hunting. As somebody pointed out earlier in this thread, if someone wants to kill a lot of random people then wouldn't they be more likely to go to a public place rather than to a desolate one? And aren't public places more likely to be officially gun-free? So I still don't think it plausible to make the connection you're making.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
But a 100% armed populace would also make many common situations much more potentially deadly. That's a bad thing.
I agree with this without reservation. I think you'd have a lot more impulse killings. Fewer classrooms or restaurants becoming impromptu shooting galleries, maybe, but lots more "How many times do I have to tell you to put the seat down!" type of shootings. *shifty eyes* Not that I've ever contemplated such a thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Note to self: make sure Olivet isn't carrying when you kick her out of the pool.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'd love to see how you'd conceal a gun while wearing a swimsuit.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
On the availability of guns, I am white, middle class, non-drug using mother in grad school and I am pretty confident I could get a gun illegally almost as easily as getting one legally. I am for requiring proof of sanity and responsibility before allowing people to carry weapons. I don't like the idea of everyone having one because I think that there would be way too many unplanned deaths.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Simply "arming" someone is dangerous and irresponsible. A gun, like all other pieces of dangerous machinery, should not be handled by someone who is not trained in proper safety and handling procedures.
Not everyone gets to drive a car, or a train, or a bus, or a boat, or a plane, etc. There are things that are too dangerous to do without some sort of formal training and licensing - and we keep track of those licensed people to make sure they are not in violation of established safety and usage protocols.
Guns shouldn't be any different than that.
Apparently, though, in Virginia, a car is considered far more dangerous than a gun - at least based on how hard it is to get one. You can't buy a car, for instance, without proving you have a license and insurance - but Cho apparently bought the gun with nothing more than a Green Card and a clean criminal record.
I'm all for increased gun training for licensed users, mandatory safety courses, proficiency assessments, etc. If you're going to own a weapon, you should be held accountable for its safe and proper use.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: 2007 Trolley Square Shooting 5 Salt Lake City, Utah, United States Shopping mall -- ****NO-GUN***** area
This line in the list is incorrect. Persons with concealed weapons permits are allowed to carry guns in Trolley Square.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Guns shouldn't be any different than that.
Except that guns are different, because there is no place in the constitution which says that we have a right to drive cars.
Whether it's good or bad, the fact that there is an explicit constitutional protection on owning firearms puts it in a whole different category than other potentially dangerous activities.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MPH, I assume that you know that it is disputed as to whether the 2nd amendment applies to personal private ownership of arms or only to ownership by well organized militias. The supreme courts have repeatedly found that the 2nd amendment does not prohibit state and local governments from regulating arms.
I also assume that you don't hold the constitution as an infallable source of truth so citing what is in the constitution has no relevance in the discussion of what should and shouldn't be allowed. The simple fact that the right to bare arms has a constitutional status which is not afforded to the driving cars is irrelevant in a discussion of what rights should be protected. If we as a society agree that people shouldn't have the right to own firearms without proper training we could in theory remove that right from the constitution. If we as a society agreed that the right to drive a car should be protected, we could add that to the constitution.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Guns shouldn't be any different than that.
Except that guns are different, because there is no place in the constitution which says that we have a right to drive cars.
Whether it's good or bad, the fact that there is an explicit constitutional protection on owning firearms puts it in a whole different category than other potentially dangerous activities.
Just out of curiosity mph, what do you think about laws banning convicted felons from owning firearms?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It says you have a right - it doesn't mean that can't be regulated.
You have the right to free speech, too, but that's clearly regulated under libel, slander, hate speech, shouting "fire" in a theater, etc, etc.
Just because you have a right to it, doesn't mean that right can't be regulated.
You have the right to assemble, too, but not to loiter, or to have a parade without a permit. You also can't peacably assemble on private property, nor in the middle of a highway during rush hour.
There's nothing wrong with requiring licenses for firearms (as it's already done) - I don't think that the Bill of Rights prohibits that license from requiring proficiency training, safety training, maintenance training, etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm pretty sure Porter isn't making some sort of moral judgement on whether or not guns should be permitted, beyond (perhaps) the idea that Americans should respect the Constitution.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bao -- I think it's a good idea.
quote:The simple fact that the right to bare arms has a constitutional status which is not afforded to the driving cars is irrelevant in a discussion of what rights should be protected.
As long as what we're talking about what should be protected by law, then I don't see how that can possibly be true. When talking about what regulations we ought to put on legally owning a firearm, the constitutional protections are extremely relevant.
If we're just talking about what things should be like in our ideal society, then yeah, the U.S. constitution would be irrelevant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It says you have a right - it doesn't mean that can't be regulated.
I agree. I am not against any and all regulations on the right to own firearms. I was speaking out against the idea that the right to drive a car is equivalent to the right to own a gun. They aren't equivalent, because one is explicitly protected by the constitution, while the other isn't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure Porter isn't making some sort of moral judgement on whether or not guns should be permitted, beyond (perhaps) the idea that Americans should respect the Constitution.
Pretty much correct. I was not making any judgment about how much or how we should regulate firearms. I was saying that the drivers license analogy is flawed because of what the constitution says.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Dudes, when you learn to read everything Porter writes as litteral statements with no particular agenda attached to them through unspoken implication, you will have achieved Porter-related enlightenment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That is so becoming a sig of mine.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We don't let people drive without a license, and the license requires training.
Of course, one big flaw in this analogy is that the constitution doesn't guarantee us the right to drive a car.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Guns shouldn't be any different than that.
Except that guns are different, because there is no place in the constitution which says that we have a right to drive cars.
Whether it's good or bad, the fact that there is an explicit constitutional protection on owning firearms puts it in a whole different category than other potentially dangerous activities.
I think you covered it. Frankly I don't agree with you on the right to own a gun. Rabbit touched on this, I've had this argument here before, and thus far no one seems to agree with me, but I stand by it. The Second Amendment was created as a means to solidify the institution of the civilian militia, and that is what the protection of guns in the hands of the people was meant to secure.
Even so, I'm not against private ownership for protection, but I see absolutely no reason why it can't be regulated like anything else that is dangerous can be.
And I still contend that guns are inherently more dangerous than cars. Cars, if used properly, transport people safely from point A to point B. Guns, if used properly, KILL PEOPLE. It is their only purpose. If you want to trod out the “if you don’t use it right…” argument then ANYTHING can be deadly, with some things obviously being more dangerous than others. But a gun has one purpose, to harm.
The analogy isn’t flawed. The constitution protects your right to own a gun (let’s take that as a given, though I don’t agree), but it doesn’t say what kind of gun, and it doesn’t say you can’t be made to jump through a hoop to get it. The Constitution also protects your right to assemble, but often you still have to get clearance from city officials before you do so, etc, etc, etc examples of the same sort of thing etc. If the constitution gives you the right to own any sort of firearms, then you should be able to buy an M-16 (actually, I don’t know this, but CAN you buy an M-16?), or anything else you want, at ANY age.
I just don’t agree with you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Guns, if used properly, do not always kill people. You're getting a bit overwrought that you're making statements like that, Lyrhawn.
quote:The analogy isn’t flawed. The constitution protects your right to own a gun (let’s take that as a given, though I don’t agree), but it doesn’t say what kind of gun, and it doesn’t say you can’t be made to jump through a hoop to get it. The Constitution also protects your right to assemble, but often you still have to get clearance from city officials before you do so, etc, etc, etc examples of the same sort of thing etc. If the constitution gives you the right to own any sort of firearms, then you should be able to buy an M-16 (actually, I don’t know this, but CAN you buy an M-16?), or anything else you want, at ANY age.
It also doesn't explicitly say, "These kinds of guns aren't allowed either," now does it? As for right to assemble, that falls apart when compared here, because you only need a permit to assemble for things such as assembling on public land, where you're going to, I dunno, impede traffic, that sort of thing. You don't at all need a permit to assemble peaceably in your own home.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ]As long as what we're talking about what should be protected by law, then I don't see how that can possibly be true. When talking about what regulations we ought to put on legally owning a firearm, the constitutional protections are extremely relevant.
The constitutional protections are only relevant in a discussion about what mechanisms would be necessary to impliment a particular law. The US constitution is part of the law and a part which can be changed, although that is admittedly more difficult than changing other laws.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that many restriction on the personal ownership of firearms are within the constitution. It is seriously doubtful that a constitutional amendment would before laws to require training and licensing exams for firearms could be implimented.
I really don't see how the constitutional issue changes the validity of the comparison between cars and hand guns unless you are arguing that because the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution people are more likely to view it as an inalienable natural right. If that's the case, I'd have to say you probably don't know anyone who has had their driver's license revoked.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I like the argument that says the 2nd Amendment is really telling us to be able to defend ourselves from our own government. If we needed to throw a second revolution, I'm not sure we could. But in that context, it's not only important to have access to destructive weaponry in large numbers but also a check on the powers of our country.
I hope whoever convinced me of this the first time is still posting and can clarify, cause I'm not sure I can. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Guns, if used properly, KILL PEOPLE.
Are you saying that I've only used guns improperly up until now because nobody has died?
'Cuz that would be silly. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I disagree with that take on the second amendment as well. It is specifically mentioned in documents of the day, and in other similar amendments in state constitutions that the militias would be used to defend the state AGAINST insurrection, not to help it.
I can sort of see that argument though. The minds of the day were afraid of a standing army, because they felt that a president with the control of a standing army was just ASKING for trouble, and they felt it would be impossible to dislodge a sitting president once he got into power. Militias were there to protect against a president using a standing army to act against the constituion, so I guess you're technically right, but they were meant to be a bulwark against abuses, not a stamp of approval for insurrection.
Given the technology of the day, and the irrepressible rise of the US standing army, I think it would be literally impossible to stop them from doing whatever they wanted to do. We could Iraq style harry them and attack via guerilla tactics, but we'd never be able to overthrow the government. I think the general idea of an all volunteer army, is that volunteers will be much more disposed to protecting the constitution and won't act against their homes and fellow citizens whereas conscripts wouldn't be so well disposed. Not as sure about that though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Speaking for myself, I'm rarely very concerned with making our current laws based on what the founders intended. They gave us the framework to govern ourselves, not to be governed by them for indefinite centuries.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Guns, if used properly, KILL PEOPLE.
Are you saying that I've only used guns improperly up until now because nobody has died?
'Cuz that would be silly.
Cute.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He was poking fun at an overwrought, incorrect point you made, Lyrhawn. There's not really a whole lot wrong with that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I completely agree.
I don't think you're allowed to say that to me in a gun control thread.
One of us is losing their edge.
*hands mph a whetstone*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He was poking fun at an overwrought, incorrect point you made, Lyrhawn. There's not really a whole lot wrong with that.
Funny, I thought it was a subjective point, rather than something I could be proven incorrect on, but I was wrong about that too.
quote:Speaking for myself, I'm rarely very concerned with making our current laws based on what the founders intended. They gave us the framework to govern ourselves, not to be governed by them for indefinite centuries.
If we're going to look at it like that, which I should say I conditionally have no problem with, then bringing the constitution into this debate is entirely useless. The second amendment means whatever the majority decides it means.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Guns, if used properly, KILL PEOPLE. It is their only purpose.
Statements like this make it impossible for me to take anything else you say seriously.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sounds more like your problem than mine.
I admit to that particular statement being hyperbole, but I stand by the analogy I made.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Funny, I thought it was a subjective point, rather than something I could be proven incorrect on, but I was wrong about that too.
You made a blanket statement about what guns do and what their intended purpose is. That statement was obviously, blatantly, incorrect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"It is their only purpose."
That was incorrect. I'll admit that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's what we're talking about. Now, I know that you, Lyrhawn, do not actually believe that the only purpose of firearms is to kill. I understood the point you were getting at.
But the statement is one often heard in support of stricter gun controls. Otherwise, I would've just ignored it and assumed you meant what I thought you meant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Understood. Sorry, I got caught up in the heat of the moment. You all know how that goes
I appreciate that you saw what I was trying to say, despite the fact that I worded it poorly.
I do support stricter gun controls, but I don't support no guns at all. My main aim would be to make gun ownership as safe for everyone as possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
YOU TAKE THAT BACK!
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
So you think guns should be safe, legal and rare? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I almost, ALMOST said that.
Ultimately I wasn't sure how the joke would play out and decided against it.
You're braver than I.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
says the straightman...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I skipped most of this because I've heard and had all the arguments before.
I do want to say that I whole heartedly agree with the administrations decision not to allow guns on campus. There is no way I would be comfortable as a professor giving grades, assignments, or advise to a heavily armed classroom. I know too many teachers and professors to feel safe administrating to them if they were armed as well.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
A few people compared gun control to car, er, control. That is, licensing etc. MPH pointed out the consitutional reason this analogy is flawed, and I agree.
Putting aside the constitutional aspect, however, I just wanted to add: Despite us requiring all drivers to have licenses, insurance, et cetera, a huge number of drivers have none of these things. Crimes are frequently committed by unlicensed drivers without (gasp!) insurance, who are driving cars even though it's clearly illegal for them to do so!
Do you honestly think there has ever been a person intent on using a car to commit a crime, who was deterred by his lack of a license? I'm kind of doubtful.
This would tie once again to the "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns" line of thought. People intent on committing crimes are usually not stopped simply because one of the tools they need for their crime happens to be illegal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Again, I don't think constitutionality has anything at all to do with the analogy, but you are entitled to your opinion.
So you think we shouldn't require people to have driver's licenses or go through driver's training?
Using your argument, if someone wants to drive, they'll drive regardless of the possible consequences, so we shouldn't even bother trying.
Do I have it right?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I have a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) in the State of Virginia and I have also purchased a handgun here. Please allow me to clear up some misconceptions. While guns are easy to obtain, you do have to go through a screening process. You must pass a Firearms Purchase Eligibility Test, which includes questions such as, "Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?" and "Are you a nonimmigrant alien? A nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from receiving a firearm unless he or she falls within an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit; waiver)." I am sure it will be investigated, but it appears that the dealer who sold the shooter the gun did not follow the law correctly or was deceived. You have to give the dealer you SSN (or what the Green Card equivalent is - I have no idea) and he or she is obligated to do a background check.
You do not need a permit to openly carry a handgun in Virginia. In order to obtain a CHP, you must demonstrate competence with a handgun and present proof of this to the circuit court. There are places where you may not carry your weapon, including establishments that sell alcohol, schools (though you may keep one in your glove compartment, which constitutes a locked container, while you are entering and/or exiting the school), and courthouses. You may not carry a gun at VCU, where Andrew will be teaching in the fall. This is state law and I assume it's because VCU is so close to the Capital and our branch of the Fed and other government buildings.
One last thing - I feel comfortable saying that a significant number of VT students were proficient in firearms before enrolling, either from hunting or target stooting. Shooting sports are very popular here and I've done a lot of trainings with Hokies and they were excellent marksmen. They're also smart, responsible, nice kids who know how to keep their heads. One group in one of my classes was getting their CHPs so that they could carry guns on volunteer search and rescue missions into the mountains, on the advice of the officials (I don't remember if it was the fire department or the forestry folks or whoall it was) they worked for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They're also smart, responsible, nice kids who know how to keep their heads.
And who apparently should carry engines of death with them to class, because otherwise psychos might kill them?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that day would have turned out better for many of those students if they had.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to disagree.
Given the chaos of the day, the confusion, and the general feeling of terror that appears to have permeated through the campus, I think more firearms entering the mix could have been a recipe for disaster.
But we'll never know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And again, Porter, that specific day would have gone better if they'd just shot every exchange student at the door, or even kept them from entering and took them for ice cream. But the idea that arming a classroom is generically a preferable defensive solution is, from my perspective, paranoid to the point of psychosis.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: You must pass a Firearms Purchase Eligibility Test, which includes questions such as... [snip] ...and "Are you a nonimmigrant alien? A nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from receiving a firearm unless he or she falls within an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit; waiver)." I am sure it will be investigated, but it appears that the dealer who sold the shooter the gun did not follow the law correctly or was deceived. You have to give the dealer you SSN (or what the Green Card equivalent is - I have no idea) and he or she is obligated to do a background check.
But Mrs. M, he wasn't a nonimmigrant alien, he was a permanent resident alien, and as such supposedly able to buy guns legally. At least, that's what several MSM sources have published.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How much do you know about how much firearm training policemen receive?
It varies from area to area, but there is a minimum amount of safety training, storage training, and actual usage training that require tests of "certification" in both written and activity forms. Not everywhere has actual certificates issued for the separate parts, as some of the training is part of curricula for being an officer. There is further training if you wish to be issued other weapons other than a shotgun, and there is also training for ballistics vests. Additionally, it is typically standard to train on riot gear and crowd control devices, but I don't think this is required across the board. For firearms training alone, though, the typical officer receives roughly 12-24 more hours (spread over normal curriculum and qualifying for the weapon) than someone who is purchasing a gun as a civilian. Further separate qualification is often necessary if they wish to carry while off duty or carry concealed while off duty. So, the answer to how much more training is received would be "significantly more."
quote:I certainly agree that it makes sense for there to be some minimum amount of firearms training for those we hope will use firearms to protect others, but what I wonder is how you came to the conclusion that the precise amount of training that police officers current receive is the exact right amount -- no less, no more.
My guess would be that it is because normal handgun training teaches you how to handle, clean, store, and fire the weapon, while police officers are trained further in knowing when to use and not use the weapon, as well as how to use it more effectively. Civilians in the security and protection professions who are certified to carry also have to have this extra training, because it is expected to count against them as a higher liability in the case of misuse. Police have a form to fill out for every discharge of their weapon (not exactly every bullet fired) in larger precincts, and every use of a weapon must be documented by an officer across the board. As such, police are trained to treat the weapons they carry with a higher sense of liability in balance to the tactical advantage the weapon provides. Whether the training actually sticks is a debate others can have, as I would be biased, but the intent behind police training for weapons is to stress the use of a gun only as a last resort, if at all possible.
quote:In this specific situation, I imagine that lives would have been saved had a significant portion of the population on that campus (I'm thinking 5%-10%) were armed.
I cannot agree with this assumption, because it ignores two major factors in these cases. The first is the fear and adrenaline that would have been running high. Police are trained to remain calm and assess a situation, but their ability to isolate and prevent more escalation would have been hampered by a number of high adrenaline adults with guns moving about the campus. Even the most physically capable of individuals can be hampered severely when placed in a high adrenaline and high stress situation, and adding a gun to that equation makes matters more complicated, not less. The second factor would be the false assumption that someone would have the opportunity to shoot the individual. Someone could miss, the firearm could misfire (unlikely, but possible), or worse the murderer could fire first and then have access to yet another weapon in his arsenal. These factors make the situation more difficult for law enforcement and would not deter someone in a psychopathic state.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And who apparently should carry engines of death with them to class, because otherwise psychos might kill them?
Haha. "ENGINESSS OF DDDEATHHHH"
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: The first is the fear and adrenaline that would have been running high. Police are trained to remain calm and assess a situation, but their ability to isolate and prevent more escalation would have been hampered by a number of high adrenaline adults with guns moving about the campus.
It might be useful to see if we can find a law enforcement perspective on which situation they would have preferred to walk into, given the choice, especially if that perspective came from someone with past real experience in this sort of extreme crowd control. I expect I know the answer, but I would be guessing.
Shame we don't have a police officer here, so far as I know. (Hatrack, you are lacking! *shakes fist)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:They're also smart, responsible, nice kids who know how to keep their heads.
If this were entirely true then one of them wouldn't have shot 32 others. The truth is that in any school the majority of students are fairly smart, responsible, and nice - but there is also some minority who are not. It is that small minority that can create a huge problem.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But the idea that arming a classroom is generically a preferable defensive solution is, from my perspective, paranoid to the point of psychosis.
It's also not much of an arguement as no one is suggesting that the classroom be armed, nor suggesting that students are handed guns upon entering a classroom so your example is very misleading.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Isn't that exactly what people are suggesting in this thread - that the situation would have been better if people in the classroom has been armed?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tresopax, Mrs. M. was speaking about a specific few people, not the entire student body. The truth you posted about doesn't bear on what she posted.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
But a 100% armed populace would also make many common situations much more potentially deadly. That's a bad thing.
I agree with this without reservation. I think you'd have a lot more impulse killings. Fewer classrooms or restaurants becoming impromptu shooting galleries, maybe, but lots more "How many times do I have to tell you to put the seat down!" type of shootings. *shifty eyes* Not that I've ever contemplated such a thing.
I'd go on to say that you would NOT find an increase in sparsely populated areas (wealthy burbs and the like), which relates to something Howard Dean said when he was running in the primaries about the disconnect on guns in the US between rural, sparsely populated places like Vermont versus highly populated places like eastern Massachusetts/Boston. Not accepting this fact is a fair part of what keeps activists on both side of the debate in business.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tresopax, Mrs. M. was speaking about a specific few people, not the entire student body.
No, she wasn't. She was talking broadly about anyone who wanted a gun and made it through training, if I understood her correctly. There were ALREADY trained elites with weapons in the area; her assertion is that this was not sufficient.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I would prefer that, were I ever concerned that something like that might happen to me, that I personally would have the option of legally carrying a weapon.
Of course, I don't even own such a firearm, so you can tell how much I, at this point, am worried about such scenarios.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: The first is the fear and adrenaline that would have been running high. Police are trained to remain calm and assess a situation, but their ability to isolate and prevent more escalation would have been hampered by a number of high adrenaline adults with guns moving about the campus.
It might be useful to see if we can find a law enforcement perspective on which situation they would have preferred to walk into, given the choice, especially if that perspective came from someone with past real experience in this sort of extreme crowd control. I expect I know the answer, but I would be guessing.
Shame we don't have a police officer here, so far as I know. (Hatrack, you are lacking! *shakes fist)
If you like I can get an actual quote from one of my associates who is in law enforcement. I'm basing my comments in part from what they've said anyway, so that may not be helpful. I personally have more experience with the security and protection realm, not law enforcement, but knowing what is required for those in the criminal justice system is helpful and adds perspective of just how much faith and responsibility is placed on those who wear the badge.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It might be useful to see if we can find a law enforcement perspective on which situation they would have preferred to walk into, given the choice, especially if that perspective came from someone with past real experience in this sort of extreme crowd control.
I'm not sure that would be a useful gauge. In my experience, many police officers would prefer it if nobody had firearms except for themselves, not necessarily because it's a better situation overall, but because it make their (admittedly difficult) job easier. If someone has a gun, they're either a cop or a bad guy.
I don't like the choice of being wholly unable to defend myself or being a bad guy.
Now, it may be that it's a better situation overall if nobody but the police and bad guys are armed, but it would be natural for police officers to have a personal bias on the issue.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because the only way to defend yourself is to have a gun?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I agree completeley with Troubador (way back on page 1).
And although I dislike John Howard as our prime minister for many reasons, I think he has a very valid point. Particularly, I agree "that the gun culture [...] is such a negative in the United States".
I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
I am glad that we in Australia don't have a gun culture. I feel safer for it.
But as Troubadour said, for America, the barn door is open. The culture is different.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Do you really believe the only way to defend yourself is by having a gun? I apologize ahead of time if you take offense, but that sounds like too much hyperbole to be an acceptable argument. There is much more to self defense than your ability to attack back.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Against something like what happened the other day? I can't think of anything that comes close, especially if I consider defending the lives of others and not just myself (which seriously decreases the value of such defenses as just running away).
If there were something else as effective as a firearm, I'd expect to see the police using it instead of firearms.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
Some of us will. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Against something like what happened the other day? I can't think of anything that comes close, especially if I consider defending the lives of others and not just myself (which seriously decreases the value of such defenses as just running away).
If the other person shoots first? If the other person is wearing a ballistics vest? If you have a permit to have a gun but not a concealed carry (which requires a separate license and separate test in most states)? Owning a gun is not synonymous with being better equipped to defend yourself, especially in situations that include a psychopath randomly shooting individuals.
Please keep in mind also that this comes very close to the line of vigilantism, which is definitely not legal in any state.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
I do not agree. I do think that the tendancy to escalate in the face of threat is a danger, and that individuals who would prefer to use the gun culture as a mode of escalation can be dangerous. I am not opposed to citizens owning guns, however.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If the other person shoots first? If the other person is wearing a ballistics vest?
I never said it was a perfect defense. I just said it seems be be the best defense.
quote:If you have a permit to have a gun but not a concealed carry (which requires a separate license and separate test in most states)?
I have no idea what you're asking, but I am well aware of what is required for concealed carry.
quote:Owning a gun is not synonymous with being better equipped to defend yourself, especially in situations that include a psychopath randomly shooting individuals.
I never implied that it is. I would never carry a gun that unless I were confident in my abilities to use it properly, which is one of the reasons I've never carried.
Nevertheless, I would like to have the option to do so if I ever felt the need.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Now, it may be that it's a better situation overall if nobody but the police and bad guys are armed, but it would be natural for police officers to have a personal bias on the issue.
Oh, of course. I assume there would be bias, and that would still have to be taken into account. I also figured that someone with this experience might have some actual numbers of how these incidents tend to play out, both when there are armed citizenry present and when there are not. I'd hope that would be part of the training. (But I don't know.)
I'd be more than a bit worried that dealing with even just a few cases of misjudgment and friendly fire during a panic situation might grievously dilute out the law enforcement response. Having shots fired in the 3 different places means 1/3 the concentrated response at each place, at least until the chaos gets sorted out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Another big reason I've never carried is that the amount of protection I might get in a highly improbable situation doesn't outweigh the burden of carrying death on my person.
Those scales may tip someday, though, and I would like my options to be open.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:They're also smart, responsible, nice kids who know how to keep their heads.
This could also describe the individuals in a mob. In other words, [it's like saying that] people are pretty smart and responsible when they are not doing dumb things.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another big reason I've never carried is that the amount of protection I might get in a highly improbably situation doesn't outweigh the burden of carrying death on my person.
Those scales may tip someday, though, and I would like my options to be open.
Then perhaps you and I aren't really disagreeing on the overarching issue, just on some of the semantics. I, too, choose not to carry for very similar reasons. It isn't a step I'm willing to take, but I understand and recognize the assumed right to having that ability.
I think the only specific we're diverging on are what we believe the actual requirements for owning and carrying firearms should be.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
First we would have to find a gun culture. Few of us do much with guns, and of those the only ones I know are hunters.
Maybe this is a reference to the guns-and-crack-cocaine culture?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
Some of us will.
I figured some of you would.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: [QUOTE]I do not agree. I do think that the tendancy to escalate in the face of threat is a danger, and that individuals who would prefer to use the gun culture as a mode of escalation can be dangerous. I am not opposed to citizens owning guns, however.
From an outsider perspective, I would actually argue that the first two parts of your post are *part* of the gun culture in the US.
(I would also suggest that the gun culture in the US has gone way, way beyond citizens owning guns.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think we're even disagreeing about that, as I haven't expressed any opinions on that subject, as I don't have strong opinions on that matter.
What I'm doing is questioning the idea that making sure that nobody but policemen and bad guys are armed is the best course of action.
----
Also, let me point out that I'm a big guy -- 6'3", 220 lb., and a black belt in Aikido. I am much more able to defend myself without a firearm than the average person. If I were a 5'2", 100 lb. woman who had to be out at night in places that weren't safe, I very well might feel that the burden of carrying a gun was worth the protection it provides.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Gun culture?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I assume there would be bias, and that would still have to be taken into account. I also figured that someone with this experience might have some actual numbers of how these incidents tend to play out, both when there are armed citizenry present and when there are not. I'd hope that would be part of the training. (But I don't know.)
That would be another thing that varies by region. For officers who are in a large city precinct, it is often included in training in the case of there being armed individuals who are not involved with the criminal. In other areas, it may be included if there is an inclination of the state or local government to add that to the course curricula. It would also depend on what the person is training for, whether on a state or local level, if they are being trained for dealing with specific aspects of crowd control, or if they are part of a specialized unit (like SWAT) for whom such training is usually included. For the career officer, police tactical training is an ongoing process designed for the career track of the person pursuing it. Sometimes it is formal training, sometimes it is seminars, and sometimes it is peer sharing or tutoring. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I read that the school actually had the State law changed so that their campus could be a "gun free zone" (the applicable law being that, in Virginia, a concealed carry permit gave you the right to carry a gun anywhere in the state).
So, in a way, the gun free zones are just places where the people least likely to abuse their firearms do not carry them (that is, the law-abiders, who are NOT planning to kill as many random people as possible before they quit).
Or maybe I'm just overly influenced by the Penn abd Teller Bull---t episode I saw last night. (Which proposed the theory that the second amendment was actually designed so that the citizens could defend themselves against their own government, which is essentially what happened during the American Revolution. That idea appeals to me, for various reasons.) It went places that most things on this particular topic do not go.
As an irrelevant aside: I firmly believe that it would be a Bad Idea for me to carry a firearm. I'm too impulsive. My husband has a concealed carry permit, and is the best example I've seen of the type of person who can handle the responsibility.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: From an outsider perspective, I would actually argue that the first two parts of your post are *part* of the gun culture in the US.
(I would also suggest that the gun culture in the US has gone way, way beyond citizens owning guns.)
I can understand that, and sympathize. Unfortunately, there is indeed a subculture of gun owners that has gone far beyond just owning guns. My only advice to offer is that it is not as large as it may seem, and only hearing the loud few can often skew things a bit.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Or maybe I'm just overly influenced by the Penn abd Teller Bull---t episode I saw last night. (Which proposed the theory that the second amendment was actually designed so that the citizens could defend themselves against their own government, which is essentially what happened during the American Revolution. That idea appeals to me, for various reasons.) It went places that most things on this particular topic do not go.
Not for nothing, but I have seen that episode, and Penn definitely lays the hyperbole on pretty thick. The overall premise I agree with, but not his arguments in that episode. Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Okay.
Nowhere did I suggest that I thought that the entire VT campus should be armed. Forgive me if I wasn't clear on that. I do feel, however, that the VT students that I personally know and have gone through firearms trainings with would have been able to help in the situation. I am not talking about CHP certification, but about extensive personal safety and tactical classes. All of the trainings were taught by former or current law enforcement officers, who were extremely supportive (not to mention excellent teachers). I take my responsibility very seriously when it comes to concealed carry. I have hundreds of hours of training and I practice with my weapon regularly. I've also been shooting since I was a little girl, so I am very comfortable with and proficient with firearms. All of my firearms training (in 3 states) have been under law enforcement officers and they were all very supportive of trained civilians carrying guns. I don't dispute that there are law enforcement officers who feel differently - I can only speak to my own experience. I would greatly prefer that all gun owners had similar experience and training to myself.
quote:But Mrs. M, he wasn't a nonimmigrant alien, he was a permanent resident alien, and as such supposedly able to buy guns legally.
Thank you, Morbo, I didn't know that. That makes me feel a bit better.
I, personally, do feel that the only way to effectively defend myself and my child is with a gun. I am a 5'4'' woman - almost any man could physically overpower me. For me, carrying a gun isn't a power trip or the result of the urge to do violence - it's about freedom from fear.
As to knives and tasers, these require getting close to an attacker. A gun allows you to defend yourself out of the attackers reach.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My only advice to offer is that it is not as large as it may seem, and only hearing the loud few can often skew things a bit.
My relatively limited experience agrees with this. Of course, that might just be because my personal biases skew the percentages of the population that I tend to interact with. In other words, since I tend to not like crazies, I tend to not hang out with them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I've thought seriously about carrying a handgun at a different time in my life. This was when I was younger, living alone, and working in rather unsafe areas. I also -- in desperation! -- almost applied for a permit to get a weapon in order to work as a security guard.
(You may stop laughing now. Thank you.)
At that time, I had essentially no work history and was facing living in my car. I was desperate for work, and I had just met a woman whose Dad was a local Sheriff and would help me find a security guard job. Luckily, the best philosophy prof evah (and my mentor, lucky me) intervened with other options. I had approached him to vouch for me on my permit application.
Oh, my goodness. He kept a straight face, bless him. [In self-presentation, especially back then, I am as unintimidating as they come. I practically had "pacifist Amish-like meek mouse who's never been kissed" in blazing neon above my forehead.]
Anyway, it isn't something that I considered beyond the pale, and I don't think less of myself for having considered it. I also don't think less of others for the same reasons. On the other hand, I do breath a sigh of relief when I cross the border out of the US again. (And this likely has as much to do other elements of the culture that may be fueling the desire to own and carry handguns as the handguns themselves.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, Justa-- I think the hyperbole was almost necessary to make his point, though. And, you know, to have it still be funny. ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people. More specifically, MEN kill people...") *snort*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: That would be another thing that varies by region. For officers who are in a large city precinct, it is often included in training in the case of there being armed individuals who are not involved with the criminal. In other areas, it may be included if there is an inclination of the state or local government to add that to the course curricula. It would also depend on what the person is training for, whether on a state or local level, if they are being trained for dealing with specific aspects of crowd control, or if they are part of a specialized unit (like SWAT) for whom such training is usually included. For the career officer, police tactical training is an ongoing process designed for the career track of the person pursuing it. Sometimes it is formal training, sometimes it is seminars, and sometimes it is peer sharing or tutoring.
Thanks for the clarification!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
send in the marines to confiscate ALL the guns, if anyone resists declare martial law.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:(You may stop laughing now. [Wink] Thank you.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Had to eat, soon, and was on my own. Desperate times called for desperate measures.
I ended up waiting tables at a country club, and the diehard criminals of Alabama were able to sleep easy again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What about the possibility of putting tougher restrictions on ammunition? You would have to prove "need" to purchase bullets - x for home protection, x for a hunting trip. Whatever those numbers would reasonably be. Your ammunition purchases would be recorded. Also there could be ways of coding the bullets to track down who purchased them.
Sure there are ways around it, but it would take some time to stock up enough for a killing spree.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Against something like what happened the other day? I can't think of anything that comes close, especially if I consider defending the lives of others and not just myself ...
quote: The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. ... In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females. ...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
[QUOTE]send in the marines to confiscate ALL the guns, if anyone resists declare martial law.[QUOTE]
in bizarro america, this work well!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What about the possibility of putting tougher restrictions on ammunition? You would have to prove "need" to purchase bullets - x for home protection, x for a hunting trip. Whatever those numbers would reasonably be. Your ammunition purchases would be recorded. Also there could be ways of coding the bullets to track down who purchased them.
Sure there are ways around it, but it would take some time to stock up enough for a killing spree.
When I go shooting with my brothers, we would each probably buy more ammunition for an afternoon at the shooting range than Cho used to kill 32 people. Interesting idea though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It is relatively simple to load your own ammunition.
My uncle does so, and once asked him if it saves him money. "No," he replied, "it just means that I get to shoot more for the same cost."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Porter,
I asked you yesterday afternoon about what you thought about restricting firearm sales to ex-cons. You responded that such laws seem like a good idea.
However, you seem opposed to attempts to license or otherwise regulate guns in similar manner as automobiles. You've described the root of your opposition as being that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
The two views seem to me to be a bit at odds with each other. It looks like you favor one set of laws that would be philosophically at odds with your opposition to similar laws.
If I'm misrepresenting you at all, feel free to point it out. I'm just wondering how you personally reconcile the two positions.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Yeah, Justa-- I think the hyperbole was almost necessary to make his point, though. And, you know, to have it still be funny. ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people. More specifically, MEN kill people...") *snort*
It is true. In the hands of the responsible, a gun is no more dangerous than a bat or a knife or a well used fist in regard to the safety of those around the person. My only caveat is that those people are not the sole types of individuals who would own such a weapon. On the other hand, there are equally irresponsible and dangerous individuals who have massive collections of other weapons, so the ratio may not be skewed compared to other implements of death. In the case of guns, though, I tend to adhere to the "with great power comes great responsibility" mentality, and firearms are a great deal more powerful than other more common weapons.
Claudia Therese: that is an intersting story (not laughing). A similar situation had me looking into the field of security and protection, but these days it is something I only keep as an option because I've learned so much about it and have connections that could find me work if I need it. You don't have to be an imposing figure, but you do need the ability to remain calm in stressful situations and react well in scenarios where you would normally have a fight or flight response. Some have told me a healthy dose of paranoia is useful, but I cannot believe holding everyone under suspicion is a healthy way to approach such work and would lend itself to the same pitfalls as having armed civilians in a gunman situation for police. Many who enter the armed security field have had military experience behind them, though, so even if you met all of the trust and emotional criteria, you would still face a lot of tough competition for the better paying jobs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BQT, I'm thinking along the lines of what we do with other controlled substances. You could get a "prescription" for x amount of ammo for a specific purpose. Belonging to a shooting club, etc. for example. Having a hunting license. Once you have used that, you could get more. I don't know enough to know that could be measured, spent cartridges etc.
Porter, don't you have to purchase the stuff with which to make ammunition?
And frankly, in the face of events like Monday's I am not all that concerned making shooting as sport less convenient.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bao -- let me think on that some more. I'm not really sure.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Actually Lyrhawn, I'm not against restricting gun use in the same manner as a driver's license. I think requiring a gun license wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I'm skeptical on some of the details people would want on the gunner's test, though... like the suggestion of a psych exam. Ew. But in general, no I don't see it as a problem. Even considering the constitutional right to bear arms.
I agree with Penn & Teller, in that the 2nd amendment is more about protecting ourselves from a government that must be overthrown. However, if we ever really need to overthrow the government, as has been pointed out before, I suspect we wouldn't have difficulty arming ourselves illegally. Since the government would be defunct by such a point anyway, I don't expect too many people being charged after the revolution.
My point was more that I doubt such a license would really prevent criminal acts with guns. The same way I don't think the driver's license requirement prevents many criminal acts with vehicles.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think a licensing process that includes safety training, a mandated level of weapon proficiency, and maintenance/usage training would help considerably.
For one thing, accidental deaths by firearms should be reduced by standardized safety and maintenance training required to be learned prior to purchase.
Also, the safety training may make gun owners less likely to lend weapons to those who may commit crimes, or to keep their weapons in a place where they can be easily "borrowed" by malicious or simply irresponsible others.
Proficiency training is just common sense - in that, if for some reason you need to draw your weapon, you better be able to hit your target and not innocent bystanders. If someone can't drive without running up on the sidewalk, they don't deserve a license, as a parallel example.
On top of this, having to take safety/proficiency/maintenance classes with trained (state/local sponsored?) professionals would allow those instructors to spot potential problems before they happen.
Of course, criminals will bypass all of this, and get their weapons illegally, if they really wanted them. As was said earlier, there are many people who drive cars with no license or insurance. I've never claimed that a licensing process would stop all gun crime - but I think it could help cut back on gun deaths and make for a more responsible community of gun owners.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
FC - Precisely. Thank you.
The second amendment, for purposes of overthrowing the government, it a moot point in the 21st century. If the government were SERIOUS about stopping the citizenry, and the army followed, we'd never stand a chance. Our only advantage would be the ones the founders envisioned us having, which is sheer numbers.
On another note, if anyone really wants to talk to a cop, well I can't produce a cop, but I do have a friend who works at the police station where I live, and she's also in school to be a cop. If you have any questions I could email them to her and have her pass them along to any number of cops she works with. I don't think she'd mind too much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that part of the problems with gun control is one of the same issues with abortion -- there's a segment of the population which wants to ban guns completely, which makes slipperly slope reasoning much more plausible. When somebody wants to completely take away a "right", every potential limitation on that right becomes an important battleground.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
There are too many people in the "Guns cause all the evils of the world" camp and too many people in the "I have the right to vaporize a deer with a howitzer" camp.
Those two groups will not come to a common ground. They are vocal minorities at the poles of the issue, and should be ignored almost as a rule. If the polarizing voices could be shut out of the debate, some progress might actually be made.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ill be honest, growing up in Hong Kong where guns are only in the hands of the police and a handful of Triad folks (Who really do not do much with them) gave me a real sense of security.
But Hong Kong is a city, and the USA is almost the size of some continents. I really do not think it is possible, perhaps even unwise to disarm the general populace.
I personally favor one of two options,
1: Stronger limitations on who may own an handgun, including mandatory classes and written/active tests to demonstrate competency and judgment. Much like how we require people to do the same thing for a drivers license.
2: Disarm the general population as difficult as that is, state by state. Give every state, based on population, armories that the civilian sector can practice in, as well as have access to in a crisis situation. Police forces or national guard would protect the armories. I do not think it would be too hard to gain access to the weapons in case of a government turning tyrannical.
I only feel confident in option one however.
Also I think the 2nd Amendment was written when weapons resembling the incredible yet terrible firearms we use today existed. I believe they called them muskets. You could not really go on a shooting spree by yourself with one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure how I feel about local armories. Hell, I think I actually argued FOR that in a thread a year ago, but that makes me very wary. If we were ever attacked by a foreign power, one airdropped platoon could stop a local militia from having access to their weapons. Putting all your eggs in one basket has been a mistake we've known about since Sun Tzu.
And they had rifles during the writing of the Constitution in addition to muskets, but they were expensive and in short supply. Rifles didn't really appear in large numbers until the Civil War, and even then many of the rank and file were still using muskets. Many soldiers brought rifles with them from home, mostly the soldiers who came from western states (western at the time meaning anything in line with Kentucky), because they were just plain better than muskets.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage.
quote: Writing in Friday's edition of the New York Post, Lott reported on last week's shooting at Appalachian School of Law. Nigerian student Peter Odighizuwa is accused of killing the dean, L. Anthony Sutin, 42 – a former acting assistant U.S. attorney general and campaign worker for Bill Clinton – professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and student Angela Denise Dales, 33.
Noting that the rampage was widely covered in the world's media, Lott wrote: "As usual, there were calls for more gun control.
"Yet in this age of 'gun-free school zones,' the vast majority of news reports ignored the fact that the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars. The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.
quote: Such selective reporting is not unusual, Lott noted. "In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than 1 percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks."
Wall of Silence
Lott cited research showing there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. "After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?"
Such "misreporting actually endangers people's lives," Lott concluded. "By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely 'overpowered a gunman' the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The article above appears to be ultra-biased. It is mostly just quoting the viewpoint of one pro-gun scholar (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") and offers no quotes or other viewpoints from anyone with an alternative perspective. It also refers to the Washington Post as "liberal, anti-gun" and to the New York Times as "leftist, anti-gun" as if these were given facts. As a result, I am skeptical that it is presenting a clear picture.
Having said that, I have no doubt there are instances where civilian gun ownership turned out to be effective in stopping crime. Nevertheless, I suspect the harm caused by guns outweighs those cases.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Apparently underreporting defensive gun use (almost to the point of denying it entirely) isn't biased. POINTING OUT that underreporting, however, is "ultra-biased".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Boy, Lott is in an interesting twilight. It's very dangerous to cite him in any gun debate, since he presents 'facts' based on some pretty questionable methodology.
If anything, he's just sort of a yellow flag. If you see his name in a pro-gun citation, it's a preliminary indication of questionable appeal.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Gun-free zones are perfect for shooting sprees, actually. Those are the places people pick to rack up high body counts.
I'm not saying everybody should have a six-shooter on their hip, mind you, but nobody ever goes on a shooting spree at an NRA convention or a gun show.
If we could have a school and restaurant equivalent of Air Marshalls, it might reduce the incidence of this kind of thing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
what? Whose gonna air drop a platoon into every armoury? Canada? Do we even HAVE that many troops on paper?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I am curious, though (as biased as the article was), how often it happens that significant details are left out.
If it is true that only 4 of 280 newspaper articles mentioned the use of a firearm to stop the aggressor, what does that say? Those 276 papers may seem outwardly unbiased - but all considered the presence of a gun in a defensive light as an insignificant detail.
Granted, I wasn't actually paying attention too closely when this happened, so I can't verify that less than 2% of the articles written mentioned the defensive gun use. But from a quick dash around google, it seems pretty agreed upon that the fact that the subduers were armed with firearms was "underreported" (though to what extent seems debatable).
I'm curious as to why, though.
Is it the individual journalists who collectively didn't find that detail relevant, or simply were deficient enough interviewers that they never learned of it to begin with? Was that detail left out by the journalists because it didn't "fit" some preconceived notion or another? Or, probably worse, was that detail edited out by editors who felt it didn't fit the paper's overall message (or didn't pander to the right consumer base)?
I don't know.
A case can be made (and has been made) that such omissions are the product of media bias. Having friends who write for newspapers (in NJ), I can anecdotally attest that they're all pretty liberal - though they try hard to keep that from bleeding into their writing.
Even so, papers sell best in densely populated areas, which are predominantly urban areas, which are predominantly more liberal - so, more liberal stories tend to sell more papers. In that light, it doesn't surprise me that certain details might get omitted.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Olivet's post makes me think of a Chris Rock quote:
"Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those ****'s waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one."
Also, on an unrelated note, an interesting article from Glenn Reynolds, a U of Tennessee law professor and self-proclaimed "libertarian transhumanist" columnist/blogger: link Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Gun-free zones are perfect for shooting sprees, actually. Those are the places people pick to rack up high body counts.
I'm not saying everybody should have a six-shooter on their hip, mind you, but nobody ever goes on a shooting spree at an NRA convention or a gun show.
If we could have a school and restaurant equivalent of Air Marshalls, it might reduce the incidence of this kind of thing.
I have this stick in my garden that keeps blue donkeys from trampling my flowers. I know that this stick works because I have never seen a blue donkey in my garden. Everyone should have a stick like this to keep blue donkeys out of their garden.
That is how such a suggestion sounds to me, and I have no problem with gun ownership. We do not see many cases of driving deaths at car conventions. I am certain I have never heard of a stabbing death at a knife or blade convention (not that I have attended any, if they exist). I do not hear of many drunk driving deaths at beer festivals.
A gun, a knife, a car, and a beer in every home should effectively make us safer, no?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Apparently underreporting defensive gun use (almost to the point of denying it entirely) isn't biased. POINTING OUT that underreporting, however, is "ultra-biased".
It is not ultra-biased because it is attempting to point out underreporting of gun use. It is ultra-biased because it does so in an entirely one-sided fashion, presenting only one pro-gun author's viewpoint, failing to offer any alternative explanations or responses from the papers they are criticizing, and assigning controversial and unprovable motivations to the newspapers as if they were fact (needlessly calling the Washington Post "liberal" and "anti-gun", for instance.) If the article reported the same issue in a less slanted fashion, I'd be much more likely to believe the facts were as the article is presenting them.
quote:If it is true that only 4 of 280 newspaper articles mentioned the use of a firearm to stop the aggressor, what does that say? Those 276 papers may seem outwardly unbiased - but all considered the presence of a gun in a defensive light as an insignificant detail.
Well, IS it a significant detail? I'm not sure it is, unless you are looking at the story strictly in terms of the firearms debate. It likely depends on how big of a role the guns played - and because of the bias of the article, I can't tell if it is very much exaggerating the role or not. Did the shooter surrender because a gun was pointed at him?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Blue donkeys? Stick?
The suggestion is to have someone who is responsible and armed that can respond to crises when they happen.
How does that equate to anything you just said?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think the point was that using an NRA convention as a place where no mass shooting occurs and applying that to the wider situation is pretty suspect logic.
Mass shootings are pretty rare, even in the U.S., and when they occur, the choice of location seems to be tied to other factors than availability of guns.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Edit for clarity: this was to Justa
Not at all.
Most men wouldn't walk into a NOW convention and shout, "Which one o' you b___es gonna be my ol' lady!" either.
I worked in a government office that was a no gun zone. We had a persone come right in attack us. I believe this small man would not have done this had we had a security guard, even one armed only with a night stick and mace.
It has nothing to do with guns. The suppressive effect of the presence of greater force is common sense. It's why a daycare might put a two-year old who bullied the other 2 year olds in with the three year old class.
It's not specious, it's human nature.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Olivet's post makes me think of a Chris Rock quote:
"Never go to clubs with metal detectors. Sure it feels safe inside. But what about all those ****'s waiting outside with guns? They know you ain't got one."
Also, on an unrelated note, an interesting article from Glenn Reynolds, a U of Tennessee law professor and self-proclaimed "libertarian transhumanist" columnist/blogger: link
The article seems to me to be based on a false premise. It is similar to the arguments I have heard before about how the "Wild West" was eventually tamed (which would be false, since most cities and towns were gun-free zones outside of law enforcement). Whether or not the average citizen has a weapon, criminally minded individuals' primary tools are intimidation and the assumption that they will escalate beyond the scope of the law where the average citizen will not. If handguns are allowed, then what is to stop criminals from using larger weapons? In some cities this has been a problem for decades, where a continually better armed police force is met with retaliation from criminals using assault weapons or teflon coated rounds. Do we want to add armed citizens to that mix of escalation?
The problem is not citizen access to weapons, it is criminal access to weapons. Opening citizen access doesn't stem the flow of criminal access, which is where the danger lies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given that Olivet has said more than once that she doesn't want to live in the Wild West, I don't think she was applying it necessarily to the wider situation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The suppressive effect of the presence of greater force is common sense.
Right, but we're talking about crazy people, correct?
I don't see how common sense or normal human nature necessarily come into play.
edit: Actually, I feel like I'm doing what I really dislike about gun control discussions, which is present overly simplified/fantasy based arguments. I just thought I understood what Jutsa meant and was attempting to clarify. I'm going to step out now.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Edit for clarity: this was to Justa
Not at all.
Most men wouldn't walk into a NOW convention and shout, "Which one o' you b___es gonna be my ol' lady!" either.
I worked in a government office that was a no gun zone. We had a persone come right in attack us. I believe this small man would not have done this had we had a security guard, even one armed only with a night stick and mace.
It has nothing to do with guns. The suppressive effect of the presence of greater force is common sense. It's why a daycare might put a two-year old who bullied the other 2 year olds in with the three year old class.
It's not specious, it's human nature.
That is the culture of escalation, and is exactly the mentality that gives American gun ownership the extremely poor image that it has throughout the rest of the world, and I believe rightly so.
Escalating does not solve the problem. Not individually, not governmentally, not militarily. This goes right back to a previous thread I started regarding the current administration's 'cowboy diplomacy' as a tactic for facing problems. This mentality is exactly the wrong way to look at it.
Would you send your child to school with a roll of nickels to face a bully? If someone cuts you off on the highway do you run them off the road? I am not asking about a slippery slope, I'm asking about a dangerous precedent.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Edit: This was To Squicky
I would say that part of it is instintive, really. Not a product of rationality.
Edit: S'okay Mr. Squicky. I was just wondering aloud about what might be done done to reduce public risk if we accept that a person with enough determination can get around the 'No Gun Zone' thing with such ease.
I mean to say, I don't really feel that the argument is an important one, either way. So we're cool.
[ April 20, 2007, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Given that Olivet has said more than once that she doesn't want to live in the Wild West, I don't think she was applying it necessarily to the wider situation.
The point wasn't about the Wild West. It was that no matter how well armed a population may be, the criminal element will always strive to be more well armed. This is already the case in many cities who have better armed police forces than some army platoons.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Justa: I'm not talking about escalation. I'm talking about security guards. Having a trained person present in a place where the populace is vulnerable.
Really, I'm surprised that you think that is equivalent to running someone off the road.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While it's certainly true that criminals will strive to be better armed than their counterparts Jutsa, the comparison is a bit weaker when made against a (potentially) armed civilian population. There's only so much lethality you can conceal in your pocket, after all. Which is what most criminals have to work with.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Also, Justa, I don't disagree with you. I DO think you are reading things into what I wrote that were not my intention.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Justa: I'm not talking about escalation. I'm talking about security guards. Having a trained person present in a place where the populace is vulnerable.
Really, I'm surprised that you think that is equivalent to running someone off the road.
I don't see why you are surprised. Virginia Tech, for example, already had its own police contingent, so I have a difficult time finding a basis for your statements outside of suggesting an escalation to what was already present. Most places also have security guards where civilian carrying of weapons is not allowed. I am sorry that you have experienced otherwise, but I have no evidence that such a scenario describes most places where guns are not allowed.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While it's certainly true that criminals will strive to be better armed than their counterparts Jutsa, the comparison is a bit weaker when made against a (potentially) armed civilian population. There's only so much lethality you can conceal in your pocket, after all. Which is what most criminals have to work with.
That is a false assumption. I would counter by challenging you to state some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime. Such has never been the case, and even less so since the introduction of firearms.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While it's certainly true that criminals will strive to be better armed than their counterparts Jutsa, the comparison is a bit weaker when made against a (potentially) armed civilian population. There's only so much lethality you can conceal in your pocket, after all. Which is what most criminals have to work with.
That is a false assumption. I would counter by challenging you to state some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime. Such has never been the case, and even less so since the introduction of firearms.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Mph-- Kennesaw (a town not far from where I live) passed a law requiring all homeowners to have a gun on their premises. At the time, home invasions were common in the area. (Home invasions are more common in wealthy areas where homes have security systems-- so the thieves break in while people are home and bully them into shutting them off. These are generally more violent types of crimes than simple theft or burglary.)
The law was controversial and highly publicized. It did have the desired effect, though-- home invasion rates dropped like a stone. The home-invaders didn't care for the odds.
There's an example from this thread
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I admit to liking Britain's ban on handguns, but not rifles or shotguns. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, however, I think it would prevent some shootings. Columbine would have happened either way, and just as badly, with or without a handgun ban, but a situation like the VA Tech shootings may not have resulted in as many deaths. Dunno. Just sayin'.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:which would be false, since most cities and towns were gun-free zones outside of law enforcement
Justa, I think you're missing the point about "gun-free zones". In a "gun-free zone" that means there is no law enforcement armed with firearms, either. It's like saying someone's a vegetarian outside of the hotdogs they eat.
Olivet's point was to have someone trained and responsible enough to respond to hostile situations. It's not escalation, and it's not the Wild West. It's actually why we pay a police force - you know, so that someone can respond when needed.
The suggestion was to increase the presence of such trained, responsible, armed people. The police cannot be everywhere, after all.
And before you get into the slippery-slope argument that soon we'll have Day Care Marshalls, and Nursery Marshalls, and Fast Food Restaurant Marshalls, no one's asking for that either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is a false assumption. I would counter by challenging you to state some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime. Such has never been the case, and even less so since the introduction of firearms.
Thank you, BaoQingTan, I was thinking the same thing. And to be clear, when I used 'potentially' I only meant that this was a thing that could potentially happen (you know, in the abstract): the entire population was armed. I was speaking within that example, that while criminals try to be better armed than their counterparts, the average criminal might only carry a handgun or firearm that could be concealed in a pocket or under clothing...something which, in the hypothetical, would be equaled by what the civilian was carrying.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
BaoQingTian: have the home invasions stayed low? Have other crimes been tracked for increases and decreases? Looking at only one type of crime is not indicative of the crime rate dropping overall. Typically, when one security measure is introduced, that hole stays safe for a brief time while those who used it figure out another vector to take advantage of using little effort. That anecdote provides very little detail about what I asked, only providind the information applicable for one type of crime.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute, you specifically said, "State some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime."
Olivet has already done so. She stated a point in time, she stated that there was a potentially armed civilian population, and she stated that it served as a deterrent to crime. Not all crime, but then in her example the law didn't make everyone have guns outside their home.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Thank you, BaoQingTan, I was thinking the same thing. And to be clear, when I used 'potentially' I only meant that this was a thing that could potentially happen (you know, in the abstract): the entire population was armed. I was speaking within that example, that while criminals try to be better armed than their counterparts, the average criminal might only carry a handgun or firearm that could be concealed in a pocket or under clothing...something which, in the hypothetical, would be equaled by what the civilian was carrying.
False assumption. Major cities around the country still have violent crime, even cities that have conceal carry licenses for civilians. Potentially any civilian in such cities could be armed, but that doesn't stop muggings or robberies or rapes or carjacking, among other things like gang run areas and larger groups preying on citizens.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a minute, you specifically said, "State some point in the past where a potentially armed civilian population was a deterrent to crime."
Olivet has already done so. She stated a point in time, she stated that there was a potentially armed civilian population, and she stated that it served as a deterrent to crime. Not all crime, but then in her example the law didn't make everyone have guns outside their home.
I would like to see the actual statistics, including whether there were increased patrols and how many arrests for that behavior were made. Using a smaller area that is not a microcosm of the larger state or nation is not a convincing example.
Also, you admit that it could very well have pushed criminal behavior to another avenue, which does not solve the problem. It only deflects it to other victims. That is, frankly, not a solution or deterrent and is a rather selfish way to approach the situation.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, since according to Olivet, the law only required handguns to be kept in the home, it probably wouldn't have a significant effect on crimes outside the home, would it?
You asked for a case in the past where a potentially armed citizen was a deterrent to crime. I quoted an example from this very thread where all citizens kept a firearm in the homes, it was public knowledge that the firearms were there, and it deterred a certain class of crimes that took place in that location. Of course it won't deter crime in general. Your questions (to me) show more of a desire to pick apart an argument than they do to really understand something. I can't figure out why else you would ask about dropping crime rates across the board.
With the attitude I've seen in response to Katarin's post, I'm really not going to try to take the time to find any studies or statistics- it really won't change anyone's mind.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
As another example, Justa, after Texas passed its concealed carry laws, the carjacking crime rate dropped considerably. It simply became too risky to run up on a car if the person inside might start shooting back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jutsa, that's fine. But you're changing the request you're making here. I just want to point out that for the original question you asked, an example already existed. I'm looking it up now, but I dispute whether or not for this case, for this application, it's not a convincing example if it works.
If home invasions dropped precipitously after a law requiring homeowners to have a firearm in the house, I'm comfortable saying that particular law works at helping to prevent home invasions. I'm looking up statistics, but would you not be comfortable saying the same thing?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
BaoQingTian and FlyingCow:
Could either of you please give me an article, numbers, or something that I can look at besides taking someone's word for it that it worked?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Would it change your mind if we did? If said article quoted someone that you didn't like, would you write it off as biased? Would you discredit research as being improperly conducted if it didn't support your point?
It really seems that you're in the "I will not be swayed" camp on this one - in which case, it's a waste of time to try to sway you.
This is the same reason I've stopped arguing with Lisa about Israel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
"Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991"
It seems that the hard facts and statistics are wildly contested by both sides of the issue. It's a bit disappointing that the law and its impact does not appear to have been studied very clearly in over 20 years since its passage.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Would it change your mind if we did? If said article quoted someone that you didn't like, would you write it off as biased? Would you discredit research as being improperly conducted if it didn't support your point?
It really seems that you're in the "I will not be swayed" camp on this one - in which case, it's a waste of time to try to sway you.
This is the same reason I've stopped arguing with Lisa about Israel.
Beautiful. When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
Now, let us examine first the example of Kennesaw from a point of view that actually looks at whether crime was deterred or not, instead of looking at it from the point of view of someone trying to make a pro or anti gun argument.
Kennesaw passed the ordinance in 1982. The following chart is something I found when looking up the town for more information. Please take note that while the burglary rate dropped significantly during the time the ordinance was passed, it was not the first time that the rate had dropped and the rate predictably came back up. According to this graph alone, the burglary rate was back up to its pre ordinance levels by 1986. So, just using that graph as an example, it would seem that the solution was not a lasting one, if at all.
The following link is a 2004 report from Kennesaw of crimes by type, the number of reports, and their average compared to the per 100,000 citizen data below the first table. While the burglary total average is lower than the state average, the violent crime average is more than 50% higher. I visited the state's official website, and their historical data by county page. Kennesaw is in Cobb County, and as you can see from the historical data the crime rate drops for the years 1982 and 1983, but spikes again in 1983, shows four more years of a dropped rate, and between 1987 and 1988 drastically shoots up and continues to climb.
That was only after a brief search, but that data alone leads me to believe that, despite Olivet's perception or what she might have heard or read, that the advent of mandatory gun ownership did not significantly or permanently affect the level of crime in that area. I was able to perform this search because I was at least given a name to work with and a specific incident which was said to motivate a lower crime rate. I cannot perform the same search on what you said, FlyingCow, because Texas is a large state and you give no specifics as to what was introduced or where there was a decrease, nor any other supporting information. The information I was easily able to find on Kennesaw, both from outside and governmental sources, is the reason why I am skeptical when I hear people use examples like you gave. When looked at from a few steps back, the advent of guns neither helped nor hindered the crime rate in Kennesaw.
As far as the Kennesaw example goes, there is no evidence to support the claim that guns actually fixed anything, and at best only provided a temporary reprieve.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems that the hard facts and statistics are wildly contested by both sides of the issue. It's a bit disappointing that the law and its impact does not appear to have been studied very clearly in over 20 years since its passage.
Why does it seem disappointing? The town has around 25,000 population and is, from the reports I've read, mostly suburb. The majority of Americans live in rural or urban areas, with either significantly less or significantly more population density. As the graph I linked above shows, there was no remarkable change in burgalries outside of the normal histrograph of the rate fluctuation.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't want to argue. I was just thinking that if word got out that there were ununiformed (maybe) people of a highly trained nature allowed to carry guns into gun-free zones, that it would add an additional element of risk to someone planning to shoot up a Luby's.
That's why I used teh Air Marshall example. Because, if you really wanted to shoot as many people as possible in a no-gun zone, you could just shoot the security guard first.
I really think you're arguing against something I didn't say.
I'm not angry or upset, and I'm not coming down on you or your position on gun control. I agree with you. escept for the part where you seem to be misinterpreting something I said.
I will try in the future to be clearer. Obviously my ability to communicate is failing me. I didn't mean to make Pronouncements of Truth. I was merely wondering aloud, sort of brainstorming.
As I avoid loud, combattive situations, I respectfully submit that, since you obviously care more about this than I do (as a confirmed apethist) one way or the other. You win Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
You've done it to me before, Jutsa. You're in no position to criticize others doing it.
As for your research, criminologists themselves cannot agree on it. I do not accept your links as conclusive.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I may have misunderstood what you were saying, and had mixed it in with what others were saying. I tend to agree with what you said about gun free zones, but in my own experience I have seen more often that there were armed security in such areas, including schools (in urban areas, at least). I mostly came down on the parts you were quoting from the Penn & Teller skit, I think, and then statements from Rakeesh, BaoQingTian, and FlyingCow. I certainly do not want you to feel that I am coming down hard on you, because there are obviously parts where we agree squarely.
I also want to point out that my position is not one of gun control. I am an advocate of gun ownership. What I refuse to advocate is the ownership of guns as a defense mechanism against potential threats. That is what I am saying is dangerous and sets a dangerous precedent. I apologize for seeming like I misinterpreted you. It is sometimes difficult being hit from numerous angles to completely address each individual's specific statements, and perhaps I waas speaking too generally. I was mostly speaking out about the comment quoting you regarding Kennesaw in my last few posts, and before that simply reiterating that gun free zones are typically patrolled by security or police in many cases.
How about we both win and enjoy some tea? Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
You've done it to me before, Jutsa. You're in no position to criticize others doing it.
As for your research, criminologists themselves cannot agree on it. I do not accept your links as conclusive.
Can you state why? I used actual statistics, not quotes from quotes from sources. My conclusion was, in case you missed it, that the inception of guns showed no remarkable effects one way or the other.
As for your personal jab, I would prefer if you remained out of contact with me if you are going to be dismissive at me. Your opinion of me has no place here.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Beautiful. When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
In the six years I've spent on this site, I've spent way too many hours spinning my wheels with people who have no intention at all of changing their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Quite frankly, I've learned it's not worth it to argue at that point, so I was asking you directly if evidence would be accepted.
The tone I read into your posts was "show me some evidence so that I can shoot it down" not "show me some evidence so that I can use it to potentially reevaluate my worldview".
As for Texas, I cannot access most websites from work, so I'm pretty much useless for providing links to very much. (I can't technically even click on the "forums" link on hatrack's main page, but I can type in the "cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi" to get here manually)
Here is one link I painstakingly found by entering the words "texas" "crime" "concealed" and "gun" into Google, which was apparently a search you "cannot perform" on a state as large as Texas. I don't have the time or access to look further - my statement was made based on articles read and seen on television from the late 1990s.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You used statistics, I used criminologists. One from FSU says it worked, one from Harvard says it doesn't.
Incidentally, as for "personal jabs", don't make them, and I won't make them.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Lol, sure.
I think the part that I didn't articulate clearly was inherent to the Air Marshalls thing. Unmarked security guards, like unmarked police cars. To add an element of uncertainty to a potential criminal's mind.Just and idea. Not even one I'm particularly attached to.
I'm not a fan of *everybody* carrying a gun as a deterrent to crime. Seems like that would cause a lot more problems than it would solve (if it solved any, which I don't think it would).
About Kennesaw, I thought that was an extreme law to begin with, since it was specifically targetted to protect property owners from home -invasion (not burglary) and really only exists as a kind of grease for the tax base.
That law plays into fears of affluent suburbs becoming bread baskets for urban thieves--an idea based partly on over-reported crimes (the more brutal and scary, the more play it gets in the news) and partly on exaggerated fears and stereotypes. It's a tricky wicket, and I hate politics in general, especially the type that gives rise to these sorts of gimmick-laws.
I quoted the parts of the Penn and Teller skit that surprised me or made me laugh, not because I agreed with them. I'm just an admirer of cheek. I'm low-key about this thing, but it sure is fun to watch. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Beautiful. When faced with skepticism, question the character of the skeptic.
In the six years I've spent on this site, I've spent way too many hours spinning my wheels with people who have no intention at all of changing their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Quite frankly, I've learned it's not worth it to argue at that point, so I was asking you directly if evidence would be accepted.
The tone I read into your posts was "show me some evidence so that I can shoot it down" not "show me some evidence so that I can use it to potentially reevaluate my worldview".
As for Texas, I cannot access most websites from work, so I'm pretty much useless for providing links to very much. (I can't technically even click on the "forums" link on hatrack's main page, but I can type in the "cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi" to get here manually)
Here is one link I painstakingly found by entering the words "texas" "crime" "concealed" and "gun" into Google, which was apparently a search you "cannot perform" on a state as large as Texas. I don't have the time or access to look further - my statement was made based on articles read and seen on television from the late 1990s.
Yes, apparently I don't know how to use Google. I had already read that document, as well as a few others that do the same thing as the Kennesaw example above: they point out the introduction of guns (conceal carry) as the only change (but not saying that explicitly, just inferring it), and only point out reduction in specific types of crimes without a corresponding histrograph of crime rates.
But, since I am unable to perform a Google search and you are so tired of bothering to argue against me, I guess I shouldn't point out that Texas has also been increasing its allowable convictions that are punishable by capital punishment (death penalty), right? Currently, Texas can now give the death penalty to repeat offenders of sexual crimes (ostensibly child molesters). That surely has no effect. How about population? A better case can be made than Kennesaw, considering the little experience I had in Texas consisted of seeing almost exclusively rural and urban areas, which is a better comparison overall. But very little in the way of statistical data is given with any balance, even from the document you linked. I found about eight similar documents, and all worked from the premise of allowing more guns, not from the premise of crime rates and tracing the causes. I am not skeptical because I think poorly or you or the thought of owning a weapon. I am skeptical because I have yet to see any reasonable examination of such cases that was not intentionally starting from a pro or anti gun premise and couching the facts to support their preexisting ideas. That is why I am asking for details, not because of whatever intentions you might assume I have.
I don't know how many different ways I can state that I am not advocating more gun control. I have no problem with owning guns. My only statements have been that using guns as a security measure by civilians sets a poor precedent and is dangerous. Considering your (FlyingCow) cited example and the state of origin of the current administration, I'd say there could very well be some connection there. Neither introducing nor restricting guns has historically solved the problem of crime. The only thing that solves problems of crime is removing the enablers of the crimes. Some could also say that introducing harsher consequences may deter crime.
I have yet to see any documentation that paints a line from lower crime to gun ownership, and every example that is cited tends to draw the line from an assumed premise.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Olivet, I once heard in a discussion that the Second Amendment is what has kept this nation from becoming a dictatorship in the past. It was obviosuly joking hyperbole, though kernels of truth tend to make the best jokes, I think.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You used statistics, I used criminologists. One from FSU says it worked, one from Harvard says it doesn't.
Look at the the crime rates from the actual government source. You linked it yourself. There was no appreciable difference. The criminologists argue semantics or relevance. Instead, look at the actual numbers. I'm not arguing semantics or relavance, I am arguing the actual crime rate.
quote:Incidentally, as for "personal jabs", don't make them, and I won't make them.
First, two wrongs don't make a right. Second, I am not "making them." I am saying they have no place here. If it applies to me, then it should apply to you. Please, either stop addressing me if you cannot stop making personal jabs or expect to be whistled every time you do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, even the criminologists who agree with you are arguing semantics or relevance?
And as for not making them...well, I disagree. You've gone out of your way to do so at least once in the past week, with your hypocritical "why is it OK for you and not for me?" whining in another thread.
I'll stop making "personal jabs" when you stop bringing up our past disagreements, and then casting yourself in a favorable light when you do so. This is the last I'll say on that subject in this thread. Feel free to whistle me for labeling you as 'whining'.
But, to put it more simply, if you don't want me to address you with personal jabs, don't address me and reference our past disagreements in support of your judgements. Because I'm not going to "sit still" for that. I suppose it's because I'm a Fox News fan, I just can't help myself.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
FlyingCow, please see my earlier example of the stick and blue donkey. I can point out something and then point out a positive aspect (whether real or imagined), but that does not define causality. I am asking for a reasonable breakdown of causality without bias one way or the other. For instance, I am dubious of claims that a gun in the home is more dangerous, because almost any documentation out there begins from the assumption that guns are bad and don't belong in the home. Applying the same skepticism I do with that kind of argument to the example you cited is based on me not wanting biased assessments from which to base my opinion. As of this point, my opinion is based solely on evidence I have been able to gather up to this point. Instead of offering something new, you have spend at least two posts questioning my intelligence or whether I am worth your time.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The working knowledge I am operating from is memory (which could easily be flawed). I remember reading toward the end of college (1996-2000) that carjacking crime rates in Texas (and other states that had enacted concealed carry permits) had dropped considerably.
Granted carjacking is only a small piece of the criminal equation, but what I read at the time was that the knowledge that it was perfectly legal for a driver to both have a gun and use it to defend themselves was enough to drive car thieves to less violent means of stealing that property.
It's almost like The Club. It's a deterrent, but by no means guarantees the car won't still be stolen - determined thief will not be deterred by much.
Olivet's earlier point is a valid one, though. The risk/reward of armed robbery during a gun show isn't worth it, much like the risk/reward of robbing a police station's evidence room isn't worth the attempt. By the same token, if you wanted to kill a whole lot of people in a mass shooting, an army base is probably not your best choice.
While the argument was made that such evaluation takes rational thought, so does premeditated mass homicide, to a degree. Cho seemed to have chosen his location carefully.
But, just like Dr. Strangelove, a deterrent weapon is only useful if those you wish to deter are aware of it. Criminals who *know* their victims may be armed may act differently, while criminals who *don't know* if their victims may be armed are less likely to hesitate.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, even the criminologists who agree with you are arguing semantics or relevance?
Yes. I highly doubt that any one of them agrees with me specifically, but if they are placing arguments then it is over semantics and relevance. The numbers are what they are. A criminologist would start from the numbers that are there and try to assess the factors that would be attributable and to what degree they effected the actual outcome. I don't see them doing that on either side. The only quotes I can find state either 'this proves it' or 'it doesn't prove anything'.
I am saying that the actual numbers don't support the claim that the Kennesaw example is an adequate answer to my request, since the numbers obviously did not drop in anything but a small degree for a short time. I am not arguing whether or not the gun introduction caused that or how, I am saying that the crime rate did not change noticably enough in numbers (including burglaries) to be factually significant as an example of what I asked for.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
FlyingCow: thanks, I appreciate the elaboration.
I will look into it for my own edification, since that could certainly be an example that meets my request. I am skeptical only because Texas has also had increased punishment for crimes over the same time period, especially after GW Bush became governor in 1994 (I think. I wasn't there).
Your comment about The Club is a good one. Car alarms are an example I would respond with, since the introduction of car alarms has begun to now see more methods of bypassing the alarms, up to and including waiting until a person unlocks their door before approaching them with a weapon. We could go back and forth with different scenarios and outcomes, but the point is that criminals are adjusting, have adjusted in the past, and will continue to adjust in the future.
quote:While the argument was made that such evaluation takes rational thought, so does premeditated mass homicide, to a degree. Cho seemed to have chosen his location carefully.
Carefully? That was where he went to school and spent a large portion of the last couple years of his life. That sounds less like a carefully chosen location and more like an obvious one.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Justa, the Kennesaw example might also serve as an example of it not being a visible deterrent - what I mean is, shortly after the law, burglars may have avoided the town. Years later, with the publicity having died down, how many would even know that those residents all had handguns in the house?
As an anecdotal aside, I lived with a guy in the Buckhead area of Atlanta who told me that he had his home burglarized several times - and he was a gun owner who had more than a couple firearms in the house. He then put a sign on each door and the first floor windows that said: "I am a gun owner and will shoot trespassers" over a picture of a handgun. It had been five years, and there had not been a single break-in.
I don't think it was the gun in the house itself, so much as that sign. I'm sure the sign would have worked fine without him even ownin ga gun. Just like you can put The Club on your steering wheel and not lock it - the only thief who's going to find that out is one who doesn't care about the Club in the first place.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
What I meant about the carefully chosen location was that particular engineering building, with chains on the doors, etc. He'd been planning the assualt for 5-6 days, based on the dating on the computer files he used to create his manifesto.
Would he have chosen the campus police station instead of the engineering building? Or even a ROTC building?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Justa, the Kennesaw example might also serve as an example of it not being a visible deterrent - what I mean is, shortly after the law, burglars may have avoided the town. Years later, with the publicity having died down, how many would even know that those residents all had handguns in the house?
As an anecdotal aside, I lived with a guy in the Buckhead area of Atlanta who told me that he had his home burglarized several times - and he was a gun owner who had more than a couple firearms in the house. He then put a sign on each door and the first floor windows that said: "I am a gun owner and will shoot trespassers" over a picture of a handgun. It had been five years, and there had not been a single break-in.
I don't think it was the gun in the house itself, so much as that sign. I'm sure the sign would have worked fine without him even ownin ga gun. Just like you can put The Club on your steering wheel and not lock it - the only thief who's going to find that out is one who doesn't care about the Club in the first place.
Look at the numbers in Kennesaw. They are not significant. There was a drop, yes, but not by more than a quarter to a third at best (at worst, even less). What I am pointing out is that while it may have seemed like a dramatic change, the actual change was not as remarkable. As an argument for deterring crime, the Kennesaw example is no better than many other anti-crime tactics. Even a simple change like increased patrols can yield those kinds of results.
quote:What I meant about the carefully chosen location was that particular engineering building, with chains on the doors, etc. He'd been planning the assualt for 5-6 days, based on the dating on the computer files he used to create his manifesto.
Would he have chosen the campus police station instead of the engineering building? Or even a ROTC building?
I honestly think you are giving the man a bit too much credit. I doubt the engineering building is the only one that has chains. I will agree that someone with crime in mind will avoid places like police stations, but an ROTC building? What is the significance of that? Wouldn't any weapons in the building, even assuming there are any, be locked up or not loaded? I've never heard of ROTC programs on campuses outside of military campuses that store any amount of ordinance or live ammunition. If he wanted easier targets he didn't have to chase, why not go to a media center or the lunch area, with a more wide open space? I don't think his decision was one that was planned out with tactical efficiency in mind. If his writings are anything to draw from, he was not prone to highly complex thinking. Obsessive, yes, but not complex.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I mentioned ROTC because of the training, discipline of those in the program - not the availability of weapons. As an assailant, I'd have to assume that it's seemingly easier to attack those that have not been trained militarily.
A cafeteria, media center, classroom, etc, is likely to have the same risk level to an assailant. A police station would obviously have a lot higher risk level. I'd say an ROTC building would have a slightly higher risk level of victims resisting, which is why I'd assume even an irrational assailant would avoid it.
It's perception, I think, more than anything. If a victim is believed to be more risky, I would assume they would be passed up for a less risky victim - whether or not there was any actual increased risk.
As for a temporary 25%-33% drop in crime rate in Kennasaw, I'd say that's pretty significant.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You know, there are other reasons for an English Major to shoot up an Engineering building. Having been in both disciplines, I've seen a little bit of low level animosity between the departments.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: It's perception, I think, more than anything. If a victim is believed to be more risky, I would assume they would be passed up for a less risky victim - whether or not there was any actual increased risk.
This is true, and is a fairly common paradigm of security. There are ways other than actually being armed to carry one's self as more risky, though. This is a concept taught in basic civilian self defense classes.
quote:As for a temporary 25%-33% drop in crime rate in Kennasaw, I'd say that's pretty significant.
I can see how it can seem pretty significant, until you've heard sales pitches from security systems companies. I have actually heard it claimed that motion activated floodlights alone can provide up to 20% deterrence. Full home systems including lights, alarms, and a direct monitoring system have had claims of 80-90% deterrence. Sales people have loads of (obviously biased) statistics to correspond with their claims. However, neighborhood watch groups have had better success and for longer than the rate in Kennesaw. I promise I'm not making that up, but I could provide numbers if you are incredulous.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, what do you get when you add in Kennesaw's efforts, plus a neighborhood watch, plus floodlights and alarms and whatnot?
If I was a burglar, and I knew that the houses in that neighborhood were equipped with flood lights and alarms, the area was watched by the neighborhood watch, and that all the residents had easy access to a firearm? I think I would try the next town over.
Of course, all of this could be in place, but if the burglar doesn't *know* about any of it, it won't really matter.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
But I see no arguments about using multiple methods to reduce crime, especially with regard to debates about using guns as a defensive weapon against criminals. I agree that a multi tiered approach is more effective, and as I already pointed out there is data that shows it being more effective than just guns. In almost every debate I have ever seen regarding firearms, and in every debate regarding firearms as a defense, that is not the argument being made. Perhaps that is some unsaid inference for a portion of the individuals making the case for guns as a defensive weapon, but it is never said.
Perhaps that is because such debates involve pro and anti gun folks debating the overlying issue of whether ownership should be allowed. Since I am in full agreement that the right should exist, that isn't any part of what I've been saying. If nothing else, I have been asserting that owning firearms with the motive of defense is dangerous and a poor precedent. I have asserted that firearms as defense are not as effective as other methods. I have asserted that, in situations like the Virginia Tech shootings, firearms in other civilian hands would have complicated the scenario from a law enforcement perspective, and that it is just as likely more could have died as it is likely that less could have died. Civilians, even concealed carry licensed civilians, just do not get the amount of training law enforcement gets. Often, security companies require more training than is required of civilians (though this is not absolute). The training involved in dealing with many criminal elements goes beyond being capable of handling, aiming, and squeezing, and for this reason the average citizen is not equipped to deal with such high stress situations.
This is not true for every case. There are certainly citizens who can fix their cars as well as a trained mechanic. There are certainly citizens who could design their homes or work buildings as well as a licensed architectural engineer. There are certainly citizens who could face a burglary or hostage situation with the ability to maintain a level of control and calm. I am saying these citizens are not always the average, and expecting them to be ignores the depth of training and responsibility that goes into the jobs of those who do it professionally, and sets the average person up in a scenario where they could be more threatened. A firearm alone does not equip someone with the capability to deter criminals except in the most superficial manner.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not sure what you're arguing about in the first paragraph. I never said you argued against multiple methods. You have, from as far as I understand, argued against having a gun in the home for purposes of defense.
Or do I have that wrong?
You do seem to be against having armed, defensive-minded citizens - claiming it is dangerous. Now it seems you've taken a turn at argument based on assumption that you were trying to keep out of this discussion. Do you have the evidence of situations where civilian use of a firearm in such a situation resulted in more casualties - or is that based simply on your belief that it would complicate a situation? (Appalachian State showed an example where armed civilians had a positive effect, as did the 1966 U of Texas sniper incident, and others listed in articles linked earlier in this thread)
I am curious as to your position though. You are pro-gun ownership, but not for the reason of defense. So, is your argument based on the belief that people should have the right to own guns for sport and display only?
You are right that a firearm alone does not automatically make a person a prime deterrent to crime. However, in a situation when there is a gunman, who is a more effective deterrent - the person able to shoot back and stop him (or make him flee), or the person who has no recourse but to hope to get out of his line of fire?
It's like the saying "God created men. Colonel Colt made them equal." Or the line from the Untouchables about not bringing a knife to a gun fight. I understand your fear of escalation, but I don't expect many criminals to be riding around in Panzer tanks, or toting chain fed machineguns. In a situation with an armed gunman, the only people capable of determent are armed people - and in lieu of immediate police intervention, that leaves the citizenry.
Militias were meant to keep the peace, after all, no? Why not have a well regulated militia of "civilian marshalls" who are allowed to carry firearms so that they can respond in a time of crisis. That would play into Olivet's earlier idea - and likely be far more in line with the founders' intentions than vaporizing a deer with an assault rifle.
[ April 21, 2007, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Not sure what you're arguing about in the first paragraph. I never said you argued against multiple methods. You have, from as far as I understand, argued against having a gun in the home for purposes of defense.
Or do I have that wrong?
You are correct. I said further that there were more effective means of defense.
My meaning in the first paragraph is that the stance I am taking is not one that you will commonly find, because the debate over gun regulation and ownership has become such a polarized issue that even studies produced are begun under the asumption one way or the other and are rarely balanced.
quote:You do seem to be against having armed, defensive-minded citizens - claiming it is dangerous.
I can see how you would come to the conclusion that I am against armed defensive minded citizens, but that is not true. I am against the false sense of security a gun can have for someone who is not properly trained in dealing with a high stress situation where their life is in danger. I am also concerned about situations where someone has a gun on their person and uses it when they shouldn't. This story is an example:
quote:From the article - BRIAN LEWIS was leaving his apartment, heading to a gig as a disc jockey in January 2005, when three guys jumped him.
Two of them pulled pistols.
The men wanted his gear, including two CD mixers worth $499 each.
They also wanted Lewis to turn around and go back inside his house with them.
What the robbers didn't know was that Lewis had a gun, and a permit to carry it.
Lewis reached for his gun, telling the robbers he was pulling out the key to his door.
Lewis aimed across his body, drawing a bead on the head of one man aiming a pistol at his back.
Click.
The gun was loaded, but there was no bullet in the chamber.
The two robbers heard the pistol's dry fire and blasted away, shooting Lewis in the back.
"I was able to stand my ground and get a round in there," Lewis said.
"I turned around, started yelling and shooting back. I shot every bullet I had in my clip. I just kept pulling the trigger."
Lewis hit two of the three men, killing one of them. Lewis slumped to the ground and briefly passed out.
Mr Lewis survived, but he was extremely lucky in this case. He got into a shooting match when he was outgunned over things that could be replaced. You (general you) do not get a second chance when dealing with your life. When dealing with material possessions, they can be recovered or replaced.
quote:Now it seems you've taken a turn at argument based on assumption that you were trying to keep out of this discussion. Do you have the evidence of situations where civilian use of a firearm in such a situation resulted in more casualties - or is that based simply on your belief that it would complicate a situation? (Appalachian State showed an example where armed civilians had a positive effect, as did the 1966 U of Texas sniper incident, and others listed in articles linked earlier in this thread)
I hope you do not mean to imply that I have changed my argument, because I have not. Perhaps your perception of my argument has changed, and it is possible that it is because I am better clarifying myself. I have not changed what I have been saying, though.
I don't know what you want pertaining to "evidence" in such cases, but the article I linked above is an example of one way in which a situation can become complicated and more dangerous. It is not the only way, however. This speech from 1983 illustrates two other ways in which owning a firearm for protection purposes can be more of a problem than a benefit.
quote:Richard J. Brzeczek states: In trying to deal with the problem of firearm violence overall and trying to dissuade people as much as possible from even getting involved with firearms, there is always the argument, "I need a gun to protect my home." The counter-argument to that is that the argument is nonsense, because statistically the chances of using that firearm against the intruder are almost non-existent. Basically; the intrusions are made into the homes, into apartments, condominiums and town homes which are vacant. Since most people know they can not carry a firearm with them, they generally leave the gun at home, and as a result, the vacant home simply provides an additional commodity for the intruder to take and to resell on the street. Eventually that gun ends up in circulation to be used in the commission of a serious criminal offense such as homicide, rape, or armed robbery.
They do not understand it that way. They do not understand [Page 335] that despite the fact that in the spring of 1981 there was a very dramatic article in the Chicago Tribune in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms demonstrated through its own research, that most of the guns that were being picked up on the streets of Chicago in connection with serious offenses were guns taken in residential burglaries in the outlying areas of the city and in the suburban areas around the city. People do not realize that exactly what they have in their home is a weapon available for potential use in a murder or other serious offense.
The other thing that saddens me about the so-called "home protection gun" is the number of really outrageous accidental shootings or unintentional shootings that take place. One of the most dramatic things that I read was an article appearing in the The Washington Post not too long ago, where an individual in Andover, Kansas, out of fear of someone making an intrusion into his home, bought a .357 Magnum. One would think that he was concerned about elephants or hippopotami making the intrusions, but he purchased that type of weapon to protect himself, his family and his home. Around 2:00 o’clock one morning he heard a noise coming from another part of the house, and as the good leader of his family, and protector of his domicile, he grabbed his .357 Magnum, ran to that part of the house where he heard the noise coming from, heard the noise again, and proceeded to discharge his firearm through the door. After he discharged the firearm, he heard a thump, opened the door and found his wife lying on the floor, fatally wounded. The reason why she was in that room at that time of the night was that she had recently given birth to a new baby and was up for the two o’clock feeding. The husband thought it was a burglar in the house, grabbed his gun, shot through the door, and killed his wife.
That is just a typical example. Maybe a little extreme but a typical example of the types of things that we see around the country resulting from the use of firearms by individual citizens.
The first two paragraphs are not hypotheticals. I know two individuals myself who have had a shotgun stolen, and that is only because there were no handguns in the home at the time. Statistically, criminals will enter an empty home to rob significantly more often than they will an empty one. At that point, all the training in the world will not help you prevent that crime and if you have a gun in your home and not locked in an inaccessible location you have just forfeitted your defensive weapon and armed the burglar. This Department of Justice brief gives more information on guns used in crimes and some ways in which they are acquired. A large percentage of criminals, mostly juveniles, have stolen guns and either sold them or used them later in crimes. Just one notable sentence in the document is the following: "The Victim Survey (NCVS) estimates that there were 341,000 incidents of firearm theft from private citizens annually from 1987 to 1992. Because the survey does not ask how many guns were stolen, the number of guns stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents of gun theft." This page from the NCPA gives a different (and more alarming) figure on criminal ownership of guns: "Half had stolen at least one gun in their criminal careers; between 40 percent and 70 percent of the handguns these men possessed most recently were stolen. These were incarcerated felons, likely to be among the most active and strongly motivated criminals."
quote:You are right that a firearm alone does not automatically make a person a prime deterrent to crime. However, in a situation when there is a gunman, who is a more effective deterrent - the person able to shoot back and stop him (or make him flee), or the person who has no recourse but to hope to get out of his line of fire?
A situation where having a gun when faced with a criminal would be useful is so statistically low that I have a problem understanding how your scenario can justify an increasingly armed public when the United States already leads the rest of the first world nations in gun deaths. Add to that the information I posted above about the leading source of guns for criminals, and the risks seem (to me) to outweigh the benefits.
quote:It's like the saying "God created men. Colonel Colt made them equal." Or the line from the Untouchables about not bringing a knife to a gun fight. I understand your fear of escalation, but I don't expect many criminals to be riding around in Panzer tanks, or toting chain fed machineguns. In a situation with an armed gunman, the only people capable of determent are armed people - and in lieu of immediate police intervention, that leaves the citizenry.
I know you mean that in the most neutral manner possible, but I cannot help but find what I perceive the mentality behind those sentences to be incredibly frightening and exactly the problem I was speaking about earlier. The problem is the national methodology of using escalation as a tactic for fighting crime. The criminal element is always going to be at least as well armed as the average citizen, if not more, and will always be less hesitant about using it. Escalating the level of armament for the average citizen invariably escalates the armament of the criminal population. No hyperbole is going to change that, because the vast majority of the criminal element is getting its firearms from the citizens in the first place.
quote:Militias were meant to keep the peace, after all, no? Why not have a well regulated militia of "civilian marshalls" who are allowed to carry firearms so that they can respond in a time of crisis. That would play into Olivet's earlier idea - and likely be far more in line with the founders' intentions than vaporizing a deer with an assault rifle.
You are suggesting a redundancy. We already have this: police departments and security companies. No offense intended, but what you are describing sounds more like vigilantes.
My sentiment toward the issue may not be common, but it is held by more than just myself. This article shows Montana law enforcement holding similar reservations to lowering gun ownership restrictions and allowing concealed carry within city limits. A while ago I found an essay by a martial arts sensei covering some philosophical aspects that I think can be applied in this debate: The Mistake of Warrior Spirituality. The sensei is talking about something different than gun control or even defensive weapons, but the appeal for balance and understanding that there are differences in available training commensurate with the responsibilities of the person's place in life can apply here, I believe. That is not to say that I think you should just deal with it and be satisfied, but that there are methods by which you can become more capable to respond and react to a violent criminal in the most effective manner, but that taking the short route of having a gun on your person is not going to guarantee such a thing. There is more to being a police officer than a gun and a badge, just as there is more to being a soldier than fatigues, rank, and rifle.
quote:I am curious as to your position though. You are pro-gun ownership, but not for the reason of defense. So, is your argument based on the belief that people should have the right to own guns for sport and display only?
Are those the only options available? I tend to think not. Owners always have them for a mixture of reasons, but others can include educational exhibition, job related reasons, for fending off dangerous wildlife, for more ambiguous 'enthusiast' reasons, and I can even accept the reasoning that someone owns a firearm under a sense of civic duty per the 2nd Amendment (which I have been told was a reason by someone before). My objection is to desiring a gun to replace or extend the protection you (general you) feel should be provided to you by law enforcement. I may not agree with some other reasons, but I do not openly object to them and can accept them as an individual's prerogative.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't believe for a second that when the 2nd A was written they intended for firearms to be used for the purposes of police work. It's not what they had in mind when they wrote it.
If the original intent of the founders doesn't matter to you, that's one thing. But then, if it doesn't matter, I wonder what the point of mentioning the 2nd A is at all.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I don't follow what you are saying? What are you disagreeing with?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Militias were meant to keep the peace, after all, no? Why not have a well regulated militia of "civilian marshalls" who are allowed to carry firearms so that they can respond in a time of crisis. That would play into Olivet's earlier idea - and likely be far more in line with the founders' intentions than vaporizing a deer with an assault rifle.
That.
Vaporizing a deer with an assault rifle I don't believe is really what the founders intended for either, but everyone running around with a gun is vigilante justice, which they abhorred.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
So you weren't disagreeing with me, I take it? I ask because I wasn't the one who who posted that. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Jutsa, I think you are wrong in your summary of the Lewis case. Not only was Lewis' stuff at risk, but his life.
quote:Mr Lewis survived, but he was extremely lucky in this case. He got into a shooting match when he was outgunned over things that could be replaced. You (general you) do not get a second chance when dealing with your life. When dealing with material possessions, they can be recovered or replaced.
The robbers were forcing Lewis back inside at gunpoint. They could easily have been planning to execute him there to silence him as a witness. By Lewis using his gun (badly, true), he might have saved his life.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: So you weren't disagreeing with me, I take it? I ask because I wasn't the one who who posted that.
No, I was actually agreeing with you.
Given my propensity to disagree with you however, I can see why you'd be confused Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Lyrhawn: honest mistake on my part. I think it had more to do with the location of your post without a quote for reference, though.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Jutsa, I think you are wrong in your summary of the Lewis case. Not only was Lewis' stuff at risk, but his life.
quote:Mr Lewis survived, but he was extremely lucky in this case. He got into a shooting match when he was outgunned over things that could be replaced. You (general you) do not get a second chance when dealing with your life. When dealing with material possessions, they can be recovered or replaced.
The robbers were forcing Lewis back inside at gunpoint. They could easily have been planning to execute him there to silence him as a witness. By Lewis using his gun (badly, true), he might have saved his life.
You are assuming a lot of 'what if' in your reasoning. If they are robbing him and want him to open his home, it is just as easy to infer that they wanted more than just the stuff he had on him. Maybe this is so, but since armed robbery is statistically more common than murder of a complete stranger, I would argue that your 'what if' does not reflect the vast majority of crimes out there.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, but we're talking about one case, not all crimes. It's just as valid to assume the robbers could have planned to kill Lewis as not. True, armed robbery is more common than murder, but so what? Murder is certainly common enough during armed robbery. Any victim in Lewis' shoes had to consider that possibility.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Yes, but we're talking about one case, not all crimes. It's just as valid to assume the robbers could have planned to kill Lewis as not. True, armed robbery is more common than murder, but so what? Murder is certainly common enough during armed robbery. Any victim in Lewis' shoes had to consider that possibility.
No, you are talking about one case. My entire post talks about many cases, and in this case the person who owned the gun not only still got shot but still got robbed. You can also look at it with a "glass half full" view and say that he survived and managed to kill one of the robbers, but he still got shot and still got robbed. He was lucky to have not been killed no matter which way you look at it, but he still got shot and he still got killed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But you are assuming the outcome was worse because he had and used a gun. There's no way to prove that. Then you generalize from that assumption to further your argument that "desiring a gun to replace or extend the protection you (general you) feel should be provided to you by law enforcement" is somehow objectionable.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I am against the false sense of security a gun can have for someone who is not properly trained in dealing with a high stress situation where their life is in danger.
I understand this. It's why I advocate mandatory licensing with a high level of training prior to being allowed to purchase a weapon. You shouldn't just be able to get a weapon with a driver's license and clean criminal record, for instance.
By the same token, a bulletproof vest provides security, but isn't failsafe. If you feel you are invulnerable wearing one, that is your own false sense of security. If you feel you are untouchable with a firearm, then that is also your own false sense. Training prior to, and during, gun ownership would help prevent that false sense.
quote:I hope you do not mean to imply that I have changed my argument, because I have not.
Not at all - just that you started making statements that had (at that point) no grounding in evidence - which is something you were quick to jump on in other people's arguments.
quote:Statistically, criminals will enter an empty home to rob significantly more often than they will an empty one. At that point, all the training in the world will not help you prevent that crime and if you have a gun in your home and not locked in an inaccessible location you have just forfeitted your defensive weapon and armed the burglar.
Again, this is part of the licensing/training argument. You don't keep a gun in your nightstand, for instance. My friend's father has his locked in a heavily reinforced (and nearly immovable) rifle cabinet, for instance. My father kept his service weapon locked up at all times in the house, as well.
Also, when you are not in the home, no one's life is in danger from the burglar - your protection there is your insurance company. When there is an armed intruder when people are home (admittedly more rare), your only defense without some form of weapon is the hope that the intruder does not harm you before help can arrive.
Also, a defensive gun is not always intended to kill an intruder. While you should be prepared to kill every time you draw your weapon, it should not always be your intent. A drawn weapon can often force an assailant to a prone position until the police arrive, or force them to flee without firing a shot.
quote:he grabbed his .357 Magnum, ran to that part of the house where he heard the noise coming from, heard the noise again, and proceeded to discharge his firearm through the door.
Again, this comes from lack of training. Discharging your weapon through a closed door? Why not just shoot at noises in the dark, or hold your weapon out the window and fire randomly into the night?
This again feeds into my argument that there should be mandatory safety/usage training prior to gaining a gun license. I'd assume visually identifying an imminent mortal threat before pulling the trigger would be a pretty important point made during training.
quote:A situation where having a gun when faced with a criminal would be useful is so statistically low that I have a problem understanding how your scenario can justify an increasingly armed public when the United States already leads the rest of the first world nations in gun deaths.
Not sure where you get the evidence to make the "so statistically low" claim. This also goes back to the training bit. I've never said we should just hand out guns on street corners - gun owners should be required to participate in training programs and licensing/certification.
This feeds back once again into the "civilian marshall" concept.
quote:The problem is the national methodology of using escalation as a tactic for fighting crime.
I don't see it as escalation. You do. We're going to just have to disagree on that one, I think.
Or are you expecting more and more criminals like the one at the start of Lethal Weapon 4?
quote:You are suggesting a redundancy. We already have this: police departments and security companies.
Yes, we have a police force. We also have a national guard, security companies, bounty hunters, etc. Weren't you an advocate of multiple layers of defense? I can easily get behind a trained and regulated group of civilian marshalls (who can make citizen arrests, as all citizens can) who have the ability to respond more quickly than the police department.
quote:There is more to being a police officer than a gun and a badge, just as there is more to being a soldier than fatigues, rank, and rifle.
Yes, and yes. And there should be more to gun ownership than just possessing the weapon. I think we agree on all of that, though.
quote:I can even accept the reasoning that someone owns a firearm under a sense of civic duty per the 2nd Amendment
I'm curious what you define this to mean. What is the "civic duty" aspect of gun ownership?
quote:My entire post talks about many cases, and in this case the person who owned the gun not only still got shot but still got robbed.
If someone pulls a gun on me, I have to seriously consider the possibility that they are going to kill me. There's no "maybe they'll just rob me" or "maybe my life isn't really in danger" about it. If a gun is drawn on me, I have to assume that my life is in imminent danger.
To think otherwise is naive and foolish.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Two points from FlyingCow's post:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: 1:
quote:he grabbed his .357 Magnum, ran to that part of the house where he heard the noise coming from, heard the noise again, and proceeded to discharge his firearm through the door.
Again, this comes from lack of training. Discharging your weapon through a closed door? Why not just shoot at noises in the dark, or hold your weapon out the window and fire randomly into the night?
This again feeds into my argument that there should be mandatory safety/usage training prior to gaining a gun license. I'd assume visually identifying an imminent mortal threat before pulling the trigger would be a pretty important point made during training.
2:
quote:My entire post talks about many cases, and in this case the person who owned the gun not only still got shot but still got robbed.
If someone pulls a gun on me, I have to seriously consider the possibility that they are going to kill me. There's no "maybe they'll just rob me" or "maybe my life isn't really in danger" about it. If a gun is drawn on me, I have to assume that my life is in imminent danger.
To think otherwise is naive and foolish.
My point above is summed up nicely by FlyingCow in the second part quoted.
As far as point 1 goes, I thought the same thing: an idiot fired through a closed door at a noise, and tragedy resulted. We can also dig up anecdotes about moronic criminals killing people, but it would prove nothing.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
FlyingCow:
quote:I'm curious what you define this to mean. What is the "civic duty" aspect of gun ownership?
That is something someone else has told me, so I'm afraid I will not be able to explain it. I only listed reasons told me from others.
We are obviously talking past each other now. Both of your (FlyingCow and Morbo) posts are so wrapped up in the semantics that you almost completely disregard the larger points I was making.
FlyingCow and Morbo, do you accept or agree that the vast majority of guns that criminals have and use are stolen? The FBI and Department of Justice seem to conclude this, so do you accept this statement? Please explain if you do not.
FlyingCow and Morbo, do you accept or agree than the majority of burglaries occur when no one else is home? Please explain if you do not.
Let's start from there and work our way forward.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I just claim that your specific anecdotes do little to further your argument against owning guns for protection. After watching the train-wreck in the "had to happen" thread, I'm not going to have an involved gun-control argument with you now, Jutsa. Sorry.
BTW, I probably wouldn't argue gun-control with Rakeesh either.
I will say that I have a very hard time admitting mistakes. I think we share this vice, Jutsa.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:After watching the train-wreck in the "had to happen" thread, I'm not going to have an involved gun-control argument with you now,
Wait, aren't we in the "had to happen" thread?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I just claim that your specific anecdotes do little to further your argument against owning guns for protection. After watching the train-wreck in the "had to happen" thread, I'm not going to have an involved gun-control argument with you now, Jutsa. Sorry.
BTW, I probably wouldn't argue gun-control with Rakeesh either.
I will say that I have a very hard time admitting mistakes. I think we share this vice, Jutsa.
I must be missing or misunderstanding something. This is the "had to happen" thread.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I meant to say the "Taking advantage of VT to 'promote' faith" train-wreck. See, I just admitted a mistake! Watch me evolve before your very eyes! Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Okay, so what you meant was a comment about my personal character?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:FlyingCow and Morbo, do you accept or agree that the vast majority of guns that criminals have and use are stolen?
Yes. Not sure how this pertains to this conversation, though.
quote:FlyingCow and Morbo, do you accept or agree than the majority of burglaries occur when no one else is home?
Yes. I'm not sure why this matters so much in the greater context of the thread, either.
My points have been: - Before someone is allowed a weapon, they should have a license. Said license should only be able to be obtained after training in safety, usage, proficiency, and maintenance.
- Those so trained and licensed can be useful in a crisis situation such as the VTech shooting.
- Those so trained and licensed could be given a sort of civilian marshall status, able to respond quickly and effectively during a crisis. This would be complimentary to governmentally sponsored emergency personnel - akin to volunteer EMTs or volunteer firefighters, trained to react in a crisis in order to save lives.
- Someone with a firearm who is so trained and licensed is more able to defend themselves and deter a criminal act than someone who is not.
It seems you do not agree with many of these points, however. These are the points I have argued - so I'm not sure how the questions you posed to Morbo and I have application to this discussion.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You will see how they pertain as we continue.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:FlyingCow and Morbo, do you accept or agree that the vast majority of guns that criminals have and use are stolen?
Yes. Not sure how this pertains to this conversation, though.
Given that you agree to the above, do you also agree that since the guns are stolen, they are stolen from citizen gun owners? Please explain if you disagree.
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:FlyingCow and Morbo, do you accept or agree than the majority of burglaries occur when no one else is home?
Yes. I'm not sure why this matters so much in the greater context of the thread, either.
Would you also agree that unless someone owns a gun for work purposes or has a concealed carry permit, that their gun is stored in their home?
And to address your points:
quote:My points have been: - Before someone is allowed a weapon, they should have a license. Said license should only be able to be obtained after training in safety, usage, proficiency, and maintenance.
I have never once argued otherwise, but I will say we already have that. The laws and regulations as they exist today require a certain knowledge and proficiency. Yet guns are still stolen, and the US still leads the first world in gun related deaths (which includes accidents and crimes).
quote:- Those so trained and licensed can be useful in a crisis situation such as the VTech shooting.
Based on what? Law enforcement sources do not seem to think so. Please see my earlier post, those sources are law enforcement (police, FBI, DoJ).
quote:- Those so trained and licensed could be given a sort of civilian marshall status, able to respond quickly and effectively during a crisis. This would be complimentary to governmentally sponsored emergency personnel - akin to volunteer EMTs or volunteer firefighters, trained to react in a crisis in order to save lives.
That is vigilantism.
quote:- Someone with a firearm who is so trained and licensed is more able to defend themselves and deter a criminal act than someone who is not.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but knowing how to shoot a gun does not prepare you to be able to handle the stress and tension of a crisis.
quote:It seems you do not agree with many of these points, however. These are the points I have argued - so I'm not sure how the questions you posed to Morbo and I have application to this discussion.
I am asking those questions to establish a basis by which I can explain why I believe what I do. My attempt to put it into one large post resulted in you semanticizing separate pieces of the whole and not the whole idea itself. So, instead, I would like to see if we can follow a line of reasoning to where we can understand and agree on at least the defining factors, then work from there. I feel that if we don't at least to that, then we are going to continue doing a "nuh uh, uh huh" conversation that goes nowhere.
Before I continue, however, I would like to ask you another only partially related question: You stated earlier that you refused to engage in a conversation where the other "side" had no intention of listening or changing their mind. Are you even open to the idea that my reasoning is not based on irrationality and could at least have merit worth considering?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Given that you agree to the above, do you also agree that since the guns are stolen, they are stolen from citizen gun owners?
A portion of the illegal weapons in the country are stolen from legal users at one point in time. Illegal trafficking in small arms/light weapons is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide, after all - and all of it isn't because a private sidearm was stolen from a person's nightstand.
Beyond this, many weapons used by criminals are not legal for anyone to use (such as the Uzi or MAC-10).
Further, and this seems like a point that I've made before, safety training will cut down considerably on stolen weapons. Why? Because those who purchase weapons would know how to store them so that they are far less likely to be stolen. For instance, a "smash and grab" burglar who rifles through drawers for jewelry and small electronics might stumble upon a gun in a sock drawer or nightstand. If all gun users were required to be trained on how to safely and securely store their weapons, that same burglar would find no weapon unless he could also crack a safe.
quote:Would you also agree that unless someone owns a gun for work purposes or has a concealed carry permit, that their gun is stored in their home?
Again, see above. I'd like to see someone steal a gun from any of the gun owners I know. Again, you don't keep your gun in a sock under your pillow - you keep it locked up when you're not around. It's common sense, but since such safety training is not required, it becomes less common.
Guns are not stolen from responsible users. They are stolen from users who do not know how to protect their weapon from theft. Hence, traing users *prior* to gun ownership, and you cut down on the possibility of guns being stolen from residential homes.
quote:I have never once argued otherwise, but I will say we already have that.
No. We don't. I'm not sure what makes you think we do. This is a HUGE problem.
We DO NOT have such mandatory training and licensing. I'm not sure what lead you to believe we did.
quote:Law enforcement sources do not seem to think so.
Are you talking about the Richard Brzeczek piece from above? After reading it, it seems that most of your arguments have stemmed from there. Please note that he is a lawyer who was appointed as police superintendent for 3 years, before returning to the practice of trade and antitrust law.
Even in that article, he says that: "In light of these requirements, it seems somewhat ludicrous to me that when the activity is the ownership of a weapon, the ownership of what I call an inherently dangerous instrumentality, these same governmental agencies require absolutely no prior training in their usage."
He is also calling for prior training, even using the car licensing argument I used above, and points out that such training does not currently exist.
Are you basing your argument on other law enforcement officials?
You've linked to 3 Kennesaw articles, 1 article from Brzeczek, 1 article from DoJ (that was statistics based only, and has no argument regarding self defense use of firearms), 2 news articles, an NCPA "myths" page, and a warrior spirituality page.
Please show me the overwhelming evidence from law enforcement officials. Those that I know through my father (25 years as a NJ police officer) are very pro-ownership and pro-training.
quote:That is vigilantism.
Do volunteer firefighters have no right to put out fires for the public's safety? Do volunteer EMTs have no right to help the injured or sick? If it is a regulated and formed set of "civilian marshalls" sponsored by the governement, it isn't vigilantism.
Note the regulated bit, and the sponsored by the government bit. I'm not saying people can print out a badge from their computer and run around shooting people. Organized - much like a volunteer fire company or EMT station.
quote:I don't know how many times I have to say this, but knowing how to shoot a gun does not prepare you to be able to handle the stress and tension of a crisis.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but that's what training is for.
quote:. Are you even open to the idea that my reasoning is not based on irrationality and could at least have merit worth considering?
Absolutely. I don't see you as being irrational, just functioning from a different set of givens. I think a lot of our disagreement is because we have a different set of givens. I have considered your points - either I disagree with them (and point out why), or I have trouble seeing their revelevance (and point that out as well).
I still don't quite understand the whole of your argument - and by your inability to explain the "civic duty" bit, I don't think you have a full understanding of your argument, either. You seem to be selectively anti-gun ownership, while at the same time being selectively pro-gun ownership.
I'm still trying to figure out where you're coming from - though fully reading through the entire Brzeczek article settled a lot of things. You seem to be in line with most of what he says.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
The point-counterpoint is getting tiresome on both sides, and is deepening the misunderstanding. The more we engage in it, the more I believe we are talking past each other. So I will use the quotes as little as possible and try to be as clear as possible.
The whole of the problems I find with the argument to carry weapons as protection is that they require dubious statistical data (like John Lott's), ignoring correlating data (like population density, presence of organized crime, differences between rural / suburban / urban areas), or reduction of scenarios to "well, if I were is such and such a situation." None of these take into account the larger aspects of how a more armed citizen population would adversely affect the ability of law enforcement to do its job, the increase in danger to the citizen population through an escalation of force, or the basic differences in training of how and when to use a gun by those whose job it is to protect the wider public from those who have criminal intent. Finally, the entire paradigm of escalation regarding protection is an example of why America in general is often viewed as poorly equipped to handle problems with anything outside of a show of force.
I have been asked to provide data that proves that citizens carrying guns make crises or criminal situations more difficult or dangerous. However, as I have already stated, there are no such collections of data because there are no groups studying those kinds of issues. This is because the "gun debate" has become so extremely polarized that almost any and all available data is either funded or used (or both) by groups that begin with a specific agenda in the first place. Distinctions that would break down the topic into a less contrete and more nuanced debate are rare. So, instead, to approach this subject a look at the data available in its least manipulated form is required to begin with, hence my use of the DoJ data. The data I pointed out leaned heavily toward a number of felons, including a large portion of juvenile offenders, using guns they had acquired either through stealing themselves or purchase from those who stole the weapons.
From the DoJ link I gave earlier, one of the many facts within the docment was that the preferred firearm for violent offenders is a handgun. Whether stolen from homes or stolen in incidents like this (stolen from a sheriff's department, ostensibly more secure than a home), the evidence is that average criminals are getting their guns domestically. For those who might doubt the conclusion I present regarding the numbers given from the DoJ (jointly released with FBI) document, the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation (PDF) concurs with my assessment. While there is much data within the link that is notable for both sides of the wider "gun debate" (meaning pro versus anti gun arguments), the notable data I would like to point out is the following:
quote:While the national policy debate has focused primarily on criminal acquisition of guns through corrupt gun store owners, unregulated sales at gun shows and a black market in street sales, in the past ten years nearly 1.7 million firearms have fallen into criminal hands through theft, most often because a gun is improperly stored in someone’s home. As a consequence, every year in America, tens of thousands of legal gun owners are the victims of a crime that unintentionally arms the enemy.
This includes states that have storage requirement laws. Still, the AGS Foundation also concludes that, based on the available data, most criminals are being armed from the armed citizen population.
quote:An estimated 81.2% of stolen firearms were taken from individuals’ homes and cars, with the rest being stolen from gun stores, places of business, off their person, from common carriers, or from other sources.
quote:While child gun accidents and suicides are high-profile and tragic, it is far more likely for a gun to be stolen than it is to be used by a child to kill or injure. In fact, it is twenty-three times more likely that a firearm will be stolen from an individual than used inappropriately by a juvenile in a gun accident or suicide. In 1999, 716 children under the age of 18 were killed, either accidentally or through suicide, and 5,668 were injured, compared to the 145,829 firearms reported stolen that year.
I am pointing this out to underscore the sheer number of stolen firearms. That higher likelihood of the bun being stolen is significant along with the fact that the United States leads the first world in gun related deaths in children (link):
quote:Of the 161 million children aged less than 15 years during the 1 year for which data were provided, 57 million (35%) were in the United States and 104 million (65%) were in the other 25 countries.
Just to note: "children" in this study were counted as under 15 years of age, teens 15 and over were not counted in the statistics. This data is, according to anti gun groups, considered flawed by omission yet still underscores the higher average of danger in the US regarding irresponsible ownership. Also, keep in mind that the declining rate mentioned within the AGS Foundation document did not correlate the federal ban on certain semi automatic weapons that lasted from 1994 to 2004, which definitely affected access to the number of weapons.
Before you rush to the reply button to point out that nothing I've said makes my case against using firearms as protection, I ask you to please continue reading and take everything I am saying as a whole. The data above alone does not give a full description of why purchasing firearms for defensive purpose outside of a job based necessity is a bad idea. The data above is solely meant to establish the concrete fact that the large majority of voilent criminals who use guns in their crimes are getting their weapons from domestic sources, mostly through stealing them or purchasing stolen weapons. There is naturally a danger to increasing the target area from which criminals can obtain weapons, and it is a concern, but it is only part of the reasoning.
I mentioned earlier that the chances of being in a crime situation where having a firearm can be useful is statistically low. This quick breakdown by the Bureau of Prisons of the types of offenses criminals currently serving time are in prison for gives a brief glimpse at what I mean. While instances that could conceivably have taken place using a gun are collectively just barely above immigration, even the data within that link doesn't tell you (general you) whether the crimes of robbery, burglary, homicide, or violent offenses were carried out with a gun, which is not the case for all instances within the number. However, this DoJ state by state breakdown offers a slightly better picture, with total personal (meaning crime against a person by a criminal) crime involving a a weapon being 45,000 out of 924,700 cases or 4.9%, or if you wish me to be generous and attribute half of the residential and auto burglary convictions as well the number rises to 56,350 in 924,700 or 6.15%. That number is low but still high enough to be alarming, until you (general you) take into account that weapons convictions are rarely made alone, being opverwhelmingly added to other convictions to provide heftier sentences. Not having access to such data I won't try to manipulate the numbers without data to back it up, but I will caution you (general you) to keep under consideration that the actual number is almost assuredly lower than the number listed on convictions alone. I am sure there are lawyers who can verify for you (general you) that felony charges are often stacked in a criminal case, and those of you who know police can verify that felony charges involving weapons often involve a list of charges against the criminal when arrested. I am relying on the common sense of interested individuals to be able to follow up on that verification on their own rather than me attempting to arbitrarily choose a number to divide those percentages by. The end result, however, is a number significantly lower than even the significantly low number I have listed here. Statistically speaking, you have a higher chance of being involved in a traffic fatality (traffic stats for good measure).
Others have mentioned lower rates of crime in states that have more open gun laws. FlyingCow specifically cites Texas as having a lower carjacking rate due to concealed carry of citizens. This NEA breakdown state by state of number of violent crimes with a gun shows some interesting statistics. I am hoping it is acceptable to assume that certain states have higher population densities than others (if not, here is a reference), Since FlyingCow has mentioned New Jersey and Texas (though not necessarily in argument), let us first compare those two. New Jersey's population density is nearly fifteen times that of Texas, and New Jersey has significantly more strict gun laws (according to this site). However, using this and this as sources for actual population versus estimated number of violent crimes, Texas comes in with a higher violent crime rate (0.44%) involving a firearm than does New Jersey (0.31%). If the population density numbers mean anything, it is that New Jersey likely has more urban development throughout the state to facilitate the significantly higher density, and statistically urban areas are far more prone to crime (link for those interested). However, Texas contains a higher percentage of violent crime involving a gun, even though Texas has a higher rate of legal gun ownership, a higher number of concealed carry licensees, and more lenient laws regarding the use of deadly force for protection (made more lenient this year by the castle doctrine laws, if I recall correctly). Statistically, both states have numbers that are significantly low compared to other crime and the numbers in the previous paragraph (though I am being careful to not assume which is more accurate, as the number is likely in between), but if owning a weapon for protection is supposed to be a deterrent to crime, then that purpose has failed in Texas as far as the number of violent crimes compared to the population is concerned. Even New York, which has more lenient laws than New Jersey but still more strict than Texas, with its flagship city historically portrayed as the gothamesque home for organized crime, east coast gangs, and boroughs some people wouldn't dream of walking through unarmed (all of this overblown nonsense, in my opinion), comes in lower than Texas in violent crime involving a gun at 0.42%. Michigan (with Detroit, once named murder capital of the nation) ekes in slightly lower than Texas with 0.43% (and less than half of the actual number). As a credit to Virginia, which sits squarely between New Jersey and Texas in terms of strictness, the state about which this entire thread began has the lowest rate of any states I've mentioned, 0.21%. For the sake of keeping this post just slightly shorter than it could conceivably be, I will simply refer to my other post regarding Kennesaw as another example of how the "proof" examples often cited in the "pro versus anti" gun debate are skewed, and how the actual crime data shows little to no change in the short term and an increase after a few years have passed.
And just to refute a few minor points:
quote:FlyingCow stated: Beyond this, many weapons used by criminals are not legal for anyone to use (such as the Uzi or MAC-10).
I have no idea where you got such information, but it is false. See the DoJ document I linked earlier and several other sources I linked within this post. Most criminals prefer handguns of the revolver or small semi automatic type.
quote:FlyingCow asked: Are you talking about the Richard Brzeczek piece from above?
No, I am talking about his piece (which is not just Brseczek, it also cites then police Chief Rinaldi of DC), the Montana news article, the AGS Foundation, and the Department of Justice statistics. None of those sources are claiming that people shouldn't have guns, but express various concerns about ownership with regard to criminal access to weapons.
quote:FlyingCow stated: No. We don't. I'm not sure what makes you think we do. This is a HUGE problem.
We DO NOT have such mandatory training and licensing. I'm not sure what lead you to believe we did.
We do have them for open carry and concealed carry licensees. I fail to see how a gun could be used as protection otherwise except for very, very rare cases.
quote:FlyingCow stated: Do volunteer firefighters have no right to put out fires for the public's safety? Do volunteer EMTs have no right to help the injured or sick? If it is a regulated and formed set of "civilian marshalls" sponsored by the governement, it isn't vigilantism.
Those things already exist. The APBA of New York City, I don't know where you live in New Jersey but there are Citizen Police Academies like this and this, most states have Crimestopper or community watch programs, and more. These groups do not operate armed with guns, though, for legal liability reasons (among others).
quote:FlyingCow stated: I still don't quite understand the whole of your argument - and by your inability to explain the "civic duty" bit, I don't think you have a full understanding of your argument, either. You seem to be selectively anti-gun ownership, while at the same time being selectively pro-gun ownership.
I believe yo uare misreading what I said when I mentioned "civic duty." That was an exact quote told to me by an associate, with very little to define it. However, that reason, along with others, does not trouble me despite the probability that I personally disagree with it, because that person doesn't engage in concealed carry and is not a likely target for crime anyway. He is an enthusiast who owns numerous guns of varying types, and as far as I know only brings them out (of a locked safe) to clean them and to fire rounds at targets. As far as I can tell it isn't an activity I find preferable but neither do I find it dangerous or worth discouraging.
quote:FlyingCow stated: I'm still trying to figure out where you're coming from - though fully reading through the entire Brzeczek article settled a lot of things. You seem to be in line with most of what he says.
While I agree with many things in that piece, hence my linking it, I would not say that it mostly describes my stance.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm not ignoring you, Justa - life has interfered, and I don't have time to read through your post today. I will try to get to it later this evening or tomorrow.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I will try in the future to be clearer. Obviously my ability to communicate is failing me. I didn't mean to make Pronouncements of Truth. I was merely wondering aloud, sort of brainstorming.