Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Steve Chapman has some doubts about whether a heavily-armed campus would have stopped the Virginia Tech massacre.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Maybe it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it would have changed the odds. I don't expect the government (or a school administration) to keep me safe, but they damned sure shouldn't make it illegal for me to do so myself.
shecky|4.19.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Good article.
As much as we'd all like to use events to our own ends, the truth
is that murders, even mass murders, will happen regardless of the
prevalence of guns. I have no doubt that Cho Seung-Hui could have
pulled off equal amount of carnage in a school full of armed
students. He may certainly have been crazy. But there's little
indication that he was stupid.
|4.19.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Chapman's argument seems to amount to "the chance that you'll be
victimized is unlikely, so there's no reason to allow for concealed
carry."
The chance that my house will burn down is also highly unlikely.
Does this mean I should get rid of my smoke detectors and fire
extinguishers?
Indeed, he is right that the chance of being victimized is
unlikely, and that one has to make certain concessions to
inconvenience in order to carry a concealed weapon.
But how is that any justification for a prohibition on same?
Certainly the libertarian standpoint is that people should be
allowed to make the decision to carry, or not, for themselves.
|4.19.07 @ 1:35PM|#
very good points made by Mr. Chapman.
Really, there are alot of people who really shouldn't have guns and
not because they are violent or mentally unbalanced, but simply
becuase they react poorly to situations. The person that loses
control of a car and lets go of the steering wheel; the person that
panics when the fire alarm goes off. Some people's instincts lead
them to extremely poor decisions and having a gun on them could
make the consequences even worse. Trained individuals who do not
act on impulse are responsible concealed carry people and sad to
say, most are not that. Police officers are sometimes not well
trained either and react badly, so a few young adults in a small
room are not the ideal group of gun packers.
There's also a very important maxim for gun owners, "never pull a
weapon you don't plan to use". There are alot of people that think
pulling a weapon is a good threat technique, but that is the worst
kind of gun ignorance there is.
I. Self. Divine.|4.19.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Mediageek: Maybe I am mistaken, but what I took from Chapman's article was not an argument thatwe should disallow concealed carry on campus, but that we need to recognize that everyone having guns would not necessarily prevent situations like this or even mitigate the damage.
VikingMoose|4.19.07 @ 1:37PM|#
thanks for the interesting read!
And, Mr. Chapman if you do read the discussion thread, please check
out Mediageek's comments - he's highly educated in this area and
always is worth reading. His comments and knowledge are always
interesting and contribute greatly to understanding the issues
involved.
thanks again
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 1:37PM|#
there are alot of people who really shouldn't have guns and
not because they are violent or mentally unbalanced, but simply
becuase they react poorly to situations. The person that loses
control of a car and lets go of the steering wheel; the person that
panics when the fire alarm goes off.
True, and yet nobody argues that cars should be illegal because of
the panicky people who let go of the wheel at bad times.
|4.19.07 @ 1:41PM|#
"Mediageek: Maybe I am mistaken, but what I took from
Chapman's article was not an argument thatwe should disallow
concealed carry on campus, but that we need to recognize that
everyone having guns would not necessarily prevent situations like
this or even mitigate the damage."
Yeah, but no one outside of the Mall Ninja/Ice Cream Commando crowd
has said anything along those lines. It's a straw man.
There's no way to tell whether the presence of someone with a
concealed weapon would have changed the outcome. Merely, as
Jennifer already stated, the odds.
|4.19.07 @ 1:41PM|#
I agree with Mr. Chapman's main point about this tragedy not proving either side of the gun debate's points, but I disagree with Mr. Kleck's statement. He seems to be ignoring the possiblity that professor may have had a gun in say his or her office which they could have accessed and used to stop this shooter.
shecky|4.19.07 @ 1:42PM|#
The chance that my house will burn down is also highly
unlikely. Does this mean I should get rid of my smoke detectors and
fire extinguishers?
Does it also mean you should carry a fire extinguisher when you go
to the library or your neighbor's house? Clearly, a fire can happen
anywhere.
The whole point seems that some risks are not serious enough to
usually worry about.
Really, there are alot of people who really shouldn't have guns
and not because they are violent or mentally unbalanced, but simply
becuase they react poorly to situations.
Yikes, you've framed the issue in a way I wish you hadn't.
I. Self. Divine.|4.19.07 @ 1:42PM|#
yet nobody argues that cars should be illegal because of the
panicky people who let go of the wheel at bad times.
Jennifer: While I am just about as pro-gun as you can get, that
argument is flawed, as cars serve a purpose other than
killing/injuring.
|4.19.07 @ 1:42PM|#
"Trained individuals who do not act on impulse are
responsible concealed carry people and sad to say, most are not
that."
Do you have proof to back this up? Statistically, you're more
likely to be accidentally shot by a cop than by someone with a
carry permit.
|4.19.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Ah, to drink at the fountain of Reason. Cool, refreshing good sense, far too rare.
|4.19.07 @ 1:44PM|#
If someone wanted to shoot you and let you decide what
weapon he would use, it would be your choice.
Not my choice. I'd go with the Nerf Bow 'n' Arrow.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Jennifer: While I am just about as pro-gun as you can get,
that argument is flawed, as cars serve a purpose other than
killing/injuring.
So do guns: self-defense. A gun need not kill or injure a would-be
criminal to deter him.
|4.19.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Do you have proof to back this up? Statistically, you're
more likely to be accidentally shot by a cop than by someone with a
carry permit.
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't account for the
population that might carry if gun control laws were
relaxed/revoked. The high barriers to entry for concealed carry
skew the statistics in favor of highly responsible gun owners.
|4.19.07 @ 1:48PM|#
True, and yet nobody argues that cars should be illegal
because of the panicky people who let go of the wheel at bad
times.
Hey, I'm not arguing that those people can't carry a gun
everywhere, but would you like that person to behind the wheel of a
tanker truck on the highway in a blizzard with lots of other cars?
I think there are unique hazards to school settings not found
everywhere.
|4.19.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Does it also mean you should carry a fire extinguisher when
you go to the library or your neighbor's house? Clearly, a fire can
happen anywhere.
No, but I would count on them having a fire extinguisher on hand
for such a thing.
Painfullly drawing out this anaolgy, we saw how effective VT's
extinguishers were.
|4.19.07 @ 1:51PM|#
mediageek,
What defines a trained individual is not that they're a police
officer as my following statement indicates...
Trained individuals who do not act on impulse are responsible
concealed carry people and sad to say, most are not that. Police
officers are sometimes not well trained either and react badly, so
a few young adults in a small room are not the ideal group of gun
packers.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Hey, I'm not arguing that those people can't carry a gun
everywhere, but would you like that person to behind the wheel of a
tanker truck on the highway in a blizzard with lots of other cars?
I think there are unique hazards to school settings not found
everywhere.
Agreed, and I wouldn't complain if VT or another school had, for
example, stricter-than-usual standards regarding who can or cannot
carry a gun, just as the standards to drive a tanker truck are
stricter than for a regular car. It's the blanket ban that
infuriates me.
|4.19.07 @ 1:54PM|#
"The problem with this argument is that it doesn't account
for the population that might carry if gun control laws were
relaxed/revoked. The high barriers to entry for concealed carry
skew the statistics in favor of highly responsible gun
owners."
Where did I call for relaxing the requirements for obtaining a
carry license?
The campus of Virginia Tech has a no weapons policy. Simply stating
that perhaps the policy should be done away with for those who've
jumped through the hoops to obtain a carry permit is hardly a
radical notion.
Utah had a similar debate about concealed weapons permit holders
being allowed on college campuses, and they ruled that it should be
allowed, and I've yet to see any stories about
drunken/idiotic/immature college students in Utah with carry
permits causing any sort of mayhem.
Jorgen|4.19.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I think the idea here isn't as much opposition to concealed carry permits on campus as it is opposition to the idea that the Virginia Tech shootings were the result of current gun control laws. I'm generally in favor of gun rights, but I do respect the ability of campus administrators to decide that they don't want guns in classrooms, just as I respect their ability to decide they don't want food in classrooms. To base decisions about such things around mass murderer prevention rather than examining the effects, advantages and disadvantages that are more frequent is silly.
VM|4.19.07 @ 1:55PM|#
shecky - that's exactly why this issue shouldn't be framed in
the "should we or shouldn't we" concealed carry; rather that
individuals may choose - in any situation.
(also notice that Mediageek clearly differentiates from the
internet heroes who could withstand Iranian torture, unlike those
pussy sailors - he is speaking from the perspective of individual's
choice for dealing with his or her tolerance for risk in every
situation).
It might not help at all (based on the low chance of something like
this happening), but each individual needs to assess his or her
tolerance for risk and behave accordingly (in ways that are
consistent with the standard libertarian boiler plates, of
course).
Just because it might be a low-to-zero chance, who are we to say
what an educated, rational individual should do when facing a risk
profile? (unless you're selling something, of course. That's a
corollary to the "Westley as the Dread Pirate Roberts"
theorem)
Or - if you're fire risk averse - I guess you may carry a mini fire
extinguisher around. I have found the model XKR27 down the front of
my pants looks...
um. nevermind.
:)
|4.19.07 @ 1:56PM|#
shecky,
It's the truth in a way that there are alot of people that
shouldn't drive because they react poorly. But, what I'm not saying
is that we can restrict people from driving because what they might
be likely to do in certain instances. Its the nature of
individuals.
If your afraid I'm leading to an advocation that maybe someone
should restrict these individuals from carrying, you're wrong. Most
of the time, they'll be perfectly fine. But when a real emergency
occurs, you shouldn't count on them to act calmly and rationally.
So situations where emotions can run high or people are restricted
in their movements, maybe we should think carefully whether to
allow these potential risks in their midsts.
That's all I'm saying.
|4.19.07 @ 1:58PM|#
"Trained individuals who do not act on impulse are
responsible concealed carry people and sad to say, most are not
that. Police officers are sometimes not well trained either and
react badly, so a few young adults in a small room are not the
ideal group of gun packers."
But isn't this just a permutation of the argument that's trotted
out every time a state considers liberalizing concealed carry laws?
The old "blood of innocents will run in the streets" trope?
I'm sorry, but I just don't see where a liberalization of concealed
carry laws has ever resulted in those predictions coming true, and
you'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit incredulous.
bill|4.19.07 @ 1:59PM|#
"It's a hassle to carry a gun. It's heavy, it's dangerous, it
scares other people, and it puts weird bulges in your
clothing."
Uh, has Mr. Kleck never heard of derringers? There are many guns
that are smaller than the palm of your hand. Has he never heard of
ankle holsters, backpacks or purses? Also just because it's against
the law doesn't mean someone can't carry a concealed gun. Remember,
it's only illegal if you get caught. If someone had been carrying
and had stopped Cho at the start of the rampage would they be
hailed as a hero or a criminal?
bill|4.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Clarification:
I know VA allows concealed carry. I meant it is illegal on campuses
there and in states without carry laws.
|4.19.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Maybe it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it would
have changed the odds.
Are we seriously discussing whether allowing college students to
carry concealed weapons to class would have changed the outcome?
Seriously? The odds of anyone taking a gun to class regularly,
legal or not, is zero.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:08PM|#
The odds of anyone taking a gun to class regularly, legal or
not, is zero.
Mediageek, care to field this one?
|4.19.07 @ 2:08PM|#
"Uh, has Mr. Kleck never heard of derringers?"
Derringers are a poor choice. Both Kahr and Rorhbaugh make
exceedingly concealable pistols that are much better.
|4.19.07 @ 2:09PM|#
"Mediageek, care to field this one?"
I carried a handgun in flagrant violation of my university's
weapons policy.
|4.19.07 @ 2:10PM|#
I find my Makarov to be light enough to carry everywhere,
everyday and it fits in the fanny pack I use as a shoulder bag. It
doesn't make a weird bulge.
I also appreciate the irony of using a soviet designed weapon to
defend my freedom and property and the lives of those around
me.
|4.19.07 @ 2:12PM|#
I'm interested in Chapman's suggestion that even if concealed
carry were allowed at VT, it might not have made a difference. I
disagree completely with Shecky ("I have no doubt that Cho
Seung-Hui could have pulled off equal amount of carnage in a school
full of armed students") but I agree with Chapman.
First, most of the students were under age 21, which I think is
VA's minimum age for a CC permit. That leaves older students
(including grad students), teachers, and staff. How many of the
latter have a CC permit (or would have gotten one if allowed to
carry at VT)? I'd be very surprised if it's as many as 5%. How many
potential CC carriers were even in the building? And how many, if
authorized to carry at VT, would have actually had a gun with them
that day? 30%? So at most you're talking less than 2% of the
over-20 people in the building.
Finally, if one of them had a gun, what are the odds they could get
it out and put it in play? I don't know, but it's surely less than
100%.
Look, I support CC, even on campus. I think it would have improved
the victims' odds, and it's possible fewer would have died. But
it's no panacea and there's a substantial chance it would have made
no difference. Sometimes terrible things happen, and this was one,
and we should be slow and careful in drawing policy lessons from
it.
|4.19.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Wow. Was the risk worth the reward? How many deranged shooters
did you fight off?
Do you really think that any of the students in that building would
have been carrying had concealed carry laws been more liberal?
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:14PM|#
I carried a handgun in flagrant violation of my university's
weapons policy.
Wow. Was the risk worth the reward? How many deranged shooters
did you fight off?
I was going to ask the same thing. Mediageek, how many innocent
lives were cut short because you carried a gun to school?
T\'Mershi Duween|4.19.07 @ 2:14PM|#
lotta navel gazing going on
look at the actual tactical scene of the massacre though, and it's
fairly obvious that a gun in a students hand would have been of
great utility
the bad guy was stalking a hallway, firing, from the doorways, into
classrooms with no other exits (aside from windows)
if but one student (or teacher, for that matter) was armed, it's no
great trick to draw a bead on a doorway and shoot when the bad guy
presents himself
even if they fired and missed, I betcha the fact that someone in
there was armed, and took a shot at him, might have made crazy boy
reconsider his psycho plan of attack
maybe he would have moved his own death to the top of the queue,
and foregone the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel part of the plan
maybe he would have snapped frightened and gave it up
altogether
however it would have played out, the people in the room would have
almost certainly have fared better if the psycho wasn't the only
one armed
ed|4.19.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Everyone is focusing on gun laws and the culpability of the VT English Department, but I believe the blame rests squarely on the Communications Department. Who knows...with the proper training those kids might have talked themselves out of the situation.
|4.19.07 @ 2:21PM|#
""Mediageek, care to field this one?"
I carried a handgun in flagrant violation of my university's
weapons policy."
Thereby disproving your thesis that concealed carriers are more
respectful of the rules than others. They only respect the rules
that allow them to do what they want, or at least you only respect
the rules that allow you to do what you want.
I am a strong 2nd amendment advocate.
But concealed carry is not mentioned in the 2nd.
Responsible gun owners, in my view, do not conceal their weapons
(even if the law allows). The semiotic value of weapons is better
served by individuals with the strength of personality to openly
carry.
Gun laws have very little effect on crime rates, so the semiotic
value of the weapons is far more at issue in these discussions.
bill|4.19.07 @ 2:21PM|#
mediageek,
Don't be so highfalutin. I was using "derringer" (note how it's not
capitalized) as a generic term to refer to any small easily
concealable handgun, the way most people do.
|4.19.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Only on this board (and perhaps Free Republic), can one find a
poster boasting of carrying a handgun to class everyday at the risk
of expulsion.
Really, I am curious, was it ever put to use? No, don't tell me.
You never had to use it, right? Professor Jones in the English
Department saw it and just KNEW not to try anything.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:22PM|#
But it's no panacea and there's a substantial chance it
would have made no difference.
NOBODY is saying it would have been a panacea. At least nobody
here. All anyone says is, "it would have changed the odds."
Jesus. Nobody points to women working in crummy jobs they hate and
says "See? Letting women leave the home is no panacea guaranteeing
eternal happiness" in order to imply that maybe letting us leave
the kitchen wasn't such a good idea after all. Yet that appears to
be the argument behind the "CCW is no panacea, ha!"
repetitions.
|4.19.07 @ 2:24PM|#
That is not to say I am opposed to liberalized conceal carry laws. I am just sick of seeing "Another tragedy that could've been prevented by liberalized gun laws" in every one of these threads. Nobody in that class would've carried one, that is obvious.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Nobody in that class would've carried one, that is
obvious.
Obvious how? Were they all Jains?
|4.19.07 @ 2:28PM|#
"Thereby disproving your thesis that concealed carriers are
more respectful of the rules than others."
The plural of anecdote is not statistic.
Neither is the singular.
|4.19.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Jennifer,
There are multiple comments (see for example T'Mershi Duween's at
2:14) about how, if a gun were present, Cho would've been stopped.
I'm just pointing out that permission to carry does not
equal actually carrying. (Also, that not even one or two
people actually carrying would have necessarily changed the
outcome.)
|4.19.07 @ 2:30PM|#
"The plural of anecdote is not statistic."
True, but the fact that you are the one arguing based on the
statistic while also being the counter-example is interesting.
(telling?)
Shouldn't you lose your CC license for your admitted violation?
|4.19.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Obvious how? Were they all Jains?
Been on a college campus recently? I am finishing up my fourth year
on one. The very idea of one of my classmates bringing a gun to any
one of my classes on a regular basis is absurd. It really makes me
chuckle (and is indicative of the dreamworld some on this board
live in). We don't have any paranoid mediageek types, though. Ok,
perhaps in West Virginia this could have been prevented.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:33PM|#
I'm just pointing out that permission to carry does not
equal actually carrying.
True, but "lack of permission to carry" often equals "nobody
carrying" which in turn equals "nobody can do a damned thing when a
gun-toting psycho decides to go on a murder spree."
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Been on a college campus recently? I am finishing up my
fourth year on one. The very idea of one of my classmates bringing
a gun to any one of my classes on a regular basis is
absurd.
I grew up in Virginia and got my undergraduate degree there. The
idea of Virginians bringing a gun to class isn't as absurd as you
assume.
I'd also be willing to bet that, guns aside, you don't know your
classmates as well as you pretend to here.
|4.19.07 @ 2:36PM|#
"I am just sick of seeing "Another tragedy that could've
been prevented by liberalized gun laws" in every one of these
threads."
Ok, once more.
From the top. (Christ, I should just make a macro that pastes the
following message every time I need to make the response.)
No one with any authority on the topic has said that this tragedy
would have been prevented by liberalized concealed carry
laws.
That is all unknowable conjecture. However, how is that a
justification for a prohibition? As has already been stated, it may
not have changed the outcome, but it could have changed the
odds.
Seriously, people, how many more times am I going to have to knock
that particular straw man down?
|4.19.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Jennifer,
Then we agree. (Also on who would carry at VT -- and Greg should
look at a map showing how close Blacksburg is to West
Virginia.)
|4.19.07 @ 2:41PM|#
"True, but the fact that you are the one arguing based on
the statistic while also being the counter-example is interesting.
(telling?)"
I speak only for myself.
"Shouldn't you lose your CC license for your admitted
violation?"
*shrugs*
I suppose from the standpoint of a knee-jerk law and order
type.
But that was years ago, in another state.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I do respect the ability of campus administrators to decide
that they don't want guns in classrooms
Of course, in practice that boils down to "I respect the ability of
campus administrators to decide they don't want guns in the
hands of law-abiding people in classrooms." Turns out spree
murderers tend to ignore such rules.
Nick M.|4.19.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Greg,
As a recent Purdue Alum, I guarantee you that Purdue students are
carrying to class. I personally never did, but I knew
friends/aquaintances that did.
Nick
|4.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'd also be willing to bet that, guns aside, you don't know
your classmates as well as you pretend to here.
Really? We've all been in the same classes for two years now. I'd
say most of us know each other pretty well.
Oh well, I don't suppose there are any campuses that allow
concealed weapons for us to look at, are there?
VM|4.19.07 @ 2:48PM|#
"We don't have any paranoid mediageek types, though"
Greg - um. That's not what Media is saying. Nor is he paranoid, and
he's certainly not an "internet hero", unlike some of those posters
from day-before-yesterday.
Congrats that you're graduating in a few weeks, btw!
But please read media's statements as he's writing, and not confuse
his words with your run of the mill keyboard tough guy. He knows a
lot about guns (including what they are and what they aren't), is
an engaging poster (he is patient and doesn't snark out).
Check out his words:
No one with any authority on the topic has said that this tragedy would have been prevented by liberalized concealed carry laws.
That is all unknowable conjecture. However, how is that a justification for a prohibition? As has already been stated, it may not have changed the outcome, but it could have changed the odds.
He is simply pointing out that it's a matter of individual
preference. You're, of course, free to snicker. Just as one would
snicker at the guy who carries his martial arts weapons around,
"just in case" (he's the one who gets into a stance at every
opportunity). You're free to have an opinion about that, too, of
course.
He is not making any paranoid statement. He is affirming his
responsible exercising of a right.
While you may be right that it would be absurd for your classmates
to concealed carry in class. But beyond absurd - if that's how they
prefer to deal with the situation, isn't that their business?
|4.19.07 @ 2:49PM|#
As a recent Purdue Alum, I guarantee you that Purdue
students are carrying to class.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I will
ask around at my 4:30 and report back.
|4.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#
"*shrugs*
I suppose from the standpoint of a knee-jerk law and order
type.
But that was years ago, in another state."
Yes, this statement proves that you are a good spokesman for
responsible gun owners. Sigh.
Knee-jerk law and order types aside, the more interesting point to
me is still the semiotics behind your decision. Why risk losing
your right to a CC or getting kicked out? What message are you
sending and who are you sending it to? When deciding that you will
not only carry, but also conceal a handgun in all situations, you
are sending a message, but only to yourself (and the select few you
let in on your action).
I simply find your reasoning about the issue fascinating. Why do
you feel the need to arm yourself in all situations? What calculus
leads your decision, even knowing that the chances you will use the
thing are vanishingly small? Why does this calculus include the
need to keep others in the dark about your weapon?
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#
You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word for it. I
will ask around at my 4:30 and report back.
And of course, if someone you ask IS carrying conealed in violation
of the law, they'll tell you ALL about it, right? Of course they
will.
By the way: when I taught high school, I never ever had a single
student who had ever tasted alcohol.
|4.19.07 @ 2:52PM|#
VM - I am aware of that. I was just mocking the stereotype. I am not even opposed to his doing it. I am simply stating that in this case, in an engineering class at VT, I would imagine Jennifer's "change in odds" would have amounted to jack squat.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I am simply stating that in this case, in an engineering
class at VT, I would imagine Jennifer's "change in odds" would have
amounted to jack squat.
Speaking as a former Virginian who knew many Virginia college
students of all majors, I'd say students in a class like
engineering would be more likely to be carrying than would
students in a class like Poetry of the English Renaissance.
|4.19.07 @ 2:54PM|#
And of course, if someone you ask IS carrying conealed in
violation of the law, they'll tell you ALL about it, right? Of
course they will.
Umm, well, given that I am a student who they know and know will
not turn them in....
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Umm, well, given that I am a student who they know and know
will not turn them in....
And you know for a fact that they trust you so much they'd put
their freedom in your hands, huh?
I don't mean this as an insult, but seriously: congratulations on
your upcoming graduation, but you still have a lot of
growing up to do. For one thing: learn the difference between a
close bosom friend who keeps no secrets from you, and a friendly
acquaintance like a classmate.
Chances are the number of the former is far, far smaller than the
latter.
|4.19.07 @ 2:58PM|#
"Oh well, I don't suppose there are any campuses that allow
concealed weapons for us to look at, are there?"
All of the ones in Utah.
Nick M.|4.19.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Greg,
Do you think Christopher Dehen and Phil McLaury carry to
class?
Umm, well, given that I am a student who they know and know
will not turn them in....
Guys in my fraternity didn't know who had a gun and regularly
carried to class.
Nick
|4.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#
And you know for a fact that they trust you so much they'd
put their freedom in your hands, huh?
Oh, for the love of God. Did you really think I was going to walk
around class asking people that?
I have a great deal of growing up to do? You genuinely believe that
there are large numbers of 18 year-olds who will bring a sidearm to
Creative Writing class.....just in case.
VM|4.19.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Ah! gotcha, Greg!
P(event)--> 0 you're probably right
just playing a bit here:
N def as situation where Not shooting
S def as situation where Shooting
U(N) def as utility when not shot at
U(S) def as utility when shot at
p def as probability of S occurring
k def as carrying dummy for situation S = 1 if carrying, 0
otherwise.
Does this look about right for a quick pass:
E(U) = (1-p)U(N) - kpU(S)
but since p -->0, that term falls away
E(U) = U(N)
so it doesn't matter if individuals wish to carry. So if they wish,
go for it!
|4.19.07 @ 3:13PM|#
While it's easy to dismiss the rantings of people like Jennifer
and mediageek, I'm beginning to think they deserve sympathy.
To be blunt, it must suck to feel like you need a gun in such
places as a college classroom. That's just such a bizarre
perspective on life to me.
Kap|4.19.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Greg,
Most of my friends are left of center, and those who have known me
for years are typically floored when they learn I am a CHL-holding
gun nut.
I would have carried in grad school had I not attended it in
NY.
Depending on where mediageek attended school he may not have broken
any laws, only school policy. Such would be the case at VT, for
example (but not here in TX).
Finally, if I was there perhaps I wouldn't have been carrying. I
attended VT for a few months of grad school before transferring
elsewhere, my impression was that it was a lovely and safe place.
Perhaps I wouldn't have been carrying.
However, were that the case, and I was in a darkened barricaded
classroom while shots were ringing out in the hallway, waiting to
die...I would rather be angry at myself for being unarmed
than angry at the elite for being disarmed.
Even if the outcome is the same there is a big difference between
life in those two worlds.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 3:14PM|#
You genuinely believe that there are large numbers of 18
year-olds who will bring a sidearm to Creative Writing
class.....just in case.
Re-read my comment from 2:54, when I freely admitted that English
majors might be less likely to carry than future engineers.
By the way: one aspect of being a full-fledged grownup is not to
think "I know because I just know" is an argument that
will convince anyone. As in: you know nobody on Purdue has a gun
because you know. And if a recent Purdue alum says
otherwise, you just know he's wrong.
Also, it's best not to accuse someone of "genuinely believing" the
exact opposite of what she just wrote.
|4.19.07 @ 3:17PM|#
"Knee-jerk law and order types aside, the more interesting
point to me is still the semiotics behind your decision. Why risk
losing your right to a CC or getting kicked out?"
The
odds of getting busted were unlikely.
"What message are you sending and who are you sending it to?
When deciding that you will not only carry, but also conceal a
handgun in all situations, you are sending a message, but only to
yourself (and the select few you let in on your
action)."
You're putting too much thought into it. It's a matter of taking
responsibility for one's safety far more than "sending a message"
to anyone.
"I simply find your reasoning about the issue
fascinating."
Glad to know that I intrigue you in the same manner as a lab
specimen.
"Why do you feel the need to arm yourself in all situations?
What calculus leads your decision, even knowing that the chances
you will use the thing are vanishingly small?"
I've never once heard of a criminal sending an engraved invitation
to his intended victim beforehand.
And, to be honest, I really sucked at calculus.
I suppose that having known a couple of people who've been on the
wrong side of the odds that something bad would occur to them, I
figured it would be better to take precaution against it ever
happening than not.
"Why does this calculus include the need to keep others in the
dark about your weapon?"
Because of people who react much like you are reacting now, and
worse.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Serious question: between October and May I keep in my car at
all times a winter-emergency survival kit: blankets, chemical
hand-warmers, energy bars, matches and tealight candles,
flashlight, etc. But I have never, ever been stranded in my car in
a blizzard, and I'll freely admit the chance of this happening to
me is pretty low.
For those of you who mock the idea of carrying a gun around
just in case, do you think me equally foolish for keeping
all that stuff in my car?
|4.19.07 @ 3:30PM|#
"You're putting too much thought into it. It's a matter of
taking responsibility for one's safety far more than "sending a
message" to anyone."
Actually, that would be the message you are sending..."I am taking
responsibility for my own safety." And, apparently, you are the
primary target for that message, since you conceal the
weapon.
"Because of people who react much like you are reacting now, and
worse."
And by this you mean that you don't want others to question your
decision, or inquire about it?
If you feel that everyone should "take responsibility for their own
safety," shouldn't you then want to share that message openly? Why
work to prevent the discussion by concealing the message (manifest,
in this case by the gun)?
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 3:34PM|#
If you feel that everyone should "take responsibility for
their own safety," shouldn't you then want to share that message
openly? Why work to prevent the discussion by concealing the
message (manifest, in this case by the gun)?
What a ridiculous argument. "Anybody planning to go on a murder
spree? Make sure you shoot me first, before I pull out my concealed
weapon and shoot you."
Neu Mejican, would you also recommend that people who keep guns in
their homes post signs to this effect for the convenience of
would-be burglars?
|4.19.07 @ 3:37PM|#
For those of you who mock the idea of carrying a gun around just in case, do you think me equally foolish for keeping all that stuff in my car?
You're just a dumb internet Grizzly Adams. You view the problem
like the guy who drops down to start making fire with flint and
tinder when someone asks him for a light.
|4.19.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Jennifer,
"For those of you who mock the idea of carrying a gun around just
in case, do you think me equally foolish for keeping all that stuff
in my car?"
Depends. Do you live in Florida or Wisconsin? Does carrying it add
any additional cost over not carrying it?
|4.19.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Hooked:
it must suck to feel like you need a gun in such places as a
college classroom
Maybe. But it sucks a whole lot more to actually
need a gun in a college classroom.
|4.19.07 @ 3:41PM|#
NM, so, on how many college campuses is it legal to wear an openly holstered gun?
|4.19.07 @ 3:43PM|#
NM,
You seem awfully fixated on the message sent by carrying a gun.
News flash: Semioticians are wrong; not everything is intended to
(or does) send a message. Sometimes carrying a gun is simply a
precautionary habit, and sometimes a cigar really is just a
smoke.
|4.19.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"Neu Mejican, would you also recommend that people who keep guns
in their homes post signs to this effect for the convenience of
would-be burglars?"
Why not? (I have seen these, by the way, also bumper
stickers).
Many people also post "beware of dog" signs, have stickers on their
windows indicating an alarm system, or post notices that their
neighborhood has a neighborhood watch program. The evidence leans
towards these measures being effective deterents, although there is
certainly a lack of strong empirical studies to determine this
definitively.
|4.19.07 @ 3:47PM|#
"News flash: Semioticians are wrong; not everything is intended
to (or does) send a message."
Wow. Glad you cleared that up for me.
By the way, even if there are things not intended to send a message
(more likely), and even if there are things that do not send
messages (less likely), weapons, don't, necessarily fall into
either category. I would argue that weapons function primarily
according to the message they send. This is even true in the animal
kingdom. Displays that make you seem dangerous are as important as
capacities that actually make you dangerous.
VM|4.19.07 @ 3:49PM|#
But neu - why?
if some person wishes to carry, why do they have to show it? if it
makes them feel safer, what do you care if they do carry? (for
instance, maybe they don't even want a deterrent effect -
preferring to rely on other methods, but have that there as a very
very last resort). You're assigning motives. We cannot guess
those.
But if it's a measure so they feel better, who cares? It's their
legitimate right.
Gray Ghost|4.19.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Neu Mejican, would you also recommend that people who keep
guns in their homes post signs to this effect for the convenience
of would-be burglars??
Great point. Never understood the appeal of signs/bumper stickers
e.g. "This house [car] protected by Smith and Wesson." What a
lovely way to inform burglars which house they should break into. I
also don't understand internet boards where the participants list
all of their weaponry under their own name and location. Perhaps
that's from my experience suffering a burglary resulting in the
loss of our firearms/equipment when I was much younger.
I figure if you need to know if I own firearms, I'll tell
you---usually because I'm inviting you to go shooting or vice
versa---otherwise it's none of your concern. Placing myself in the
hypothetical position as your classmate, Greg, I wouldn't tell you
either if I owned firearms or not. How would I know you wouldn't
break into my vehicle or dwelling and take them? If I was carrying
concealed, why would I tell you if you didn't already know and take
the risk of expulsion? (assuming Purdue has a similar restriction
as VT)
It is the concern of the State and property owners. If they make
their wishes known, via legislation and signage, then I'm obligated
to follow those wishes. If I don't like it, I can always move or
patronize a business that is firearms friendly.
|4.19.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"NM, so, on how many college campuses is it legal to wear an
openly holstered gun?"
I imagine very few. Why do you ask?
|4.19.07 @ 3:53PM|#
But sometimes dieplays that make you seem dangerous just make you a target. During WWII, one or more soldiers in a platoon were often designated to carry flamethrowers. The purpose was not to send a message, but to be able to throw flame. As a consequence, however, enemy soldiers would single them out to be shot first. Arguably this sent a message, "we really hate flamethrowers," but certainly any message sent by the soldiers with the flamethrowers would have been better not sent at all.
|4.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
NM,
Say I had a pen in my pocket and I felt that, if I ABSOLUTELY had
to, I'd use it to defend myself by stabbing someone in the eyes or
elsewhere. Should I point out to you that I have a pen in my
pocket?
How about a letter opener? (only slightly more damaging than a pen)
Should I inform you if I happen to be carrying one?
How about a knife? (only slightly more damaging than a letter
opener)
How about a retractable baton? (only slightly more damaging than a
knife)
How about a baseball bat in my office / car? (I'm sure you get the
point by now)
How about a large crow-bar?
How about a stun gun?
Seem like a silly argument? As opposed to yours?
|4.19.07 @ 4:05PM|#
"But if it's a measure so they feel better, who cares? It's
their legitimate right."
Depends on how you are defining rights, I guess, but I am not try
to stop anyone from doing it. I am simply discussing the
implications of claiming that right. I think it says something
interesting about the divide on the issue.
Many of the advocates of CC maintain that the message a CC law
sends to criminals is a deterrent to crime (despite a decided lack
of support for gun laws having much influence on crime one way or
the other). The claim is interesting, but odd. Open carry sends a
much clearer message, no matter the pragmatics of self-defense.
Public policy, it seems, should be more concerned with deterence
than reactive pragmatics.
If CC advocates were to constrain their advocacy of CC to the
pragmatics of the decision (see Shelby and Jennifer's argument),
then I would see no conflict. I have not, however, seen the case
constrained in such a way. In fact, the argument is more likely to
be framed in terms of the signal it sends to criminals (through a
concealed channel).
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Depends. Do you live in Florida or Wisconsin? Does carrying
it add any additional cost over not carrying it?
Answers: no, I live in neither Florida nor Wisconsin.
Yes, it does add some additional cost: even ignoring the initial
cost of the items like blankets, which keep indefinitely, there's
also the cost of replacing the chemical heaters, energy bars and
other items every year (since those don't keep too well in a
non-climate-controlled environment). It also eats up space in my
backseat, and probably cuts a little off my gas mileage, too.
And I'll freely admit: chances are I will never, ever need any of
this stuff. But I carry it just in case. Is this foolish?
|4.19.07 @ 4:10PM|#
JimmyDuhGeek,
Well, at some point along that continuum we would have moved from
using an item that is intended for another purpose to an item
designed as a weapon. The semiotics change once you cross that
point.
What's your point?
|4.19.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Jennifer,
No.
And that said, we have now added almost nothing of interest to the
discussion.
ed|4.19.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Forgetting the victims and the killer and all the "what if"
scenarios for a moment, I anticipate big problems for sports
writers in the upcoming NCAA football season:
"Irish Slaughter Hokies!"
Um, no.
"Hurricanes Massacre Tech!"
No, no, no.
"Shootout in Blacksburg!"
That won't do.
|4.19.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Neu Mejican
Many of the advocates of CC maintain that the message a CC law
sends to criminals is a deterrent to crime (despite a decided lack
of support for gun laws having much influence on crime one way or
the other). The claim is interesting, but odd. Open carry sends a
much clearer message, no matter the pragmatics of self-defense.
Public policy, it seems, should be more concerned with deterence
than reactive pragmatics.
If CC advocates were to constrain their advocacy of CC to the
pragmatics of the decision (see Shelby and Jennifer's argument),
then I would see no conflict. I have not, however, seen the case
constrained in such a way. In fact, the argument is more likely to
be framed in terms of the signal it sends to criminals (through a
concealed channel).
I don't know about a "signal" but sheepdogs look like the sheep for
a reason.
|4.19.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Regarding the message "I am taking responsibility for my own
safety" that I see in mediageeks actions (based on his
comments)....
Is the reason for the message being concealed (or only
self-directed) because of the fear that the message will be
interpreted differently by others...
Most likely reading
"I am willing to kill to protect myself."
Does CC allow one to send the self-directed message "I am
responsible for my own safety" without confronting the more
emotionally charged (ess socially sanctioned?) message "I am
willing to kill to protect myself?"
Does CC allow one to avoid the potential social dangers of the more
extreme message? Is that the primary motivation?
|4.19.07 @ 4:21PM|#
"I don't know about a "signal" but sheepdogs look like the sheep
for a reason."
And they bark for much different reasons.
|4.19.07 @ 4:22PM|#
I used to bring beer to class, or the occasional bloody mary.
There were times my head hurt so bad I'd almost wish I had brought
a .45, in order to end my misery.
I'd have only harmed others if they had requested a similar
hangover cure.
|4.19.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Neu Mejican | April 19, 2007, 4:10pm | #
JimmyDuhGeek,
Well, at some point along that continuum we would have moved from
using an item that is intended for another purpose to an item
designed as a weapon. The semiotics change once you cross that
point.
What's your point?
Batons are nothing more than a weapon; Stun-guns are nothing more
than a weapon. Both items are designed specifically for inflicting
damage - whether for self-defense or aggression. Both are perfectly
capable of being lethal.
Point being: If I happen to be occupying the same room as you one
day, is it my responsibility to inform you if I'm carrying one of
those items? If not, why are guns different? Because they go 'BANG'
and scare you?
Remember, you specifically singled out items designed as
weapons.
|4.19.07 @ 4:30PM|#
So, is it too soon to refer to Kevin Durant as a sniper when he
starts popping 3-balls?
The libertarian standpoint is that people should be allowed to make the decision to carry, or not, for themselves. - mediageek
I agree with this, except that property owners should be free to
allow people to carry on their premises, or not. Some places would
require you to check your gun with security, or leave it locked up
in your vehicle, allowing you to recover it when you leave.
If allowing concealed carry on public property were the default
condition, private universities would still be within their rights
to make stricter rules about who, if anybody, could go armed on
their campuses. I don't think having a gun was expressly prohibited
in the dormitories when I went to my private alma mater. That was
in the 70s and 80s, in a state that, at the time, had no RTKBA
clause in its constitution and still doesn't have a CCW permitting
process. I was friends with some Naval ROTC students who were on
the school's pistol and rifle teams. Some of them kept a pistol in
their rooms, but I don't know if they were breaking university
rules. I do know that the NROTC guys were meticulous about
transporting a piece to the shooting range. Handguns were always
carried unloaded, in a locked case. I don't remember seeing any
rifles outside of the range. We were in the downtown area of a
largeish city, but a lot of the students went deer hunting with
their families over Thanksgiving. Somebody could have kept an
uncased shotgun in campus housing, but if their R.A. ever had
reason to have the room searched, that might not have gone over too
well.
Violent crime was actually a lot worse back then, but since we were
a private college our security force wasn't even armed. City
streets intersected the campus at frequent intervals, so we
depended on the city police force for armed response. Some years
back the local state U's police were upgraded to "peace officer"
status, and in 2001 my school's security department was allowed to
be organized as a private detective agency, so its employees could
become licensed armed guards. The university established training
guidelines that exceeded state minimums for annual retraining. I
think one reason this was done was because new building projects
had led to the closing off of various through streets. There was
even an aborted plan to close the main drag through campus to cars,
and essentially wall off university property from the city traffic
grid. That was abandoned, but the modified version of the building
project still left a lot more of the campus grounds as
pedestrian-only areas than had been before. The administration
probably thought that response time from the city police would be
degraded by the changes, and arming their force would offset
that.
Virginia Tech is a public university. While a private college in
that state can make what rules it prefers, VT has to follow state
and federal laws and the state and federal constitutions. If the
Board of Regents or whatever the governing body is called at a
particular government school makes a rule that restricts the
individual rights of an adult citizen more than the legislative
power has done, it might find itself on the losing end of a
lawsuit. All VT could do to a visitor carrying with a permit on
campus was tell them to leave. That was a violation of university
rules, but not a crime. The campus cops couldn't arrest them for
that. They apparently could discipline an enrolled student.
There was a time when even public college administrators, armed
with an across-the-board age of majority of 21, and the doctrine of
in
loco parentis, could make whatever rules they liked for their
charges. Extension of adult status to 18-year-olds caused that
system to break down, along with the various court rulings that
required schools to respect the rights of students, along with
Federal educational privacy legislation. If you worked it right,
Mater and Pater wouldn't even get a chance to see your quarterly
grades before you did. There has certainly been some clawback by
the deans, especially as regards alcohol use, since the law doesn't
treat many college agers as adults for the purpose of drinking.
Even if the old rules were still in force, they might not have
stopped Cho. He was 23, and even when he had his brush with a
possible involuntary committment he was 21. If the courts weren't
going to order him into care, neither the school nor his parents
could force him there, either. Many people are second-guessing
Virginia on this missed chance to straigten Cho out. I have no idea
if he was then "sick" enough to require the magistrate to rule
other than he did. Cho might have been precluded from obtaining
legal weapons had the ruling gone the other way.
Kevin
|4.19.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"Is the reason for the message being concealed (or only
self-directed) because of the fear that the message will be
interpreted differently by others..."
Again, it's not a matter of sending a message, to anyone or myself.
I find this claim to be kind of odd.
But yes, some people interpret even just the act of open carry as
an attack directed at them. If carrying concealed keeps other
people happy, I have no objection to obliging them.
Suzanna Hupp|4.19.07 @ 4:32PM|#
I was looking for a weapon, any weapon, because my handgun was
100 feet away, outside in my car. I made an incredibly stupid
decision to follow the law, and that cost my family's lives.
........24 people dead inside the Luby's Cafeteria at Killeen, a
military town in Central Texas.
|4.19.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Jimmy,
You are mistaking me for someone else. I am very comfortable with
guns and their responsible use.
The mental calculus for concealed weapons (particularly for lethal
ones) is pretty much the same for all weapons. As is the semiotic
aspect of the concealed/open dimension.
For instance, the carrying of a stun gun sends a much different
message than the carrying of an uzi. Despite its ability to be
lethal, the intent of the stun gun is to provide non-lethal
protection. Hardly the same for the uzi.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 4:33PM|#
that said, we have now added almost nothing of interest to
the discussion.
That's pretty common for you, isn't it?
|4.19.07 @ 4:33PM|#
"Does CC allow one to send the self-directed message "I am
responsible for my own safety" without confronting the more
emotionally charged (ess socially sanctioned?) message "I am
willing to kill to protect myself?"
A person who chooses to carry concealed without first thinking long
and hard about that very question is quite foolish.
TJ|4.19.07 @ 4:33PM|#
NM:
"Does CC allow one to send the self-directed message "I am
responsible for my own safety" without confronting the more
emotionally charged (ess socially sanctioned?) message "I am
willing to kill to protect myself?""
Neither are particularly emotional decisions for me. Both rate a
"duh".
With regards to semiotics: the state I carry in (Oregon) does not
allow open carry. You got a CHL, you conceal your weapon. You
don't, you don't carry. Many states that technically allow open
carry don't in practice, meaning the police will find a pretense to
make you miserable. Arizona is one of the few where people
occasionally practice open carry.
|4.19.07 @ 4:39PM|#
"If carrying concealed keeps other people happy, I have no
objection to obliging them."
So then you are concerned with the message sent.
Interesting that you move the locus of control to others here. Your
concealed carry does not keep other people who would be
uncomfortable with your gun "happy" it just keeps them in the dark.
It keeps you happy, because you reduce the chances that you will
have to deal with the negative social consequences of their being
unhappy when they find out about the gun.
"I find this claim to be kind of odd."
It is just an aspect of the issue that adheres to it naturally. It
does stay in the background in most discussions. But I think it is
worth foregrounding.
|4.19.07 @ 4:40PM|#
"Many of the advocates of CC maintain that the message a CC
law sends to criminals is a deterrent to crime (despite a decided
lack of support for gun laws having much influence on crime one way
or the other). The claim is interesting, but odd."
I think the point is that it turns it into a numbers game. If there
is a chance that an intended victim could be armed, will the
perpetrator refrain from undertaking the action?
I'm lukewarm on whether or not that argument holds any water.
Criminals, it seems, tend not to put much forethought into their
actions.
Nick M.|4.19.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Arizona is one of the few where people occasionally practice
open carry.
And even we have huge arguments about which is a better/more
intelligent way to carry.
Nick
|4.19.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Jennifer,
"That's pretty common for you, isn't it?"
Yes, I find it very common that directly addressing the issues you
raise fails to move the conversation into interesting territory. I
will restrain myself in the future.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Yes, I find it very common that directly addressing the
issues you raise fails to move the conversation into interesting
territory. I will restrain myself in the future.
Not a bad comeback. Not great, but not bad.
TJ|4.19.07 @ 4:50PM|#
NM:
This semiotics kick of yours is really amusing.
But at the end of the day, concealed carry is appropriate for
reasons that have nothing to do with upsetting the gun shy.
Tactical advantage is one. Not having people assume you are a
policeman is another.
|4.19.07 @ 4:56PM|#
TJ,
"Tactical advantage is one. Not having people assume you are a
policeman is another."
Both are advantages that adhere to the carrier. Do you think that
this, therefore, automatically translates into better policy for
the community?
I am not sure what is best for mediageek is best for the community
at large.
Oregon's rules seem to be a particularly odd way to regulate, for
instance.
|4.19.07 @ 5:13PM|#
"I am not sure what is best for mediageek is best for the
community at large."
Why?
|4.19.07 @ 5:14PM|#
For instance, the carrying of a stun gun sends a much
different message than the carrying of an uzi. Despite its ability
to be lethal, the intent of the stun gun is to provide non-lethal
protection. Hardly the same for the uzi.
Ah, NM, but you are assuming that every use of a gun in
self-defense must be lethal. Take away that assumption and try your
argument again.
"Am I willing to kill to defend myself?" - I'm sure most people who
carry have considered this. I'm willing to bet most would answer,
"yes", but only in the extreme circumstances where they have to
resort to a lethal hit. Do you think that given a gun they will
automatically go for a shot to the heart / head?
Yes, guns are designed to be lethal when the shooter needs them to
be lethal. I would rather be given that choice in defending myself
than hoping the stun-gun stops somebody (as there have been cases
where stun-guns were as insignificant as mosquito bites). If a
criminal dies as a result of my defending myself then I hope GOD
has mercy on his soul as well as on mine.
TJ|4.19.07 @ 5:15PM|#
NM:
"Both are advantages that adhere to the carrier. Do you think that
this, therefore, automatically translates into better policy for
the community?"
Not sure what you mean by "automatically". But the state has
allowed people to vote on concealed carry, and it was approved.
Therefore, the community has decided that concealed carry is "best"
for this community.
To answer another way, since concealed carry is for the purpose of
defense of innocent life, "advantages that adhere to the carrier"
are all to the good.
|4.19.07 @ 5:18PM|#
"Ah, NM, but you are assuming that every use of a gun in
self-defense must be lethal. Take away that assumption and try your
argument again."
Let's say potentially lethal.
Doesn't seem to shift things in terms of the message, to my
mind.
Mediageek-
Because your interests are not always aligned with the communities.
Tis the reason for the conflict between liberty and control.
VM|4.19.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Fair enough Neu,
I'm not sure if your semiotics approach works here. While there are
certainly situations where you do want to signal intent, toughness,
difficulty for badguy to take you down, there are situations in
which signaling that purpose isn't necessary due to the low
likelihood that a bad event will happen.
Nonetheless, some people feel better if they're prepared, even for
the small-tail likelihood events.
And if they want to assume the extra costs for that small chance it
would help, that's fine. Or they happen to enjoy having a gun with
them. That's their choice.
Assuming a situation where you have to be there.
Again, having fun with this - along your lines of using semiotics -
I'd like to play.
one's feeling of safety, S is based on one's awareness (if you're
in an unsafe situation, regardless if you're armed, you're more
aware), and one's willingness to carry.
S = x(C + yO) + zA
S-> safety (feeling)
C-> carrying
O-> open carry
A-> situational awareness
x-> chooses to carry = 1, 0 otherwise
y-> need for deterrence (similar to probability of malignant
event. for low probabilities y=0; greater than zero,
less-than-or-equal to one otherwise (can't use greater than / less
than here)
z-> need for situational awareness (similar to y)
Also assume that you're in the situation - you cannot avoid it,
you're aware of potential risks, and you have the choice to carry
either concealed or not concealed.
z determines how aware you feel you should be. For x = 1, you'll
also have to assign y, which would probably be some sort of lagged
z value. For those where x = 0, there might be situations where
they wouldn't go (S cannot get high enough for them).
Since these are individual social preferences, we'd probably have
to have Kenneth Arrow's axioms and the other, usual assumptions
with preferences.
Then you ask what's best for the community. Ken Arrow suggests that
we can't aggregate the social preferences like that.
Or: that appears to be the wrong question - it is a question of how
individuals feel safer. For Mediageek, x=1. That isn't the case for
everyone.
So probably the answer to what's best is to allow individuals to
assign their values to what increases S in a given situation and
allow them to undergo the appropriate training and take appropriate
measures.
|4.19.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Neu Mejican | April 19, 2007, 5:18pm | #
"Ah, NM, but you are assuming that every use of a gun in
self-defense must be lethal. Take away that assumption and try your
argument again."
Let's say potentially lethal.
Doesn't seem to shift things in terms of the message, to my
mind.
Ok, so go back to this post
and tell me again what the difference is?
Aren't they all potentially lethal?
Again now, with that admission that guns are as potentially lethal
as pens, etc, why must one disclose to you that they are carrying a
gun?
I'm just curious to know your justification here.
|4.19.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Ahhh, dammit Jimmy,
You sucked me back in.
I think you are missing the point entirely.
The message sent by the weapon is not carried primarily by its
potential. It is carried by the intent inherent in its
design.
A gun has the potential to be non-lethal, but it is designed to be
lethal.
A pen had the potential to be lethal, but is designed to be used
for writing.
The pen may be mightier than the sword or the gun, but it typically
does not get that power from its ability to directly inflict
physical violence or death.
As a result, the message sent by carrying a concealed pen is much
different than the message sent by carry a concealed weapon, no
matter who the audience is.
|4.19.07 @ 5:45PM|#
It was fun while it lasted. I'm stuck at work 'til my fiance picks me up. Currently incapacitated to ride my bike - and I refuse to do work after 5PM.
|4.19.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Glad we got that cleared up, NM.
However, you miss my point. Although guns are inherently designed
to be lethal, the lethality of them is determined by the people
that shoot the guns. By this I mean, guns can be as docile as a pen
unless the need for lethality is present.
Why do you feel it's necessary to inform you if I'm carrying
concealed?
|4.19.07 @ 6:03PM|#
"To think guns belong in every setting is to make a sensible
insight -- that they can be useful for self-defense -- into a
fetish."
Well put.
It seems that the same people who assure me how safe college
campuses are also the ones telling me that there would have been
people carrying firearms for self-defense all over the campus.
|4.19.07 @ 6:05PM|#
jimmy:
Because otherwise he won't know to engage you in a discussion of
the semiotics of your intent in carrying a weapon.
I propose NM explain for us the semiotics of his decision NOT to
carry.
|4.19.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Shelby,
That's an easy one.
Several messages come to mind
"I do not fear my fellow man enough to arm myself with lethal
weapons (in this situation)."
"I am not willing to kill to defend myself (two wrongs don't make a
right, if you will)."
"I feel that the community of individuals within which I am
embedded is not a threat (or not enough of a threat to warrant
carrying a lethal weapon)."
or even...
"I am lethal enough without a weapon to take responsibility for my
own safety."
"I am confident that I will be able to extricate myself from a
dangerous situation without using lethal force."
And on and on.
Jimmy,
"By this I mean, guns can be as docile as a pen unless the need for
lethality is present."
Not in dispute.
"Why do you feel it's necessary to inform you if I'm carrying
concealed?"
I didn't say it was necessary. I said that the message inherent in
the act becomes private when you conceal and wondered at the
motivation for sending this private message.
|4.19.07 @ 6:26PM|#
"NM, so, on how many college campuses is it legal to wear an openly holstered gun?"
I imagine very few. Why do you ask?
Gee, no reason...
|4.19.07 @ 6:28PM|#
I said that the message inherent in the act becomes private when you conceal and wondered at the motivation for sending this private message.
In other words, for not actually sending a message.
TJ|4.19.07 @ 6:37PM|#
""I am not willing to kill to defend myself (two wrongs don't
make a right, if you will).""
Heh. A darwinist might say "that trait is not selected for".
"I said that the message inherent in the act becomes private when
you conceal and wondered at the motivation for sending this private
message."
Not withstanding the fact that this has been beat to death, what
does this question even mean? Isn't this asking "... motivation for
sending an unsent message"? What are you getting at? Are you hoping
someone will admit that they are ashamed to carry a gun, and
therefore must hide the fact?
TJ|4.19.07 @ 6:47PM|#
"Internal messages are messages."
So you're wondering what the motivation is for someone to send a
message to themselves (that they are carrying)? WTF?
* slaps forehead and wonders why I bothered...
|4.19.07 @ 7:00PM|#
"Are you hoping someone will admit that they are ashamed to
carry a gun, and therefore must hide the fact?"
No. But I do wonder at the motivation for hiding the fact, given
that there is nothing to be ashamed of.
TJ
"* slaps forehead and wonders why I bothered..."
No reason to bother if you don't get anything out of it. That
message "wonder why I bothered" is being sent to yourself?
A much different message is being sent to the board/me...
|4.19.07 @ 7:02PM|#
"Heh. A darwinist might say "that trait is not selected
for".
Doesn't hold up empirically.
Some neat work on this recently.
|4.19.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Resolved: That NM's approach of reducing any statement,
non-statement, action, or inaction to a supposed semiotic issue is
the logical equivalent of responding to any statement with the
question "why?".
I'll contact the Oxford Debating Society for a date.
|4.19.07 @ 7:13PM|#
Shelby,
The only access to another's internal messages is through their
explicit statements.
Even that is pretty unreliable (hence the idiom "you're fooling
yourself."
Sometimes "why" is an interesting question.
Not all discussions really take the form of debate. There are many
other forms of discourse. This thread didn't feel like a debate to
me.
Why did it seem like one to you?
;^)
TJ|4.19.07 @ 7:16PM|#
"A much different message is being sent to the
board/me..."
As it was intended to.
* Filters are my friend.
Yes, that was another message. To you.
TJ|4.19.07 @ 7:22PM|#
Shelby, NM is a new "Eliza" program Microsoft is trying out. Still fails the Turing test.
|4.19.07 @ 7:39PM|#
TJ, could be.
NM, it doesn't seem like one to me. I was trying to offer a
mechanism that might facilitate it becoming one.
LarryA|4.19.07 @ 8:51PM|#
I love the "we can't allow guns on campus because the heavily
armed students would shoot each other and besides it won't work
because carrying is inconvenient and no one will" argument.
"Most people wouldn't carry a gun to a classroom in daytime,
because college campuses are very safe," he says. "It's a hassle to
carry a gun. It's heavy, it's dangerous, it scares other people,
and it puts weird bulges in your clothing."
All true. So let's say that only half a percent of the students in
the building carry that particular day. Let's say there are at
least two hundred students in the building. One of them is liable
to be carrying. Because he's licensed, over 21, and concerned about
personal security, he tends to be more responsible, a better shot,
etc. (After all, he's going to the hassle of carrying.)
That's all it takes to change the odds dramatically.
Also, using the above reasoning, why are the campus police
bothering to carry heavy, dangerous, scary, bulgy handguns? If
campuses are totally safe, why do cops have big, black, scary,
assault rifles? Why do they organize SWAT teams?
Because sooner or later, somewhere, the shit hits the fan.
You don't have to be a gun control fanatic to recognize that
putting firearms into a seminar room might cramp the
discussion.
No, just uninformed. Check out a gun store, rifle range, shooting
club, or hunting camp. No-cramp discussions galore. Or any military
unit not in active combat. Constant bitching.
I am not willing to kill to defend myself (two wrongs don't
make a right, if you will).
Are you unwilling to kill to keep someone from killing your
child?
Nick M>|4.19.07 @ 9:29PM|#
"Most people wouldn't carry a gun to a classroom in daytime,
because college campuses are very safe," he says. "It's a hassle to
carry a gun. It's heavy, it's dangerous, it scares other people,
and it puts weird bulges in your clothing."
Hey, guess what, they make bags just for that reason. Not obvious
gun bags either. See, camelbak, maxpedition, ogio.
Nick
Egon|4.19.07 @ 9:38PM|#
All this says nothing about the effect on learning from lots
of people sitting in classrooms with lethal ordnance at hand. You
don't have to be a gun control fanatic to recognize that putting
firearms into a seminar room might cramp the discussion.
This makes no sense to me. The concept behind concealed carry is
that no one else is supposed to know you're carrying. Is
that not the idea behind "An armed society is a polite society"? If
no one knows who's carrying (or not), how does that have a
detrimental effect on anyone else's ability to learn?
If your implication is that having a gun on one's person is apt to
make one suddenly lose all self-control-that a heated discussion
about abortion will turn into a pitched gun battle-then you're just
being stupid.
|4.20.07 @ 8:55AM|#
I read this entire thread. Sheesh!
First, I will admit that I had to look up the word semiotic, and
after reading the definition I looked for a sign (from God, or the
devil, or anybody) that my new found knowledge was worth the
effort. Personally, I don't send "messages" with all of my actions,
and for those who receive the messages I don't send, please don't
share them except for purposes of amusement.
Let's cut to the chase here, though. It is undeniable that had the
crazed murderer on the VT campus encountered an armed person, the
outcome of that day would have been different. For example, the
incident in VA of a few years ago where an armed person shot and
killed that day's crazed shooter (student, faculty member, I can't
remember).
Greg, I agree with jennifer that you have a bit of growing up to
do. Not everybody on campus is an innocent 18 year old. When I went
to college at University of Illinois I was 21 and fresh out of the
army. Extending your own internal beliefs to encompass everybody
else simply because "they must" is silly when you think about it;
go ahead and think about it.
VT's policy is "no guns" despite Virginia's right to carry, so VT
seems culpable in all of those deaths and injuries. That would make
for an interesting law suit.
One final point: Somebody here asserted that guns only purpose is
to kill and maim. That is bunk! Shooting handguns is great fun, and
quite challenging. It is no less a sport than bowling, or
billiards, or baseball.
|4.20.07 @ 10:26AM|#
"Somebody here asserted that guns only purpose is to kill and
maim."
The assertion was "it is designed to be lethal."
This does not limit its utility only to that purpose.
|4.20.07 @ 10:41AM|#
I know I'm late to the party, but I'd just like to add a couple
of things.
1) I'm an Oregon resident, and I am reasonably confident when I say
that open carry is not banned in Oregon. The
confusion probably results from a bit of the concealed carry law,
which preempts counties, cities, and other entities from passing
any ordinances that would stop concealed carry license holders from
packing. Since open carry wasn't covered under the law, there are
now places (schools, hospitals, maybe Beaverton, etc.) where open
carry isn't allowed, but concealed (for a license holder) is. The
majority of the state, however, is cool with open carry.
2) When I was in college, I was in my thirties. After class each
day, I worked in an office that served veterans (helping them
negotiate the tangle of the VA). The office space was shared with
"Disability Services," which was a local organization that dealt
with homeless folks, drug addicts, the mentally handicapped, etc.
(usually in combination). Sometimes some of those folks would get
verbally and physically aggressive if they didn't get what they
wanted. Police were called to get overtly threatening people out of
the office more than once.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that I carried a gun in
my backpack for that reason (I didn't, because I didn't want to get
expelled if someone caught a glimpse of it). Since I didn't go home
between school and work, I'd have had the gun with me at school. As
an engineering student, I was in the main engineering building for
a huge portion of the day. So each day, I would have been carrying
a concealed firearm with me in my backpack. Therefore, there would
have been at least one engineering student who was armed (and I
don't imagine I was unique). Keep in mind that this is not because
I had some paranoid idea that I was going to get attacked during
Software Engineering II or something, but because outside
situations resulted in my (hypothetically) having a weapon on
campus with me each day.
This clearly doesn't prove anything - one anecdote does not a
statistic make - but it certainly counters the argument that
students would never carry a firearm to class. I would have, if it
hadn't been for the school policy.
TJ|4.20.07 @ 12:10PM|#
"Since open carry wasn't covered under the law, there are now
places (schools, hospitals, maybe Beaverton, etc.) where open carry
isn't allowed, but concealed (for a license holder) is. The
majority of the state, however, is cool with open carry."
Jake, you may be right. But I'm not going to try open carry in PDX.
I'm not even going to try it in Bend. The rest of eastern Oregon,
sure, but that's only the majority of the state in land mass, not
head count.
You go ahead and try open carry in Portland and report back,
please? ;-)
LarryA|4.20.07 @ 1:19PM|#
For anyone wanting to know the widely varying state laws reference concealed/open carry, possession, traveling in RV, etc. the place to check is http://www.packing.org/.
|4.20.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Thanks for the link, LarryA! I did a bit of looking, and TJ, you
are wise to avoid open carry in Portland. Portland and Beaverton
both have laws prohibiting open carry. However, you can
openly carry in Portland if and only if you have a CCL - having the
license lets you carry openly or concealed. However, as the folks
at packing.org put it:
[I]f you carry openly, have a copy of the ordinance, the state
law, and your CHL handy.
I'm down in Eugene, where I could legally open carry, if I felt
like it, though I'm sure I would get lots of terrified stares and
leave a trail of 911 calls. Bend nowadays would probably act
similarly.
LarryA|4.21.07 @ 12:18PM|#
I'm down in Eugene, where I could legally open carry, if I
felt like it, though I'm sure I would get lots of terrified stares
and leave a trail of 911 calls.
I have a brother-in-law near Eugene, and open carried while
visiting last fall. A few stares with rolled eyes. No panic/911
hassle. Most people never noticed. The one LEO I encountered nodded
politely.
I have a Texas CHL, but Oregon doesn't recognize any out-of-state
CHLs or issue out-of-state Oregon CHLs. (Other than limited issue
to folks on their border.)
In Denver (Colorado is reciprocal with Texas) I carried
concealed.
|4.21.07 @ 7:56PM|#
Holy cow! People are still posting on this thread?
Well, then, I guess I'll add another one.
"All this says nothing about the effect on learning from lots
of people sitting in classrooms with lethal ordnance at hand. You
don't have to be a gun control fanatic to recognize that putting
firearms into a seminar room might cramp the
discussion."
Yes, because we all know that there are so many people who would be
willing to murder someone else simply because they disagree with
another student's interpretation of Kant.
Give me a break.
|4.22.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Something for Greg to put in his pipe:
Sat, 19 Jan 2002
Area officer helps wrestle law school gunman to ground
Jon Ostendorff
The Asheville Citizen-Times
Area officer helps wrestle law school gunman to ground
It wasn't until Tracy Bridges saw his fellow students grieving at
the tiny law school in Virginia that he stopped being a cop and
became one of the victims.
"After all that had happened, we went outside and I saw the
students in the lobby," he said. "I knew their faces. It kind of
kicked in that I'm just a student here as well."
Bridges is a reserve Buncombe County sheriff's deputy and a
third-year law student at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy,
Va., where Peter Odighizuwa was accused of killing three people and
wounding three others on Wednesday, just moments after he was
dismissed from the school for failing grades.
The day started like any other for the 25-year-old Marshall native,
including having lunch with friend Ted Besen of Wilmington. Both
cops and North Carolina residents, the men quickly developed a
close friendship during their time at the school.
They met for lunch that day then had to rush to make their 1:30
p.m. class. Bridges, anxious to be on time, parked his truck in a
faculty spot in front of the building.
He had just opened his book in class when he heard three muffled
pops. Several more pops echoed down the hall, closer this time.
Then Bridges heard a scream.
Bridges and Besen ran into the hallway and saw a professor.
"Peter's in the building shooting," the professor shouted.
Bridges ran back into the classroom. "Get out," he ordered the
students. The two men shepherded the students away from danger,
down a back stairwell and out of the building.
Bridges and Besen then ran around to the front of the building.
They saw Peter Odighizuwa, 43, clutching a handgun. Bridges
instantly recognized his classmate, a troubled former student who
had flunked out of the 230-student law school.
Bridges remembered the handgun in his truck, parked nearby.
He reached inside and grabbed his weapon. He pointed the handgun at
Odighizuwa.
"We continued to approach Peter and he turned and faced us,"
Bridges said. The Marshall native shouted at Odighizuwa to drop his
gun. The man did as he was ordered.
"Ted was the first one to get to him," Bridges said. "There was a
short altercation. He hit Ted in the jaw and Ted backed up and
pushed him off-balance."
The men wrestled the suspect to the ground and handcuffed
him.
Bridges, a Western Carolina University graduate, downplays his
life-saving actions. He credits stopping the gunman to
teamwork.
"It was me and Ted both," he said. "We were trained under the North
Carolina law enforcement institution and so we kind of have an
unspoken communication between each other. And we were able to work
together."
http://timlambert.org/guns/appalachian/nd/tackle/gun/use/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245