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
Are Guns on Campus Uniquely Dangerous?
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that formed in the wake of last year's Virginia Tech massacre, has attracted new support following last month's shootings at Northern Illinois University, which once again revealed the limitations of campus security measures. On Wednesday The New York Times reported on the debate over an Arizona bill that would allow concealed carry on campus. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, at least 12 other states are considering similar legislation. Utah is the only state that already allows guns on campus.
As I said after the Virginia Tech murders, I am sympathetic to the idea that students and faculty members who are licensed to carry guns should be allowed to carry them on campus. "Gun-free zones" clearly do not protect people from gun-wielding maniacs (or ordinary criminals or scary ex-boyfriends) and may well attract them to places where they know their victims will be unarmed. Guns in the right hands can deter attacks or at least cut them short.
The downside of letting people carry weapons on campus is the same as the downside of letting them carry weapons anywhere else: Everyday arguments might escalate into deadly violence, accidents might happen, police (assuming they ever arrived in time) might mistake a law-abiding gun owner for an attacker, drunken gun owners could start whooping it up by wildly firing shots into the air, etc. These are the same arguments that gun controllers deployed in opposing the liberalization of concealed carry laws across the country, and the nightmare scenarios never materialized, even though 39 states now have nondiscretionary permit policies. On the whole, permit holders turned out to be remarkably well-behaved, committing crimes at a lower rate than the general population and rarely doing anything bad enough to lose their permits.
Instead of an increase in violence, adoption of Florida-style concealed carry policies has been followed by a decline in violence. The extent to which that decline can be attributed to more guns in the hands of law-abiding people in public places remains a matter of much controversy. But one thing seems pretty clear: The fears stoked by opponents of concealed carry liberalization were unjustified. Are there good reasons to think their dark predictions about guns on campus will be any more accurate?
[Thanks to KD Sim for the Inquirer link.]
Leigh|3.6.08 @ 12:20PM|#
This is along the same lines as the fear of "rogue" nations getting nuclear weapons. What happens when the do get it is that they become much less "rogue" and more responsible, as they know they can't be crazy or unreasonable as their very existance is at stake.
|3.6.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Carry one any way. Just keep it concealed. Better to be tried by
12 and so on.
CB
Jennifer|3.6.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Facts never deter those who believe that the purpose of government is to pass whatever laws are necessary to make them feel less scared.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Cracker's Boy,
That used to be a good policy. But considering how easy it is for a
cop to stop you whenever he fucking feels like it nowadays...
But you also have to consider that when people have a permit to
carry, they don't want to lose it because they're totally legit.
But if you carry on campus and get pinched, you'll lose your
license to carry anywhere, and you'll have a record of
carrying illegally.
|3.6.08 @ 12:37PM|#
To preemptively clarify, to qualify for a CHL in most jurisdictions you need to be able to legally own a handgun, which by federal law limits holders to age 21 and up (I believe a few western states allow 18+ for CHLs). So we're talking about seniors, grad students, and faculty, not dorm-living freshman.
|3.6.08 @ 12:38PM|#
The experience of the population as a whole can't be directly
extrapolated to college students. Anybody who attended college can
tell you about the insane behavior that happens when 1000-30,000
people who just moved out of the momma's house start living and
partying together.
Campuses should already have "people with guns" walking around -
the campus police.
So the comparison to Main Street or an office building isn't
exactly 1:1.
thoreau|3.6.08 @ 12:38PM|#
I'm kind of glad that guns are prohibited during committee meetings. If we were armed, I might shoot myself in the head just to avoid having to listen to the rest of the blather.
|3.6.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I dont know if I would feel any safer in "guns allowed campus"
than I do in "gun free zones". I suppose the chance of being shot
is the same in both places...
I own a gun but I dont carry it (it's more for home-protection
purposes). Maybe I should, but I have lived situations where HAVING
the gun could have made things worse.
|3.6.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Are there good reasons to think their dark predictions about
guns on campus will be any more accurate?
No
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Anybody who attended college can tell you about the insane
behavior that happens when 1000-30,000 people who just moved out of
the momma's house start living and partying together.
Considering that people who could carry on campus are people who
can have a CCP in the first place, and those people aren't shooting
people off campus, how is your concern valid?
tarran|3.6.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Still, should someone misbehave with a gun you punish them just
the saqme as if you catch them misbehaving with a broken beer
bottle or a base-ball bat.
I guess I am somewhat unsympathetic to the argument since a couple
of my roommates illicitly, but pretty openly, had handguns in the
dorms, and despite the fact that hey drank frequently and behaved
in pretty deranged ways when drunk, we only had one accidental
discharge during those years. And that was at the hands of a guest
who was a Marine and should have known better.
|3.6.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Rana - anecdotal at best, but... I personally have found that
carrying concealed has made me a much calmer, less easily angered
individual. Perhaps it's just knowing that I COULD blow the ever
living shit out of some asshole keeps me from getting into
screaming road-ragish fits.
I'm just sayin'.
CB
|3.6.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Episiarch,
People who don't live on campus and have CCPs are living and
socializing in a different atmosphere than people living in
dorms.
When I went to school, I can recall a lot of people who moved out
the dorms when they could for the purpose of getting out of the
"crazy dorm scene."
Which, I guess, is a better argument for bans in the dorms and
fraternity houses than on campus as a whole. People don't tend to
get into drunken brawls during physics lab.
|3.6.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Utah is the only state that already allows guns on
campus.
Concealed carry at Colorado state is perfectly legal, and I
think it is at the other CO universities as well.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Which, I guess, is a better argument for bans in the dorms
and fraternity houses than on campus as a whole. People don't tend
to get into drunken brawls during physics lab.
That's more reasonable. Why not have optional "gun-free" dorms?
Then shooters will know exactly which ones to go to for a killing
spree.
See the inherent problem with making any section of the campus
"gun-free"?
Also, you may not know this but in many states showing your gun
without a serious reason to use it is called "brandishing" and is
illegal and can get you in hot water. If somebody whips out his
pistol at a frat party because he's arguing with someone, he
already broke the law. It's a deterrent on top of the fact that
most people take shooting somebody pretty seriously.
|3.6.08 @ 1:01PM|#
galthran -
I bet the drunken brawl, death-by-gun rate at Colorado State is
also staggering.
|3.6.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Episiarch,
When was the last time you were on a college campus?
It isn't Brunella sitting at the front desk anymore. It's,
typically, somebody with a gun.
You'll probably pass a few more on your way to that dorm.
Gun free my butt.
|3.6.08 @ 1:06PM|#
See the inherent problem with making any section of the
campus "gun-free"?
But Epi, if we just make everywhere "gun-free," then we don't have
to worry about people shooting each other with guns!
/sarcasm
Kap|3.6.08 @ 1:07PM|#
I personally have found that carrying concealed has made me a much calmer, less easily angered individual.
+1 on that. Nothing grows you the fuck up like knowing that your
next temper outburst could land you in prison for a few
decades.
Concealed carry at Colorado state is perfectly legal, and I think it is at the other CO universities as well.
I believe that federal law plays into this as well, the "Gun-Free
School Zones Act".
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Gun free my butt.
Yet somehow campus security has failed to have any impact on
shootings.
If you want to kill people, you stay away from the guards, because
you know who they are.
If a student or faculty member has a concealed gun, you won't know
which. Makes things riskier for you.
I can't believe I have to explain this.
|3.6.08 @ 1:11PM|#
When was the last time you were on a college campus?
It isn't Brunella sitting at the front desk anymore. It's,
typically, somebody with a gun.
You'll probably pass a few more on your way to that
dorm.
Not at UH Manoa or any of the many CO/WY/SC/NC/GA colleges I've
attended or visited over the last 10ish years. Though it has been
over 5 years since I've been in the south, maybe it has changed
there.
shecky|3.6.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I guess I am somewhat unsympathetic to the argument since a
couple of my roommates illicitly, but pretty openly, had handguns
in the dorms, and despite the fact that hey drank frequently and
behaved in pretty deranged ways when drunk, we only had one
accidental discharge during those years. And that was at
the hands of a guest who was a Marine and should have known
better.
Does this really help the argument?
|3.6.08 @ 1:15PM|#
joe -
What kind of college campus has a front desk? Is the one you're
thinking of walled in?
|3.6.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Yet somehow campus security has failed to have any impact on
shootings.
That's funny, the people who were actually in the building during
the Virginia Tech shooting say exactly the opposite - that the
police arrived quickly, and the shooter was dead shortly
thereafter. But you probably know better than them.
What makes you assume that anybody in that building would have been
armed if the law had been changed? Are you armed right now?
You're going to have to demonstrate a lot more logic and grasp of
the facts before you are justified in your forced tone of
superiority.
|3.6.08 @ 1:19PM|#
The problem with echo chambers, Episiarch, is that people assume their arguments to be unanswerable when they are not.
|3.6.08 @ 1:21PM|#
When was the last time you were on a college campus?
It isn't Brunella sitting at the front desk anymore. It's,
typically, somebody with a gun.
Oh, I'm sorry. I should tune my ESP a little finer.
Actually, I thought you mostly had RAs sitting at the front desk of
a dorm building, if you even had a person at a front desk of a dorm
building all the time, if you even had a person sitting at a front
desk part of the time, if you even had a front desk.
|3.6.08 @ 1:22PM|#
The experience of the population as a whole can't be directly
extrapolated to college students those people. Anybody who
attended college a Mardi gras/Quinceañera/Hoedown can tell you
about the insane behavior that happens when 1000-30,000 people who
just moved out of the momma's house aren't quite like the rest of
us start living and partying together.
Campuses should We already have "people with guns" walking around -
the campus police.
So the comparison to Main Street or an office building isn't
exactly 1:1.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:23PM|#
You're going to have to demonstrate a lot more logic and
grasp of the facts before you are justified in your forced tone of
superiority.
Awesome.
Coming from the guy who knows nothing about guns and carrying
concealed.
|3.6.08 @ 1:24PM|#
I can see how that could be confusing, Reinmoose. Since I made a
comment about "dorms, not campuses," and then Episiarch made a
comment about dorms, and then I responded with a comment about
dorms.
I'll try to be less confusing next time.
Anyway, any college that doesn't have armed security in and around
dorms in 2008 is nuts.
|3.6.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Coming from the guy who knows nothing about guns and
carrying concealed.
This is the problem with discussing gun issues with gun nuts; they
always retreat into identity politics when they're losing an
argument.
"It's a gun-geek thang. You wouldn't understand."
|3.6.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Anyway, any college that doesn't have armed security in and around dorms in 2008 is nuts.
You mean rent-a-cops?
|3.6.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Anyway, any college that doesn't have armed security in and
around dorms in 2008 is nuts.
Yeah, because, you know gunned madmen shoot people in their dorms
all the time. So do you have any proof about having armed people at
the front desk of a dorm building or are you just making stuff
up?
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:28PM|#
joe hasn't descended into gorilla chest-beating "I win" mode for a while. Good to see we can still get our money's worth.
|3.6.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Oh, well.
It was a nice little dialogue for a while.
But then this always happens.
|3.6.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Wait a second, I've head this one so many times I've come up
with a reply:
Hey joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
Ahem.
I'm going down to, uh, shoot a Mexican lady. Or something, man.
|3.6.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Hey joe, where you going with that gun in your
hand?
Goin' down to shoot my old lady, caught her messin round with
allowing people equal rights regardless of their age/educational
situation.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:33PM|#
joe, maybe if you hadn't descended into this:
You're going to have to demonstrate a lot more logic and grasp
of the facts before you are justified in your forced tone of
superiority.
we could have continued.
But then this always happens.
Think very, very hard about what you said there, joe. HARD.
|3.6.08 @ 1:34PM|#
CB,
I can understand your reasoning. Lets hope more people are as
responsible as you are.
While I am not entirely oppossed to the idea of being able to carry
a weapon on campus, it doesnt make me feel any safer.
Are more students being shot by madmen/jealous
boyfriends/disgruntled workers or students? Or are more students
being shot by accident or in brawls? Does anyone know?
The likelyhood of being shot by a madman on campus is still pretty
small. I am more afraid of a drunken/heartbroken/enraged idiot with
a gun.
|3.6.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Episiarch,
Don't write shit like I can't believe I have to explain
this. and then play the victim when someone calls you on
it.
You want polite? Be polite. If you act catty, I'll wipe the floor
with you.
Dave W.|3.6.08 @ 1:38PM|#
On the whole, permit holders turned out to be remarkably
well-behaved, committing crimes at a lower rate than the general
population and rarely doing anything bad enough to lose their
permits.
That also sounds like a powerful argument to require licensing of
all gun ownership, and not just ccw.
|3.6.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Reinmoose,
Yeah, because, you know gunned madmen shoot people in their
dorms all the time.
Good point. It really cuts the legs out from under the "we need to
allow concealed carry on campus to stop the mass murderers"
argument.
|3.6.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Suggest a review of proposal at this site:
http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm
In short, any entity declaring a 'criminal safety zone' would face
liability in the event goblins wreak havoc that might reasonably
have been prevented by presence of personal arms.
It is outrageous that any governmental or private entity would
strip me of my right to self-defense. Let 'em pay the price of
their folly rather than dance in the blood of innocents as they
strive to make more and more locations happy hunting grounds for
evil.
|3.6.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Ooh, ooh, can I continue too?
I actually think the argument that CHP holders will have any effect
on school shootings holds no weight. The chances of an armed
student being at hand is very small. That said, I don't think that
just because you're young, dumb, and full of cum you shouldn't be
allowed to have a right any other adult over the legal age has. I
reject the idea that membership in group X should limit your
rights, since everyone knows group X is prone to Y, etc.
|3.6.08 @ 1:40PM|#
That's not a bad principle, Grumpy.
If an entity is going to disarm people, it has an affirmative duty
to provide for their safety.
|3.6.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Umm.. did I make that argument?
I'd say that we should allow it anyway, given that there's no
reason to not allow it.
Are you going to provide me reason to disallow it?
And you don't have to get sassy with me just because you're mad at
Epi.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:44PM|#
If you act catty, I'll wipe the floor with you.
How's that gorilla suit fit, joe?
|3.6.08 @ 1:44PM|#
And "we need to allow concealed carry on campus to stop the mass murderers" is a totally different argument from "if concealed carry was allowed on campus, these mass murders would have been minimized." One of them is implying that we should permit them to get a certain result. The other suggests that we should permit them anyway.
|3.6.08 @ 1:47PM|#
If you act catty, I'll wipe the floor with you.
Episiarchs seem like they would be quite absorbent, actually.
|3.6.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Joe,
Look, kids have access to knives and ball bats and the like, yet
ordinary drunken conflicts on campuses don't generally or ever to
my knowlege degenerate into knife fights. Why would guns be any
different? Further, how do you make sure that the odd lunatic who
does want to carry a gun onto a campus and shoot someone doesn't
get onto campus with the gun? Do you close the campus? Put in metal
detectors at every entrance? I don't see how you can have anything
approaching an open campus and respect for people's privacy and
still enforce a gun ban. When you say, "only cops should have guns
on campus" you are by defnition either arguing for an unattainable
ideal or for seriously infringing on the rights of students through
restrict access and searches. Since guns in the hands of the
ordinary student don't pose a threat and in fact are the only thing
shown to have any realistic chance of stopping to odd lunatic mass
murderer, isn't it a hell of a lot easier to just let guns on
campus?
|3.6.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Umm.. did I make that argument?
I don't know. Several commenters have.
Are you going to provide me reason to disallow it?
Already did: the "escalating fistfight" scenario Jacob mentioned.
Unlike mass-shootings, physical altercations happen pretty
frequently on campuses.
Eplisiarch,
How's that gorilla suit fit, joe? Your mom sez it
accentuates my pecs.
|3.6.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Already did: the "escalating fistfight" scenario Jacob
mentioned. Unlike mass-shootings, physical altercations happen
pretty frequently on campuses.
So then you concede. Thanks.
highnumber|3.6.08 @ 1:50PM|#
I am not against concealed carry on school campuses, nor am I
for it. It seems like something that should be a school policy.
That said...
I don't see how the NIU shootings can be used as an argument for
concealed carry. It was over pretty damn quickly with the shooter
killing himself. It seems unlikely that a student aiming a pistol
from the seats of a giant lecture hall would have ended it
sooner.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Your mom sez it accentuates my pecs.
joe, that can't be true. My mom told me she won't orgy with furries
any more.
|3.6.08 @ 1:51PM|#
John,
I've already stated that campus-wide bans don't make sense, just
residential-hall/fraternity house bans.
And I've already stated that those dorms should have armed
security.
And I've already stated that the "lunatic mass murderer" scenario
isn't amenable to gun bans.
robc|3.6.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Do people (RAs or guards or whoever) actually sit at front desks of dorms? They did at my the U of Kentucky when my sister went there in the early 80s. When I was at Georgia Tech in the late 80s/early 90s the desks were ALWAYS empty. That is, those that had some kind of lobby for a desk. They looked like they hadnt been used in 20+ years, but I always figured sometime about 1985 there was a national anti-desk craze. Sort of like the boom of coed dorms.
Zeb|3.6.08 @ 2:05PM|#
There is nothing reasonable to be done to prevent school
shootings, campus shootings and other things like that that crazy,
sociopathic people do. There are just bad crazy people out there
that do bad crazy things sometimes. In a free society there is
nothing you can do about that.
More people being armed could probably act as a deterrent or end
such situations faster. But you will never stop crazy people doing
crazy things.
|3.6.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Utah is the only state that already allows guns on
campus.
While you have to be 21 to get a CCW license in Texas, I don't
recall a blanket prohibition on CCW on campus. There is such a
prohibition for bars, nursing homes, public events, and (dammit!)
hospitals.
bill|3.6.08 @ 2:24PM|#
There shouldn't be concealed carry laws. There should be CONSPICUOUS carry laws. Anyone can carry a gun without a license but they have to carry it openly and in full view.
|3.6.08 @ 2:24PM|#
"I don't see how the NIU shootings can be used as an argument
for concealed carry. It was over pretty damn quickly with the
shooter killing himself. It seems unlikely that a student aiming a
pistol from the seats of a giant lecture hall would have ended it
sooner."
Quick question to those of you in favor of carrying concealed
weapons on campus: If you were caught in the middle of one of these
shotting sprees, would your first reaction be to shoot back or run
like hell for cover?
|3.6.08 @ 2:28PM|#
R C -
Schools are definitely on the prohibited list in Texas, including
public or private, childrens' through universities.
|3.6.08 @ 2:29PM|#
...even the grounds, actually, meaning that I'm unsure whether I'm allowed to walk my dog along the Bayou waterfront in downtown Houston as that might be UHD property.
|3.6.08 @ 2:31PM|#
...would your first reaction be to shoot back or run like hell for cover?
My first reaction would be to appreciate that I have the choice, as
situation and/or courage warrant.
Episiarch|3.6.08 @ 2:33PM|#
would your first reaction be to shoot back or run like hell
for cover?
It depends on the situation, obviously.
highnumber|3.6.08 @ 2:51PM|#
My first reaction would be to appreciate that I have the
choice...?
I have an image of Kap in my head (he's wearing a plaid shirt, his
hair is brown medium length kinda messy, he hasn't shaved in two
days) sitting in his seat, shots ringing out, students all around
him dropping to the floor, a satisfied smile on his face as he
touches the gun at his side and the buckshot splatters against his
chest.
|3.6.08 @ 2:54PM|#
"would your first reaction be to shoot back or run like hell for
cover?"
Much like the pilot's first reaction to an emergency should be "fly
the plane", a CCW holder's (or at least mine) would be to duck for
cover, then assess the situation. I don't want to make things
worse, and shooting a short barrelled Kahr PM40 from the middle of
an auditorium is likely to do just that.
But the point of this discussion is not that a CCW holder might
have brought this quickly-ended situation to an end quicker by some
superhuman, Annie Oakley type shot. It's that the shooter wouldn't
have KNOWN that he could kill his target before ANYBODY could do
anything about it, because SOMEBODY (maybe a front row sitter... or
the instructor) MIGHT have had a gun also.
He probably still would have killed his target... he just wouldn't
have done it in a public auditorium, with collateral damage.
CB
LarryA|3.6.08 @ 2:58PM|#
These are the same arguments that gun controllers deployed
in opposing the liberalization of concealed carry laws across the
country, and the nightmare scenarios never materialized,
The anti-gun folks were also wrong when they said armed airline
pilots would shoot passengers, that if the assault rifle ban
expired bodies would be stacked like cordwood, that unless .50 cal
rifles were banned they would shoot down airliners, and that
allowing off-duty cops to carry would cost billions in liability.
So far, they're batting zero.
The experience of the population as a whole can't be directly
extrapolated to college students. Anybody who attended college can
tell you about the insane behavior that happens when 1000-30,000
people who just moved out of the momma's house start living and
partying together.
Again, we're not talking about freshmen and sophomores. Start with
students having to be 21, add in the professors, and include the
older non-traditional students, and I think you'll find that the
CHLs average older and more mature than the campus police
officers.
That's funny, the people who were actually in the building
during the Virginia Tech shooting say exactly the opposite - that
the police arrived quickly, and the shooter was dead shortly
thereafter. But you probably know better than them.
News reports have it at 8-9 minutes. The system worked perfectly.
Only 29 innocent people died during that time.
In the Colorado church shooting the killer was confronted by a CHL
upon entering the building, and never had a chance to kill another
person before she shot him.
What makes you assume that anybody in that building would have
been armed if the law had been changed? Are you armed right
now?
Yes.
You're going to have to demonstrate a lot more logic and grasp
of the facts before you are justified in your forced tone of
superiority.
I've owned firearms since 1958. I've been active in the gun control
controversy since 1968. I've been teaching civilians to shoot since
1983. I've been teaching concealed carry since it was first
available in Texas, 9/1/1995.
Anyway, any college that doesn't have armed security in and
around dorms in 2008 is nuts.
Funny how that armed security wasn't needed back when I was in
college, before campuses went "gun-free."
"It's a gun-geek thang. You wouldn't understand."
We can fix that. Come take one of my classes.
Good point. It really cuts the legs out from under the "we need
to allow concealed carry on campus to stop the mass murderers"
argument.
Concealed carry is also effective against muggers and rapists.
Campuses are no more secure than anywhere else, except for
criminals.
I actually think the argument that CHP holders will have any
effect on school shootings holds no weight. The chances of an armed
student being at hand is very small.
A typical classroom building holds several hundred students. Odds
as low as 1% gets you several armed CHLs.
While you have to be 21 to get a CCW license in Texas, I don't
recall a blanket prohibition on CCW on campus. There is such a
prohibition for bars, nursing homes, public events, and (dammit!)
hospitals.
Check the laws again. Penal Code 46.03 prohibits carrying on the
premises of a school. That doesn't include parking
lots and roads, but would include common areas. And the school can
prohibit possession by students or employees. However, any
school can by written policy or written permission permit firearms
on campus, including authorizing concealed carry.
Nursing homes and hospitals are only off-limits if they post valid
30.06 signs. See PC 46.035(i) Again, unless you work there.
Most "public events" other than school, collegiate, and
professional sports are okay for carry unless posted with
30.06.
would your first reaction be to shoot back or run like hell for
cover?
If cover is immediately available, take advantage of it while I
shoot. Otherwise, shoot. I can't run at 900 ft/second.
highnumber|3.6.08 @ 3:04PM|#
CB,
In the NIU case, the shooter did not seem to have a specific
target. It looks like he wanted to kill himself and make a lot of
noise by taking some others with him. I doubt the presence of
concealed weapons would have made any difference.
Disclaimer: If the police have any better idea about what that
kid's deal was that day, they haven't revealed it.
|3.6.08 @ 3:14PM|#
I have an image of Kap in my head (he's wearing a plaid shirt, his hair is brown medium length kinda messy, he hasn't shaved in two days)...
Follow my email URL.
...the buckshot splatters against his chest.
With a smile on my face & a pile of brass on the floor.
Geotpf|3.6.08 @ 3:23PM|#
A logical argument could be made for completely banning or very
heavily restricting guns. If such could be enforced, it makes
sense. For example, on a small island nation with no history of
personal gun ownership, banning guns completely could be logical.
Japan is the textbook example here.
But America is completely different. We have a longstanding gun
culture with millions of guns in existance in the country. And guns
are legal to own, just not to carry in many circumstances. I
believe if guns are legal to own, banning the ability to carry them
doesn't make any sense, because all that will happen is law abiding
people won't have them, but criminals will, and criminals know
this, and are therefore more likely to be willing to use them,
knowing the people they are robbing or whatever probably won't be
armed.
Now, there's also a more philosophical argument to allowing gun
ownership or ability to carry them in public, in that banning these
is a restriction on personal freedoms, but that's a different
argument than the practical problem of reducing violence. But both
the practical and philosophical arguments lean towards allowing
people to carry guns in public, assuming they are legal to own and
available for purchase.
highnumber|3.6.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Well, Kap, this would have been years ago, when you were in
college.
You have a lovely bride, by the way. :)
|3.6.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Larry A,
Again, we're not talking about freshmen and sophomores. If
that is the case, it changes the math somewhat.
There's a big difference between the freshman dorms and the grad
housing.
News reports have it at 8-9 minutes. The system worked
perfectly. Only 29 innocent people died during that time.
In the Colorado church shooting the killer was confronted by a CHL
upon entering the building, and never had a chance to kill another
person before she shot him.
Changing this law won't guarantee, or even make it
more-likely-than-not, that anyone will have a gun.
Funny how that armed security wasn't needed back when I was in
college, before campuses went "gun-free." LarryA, I'd like to
buy your magic rock. I hear it stops terrorist attacks, too.
|3.6.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Thanks, Highnumber. I guess I've confused the shooting details.
But I stand by my "he might have made other plans" if his "go out
big" MIGHT have been interupted by the possibilty of a CCW. I don't
know.
WRT joe's "Changing this law won't guarantee, or even make it
more-likely-than-not, that anyone will have a gun."
What about "If CCW saves only ONE life, it was still worth
it."?
CB
|3.6.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Let the record show:
I asked Are you armed right now? on a libertarian blog
thread at 1:16 PM. On a thread about gun control, to an audience
full of "gun nuts," who are particularly motivated to win arguments
about gun control.
It took approximately 1 3/4 hours before someone answered in the
affirmative. How many views per hour should we assume? 200?
500?
If "gun bans won't stop a madman" deflates the argument for gun
bans as an anti-kook policy, than the odds suggested by the above
deflates the argument for concealed carry as an anti-kook
policy.
There's just no reliable way to deter kooks.
|3.6.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Cracker's Boy,
What if it saves one life... would certainly work the
other way, too.
|3.6.08 @ 3:39PM|#
(By the way joe... I am armed now... and was when you asked...
but again... part of the reason for CCW is that concealment, and by
virtue of that concealment, limits the bad guy's knowledge of WHO
is armed. I don't wear a jacket that says "Protected by Kahr" for
just that reason. Now... don't tell anybody I'm carrying... my boss
might get pissed.)
CB
|3.6.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Again, we're not talking about freshmen and sophomores.
If that is the case, it changes the math somewhat.
What, don't I get any credit for our 12:37/12:38 hilarity?
It took approximately 1 3/4 hours before someone answered in the affirmative.
We're at work, joe, my place is posted 30.06. If you asked this
later tonight, after I walked my dog, the answer would be yes for
me as well.
There's already been about a half-dozen or so rampage shootings in
which a CHL holder was present and engaged the shooter. The WVA law
school, the Pearl MS school, the church in CO, a shopping mall in
WA (two CHLs there), one in TX with a guy going after his ex-wife
in a courthouse ("gun-free" zone, natch), and those are just the
ones I recall of the top of my head.
Jennifer|3.6.08 @ 3:49PM|#
As a weak and skinny woman who never outgrew her annoying
childhood habit of being the smallest person in the room, I am
alternately amused and incensed by self-righteous pusillanimous
jackasses who insist that my safety will be enhanced by denying me
the right to have the only means of self-defense capable of wiping
out the size advantage at least half of all women, and pretty much
any healthy male above the age of ten, has where I'm
concerned.
Mmmmm. I feel safer already.
Michael Ejercito|3.6.08 @ 3:51PM|#
But Epi, if we just make everywhere "gun-free," then we don't have to worry about people shooting each other with guns!
It would be as safe as an alcohol-free nation.
|3.6.08 @ 3:59PM|#
"What about undercover guards?"
You mean like... Sky Marshals? That would never work. The odds of
actually having a Sky Marshal on a flight that a terrorist is on
are so slight that it would never deter a highjacking. Oh...
wait...
CB
|3.6.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Kap,
We're at work, joe, my place is posted 30.06. If you asked this
later tonight, after I walked my dog, the answer would be yes for
me as well. So, would you consider people attending classes to
be more like people at work, or more like people at home in the
evening?
The anecdotal argument is nice, but there are plenty of anecdotes
about jerks who shoot people in traffic, too.
|3.6.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of getting
shot? Ummmmm, no.
That's a pretty good argument i/r/t muggers and robbers, but not so
much for your typical "I Don't Like Mondays" mass murderer.
Jennifer, you're slipping. That wasn't nearly as shrill and
hysterical as we've come to expect.
|3.6.08 @ 4:14PM|#
So, would you consider people attending classes to be more like people at work, or more like people at home in the evening?
If they are attending a school that prohibits carry, obviously they
would be like me at work. If they are attending a school that
doesn't prohibit, obviously they would be like me at home.
Or, more succinctly, the first 2 that the VPI shooter killed in the
dorm, were at home.
The law abiding abide the law. The nutjobs don't. Simple as that.
Your gun-crossed-out sticker only alters my behavior
[because I don't quite have CB's testicular dimensions].
I'll counter your implied anecdotes with some real statistics: many
CHL states have riders in their CHL laws that require the police to
publicly report revocation and arrest rates among CHL holders. I
presume these were riders attached by CHL opponents who realized
they were fighting a loosing battle, but were hoping to compile
future evidence to argue for repeal.
The consistent result of these statistics is that CHL holders are
about 1/5th to 1/10th as likely to commit a violent crime as the
general population. This has been true in every state that
reports.
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of getting shot? Ummmmm, no.
The point of their endeavor is not to commit suicide. They already
own a gun, if that was the only thing it was about, they would
simply shoot themselves back in their dorm room.
The point is to obtain infamy. Look at the VPI guy's press kit, for
godsakes.
This is an act by people who are failures to try to metamophosize
themselves into people who are terrifyingly competent. Getting
their ass handed to them in a big public humiliating way is
actually quite an effective deterrent.
|3.6.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of
getting shot? Ummmmm, no.
If they have an inkling that they won't make the Guiness record
book for body count, and instead would be forgotten by the next
news cycle...probably.
Jennifer|3.6.08 @ 4:26PM|#
The consistent result of these statistics is that CHL
holders are about 1/5th to 1/10th as likely to commit a violent
crime as the general population. This has been true in every state
that reports.
And there's no reason to suspect this would change if they were on
a college campus instead.
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of getting
shot? Ummmmm, no.
And yet, somehow they always know enough to do their shooting
sprees in "gun free zones" like schools rather than at gun shows,
shooting ranges or NRA meetings. They're suicidal, but they're
still going to the places where they know their victims won't be
able to shoot back.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.6.08 @ 4:27PM|#
I'm kind of glad that guns are prohibited during committee
meetings. If we were armed, I might shoot myself in the head just
to avoid having to listen to the rest of the blather.
thoreau, I've been tempted to bring an ice-pick for that very
reason. Faculty meetings are hell.
Also, I have told my students "no guns in class", if that means
anything. I don't carry either.
|3.6.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Kap - As far as I know, Georgia does not have the equivalent of
30.06 (Thirty-aught-six? How inappropriate). My employer, I
suppose, ASSumes that no one carries, and it's not mentioned in
their employee handbook, so... I carry... but no one knows it but
me. It's easier to get forgiveness...
CB
|3.6.08 @ 4:59PM|#
joe - CCW here, too. But not at my day job unless I'm
deployed.
BTW, calling a woman posting a clear and concise argument "shrill
and hysterical" is pretty sexist. But at least it shows you're
exactly the same ad hominem expert we've come to expect.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.6.08 @ 5:00PM|#
joe:
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of getting shot? Ummmmm, no.
Jennifer:
And yet, somehow they always know enough to do their shooting sprees in "gun free zones" like schools rather than at gun shows, shooting ranges or NRA meetings. They're suicidal, but they're still going to the places where they know their victims won't be able to shoot back.
I think joe's right here in one way: there's probably no real
deterrent effect. If they're suicidal as
well as homicidal, they'll make their kills as they can, without
much regard to whether they get shot or not (as that's part of the
idea). However, guns being legal and present at a site might allow
the would-be mass-murderer to get him- or herself stopped (killed
or otherwise dropped) earlier than would be possible in a disarmed
population. While gun availability and presence in the hands of
citizens doesn't help as much in these
cases as in those of muggers and robbers, it's still
some help, just not really as a
deterrent.
(Also I suspect they don't target NRA meetings as someone who plans
a mass-murder with a gun probably doesn't have much of an axe to
grind against the NRA or gun shows. A gun-armed mass-murderer who
is also an opponent of 2nd Amendment rights is nearly a
contradiction in terms.)
|3.6.08 @ 5:02PM|#
OK, so a madman might be less inclined to go on a shooting spree
in a place where he thought there was someone there who might shoot
back. Still, the probability of being a witness/victim in one of
these rare shooting sprees is very, very low.
So, go ahead and carry your weapons on campus. Next madaman comes
in shooting, I'll be running for cover and hoping one of you gun
toters nails the bastard. In the meantime, I will be more concerned
about idiots like Tarran's Marine guest who accidentally discharged
a round.
|3.6.08 @ 5:08PM|#
A gun-armed mass-murderer who is also an opponent of 2nd Amendment rights is nearly a contradiction in terms.
You're gonna be surprised to find out that one of the Columbine
killers was on record vocally against the proposed Colorado CHL
law, prior to his spree. I can't find a link because I'm at work
and gun-related stuff is filtered, but it's out there if you look
for it.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.6.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Kap,
That is surprising. Still, if one is using a gun to commit one's
murder-suicides, I imagine one could only be
so opposed to guns. Probably not so much
so that the gun clubs or the NRA would likely be first on the list
in the "Book of Grudges".
|3.6.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Check the laws again.
I did, Larry, before coming back to this thread. You are correct on
all counts.
|3.6.08 @ 5:48PM|#
About 25 years ago one of my employees (in Texas) was getting threatening phone calls at work, she thought from her ex-husband. She asked me if she could bring a gun to work. I told her if she was comfortable with a gun, by all means bring one to work. She explained she was from east Texas, had 4 older brothers. I told her I had no problem, if she didn't. Fortunately the calls stopped and we both were relieved.
|3.6.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Kap,
I actually agree with you about concealed carry permit holders in
general.
But I think this: Getting their ass handed to them in a big
public humiliating way is actually quite an effective
deterrent. isn't quite right.
Going out in a blaze of glory is necessarily about getting gunned
down in the act. It's part of the plan.
|3.6.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Jennifer,
And yet, somehow they always know enough to do their shooting
sprees in "gun free zones" No, they don't. As the examples
other people keep bringing up demonstrate, there have been quite a
number of cases of them shooting up places where there are armed
people. Not the armed camps you mention, but places where there is
the same likelihood of encountering someone armed as one would
expect walking down the street in a concealed-carry state.
There have been a number of high-profile school massacres,
especially lately and in the 90s, but they were almost all carried
out by people who attended that school.
|3.6.08 @ 6:31PM|#
rob,
...wait...wait...wait...
Nope, still don't give a flying crap about your opinion of me.
Jennifer|3.6.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Nope, still don't give a flying crap about your opinion of
me.
Which is at least more honest than trying to deny his point.
|3.6.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Going out in a blaze of glory is necessarily about getting gunned down in the act. It's part of the plan.
True, but getting chopped down by some old fat dude with a 1911
who's yelling blame it on net lag now, biatch!, when
you're only one victim in is gonna get you laughed at in Asshole
Valhalla.
And ironically, at an NRA show, you are surrounded by thousands of
guns, all of which have had the firing pins removed. So yes, that
would be fertile hunting grounds for the anti-gun massacrist.
There's a mediocre Twilight Zone episode in that scenario, I
think.
|3.6.08 @ 6:42PM|#
rana writes,
Still, the probability of being a witness/victim in one of
these rare shooting sprees is very, very low.
As someone who doesn't really have strong feelings about gun
control - beyond irritation at the shrillness of the extremists -
it's interesting to me how similar the mutually-hostile camps are
in this way: they're both dominated by irrationally-fearful
people.
They both presume this dystopian world where Armed Bad Guys are
around every corner, and if the Armed Good Guys - whether cops or
concealed-carry holders - are around to shoot the Armed Bad Guys,
that we're all about to be massacred at any minute.
And this paranoia extends to their politics. If the slightest, most
innocuous reform is proposed - adding psychiatric hospitalizations
to background checks, letting people with pistol permits carry
concealed - they fall into hysterics about this being the first
step to letting the Armed Bad Guys run wild.
They seem to be very frightened people who want something to make
them feel safer. You just don't get to the point where you're
living in the safest cul-de-sac in Pleasantville and 1) sleep with
a gun under your pillow or 2) think your neighbors are going to
blast their way in and kill you all if you are working with a
reasonable appreciation of the danger you face.
I see people with NRA stickers driving down the highway at 80 mph
without seat belts. It's like people who eat 2000 calories of fat
per day, but insist that it come from organic sources, for health
reasons.
|3.6.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Yes, Jennifer, the only possible way to find you insulting and hysterical is to be a sexist. Because, Lord knows, you're such a peach.
|3.6.08 @ 6:52PM|#
I am alternately amused and incensed by self-righteous
pusillanimous jackasses
I hereby declare "jackass" to be an anti-male slur, and based on
the timing of the post, claim for myself in the moral highground in
the personal insult wars.
|3.6.08 @ 7:48PM|#
I tried to read all of the comments. I couldn't. So please allow
me to make just two points.
The horrific predictions by opponents of Florida's shall issue CCW
law NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED!
Why should I listen to those sasme people making predictions about
allowing CCW on campus?
Dr. Ellen|3.6.08 @ 7:50PM|#
"Funny how that armed security wasn't needed back when I was in
college, before campuses went "gun-free."
Charles Whitman, University of Texas at Austin, bell tower, 1966.
Killed 14, wounded 31 others.
Ah, the myth of the Golden Age!
|3.6.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Dr. Ellen said: "Charles Whitman, University of Texas at Austin,
bell tower, 1966. Killed 14, wounded 31 others."
"Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and
[u]civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist
police[/u], he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as
gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from
the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets.
Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman's
threat, [u]later stated in his book that the civilian shooters
should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take
careful aim without being hit[/u]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
underline added
|3.6.08 @ 9:17PM|#
to leigh and the asinine comment about nuclear weapons in the
hands of 'rogue' nations and how once they get them they will
become more responsible.
First on the face of it I would suggest reading what you put in
writing and seeing what a fool you are proving yourself to
be.
Second, taking what you say on face value, if a person was to go
get a permit and when asked what his weapon was going to be used
for, if the response was, 'kill all the Jews' I am sure they would
not get their weapon. Unless Obama's backers were the bureaucrats
in charge.
And for Whitman, yea those armed citizens prevented even further
bloodshed, the majority of killed and wounded were prior to anyone
knowing what exactly what was happening.
Poor joe, what a life responding ad nauseum to everyone on a blog.
Pitiful. Bye.
Jurjen S.|3.6.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Episiarch wrote:
But if you carry on campus and get pinched, you'll lose your license to carry anywhere, and you'll have a record of carrying illegally.
Not necessarily; in many instances, the prohibition on fireams on
campus is a matter of campus regulations (student conduct code,
employment code, etc.), not of state or local law. Accordingly,
possession of a firearm on college/university property is solely a
disciplinary infraction (for which you can be suspended,
expelled or fired) but not a criminal one, so you can't
lose your CCW permit over it.
joe wrote:
Anybody who attended college can tell you about the insane behavior that happens when 1000-30,000 people who just moved out of the momma's house start living and partying together.
Hmmm, what other places match that description? How about
military installations? Good thing there aren't any firearms
(privately owned ones included) on any of those or the carnage
would surely be unimaginable!
Episiarch wrote:
Why not have optional "gun-free" dorms? Then shooters will know exactly which ones to go to for a killing spree.
See the inherent problem with making any section of the campus "gun-free"?
At least that would give everyone a choice (and isn't freedom of
choice what libertarianism is all about?). If the more
hoplophobically inclined students want to live in "gun-free"
housing, at the risk of being defenseless in the face of an armed
intruder, they could do so without foisting their anxieties on the
rest of us (in particular CCW holders who live off-campus).
joe wrote:
That's funny, the people who were actually in the building during the Virginia Tech shooting say exactly the opposite - that the police arrived quickly, and the shooter was dead shortly thereafter.
But you probably know better than them.
Regardless of how quickly the campus and local cops arrived, the
bottom line is that they didn't arrive in time to prevent the
shooter from racking up the highest body count in any school
shooting thus far.
rana wrote:
Quick question to those of you in favor of carrying concealed weapons on campus: If you were caught in the middle of one of these shotting sprees, would your first reaction be to shoot back or run like hell for cover?
I'll go with LarryA's answer: if cover is readily available, get behind cover first, assess the situation, and return fire if practicable. If cover's too far to reach safely, return fire immediately.
Don Meaker|3.6.08 @ 9:27PM|#
A deranged shooter is either stopped by
Case 1. the last bullet of his gun, or
Case 2. the first bullet of someone elses gun. Permitting honest,
sane people to have guns greatly increases the chance of case 2
happening before case 1.
Unless someone has evidence that guns cause insanity, that should
carry the day.
|3.6.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Ya know, regardless of any legalities, increased or arguments
whether it increases, reduces, or is irrelevant to a chance of
stopping crazed killers; whether causing someone to feel safer or
less safe; or feel comfortable (or uncomfortable) in public places;
whether 'tis better to instantly start shooting, take cover, cower
under a desk, or wet my pants; whether a homicidal/suicidal maniac
even gives a shit about me, I like the idea of carrying just
because I believe it will reduce my chance of becoming a victim. If
I shoot(or even just shoot at) the S.O.B. it will probably
enhance my own survival. (note to joe: notice the word
probably I have no references or links to back this up, it
is simply a belief of mine, so you can reject it to make your point
if you please.)
If it means I add to the ability to protect my own ass, and if a
side effect of that, happens to benefit to other folks in the room,
yay!
|3.6.08 @ 10:16PM|#
How about military installations?
You mean places where there is a level of constant physical and
mental discipline, oversight, and inspection? Sure, that's just
like a freshman dorm. Perfect analogy.
Regardless of how quickly the campus and local cops arrived,
the bottom line is that they didn't arrive in time to prevent the
shooter from racking up the highest body count in any school
shooting thus far.
Nor did the privately-armed citizens at UT, the worst school
shooting of its age.
Poor kingrongo, what a life, commenting on the fact that someone
else comments on a blog thread. Is it meta in here is it just
me?
|3.6.08 @ 10:38PM|#
Hi joe, miss me?
joe | March 6, 2008, 10:16pm | #
How about military installations?
You mean places where there is a level of constant physical and mental discipline, oversight, and inspection? Sure, that's just like a freshman dorm. Perfect analogy.
Regardless of how quickly the campus and local cops arrived, the bottom line is that they didn't arrive in time to prevent the shooter from racking up the highest body count in any school shooting thus far.
Nor did the privately-armed citizens at UT, the worst school shooting of its age.
Poor kingrongo, what a life, commenting on the fact that someone else comments on a blog thread. Is it meta in here is it just me?
There ya go again - ya just gotta be right! I've been wondering,
how often do ya actually feel satisfied after this kind of
stuff?
I was afraid, over the last few days, that I'd have to retire my
screen name. You've actually been somewhat civil and even
open-minded on H&R, thoughtful to other's positions, and
actually lived up to, what I thought a few days ago, was just a
feeble and defensive claim that you actually contribute.
Personally, I appreciate your idiocy, it gives me something amusing
to do.
So I do thank ya for coming on all "asshole" again today. It was
close there for awhile, whew!
|3.6.08 @ 10:54PM|#
Hi joe, miss me?
Have we met? The trolls with nothing to add to a thread and strong
feelings about me all sort of run together. I seem to have made an
impression on you, though. Cheers.
KD,
It's not nuts to want to carry a gun for protection, despite the
low odds of ever needing it. That's not what I'm saying. Carrying a
gun just in case is a lot more rational than being driven to fury
because you JUST KNOW that people who disagree with you about gun
laws have killed more people than malaria.
Nate|3.6.08 @ 10:57PM|#
I have a few thoughts on this subject that I just wrote this
week-
http://wasted_electrons.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-college-students-of.html
Its time for college students to take responsibility and quit
hiding behind feel-good, worthless words.
|3.6.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Joe,
You err re: "Regardless of how quickly the campus and local cops
arrived, the bottom line is that they didn't arrive in time to
prevent the shooter from racking up the highest body count in any
school shooting thus far.
Nor did the privately-armed citizens at UT, the worst school
shooting of its age."
#1 those folks weren't carrying. They had their privately owned
weapons accessible to them, however. and #2 from an earlier comment
you appear to have missed: "Once Whitman began facing return
gunfire from the authorities and [u]civilians who had brought out
their personal firearms to assist police[/u], he used the
waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to
continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also
greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer
credited with neutralizing Whitman's threat, [u]later stated in his
book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it
difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being
hit[/u]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
underline added
I think this argument has been mis-stated from the beginning.
Nothing and no one will stop someone from going batshit crazy and
shooting other folks up. Just carrying concealed doesn't have that
kind of jujitsu. BUT like the folks at UT we can mitigate the
damage a shooter can do.
BTW when you asked your question what, 10-12 hours ago, yes I was
armed. I'm armed now. I'll be armed tomorrow and the day after that
too. If you see me, there will be a weapon. Not necessarily always
a gun or knife, but those are only tools. I always have a weapon at
hand; it's called my brain. Personally my brain prefers it when
tools are handy as that insures that my options, should things get
ugly, are more than scream like a girl, hide, or run.
KD|3.6.08 @ 11:33PM|#
OOPS I'll try again:
It's not nuts to want to carry a gun for protection, despite the low odds of ever needing it. That's not what I'm saying. Carrying a gun just in case is a lot more rational than being driven to fury because you JUST KNOW that people who disagree with you about gun laws have killed more people than malaria.
Actually I DON'T KNOW that... but if you are talking about
governments, I can assume it to be the case.
KD|3.6.08 @ 11:34PM|#
OOPS - forget about the other OOPS - I thought I had hit Submit rather than Preview...
joe\'s an idiot|3.6.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Have we met? The trolls with nothing to add to a thread and strong feelings about me all sort of run together. I seem to have made an impression on you, though. Cheers.
joe, why are you pretending that we haven't met? I'm hurt. And you
have made an impression on me. I thought you figured that
out before now. Guess I over-estimated you again.
Maybe you remember me under the handle "nameless joe baiter". I
forgot to use it this time. I apologize for confusing you with my
inconsistency. Let me make it up to you by letting you choose which
handle you'd prefer: "j's an i" or "njb"
Jurjen S.|3.7.08 @ 2:06AM|#
Quoth joe, concerning military installations:
You mean places where there is a level of constant physical and mental discipline, oversight, and inspection? Sure, that's just like a freshman dorm. Perfect analogy.
I'm guessing you don't live near a large military installation.
I live just down the road from Fort Lewis, and if I had a buck for
every time some GI blows his first enlistment bonus on a new car
and then slams it into a lamppost, guardrail or (heaven forbid)
someone else's car on a Friday or Saturday night, I'd be a couple
of dozen bucks richer every year.
Nor did the privately-armed citizens at UT, the worst school shooting of its age.
You're referring to Charles Whitman here, right? Who shot 45
people from the top of a 28-storey building using a couple of
deer-hunting rifles. Yeah, I concede a private citizen with a
concealable handgun wouldn't have much effect against that, for
obvious reasons. Of course, the combined efforts of the Austin PD,
Travis Co. Sheriff's Office and the Texas Dept. of Public Safety
didn't manage to stop Whitman either for 96 minutes. And
interestingly, in the end, the four-man team that gained access to
the observation deck and killed Whitman did include one private
citizen deputized on the spot, Allen Crum.
But I think we can agree that a rifleman on top a 28-storey
building isn't quite the same as a guy with short-range weapons
(handguns, shotgun) in the same room, which is the scenario we're
dealing with in the case of Virginia Tech and NIU.
joe\'s an idiot|3.7.08 @ 3:10AM|#
Jurjen S.
I'm guessing you are new to exchanges with joe.
FWIW logic and facts do occasionally work with joe. Problem is, one
never knows which time; and if this is going to be a time
that results in a reasonable discussion.
Much of the rest of the time he's so stuck on being right that he
will defend his position until he is completely out of ammo, and
when his own words are quoted back to him, and he feels cornered,
he resorts to personal attacks, straw men, and non-sequitors; and
when none of that works, he usually threatens to go away... and
sometimes actually does.
|3.7.08 @ 9:40AM|#
I don't think you quite get this "troll" thing.
You're not suposed to write more than me.
|3.7.08 @ 9:43AM|#
Why do so many people seem to think that "nothing is likely to
stop an armed nut form killing people" is a rebuttal to me?
I wrote that myself, like, 20 hours ago.
|3.7.08 @ 10:36AM|#
I am all for gun ownership and CCW. And perhaps one should be
allowed to carry a weapon on campus. Just please stop using rare
shooting sprees as examples of why it is necessary to carry guns on
campus. The likelyhood of that particular scenario hapenning is
very, very small.
The argument should be more inclined towards self-protection from
thiefs, rapists, etc.. (which are more common). As a woman who
cannot possibly fight any man, I would like to be able to carry a
gun for protection.
As liberatarians I have read many of you argue against using
dismal/obscure statistics to support an argument, yet here many of
you have fallen into the same game.
For what it is worth, as CB mentioned, if we are going to carry
guns on campus, then it should be with a greater sense of
responsibility. And lets face it, college kids are not exactly the
most responsible people around (I think back of the crap my friends
and I used to do). Thus, I dont feel any safer because now I have
to worry about some bonehead trying to impress his friends by
carrying a gun (and all the risk and responsibilites that
entails).
highnumber|3.7.08 @ 10:41AM|#
"nothing is likely to stop an armed nut
form killing people"
Macamadamias with limbs! Aaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
Jennifer|3.7.08 @ 10:42AM|#
if we are going to carry guns on campus, then it should be
with a greater sense of responsibility. And lets face it, college
kids are not exactly the most responsible people around
So a 21-year-old who is responsible enough to have a CCW permit
finds his responsibility level magically decrease if he enrolls in
school? But if that same person is legally allowed to carry
off-campus, he's fine so long as he doesn't go to college?
|3.7.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Im not sure I follow your logic Jennifer but I will try.
I think many 21-year olds are not very responsible... but then
again, some are very responsible, and also many older adults are
very irresponsible. Yet, we all have a right to bare arms (or so I
am told).
My point is that the idea of a large gathering of armed,
potentially drunk/immature/rebellious/or just plain stupid people
does not make me feel any safer.
Jennifer|3.7.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Im not sure I follow your logic Jennifer but I will try. I
think many 21-year olds are not very responsible... but then again,
some are very responsible, and also many older adults are very
irresponsible. Yet, we all have a right to bare arms (or so I am
told).
My point is, if you're talking about a state where a 21-year-old is
deemed responsible enough to have a CCW permit, then why should his
right to carry be revoked on a campus? If you're going to say
nobody on campus can carry, you may as well be consistent and say
nobody of college age can carry, period.
Bear in mind we're not talking about a proposal to give every
member of the student body a gun; we're saying "Those who are
already licensed to carry shouldn't have that license revoked while
they're on campus."
Also consider that many college students are older than the
traditional "18 - 21 right out of high school" demographic. Are you
seriously going to tell, for example, an ex-military guy going to
college on the GI bill that he can't be trusted with a gun because
he's on campus?
|3.7.08 @ 11:41AM|#
I understand what you are saying Jennifer. And as mentioned
before, Im not against carrying guns on campus. What I am saying
is, for example tarran's MARINE guest (who should know better)
"accidentally" shot of a round, what is more likely to occur, a
person, who has been deemed responsible enough to have a gun
license, accidentally or intentionally (in a moment of
stupity/drunkness/heightened "quien es mas macho") firing off a
round and injuring someone or a "madman" on a shooting spree?
If you are going to argue in favor of carrying guns then consider
using arguments with more substance than "we can deter madmen or at
least shoot back".
As I read, at least you argued that as woman, having a gun evens
out the playing field against a much larger and stronger man. this
makes sense to me.
|3.7.08 @ 11:41AM|#
The recent mass-shootings at colleges prove that my position on
guns is the right one.
Why is it so hard to understand that?
LarryA|3.7.08 @ 1:04PM|#
joe,
Changing this law won't guarantee, or even make it
more-likely-than-not, that anyone will have a gun.
Not changing it will guarantee that no one but the
killer will.
LarryA, I'd like to buy your magic rock. I hear it stops
terrorist attacks, too.
Can't have mine, I'm partial to it. But if depending on location
and your background you aren't prohibited, any gun dealer will sell
you one. I carry a Glock 30, but there are many other types
available. You can get the "magic" part with training, either from
me or from most other instructors.
It doesn't work 100%, but then nothing does. It's better than
waiting 8-9 minutes for the SWAT team, while all about you people
are being executed.
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of getting
shot? Ummmmm, no.
Ummmmmm, yes. They wouldn't mind being shot by police after they
rack up a newsworthy body count. But getting nailed by a CHL before
they shoot their third victim? No glory in that.
Not joe: In the NIU case, the shooter did not seem to have a
specific target. It looks like he wanted to kill himself and make a
lot of noise by taking some others with him. I doubt the presence
of concealed weapons would have made any difference.
This is precisely the person who would be deterred by concealed
carry. Someone after a particular person would probably be able to
take out that person before a CHL intervened. Someone who wanted to
make big news by killing a large number of people would not.
Historically, almost all of the random multiple shootings take
place in the small part of the U.S. that is "gun-free." The one
recent exception was the Colorado church, where concealed carry
worked precisely as the detractors her say is unlikely.
What about undercover guards?
Well, we could pay people to act like college students who have
CHLs, but it's lots more effective to rely on the real thing.
Also I suspect they don't target NRA meetings as someone who
plans a mass-murder with a gun probably doesn't have much of an axe
to grind against the NRA or gun shows.
The guy who shot up the Oklahoma gun-free mall probably had nothing
against malls.
A gun-armed mass-murderer who is also an opponent of 2nd
Amendment rights is nearly a contradiction in terms.
Like the anti-gun folks who have concealed handgun licenses? (See:
Diane Feinstein, for one)
Charles Whitman, University of Texas at Austin, bell tower,
1966. Killed 14, wounded 31 others.
In 1966 in Texas concealed carry was illegal. The civilians had to
go fetch their rifles, which were legal. (And still are.)
But I think we can agree that a rifleman on top a 28-storey
building isn't quite the same as a guy with short-range weapons
(handguns, shotgun) in the same room, which is the scenario we're
dealing with in the case of Virginia Tech and NIU.
The range to the top of a 28 story tower would be somewhere around
100 yards. The folks who shoot handgun silhouette at my gun club
routinely knock over the Ram targets (smaller than a man's chest
area) at 100 meters with both rimfire and centerfire handguns.
Those into the sport tend to use single-shot target pistols, but
the ones there to just have fun use regular handguns. I've done it
with a Ruger Single Six revolver with a four-inch barrel and a Colt
Government Model. Most out-of-the-box guns are capable of that
accuracy if the shooter does his part. A trained civilian shooter
with a handgun could certainly ding the top of the UT tower and
keep someone's head down.
Jennifer, have you seen the Oleg Volk
poster collection? Typical:
Give up my rifle? I'm blond, not stupid.
"My, what a long bayonet you have." Finding Red Riding Hood well protected, the wolf called for more gun control.
LarryA|3.7.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Georgia does not have the equivalent of 30.06
(Thirty-aught-six? How inappropriate).
I asked Jerry Patterson (The Texas senator who wrote the "Trespass
by a CHL" legislation inventing the sign) about that. He swears it
was unintentional, that 30.06 was just the next Penal Code trespass
section available. I suppose he's right, PC 30.05 is the general
trespass law. The way the law was written (long story) it was
actually pro-gun legislation.
Michael Ejercito|3.7.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Suicidal mass murderers: detered by the possibility of getting shot? Ummmmm, no.
Shooting a suicidal mass murderer certainly stops him from
murdering any more people.
|3.7.08 @ 1:41PM|#
I'm kind of glad that guns are prohibited during committee
meetings. If we were armed, I might shoot myself in the head just
to avoid having to listen to the rest of the blather.
I come back to H&R for a visit and I see that Thoreau is as
witty as ever.
And joe is the same old joe.... ;-)
|3.9.08 @ 3:31PM|#
"You mean places where there is a level of constant physical and
mental discipline, oversight, and inspection? Sure, that's just
like a freshman dorm. Perfect analogy." - joe
joe's view of authority and reality are so warped that he can
believe the political equivalent of Alice In Wonderland's "Six
Impossible Things Before Breakfast."
1. authorities are experts
2. authorities are like military bases, paragons of constant
discipline, oversight, and inspection
3. being an authority makes one somehow better than the average,
regular human
4. the thing that makes authorities better is that they are
smarter, better educated, wiser, more responsible and altruistic
than regular humans
5. those qualities he he ascribes to authorities that make them
better people means they won't do wrong or make mistakes (or are at
least less likely than the rest of us)
6. those qualities he ascribes to authorities are the reason they
are authorities
Interestingly enough, this view runs counter to the simple
principle that power corrupts and leads to joe railing about the
current administration's incompetence while simultaneously
believing that regular non-authorities like himself somehow know
better. Despite all evidence to the contrary. (Sadly, as a guy who
has spent 12 years on active duty in two different branches - soon
to be three - I can tell you that the military is made up of
fallible, poorly supervised people, just like every organization.
Do you really think that those qualities joe ascribes to military
bases would result in "misplacing" nuclear weapons, which recently
happened in the Air Force? People screw up sometimes, even
experts...)
But there is no cognitive dissonance here, because deep down, joe
is a believer.
joe fervently believes that regular people can't be trusted, but
that authorities can and should be. Despite all evidence to the
contrary. (Cops shooting innocent people in their homes at night
during "no-knock" raids, for example?)
He believes that if only the RIGHT people had the power, then
everything would be wonderful. If only the Democrat Party were in
charge it would all be fine. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
(Scandal after scandal?)
When joe finally comes to accept that his team is as bad as the
other team, that people are merely human even if they are experts,
authorities, etc., will be the day joe finally discovers his
libertarianism.
I'm not holding my breath for that day - the guy's worldview is
staggeringly unrealistic, yet remarkably - even delusionally -
resilient.
Tushar|3.9.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Dudes,
I'm currently in college and not one of our 12+ dorms has armed
security. Only RAs who are simply students from the dorm. Ive
visited georgia tech, MIT, Indiana - Bloomington. From this limited
sample i can attest having seen ZERO I repeat ZERO armed guards on
dorm entrances.
|3.9.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Tushar - That's because the claims made about college dorms are
based on the same foundation that leads people like joe to think
that military bases are environments of total discipline and
supervision.
Those claims are based on the expectation that one (military base)
is an enclave of expertise and authority and therefore those
(military) folks have a more authoritative claim to be "allowed" to
carry firearms - because everyone is an authority. This is no more
true than the idea that college campuses are environments totally
lacking in those areas, and so no one should be "allowed" to carry
a firearm - because no one is an authority.
Neither is true.
joe has stated that if the authority prevents you from being able
to defend one's self, it must assume that responsibility. (Possibly
the only thing he's said that makes sense on this thread.)
The assumption is that the authorities are experts, they are
responsible for protecting students, ergo they must have put armed
guards at every building on campus to ensure student safety.
The sad fact that authority cannot carry out the assumed
responsibility of protecting its citizens, with anything remotely
approximating the capability of the individuals it has disarmed, is
frequently and tragically evident.
Even those who hope that the authorities can and will protect them
- and are willing to give up their right to do so for themselves in
that hope - are disappointed far more often than they are justified
in that hope.
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