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.]

Comments

Leigh | March 6, 2008, 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.

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Carry one any way. Just keep it concealed. Better to be tried by 12 and so on.

CB

jimmydageek | March 6, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Are you saying that Florida did something right for a change?

Jennifer | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

sage | March 6, 2008, 12:36pm | #

If guns cause crime then pencils cause misspelled words.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

rana | March 6, 2008, 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.

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Are there good reasons to think their dark predictions about guns on campus will be any more accurate?

No

Episiarch | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 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

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

galthran | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 1:01pm | #

galthran -
I bet the drunken brawl, death-by-gun rate at Colorado State is also staggering.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

galthran | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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?

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 1:15pm | #

joe -
What kind of college campus has a front desk? Is the one you're thinking of walled in?

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 1:17pm | #

Reinmoose,

Dorms. Do try to keep up.

joe | March 6, 2008, 1:19pm | #

The problem with echo chambers, Episiarch, is that people assume their arguments to be unanswerable when they are not.

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 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.

galthran | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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."

Cesar | March 6, 2008, 1:26pm | #

Anyway, any college that doesn't have armed security in and around dorms in 2008 is nuts.

You mean rent-a-cops?

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

Episiarch | March 6, 2008, 1:28pm | #

Hey joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

joe | March 6, 2008, 1:30pm | #

Oh, well.

It was a nice little dialogue for a while.

But then this always happens.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

galthran | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

rana | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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. | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

Grumpy | March 6, 2008, 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.

galthran | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 1:44pm | #

If you act catty, I'll wipe the floor with you.

How's that gorilla suit fit, joe?

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 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.

galthran | March 6, 2008, 1:47pm | #

If you act catty, I'll wipe the floor with you.

Episiarchs seem like they would be quite absorbent, actually.

John | March 6, 2008, 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?

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

Reinmoose | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 1:59pm | #

It's about freaking time someone came up with a snappy comeback to a mom joke.

robc | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

R C Dean | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

rana | March 6, 2008, 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?

Kap | March 6, 2008, 2:28pm | #

R C -
Schools are definitely on the prohibited list in Texas, including public or private, childrens' through universities.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 2:33pm | #

would your first reaction be to shoot back or run like hell for cover?

It depends on the situation, obviously.

highnumber | March 6, 2008, 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.

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 3:24pm | #

Well, Kap, this would have been years ago, when you were in college.

You have a lovely bride, by the way. :)

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 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

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 3:34pm | #

Cracker's Boy,

What if it saves one life... would certainly work the other way, too.

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 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

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

Michael Ejercito | March 6, 2008, 3:56pm | #

What about undercover guards?

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 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

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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.

sage | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 Lose His Job | March 6, 2008, 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.

Dave W. | March 6, 2008, 4:27pm | #

"gun nuts"

I think the preferred spelling is w/out the space.

Cracker's Boy | March 6, 2008, 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

rob | March 6, 2008, 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 Lose His Job | March 6, 2008, 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.)

rana | March 6, 2008, 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.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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 Lose His Job | March 6, 2008, 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".

R C Dean | March 6, 2008, 5:46pm | #

Check the laws again.

I did, Larry, before coming back to this thread. You are correct on all counts.

jimmy smith | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 6:31pm | #

rob,

...wait...wait...wait...

Nope, still don't give a flying crap about your opinion of me.

Jennifer | March 6, 2008, 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.

Kap | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

joe | March 6, 2008, 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.

J sub D | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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!

sam hall | March 6, 2008, 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

joe | March 6, 2008, 8:42pm | #

Killed 14, wounded 31?

Well, I guess armed citizens can keep us safe.

kingronjo | March 6, 2008, 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. | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

KD | March 6, 2008, 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!

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?

joe's an idiot | March 6, 2008, 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!

joe | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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.

missmanytoes | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 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 | March 6, 2008, 11:34pm | #

OOPS - forget about the other OOPS - I thought I had hit Submit rather than Preview...

joe's an idiot | March 6, 2008, 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. | March 7, 2008, 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