Interesting 2005 Article about Virginia Tech

[beowulf 1]

That is a very small percentage of criminals. Most would be deterred by CCW.

[mnealtx 0]

I agree, a nutcase is probably not going to be strongly deterred - still not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, though.

Here's the bare bones of it - in any situation, you have two ways to convince me to do what you want; reason, or force.

If I'm armed, the force side of the scenario goes out the window - all that's left is reason, at that point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This isn't a movie. Real world "shoot outs" are relatively quick. If there was a shooting by an armed citizen, it would most likely be over by the time the police got there.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life.

So out of the concern that friendly fire might occur, you think it's preferable that only the crazed killer is armed? With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities.

In subject or situational scenarios, it's of very little use to debate with someone that uses the phrase "we KNOW"

CBS also noted "untrained armed students" - I thought the premise from the pro gun side was people choose whether they can be armed, and they are trained and licensed appropriately before carrying.

It's funny when two groups debate something and won't even work from the same set of assumptions. Or one absolutely refuses to. What's the term called? I think it's Latin..... "appetitius ravenus coyoteus"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

That is a very small percentage of criminals. Most would be deterred by CCW.

Or it would prompt more "shoot first, steal after" situations. The reason this is debated so much is because there are too many variables that cannot be controled....on both sides.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This isn't a movie. Real world "shoot outs" are relatively quick. If there was a shooting by an armed citizen, it would most likely be over by the time the police got there.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life.

So out of the concern that friendly fire might occur, you think it's preferable that only the crazed killer is armed? With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities.

One thing I've noticed is that in discussions like these neither side is willing to compromise. You have to agree that Cho should have never had any access to guns. A doctor at a mental hospital stated that he was not only a threat to himself but to others, yet in March 07 he walked into a store and in less than 10 min walked out with a gun. The signs were there that this kid had some serious mental problems, was suicidal and had a track record of stalking people. Yet he still legally obtained a gun. There is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. Again I will say I'm not trying to take your guns away, although I'm sure some will make some asinine comments without looking at the heart of the issue. But you have to agree we have to keep guns away from people like Cho. Let me also state I also dont believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the answer. Like I said before both sides have to compromise or else we should expect more Va Tech's in the future.

[craddock 0]

You do realize that your hypothetical's fly in the face of the 48 states that have some form of CCW. 39 of which are "shall" issue. You assumptions that ever student would be armed (you realize that faculty is not even allowed to arm themselves-lets start there) is ridiculious. Most would not even be old enough. And standing by the windows having a shootout while the police are outside watching? How the fuck did all these kids get into College?

Even if faculty was allowed to arm themselves, it would be a small amount that actually choose to do so. You would be much better off with arguing about the small chance of an armed Teacher or Student actually being armed when needed than some wild hypothetical of every one shooting each other trying to hit the perp. Nuts is what that is.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

That is a very small percentage of criminals. Most would be deterred by CCW.

Or it would prompt more "shoot first, steal after" situations. The reason this is debated so much is because there are too many variables that cannot be controled....on both sides.

A gun is not like a phaser in Star Trek that vaporizes the target. You can fatally wound someone, and leave him plenty of time to return the favor. No crook wants to go after people that may be armed - the outcome is too uncertain. Better alternatives exist. That's like most burglars work during the day here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities.

In subject or situational scenarios, it's of very little use to debate with someone that uses the phrase "we KNOW"

At some point we have to stop being stupid about simple reality. This notion that we'll have a lot of friendly fire incidents, making that worse than the first situation, is ridiculous.

Scenario 1 - killer, 30 unarmed people in a classroom. It's highly unlikely any individual will sacrifice himself to charge - it's against our survival instincts. (The professor seems to be an exception) Killer can systematically kill the entire group, and long before any cops or sharp shooters can appear.

Scenario 2 - killer, 30 people, a small number armed. Again, the conflict will be over before the authorities are on scene. But now after the first 30 seconds, people are firing back. Killer either goes down, or gets pinned down, or flees. Some of the 30 will almost certainly be shot, or killed, but at least they have a snowball's chance in hell. Otherwise they must hope the guy runs out of bullets.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

This isn't a movie. Real world "shoot outs" are relatively quick. If there was a shooting by an armed citizen, it would most likely be over by the time the police got there.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life.

Like most gun murders, most of these happened at point blank range. The assailant wasn't shoting across rooms at people, and his victims wouldn't have been shooting back at him across rooms. Crossfires and good aiming would probably not have been major factors to if someone had used a gun for self defense in this scenario.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One thing I've noticed is that in discussions like these neither side is willing to compromise. You have to agree that Cho should have never had any access to guns. A doctor at a mental hospital stated that he was not only a threat to himself but to others, yet in March 07 he walked into a store and in less than 10 min walked out with a gun. The signs were there that this kid had some serious mental problems, was suicidal and had a track record of stalking people. Yet he still legally obtained a gun. There is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.

I'm sure there will be a thorough review of where this might have been stopped. Right now it's premature to say if the system failed, or if life is just harsh sometimes.

As Lawrocket says, there are privacy issues related to mental health care. The California background check asks if you have any issues in recent past, but I don't know if there are any mechanisms to validate the answers.

I'd look more toward the arson and stalking cases as potential spots where the non action could have been a stopping point, but again, details are scarse and would have to be reviewed.

I don't think you can universally screen out such people without tossing the entire notion of the 2nd away, so then it seems more useful to look at the response side. Legally forcing all would be victims to be defenseless doesn't work.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Like most gun murders, most of these happened at point blank range. The assailant wasn't shoting across rooms at people, and his victims wouldn't have been shooting back at him across rooms. Crossfires and good aiming would probably not have been major factors to if someone had used a gun for self defense in this scenario.

You may want to check that point blank stuff. I've read a couple accounts where he walked into the doorway of a classroom and just started shooting people from that position.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rehmwa 2]

For some reason I read your post as coming across in the opposite way as you just clarified - that you were saying you "know" that the body count would have been higher, not less.....

my bad - the 'knowing' thing is beside the point. I think your scenario 2 is much more likely resulting in your description than just those few students just shooting each other and helping out the killer in effect (as some are proposing). Maybe their assumption is the (let's say 5) armed students are just hiding behind other people and are shooting in all directions with their eyes closed.......?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This isn't a movie. Real world "shoot outs" are relatively quick. If there was a shooting by an armed citizen, it would most likely be over by the time the police got there.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life.

So out of the concern that friendly fire might occur, you think it's preferable that only the crazed killer is armed? With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities.

One thing I've noticed is that in discussions like these neither side is willing to compromise. You have to agree that Cho should have never had any access to guns. A doctor at a mental hospital stated that he was not only a threat to himself but to others, yet in March 07 he walked into a store and in less than 10 min walked out with a gun. The signs were there that this kid had some serious mental problems, was suicidal and had a track record of stalking people. Yet he still legally obtained a gun. There is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. Again I will say I'm not trying to take your guns away, although I'm sure some will make some asinine comments without looking at the heart of the issue. But you have to agree we have to keep guns away from people like Cho. Let me also state I also dont believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the answer. Like I said before both sides have to compromise or else we should expect more Va Tech's in the future.

As John Rich has pointed out before, compromise is a two-way street.

I saw a senator tell Tucker Carlson the other night that she has bill before congress that would require a person adjudicated "mentally ill" be flagged so that he or she can't buy a gun without further investigation. I would absolutely support that. She then went on to say that she also has a new "Assault Weapons" ban before congress. When asked by Mr. Carlson, "What is a gun shroud?" one of the items banned in the ban, she didn't know. I absolutely do not support that kind of baseless ban.

In a compromise both sides get something they want, and both sides relinquish something they want. To use John Rich's example, nationalize concealed carry laws, allowing a concealed handgun license to be good in all fifty states, just like a driver license, and we'll agree to background checks for non-licensed vendors at gun shows. Unfortunately, the gun control movement sees "compromise" as a one way street, whereby we gun owners slowly give up more and more of our rights but never gain any new rights.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This isn't a movie. Real world "shoot outs" are relatively quick. If there was a shooting by an armed citizen, it would most likely be over by the time the police got there.

Agreed. This isn't a movie. Shoot outs get ugly, crossfire and friendly fire will happen. Despite the close combat scenario good aiming would still be an issue as well. Communication was poor and those untrained armed students would have been shooting anyone that had a gun in defense of their own life.

So out of the concern that friendly fire might occur, you think it's preferable that only the crazed killer is armed? With the latter, we know there will be more fatalities.

One thing I've noticed is that in discussions like these neither side is willing to compromise. You have to agree that Cho should have never had any access to guns. A doctor at a mental hospital stated that he was not only a threat to himself but to others, yet in March 07 he walked into a store and in less than 10 min walked out with a gun. The signs were there that this kid had some serious mental problems, was suicidal and had a track record of stalking people. Yet he still legally obtained a gun. There is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed. Again I will say I'm not trying to take your guns away, although I'm sure some will make some asinine comments without looking at the heart of the issue. But you have to agree we have to keep guns away from people like Cho. Let me also state I also dont believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is the answer. Like I said before both sides have to compromise or else we should expect more Va Tech's in the future.

You nailed it but you are looking at the wrong problem. The availability of guns was not the problem. The problem comes from a judge so affected by societies judgements that he was afraid to make the decision to commit the guy. Had the judge done his job the guy would have not been able to legaly by a gun.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Like most gun murders, most of these happened at point blank range. The assailant wasn't shoting across rooms at people, and his victims wouldn't have been shooting back at him across rooms. Crossfires and good aiming would probably not have been major factors to if someone had used a gun for self defense in this scenario.

You may want to check that point blank stuff. I've read a couple accounts where he walked into the doorway of a classroom and just started shooting people from that position.

From the accounts I've heard, he started firing from the doorway at the closest targets, but then he walked inside and shot most of his victims from only a few feet away to point blank range. The students in the front rows were the ones who got it the worst. The students in the back were the ones who were able to escape. Pistols aren't long range weapons.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

So we just ban possession of any weapon and trust in the mercy of a madman to stop his killing in a timely manner. The only thing that stopped the death toll at VT from reaching triple digits was the gunman taking his own life.

First off, people were going to die on Monday and I'm not sure there was much anyone could have done about it. From there all arguments are hypothetical.

I did here this perspective on removing personal freedoms associated with the 2nd.....The Bush admin had no problems pushing thru the Patriot Act with a lot of tag ons to help reduce your personal freedom in the name of saving lives. Around 3000 people died in 2001 from terrorist attacks. I believe the number of gun related deaths in 2001 was over 29000 (I'm sure John Rich or Douva will correct that number if it is off).

I don't like the Patriot Act either. This isn't an issue of political parties; it's an issue of personal freedom.

As for gun death numbers:

Quote

Do Gun Control Activists Pad Gun Death Statistics?
Wednesday, March 03, 2004

By Wendy McElroy

FOX NEWS

Last week’s release of police documents and evidence on the April, 1999, Columbine school shootings has sparked many questions — not only on the specifics of Columbine but also on the general issue of guns.

The answers are unsatisfying on all counts.

Take, for example, the issue of how many children die each year in gun-related incidents. That question has been prompted not just by the new Columbine evidence, but by the impending Million Mom March on Washington, D.C., planned for Mother’s Day.

The first anti-gun MMM in 2000 attempted to redirect the focus of Mother’s Day from flowers and card giving to the gun deaths of children. The 2004 event continues this focus as its press release reminds us, "[W]ith memories of the horrible events at Columbine High School … people gathered [in 2000] on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to demand saner gun policies." The release quotes Mary Leigh Blek, the "president emeritus" of MMM, as saying that almost 14,000 children "have died from gun violence" since "our last march."

Where does that figure come from?

To begin with, Blek is probably referring to the 2000 MMM event. (In 2001, only about 100 people participated and the event is now virtually ignored.) This means she is stating that almost 14,000 children died from gun violence between 2000 and 2004. The figure is almost certainly an extrapolation from prior data.

The definitive source for data on injury-death in America, including gun deaths, is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Taking relevant data for 2001, the latest year available, and multiplying the results by four should provide a figure close to 14,000.

During 2001, the CDC reported a total of 157,078 injury-deaths. On their interactive Web site, if you click "Firearm" under "Cause of Injury," the figure becomes 29,573. For deaths in children, click on <1 as the lowest in the age range and 17 as the highest. Also select the "No Age-Adjusting Requested" option. The figure becomes 1,433. Multiplied by four, this is 5,732, or roughly 40 percent of what MMM asserts.

The 5,732 includes at least two categories of death that do not clearly belong because they do not clearly support MMM’s anti-gun arguments. That is to say, MMM’s use of death statistics coupled with calls for legislative control as a "solution" unmistakably implies that the cited deaths could have been prevented by gun control. It is misleading, therefore, to include deaths that would probably have occurred whether gun laws and, in some cases, whether guns themselves — were present.

Maria Heil of the pro-gun Second Amendment Sisters comments on one of the misleading categories: "They [MMM] are not upfront that over half of those deaths are suicides. Suicide is not committed because there is a gun. Studies show that our suicide rate is on par with other industrialized nations, including ones with very strictly regulated guns."

Guns are merely one of many methods available.

The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members’ drug use is prevented by drug laws.

The honest question for anti-gun advocates is, how many children’s deaths were "caused" by a lack of gun control?

The easiest way to reduce both suicides and gang deaths from swelling that answer is to eliminate teenagers from the data; both suicide and gang membership are overwhelmingly teen rather than "child" phenomena.

(Moreover, "child" traditionally refers to someone who is pre-pubescent, pre-teen. That’s the image invoked by MMM’s references to "children" and to "playgrounds.")

Changing the age parameters on the CDC site to register the gun deaths of children between <1 and 12 years old renders the number, 223 for 2001. Multiplied by four, this becomes 892 or about 6 percent of MMM’s asserted figure. Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin.

The figure of 14,000 child gun deaths closes off the possibility of honest debate. Indeed, the only way to arrive at that number at the CDC site is to include suicides and gang-related deaths, and to define a child as "anyone under the age of 21." In short, MMM has padded the statistics.

The death of any child is tragic and should not be diminished, but neither should it be used to political advantage. I believe this is what MMM is doing.

MMM hopes to create a groundswell of public outrage against guns. But, MMM should reconsider the inflation and skewing of statistics on dead children. As a strategy, it looks cruel and heartless and could easily backfire.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You nailed it but you are looking at the wrong problem. The availability of guns was not the problem. The problem comes from a judge so affected by societies judgements that he was afraid to make the decision to commit the guy. Had the judge done his job the guy would have not been able to legaly by a gun.

It's foolish to vilify the judge after the fact; hindsight is always perfect. Involuntary commitment was the most drastic of the various options available to the judge. The judge made that decision based on the evidence in front of him in the courtroom. The specific details of that evidence, and the manner in which it was presented in court, has not yet been reported on, which means that you have insufficient data upon which to second-guess that decision.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You nailed it but you are looking at the wrong problem. The availability of guns was not the problem. The problem comes from a judge so affected by societies judgements that he was afraid to make the decision to commit the guy. Had the judge done his job the guy would have not been able to legaly by a gun.

It's foolish to vilify the judge after the fact; hindsight is always perfect. Involuntary commitment was the most drastic of the various options available to the judge. The judge made that decision based on the evidence in front of him in the courtroom. The specific details of that evidence, and the manner in which it was presented in court, has not yet been reported on, which means that you have insufficient data upon which to second-guess that decision.

First the info is out there but that is not the main jist of my point.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>However, I do think that people who want to hurt the President don't
>since they know they will have to face the Secret Service and they are armed.

Unfortunately, some people who want to hurt the president do in fact try to do so. Of the 43 presidents, 13 have been the victims of assassinations or assassination attempts, or a 30% failure rate when it comes to deterrence. Not a very good record.

So you think that an average joe touches a gun and thinks, "Hey, I'll go shoot the President!"? Or do you think a guy wants to shoot the President and finds a way?

And being how important the President is...I am shocked more attempts are not made.

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Quote

There is NO reason to carry a gun to class.

I can think of 32 people who might disagree.

Exactly. If only one person in each of those classrooms had carried, then the death toll would have been WAY less. I guess the only problem is not knowing if someone is going to indiscriminately shoot someone because they have a bad day... Especially considering that someone young hasn't had enough time to prove that they might be a danger to others. That would be the problem with most people carrying guns... There might be very few massacres, but there might be many "small" incidents that would eclipse one massacre, because of the easy accessibility... Who knows?!

Gravity Waits for No One.

[mnealtx 0]

*News flash*

"Yesterday, 80 million US gun owners DIDN'T kill someone..."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

*News flash*

"Yesterday, 80 million US gun owners DIDN'T kill someone..."

Don't get me wrong, as I'm a gun advocate... I was just momentarily playing the devils advocate. But I do know people who should not have guns, primarily because they;re immature and have no control over their anger. There's a reason why known felons can't own them... I was just posing the argument that someone who's really young might be more likely to shoot someone than someone who is older, based on 1. At a young age they haven't had a whole lot of life experience and are more likely to make bad decisions when faced with an angering situation, and 2. The really bad ones haven't been "weeded out" because they haven't had the chance to really show their true colors, and it might be safer if they didn't "express" their inability to control themselves with a gun instead of their fists... I know not much of an argument... That's why I'm pro-guns.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[Axe_Murderer 0]

Quote

*News flash*

"Yesterday, 80 million US gun owners DIDN'T kill someone..."

....yet

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

*News flash*

"Yesterday, 80 million US gun owners DIDN'T kill someone..."

....yet

Projecting again, are you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706