quade 3 #76 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere 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 we'd have to determine your use of the word "WAY", but to me that doesn't make logical sense. Assuming 1 legal carrying class member per class room (let's call him "Rambo" to shorten the title), aren't the odds at least 50/50 that the crazed gunman kills Rambo before Rambo can kill the crazed gunman? In fact, aren't they even less than 50/50 since the crazed gunman already has his weapon drawn and ready to fire? Further, Rambo can't really even draw his weapon until he realizes the crazed gunman is a real threat. In fact, Rambo probably won't even recognize the threat until the first shot by the crazed gunman is fired.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #77 April 20, 2007 QuoteAssuming 1 legal carrying class member per class room (let's call him "Rambo" to shorten the title), aren't the odds at least 50/50 that the crazed gunman kills Rambo before Rambo can kill the crazed gunman? In fact, aren't they even less than 50/50 since the crazed gunman already has his weapon drawn and ready to fire? Further, Rambo can't really even draw his weapon until he realizes the crazed gunman is a real threat. In fact, Rambo probably won't even recognize the threat until the first shot by the crazed gunman is fired. Your reasoning has a lot of assumptions built in, but stipulating everything you say, allowing concealed carry at VT would have given 50/50 odds that the slaughter would have ended with 3 victims instead of 32. Big improvement. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #78 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote*News flash* "Yesterday, 80 million US gun owners DIDN'T kill someone..." ....yet Projecting again, are you? Look at it this way. Gun owners are as equipped to be killers as much as half the planet are equipped to be prostitutes...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #79 April 20, 2007 From KnoxNews QuoteTN moves to allow guns in public buildings By News Sentinel staff April 18, 2007 NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds. "I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects." Read the full story in Thursday’s News Sentinel. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #80 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteAssuming 1 legal carrying class member per class room (let's call him "Rambo" to shorten the title), aren't the odds at least 50/50 that the crazed gunman kills Rambo before Rambo can kill the crazed gunman? In fact, aren't they even less than 50/50 since the crazed gunman already has his weapon drawn and ready to fire? Further, Rambo can't really even draw his weapon until he realizes the crazed gunman is a real threat. In fact, Rambo probably won't even recognize the threat until the first shot by the crazed gunman is fired. Your reasoning has a lot of assumptions built in, but stipulating everything you say, allowing concealed carry at VT would have given 50/50 odds that the slaughter would have ended with 3 victims instead of 32. Big improvement. Not really certain you understand how the mathematics of probablility work, but -3- isn't the only answer here. All other factors being the same, it would be a range of numbers from 1 to 32 or more because you have to add in the possible deaths of the Rambo in each class room.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 April 20, 2007 Appalachian Law School shooting - Stopped by 2 students with their legally owned guns. Pearl, Mississippi - Stopped by asst principal with his legally owned gun. While the statistics may support you, history doesn't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #82 April 20, 2007 You're assuming that none of the "Rambo"'s would hear any of the shots being fired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #83 April 20, 2007 QuoteNot really certain you understand how the mathematics of probablility work, but -3- isn't the only answer here. All other factors being the same, it would be a range of numbers from 1 to 32 or more because you have to add in the possible deaths of the Rambo in each class room. And I'm not really certain you understand this current event. There were 2 victims in dorms before the killer went to the classroom. Assuming (as you did) that it takes 1 victim in the classroom before "Rambo" decides to take action, the count is now up to 3. Then (as you assumed) there's a 50/50 chance Rambo will be successful and the count will stop at 3 (plus the killer, but I don't count him as a victim.) Your snotty response notwithstanding, I understand math pretty well. I was using YOUR assumptions so you wouldn't feel we were arguing about details. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #84 April 20, 2007 Quote And I'm not really certain you understand this current event. There were 2 victims in dorms before the killer went to the classroom. Assuming (as you did) that it takes 1 victim in the classroom before "Rambo" decides to take action, the count is now up to 3. Then (as you assumed) there's a 50/50 chance Rambo will be successful and the count will stop at 3 (plus the killer, but I don't count him as a victim.) But 3 is not the only answer. Again, using the current event here's another possibility. 2 in the dorm 1st student in the class room. Rambo misses and crazed gunman "wins" that firefight. Event continues . . . The fallacy in the "3" answer is that it assumes that Rambo -always- wins. He doesn't.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #85 April 20, 2007 Quote But 3 is not the only answer. yes... that's what I said. Let me try one ... more ... time... I showed that by your assumptions, there is a 50/50 chance the carnage stops at 3. The meaning of "50/50" is a little complex, but let me spell it out. It implies "is not the only answer." It says there is another possible answer. Do you follow that? In other words you don't have to tell me that there's another answer. I said that first. See, I actually knew that "50/50" means "two possible outcomes." What I find odd is that you seem to conclude that it's bad to change the odds from: 100% chance of 32 victims to: 50% chance of 32 victims and 50% chance of only 3 victims First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,444 #86 April 20, 2007 >If only one person in each of those classrooms had carried, then the >death toll would have been WAY less. Right. And if more disturbed students like Cho carried guns, this would happen WAY more often in schools across the country. Like I've said, the "guns will solve our problems" approach makes as little sense as the "guns cause our problems" angle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #87 April 20, 2007 QuoteAnd if more disturbed students like Cho carried guns... This is a red herring. Cho would never have received a concealed carry permit. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,444 #88 April 20, 2007 >Cho would never have received a concealed carry permit. I didn't say he would have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #89 April 20, 2007 Quote>Cho would never have received a concealed carry permit. I didn't say he would have. Then what are you talking about? Allowing concealed permit holders to legally bring their guns onto school property doesn't lead to "more disturbed people like Cho" carrying guns unless they have permits. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #90 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd if more disturbed students like Cho carried guns... This is a red herring. Cho would never have received a concealed carry permit. And yet . . . he was able to purchase a gun -legally- in a system that was supposed to prevent that. How can you be so sure that he wouldn't have gotten a CCW if he had bothered to try?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,444 #91 April 20, 2007 >Allowing concealed permit holders to legally bring their guns onto >school property doesn't lead to "more disturbed people like Cho" carrying >guns unless they have permits. If what you said were valid, then there would have been no massacre, since Cho, lacking a permit, would not have brought his gun on campus. Which is beside the point anyway. When more guns are available, more "good" people get them and more "bad" people get them. The "good" people get them legally, going through whatever paperwork/training is required, and they obey the laws on where/when to carry them. The "bad" people don't. So any simplistic solution that involves increasing (or decreasing) the number of weapons around isn't going to solve the problem - despite extremists on both sides calling for just that. Calling for more guns to solve this problem is like calling for passenger parachutes to solve the problem of midair collisions between airliners. You can make up scenarios all you like about how the people would parachute to safety (and we all like parachutes so it's a fun, cool idea) but it's a lot more effective to avoid the collision to begin with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #92 April 20, 2007 QuoteAnd yet . . . he was able to purchase a gun -legally- in a system that was supposed to prevent that. How can you be so sure that he wouldn't have gotten a CCW if he had bothered to try? I'm not sure. I'm extremely confident. I believe the FBI background check would find such obvious things as his criminal history. But none of this matters! He wasn't going to get a permit because he wasn't concerned about obeying the law. Get it? On the other hand, everyone who WAS concerned about obeying the law and left their guns at home are now dead. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #93 April 20, 2007 QuoteIf what you said were valid, then there would have been no massacre, since Cho, lacking a permit, would not have brought his gun on campus. What? Are you drunk? That doesn't follow from anything I've said. QuoteWhich is beside the point anyway. When more guns are available, more "good" people get them and more "bad" people get them. Speaking of "beside the point", I'm not discussing making more guns available. I'm discussing letting permit holders carry their guns. That's not going to increase Cho's arsenal. It's irrelevant to Cho. Cho isn't a permit holder! Bill, you're usually a clear thinker but I feel like I'm arguing with the mad hatter. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #94 April 20, 2007 *** That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Axe_Murderer 0 #95 April 20, 2007 Quote Quote If what you said were valid, then there would have been no massacre, since Cho, lacking a permit, would not have brought his gun on campus. What? Are you drunk? That doesn't follow from anything I've said. Quote Which is beside the point anyway. When more guns are available, more "good" people get them and more "bad" people get them. Speaking of "beside the point", I'm not discussing making more guns available. I'm discussing letting permit holders carry their guns. That's not going to increase Cho's arsenal. It's irrelevant to Cho. Cho isn't a permit holder! Bill, you're usually a clear thinker but I feel like I'm arguing with the mad hatter. you want kids to be able to carry guns in school, and you call somebody else for not thinking clearly.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #96 April 20, 2007 Quote you want kids to be able to carry guns in school, and you call somebody else for not thinking clearly.... Cho, like you, would also argue for making people leave their defenses at home. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #97 April 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere 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?! Well, there are already thousands of twenty-one-year-olds (the age limit for concealed carry in most states) carrying concealed handguns outside of college campuses, and this hasn't lead to a rash of incidents, so why should we assume it would lead to problems on college campuses?I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #98 April 20, 2007 Quote Quote you want kids to be able to carry guns in school, and you call somebody else for not thinking clearly.... Cho, like you, would also argue for making people leave their defenses at home. so would Alec Baldwin ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #99 April 20, 2007 Funny you ask if he is drunk. I wrote a long response before deleting it and accidently posting a blank reply. It started with asking if he was drunk. Even though I did not think Bill drank, I was serious. That post made no sense to me. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #100 April 20, 2007 Quoteyou want kids to be able to carry guns in school, and you call somebody else for not thinking clearly.... 21 year olds are not kids. Do you think that if the professor had a gun there would have been more bloodshed because he wanted to be "Rambo"? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
