…and this is a 
Tragedy in Northern Illinois
Category: Evil
Posted on: February 15, 2008 8:50 AM, by PZ Myers
I don't have anything to add to the story of the lunatic who opened fire on a freshman science class, but here's a place you can talk about it without the taint of piety that's getting introduced into all the news stories right now.
The killers who have been executing these school shootings are all mentally ill, sick people. I suspect that the reason schools have been targets is that they are full of optimistic young people who are exercising their opportunity to learn and preparing for a productive place in society … and the hateful, petty pissants who believe guns and violence are the answer resent that. Let's not see any more proposals that violence in reply is the answer, it isn't — it's an echo of the same problem.
Comments
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 8:54 AM
This seems to be a weekly occurance in this country.
The need to go out with a bang (fifteen minutes of celebrity) appears to drive so many of these shootings.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 8:59 AM
After the VATech shooting, I found myself looking at my classroom differently, wondering how many students would fit in the AV closet, how quickly I might be able to move a heavy desk in front of the door. I'd forgotten about those thoughts until last night, when I thought about my current classroom and thought "we'd all be dead." I know that the odds of it happening on my campus and in my classroom are nearly nil, so I try not to overreact, but those same odds existed for the classroom at NIU as well.
Posted by: Dawn | February 15, 2008 9:03 AM
My heart goes out to the families who lost a child/sibling/parent. Once again, I was fortunate...my sibling who teaches at NIU was not in that building. My child at Virginia Tech was quite upset last night as xe loves my sibling.
While not a anti-gun freak, I do wish there were more controls on access. Legally, I have to pass a driving test, both written and in a vehicle, to have a driver's license. Why can't we require the same minimal requirements for access to gun ownership? Like stolen cars, it won't stop the criminal element, but it might slow down those who purchase only to kill.
Posted by: Lana | February 15, 2008 9:05 AM
We may have hit the point where there are so many of these things that the shooter doesn't become a celebrity. In fact, this guy hasn't been identified yet. I don't know what drives these people. It seems they're angry at the world and probably themselves. And they have no trouble getting guns.
Posted by: Lorax | February 15, 2008 9:05 AM
How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat, the the shooter was an atheist, that liberals made it happen? or am I already too late.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:14 AM
Lorax,
I am pretty sure that stuff is indeed already been said.
But for some people that is probably easier than looking at why people carrying out shootings like this, and even more importantly, looking for ways of identifying those who may carry out such shootings and intervening before they do.
Posted by: Science Goddess | February 15, 2008 9:15 AM
Oh, gosh. My students have their first test today! If you don't hear from me again.........
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 9:19 AM
A tragedy, sure, but a highly avoidable one. You guys need to have sensible gun laws, and fast.
Posted by: Holbach | February 15, 2008 9:29 AM
"Let's not see any more proposals that violence in reply
is the answer, it isn't- it's an echo of the same problem."
If I was to ascribe to this opinion, and I happened to be
in the audience with a registered permit and a licensed
pistol on my hip, and drew it and shot the creep dead
before he got off the second shot, then my use of violence
in reply would negate the saving of the subsequent lives?
Can you realistically be serious in condemning a return
of violence to prevent further bloodshed other than the
perpetrators? Is this sound reasoning in the face of such
blatant circumstances? To be able to prevent or lessen
loss of life and not act on that impulse with the means at
hand because of the stated opposition to return violence
makes one wonder if we should just let violence be a one-
sided situation and let it run rampant without reply
because it might further more violence. The scenario is
too scary and all that it portends.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 15, 2008 9:31 AM
Here's something from the Tribune:
"The gunman had established himself as an authority on prison systems, having co-authored a manuscript on self-injury in prison and the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States. Both papers were written under the guidance of Jim Thomas, a professor emeritus at NIU and a nationally renowned criminal-justice expert."
Posted by: Peter | February 15, 2008 9:34 AM
Lorax@6 -
adolescents and young men (and they all come from this category) can find times tough: hormones are rampant, you find it perhaps difficult to get on with girls (and/or boys), your grades are all so important and could define the path for the rest of your life....it can all rebound into vengefulness. 99.99% manage to cope with this. Of the remainder, some have access to weapons and are used to using them, and of these some just flip out...
In short, I don't know the answer either, but my thoughs go to the parents of the victims, and of the perpetrator as well.
Peter
Posted by: Kevin DeGraaf | February 15, 2008 9:35 AM
To #8,
What sort of "sensible gun laws" do you propose? How, precisely, would they help to mitigate the risk of a school shooting such as this one? (Since you are proposing to reduce our liberty, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why such restrictions are needed for the greater good.)
Are you suggesting that people willing to commit murder can be deterred by making (legal) guns harder to purchase, or by putting up signs saying "no concealed carry here"?
I'm no "gun nut", and I definitely don't advocate arming every college student, but I get pretty rankled at the bias against those of us who choose to undergo training and background checks to become responsible, law-abiding concealed carriers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:38 AM
Holbach,
What a cop out.
Clearly sophisticated answers to problems escape you. Has it not occurred to you to wonder WHY all these shootings are taking place ? And has it not occurred to you to want to find out HOW to stop the person from starting shooting ?
These people are mentally ill. They need people to recognise that they are suffering from mental illness and get them the help they need. Waiting for them to start shooting and then killing them is a total abrogation of the duty of care we owe to others.
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 15, 2008 9:40 AM
The Phelps clan has gleefully said they'll be visiting the campus. I won't link to them because I don't want to get my browser dirty.
It's not like any of us are surprised.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:42 AM
Kevin DeGraaf,
The data is pretty simple. The more firearms there in a society the more people get killed by them.
Compare the number of people killed by firearms in the US to the number in the Europe. Compare the number of people killed in Switzerland, where every adult male below retirement age has an army issued rifle at home, with the number killed in the UK.
Can you see a pattern ? I can, and it does not support your claim.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 9:42 AM
Gun control won't solve the problem. I could easily take out more people with my car in 5 minutes than have been killed in the last two shootings combined.
Taking away their access to guns won't solve the underlying problems. Someone who's lost the will to live and want to take as many others with them as they can, won't be stopped by whether or not they can get a gun.
Posted by: Tom | February 15, 2008 9:44 AM
How about a moratorium on the reporting of the grizzly details of these incidents? How about we deny the "15 minutes of fame" to these individuals? This is four in one week. How many got the idea from the first ones? I for one, do not want to know his name or care how many of what kinds of guns he had or "what drove him" to it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 9:46 AM
Number of notable School shootings during the last 10 years
USA = 24 Strict Gun control laws : NO
W.EUROPE = 3 Strict Gun control laws : YES
(excl. Nordic)
No comment.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:48 AM
"Gun control won't solve the problem. I could easily take out more people with my car in 5 minutes than have been killed in the last two shootings combined.
Taking away their access to guns won't solve the underlying problems. Someone who's lost the will to live and want to take as many others with them as they can, won't be stopped by whether or not they can get a gun."
It is true that if someone intent on killing as many people as possible before killing themselves is unable to get hold of a firearm then they will find something else.
However there is also a flaw in this argument and it is this: Firearms are more effective. With an automatic weapon it is far easier to kill a load of people than if you are armed with a knife. In addition stabbings tend to be less fatal that shootings, seeing as how the heart and lungs are protected by the rib cage.
So your simple assertion is only simple if you don't actually think about it.
Posted by: Nan | February 15, 2008 9:49 AM
Holbach - your response is insane. Period. You're suggesting students should be allowed to carry weapons. It was a large lecture hall -- lets say 20 out of 200 students came into such a hall carrying concealed weapons. Shots are fired -- and all 20 pull out their weapons and begin firing, too. How many bodies do you think would end up caught in the crossfire? The solution to violence is never more violence. All that does is raise the death count.
We live in a truly sick society that encourages people to resort to violence as their first solution and not their last. Unless we can somehow change that collective attitude tragedies such as this one will continue to occur on a regular basis.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 9:50 AM
#8, please inform me as to how stricter gun laws would have prevented this from occurring.
Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 9:51 AM
The other problem with allowing students to be armed is how do you determine who the "bad" shooter is? Some gunman opens fire from a hallway and runs to the next classroom, and fifteen ramb students pull uns to go after him, what do you think is going to happen next? You're going to have a full on gun battle between fifteen wouldbe heroes.
I am against going to any campus which would allow its students to carry deadly weapons.
Posted by: Liam | February 15, 2008 9:52 AM
"While not a anti-gun freak, I do wish there were more controls on access."
Americans are strange.. even people who think there should be more controls on guns seem to think being totally against public gun ownership would make you a freak.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 9:56 AM
Matt,
You've never seen a university campus between classes? The sidewalks are 10-people wide and 1/10 mile long sometimes, depending on the university. Like I said, one determined individual in a car could do more damage than someone with a semiautomatic weapon than the last two shootings combined.
If they own an automatic weapon, finances can be ruled out as a problem.
And I asserted nothing about knives.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Shooter :
Steven Kazmierzczack
student_department_name: School of Social Work
student_program_name: MSW:Social Work -UIUC
student_level_description: Graduate - Urbana-Champaign
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Holbach should not mistake his personal masturbatory fantasy about killing people in a righteously heroic way for any kind of serious social policy.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:04 AM
Strange, the shooter seems to have been VP of the University's "Academic Criminal Justice Association".
http://www.sa.niu.edu/acja.html
Steve Kazmierczak
Studied prison suicidal behaviour...
Posted by: Lev | February 15, 2008 10:04 AM
This was fairly salient: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040170
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
Once again, people in the UK are shrugging their shoulders and wondering why people in the US are shocked and surprised by yet another shooting of this kind. Once again, some of the earliest comment comes from the gun lobby. When will the US do something effective to cut gun crime?
Well, what do you do? Do you try to create a safer culture of gun ownership as seen in Canada or Switzerland, and never mind the deaths in the mean time? Even so, a large proportion shootings are accidental or suicide-attempts.
Taking guns out of the equation via legal controls clearly won't solve the underlying drive to violence, but it will prevent access to a particular type of easily concealed, lethal weapon.
The fact that legal, sane, law-abiding, gun owners will be deprived of a current liberty has to be balanced against the fact that thousands of people are killed and wounded by legally owned firearms - murder, accident, and suicide - and thousands more killed, wounded, and threatened with illegal firearms. Lest we forget, many illegal firearms were once legally owned, or were at least sold in good faith by someone legally allowed to do so.
It is very sad, and somewhat baffling that nothing seems to change.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
"You've never seen a university campus between classes? The sidewalks are 10-people wide and 1/10 mile long sometimes, depending on the university. Like I said, one determined individual in a car could do more damage than someone with a semiautomatic weapon than the last two shootings combined."
Sounds like a reason for restricting cars to car parks to me. What ever happened to walking anyway ?
And is case it escaped your notice, cars cannot enter buildings.
Posted by: Peter | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
wildlifer@24
..but they don't: give us a case. A reason could be that it would be difficult to dispose of themselves as well.
No, they always choose guns...
Peter
Posted by: drb | February 15, 2008 10:08 AM
RE: #16
Really? It seems odd, then, that we don't see more mass murders committed with automobiles, considering their relative availability compared to guns. Such reasoning suggests that limiting access to automatic weapons, dynamite or similar lethal military hardware is pointless because because someone inclined to murderous violence will simply choose another means. Perhaps. Yet a simple pragmatic analysis suggests that the potential for large-scale massacre is directly related to what weaponry a killer might bring to bear, and how simple it is to use. No one is suggesting that banning firearms under specific circumstances will address the underlying psychological issues that might prompt someone to go off on a murderous rampage, but limiting their potential for mayhem by making access to guns difficult is hard to argue with.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:11 AM
My heart goes out to everyone who lost loved ones in this horrific attack.
Posted by: Dunc | February 15, 2008 10:11 AM
I've always suspected it's because school is probably the institution they feel is most responsible for inflicting their mental illnesses on them. I know I did.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 10:18 AM
holbach, you should become a sales rep for Taser International. Just don't consult the site Taser of the Day.
http://www.taser.com/pages/VideoDetails.aspx?videoid=63
The best way to become of victim of gun violence is to have a gun at home or to frequent family or friends that have guns, as that is where you find most shootings.
Probably tasering will follow the same route.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM
Wildlifer @ #16
I think you've been playing too much of the original GTA.
You shoot a gun, the bullet's gone, you shoot again, another bullet's gone. Neither you nor the gun are significantly (physically) altered and you can keep on shooting.
You drive a car into someone, the car will get dented. How do you hit just them and not the street furniture so that you put the car out of action? How do you ensure they don't run away? How do you get up to a great enough speed to actually kill them, while ensuing that you hit them full-on and don't just wing them?
You're talking nonsense.
to Ken de Graaf @ #12 - so you like to go around carrying a concealed gun? Then you are a gun-nut. Just 'cos you're not as extreme as Charlotn Heston or some wacko militiamen in montana doesn't mean that you're not a self-important prick who thinks he has a right to shoot people.
Johan @ #21 - If you don't have access to a gun, then you can't get hold of it to shoot people with it. Are you a retard or just a blowhard?
We've got teenage arseholes who think they're big men here too. They stab one person and get taken down. Yours shoot 10 or more.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM
Tasering does have the advantage that it is less lethal than shooting someone, although I do get cross with the police here who are introducing tasers saying they are non-lethal.
A disadvantage is that in order to use one properly you need training, and should also know how to administer CPR.
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:23 AM
#31, if you mean that no one uses a car to attack college students, it *has* happened. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4775544.stm
And in response to #5's "How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat" - that would be a while. For one thing, most gun permit laws that I'm aware of require that you be at least 21 to carry. And deterring some of these shootings doesn't require that all be carrying - it only requires that the person thinking about committing mass murder have reason to think they'd be unsuccessful. And all that requires is the fact that some of the students and faculty could be carrying. That wouldn't deter everyone, but a least they wouldn't be going in *knowing* that they are the only armed person on campus.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 10:24 AM
I have never shot a gun. Don't plan to, and I will never own a gun.
However.
I believe that citizens MUST have the right to own guns as long as their police and military do.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 10:25 AM
wildlifer,
Aside from the fact that your argument is something of a red herring - just because something else in dangerous, doesn't justify the widespread, easy, availability of cheap firearms - you are wrong to think that a car is just as dangerous, even in the hands of a determined individual.
Ever hit a dog (accidentally) in your car? Seen the damage it does to the drive systems? Additionally, adult humans tend to be thrown over the bonnet (hood)and into the windscreen, potentially causing injury to the driver. Pavements (sidewalks) are rarely completely unobstructed. Mowing down multiple people, and killing them, is unlikely to be as easy as you imagine.
Of course, you're also assuming that the glamour of gun use and ease of violence with firearms has no compounding effect on the commission of the crime. That the killer will simply switch from a method of close-range, directed killing with all of the accompanying elements of control, power, and fear-inducement, to such an uncertain and clumsy method of execution isn't a sure thing.
Still, if you're going to argue that control is unnecessary because other methods of killing exist, then you're not on very firm ground.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:25 AM
Number of notable School shootings during the last 10 years
USA = ************************ Strict Gun control NO
W.EUROPE = * * * Strict Gun control YES
(excl. Nordic)
Wildfier, you're right, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe that Gun control would reverse that trend.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM
To pick up on what Tom P said.
In the UK there has only been one incident where a mentally ill person entered a school and started attacking people. Thankfully he had been unable to get hold of firearms and used knives. The teacher in the classroom was badly stabbed but survived and a number of the children received non life threatening injuries. Not one person died.
The reason he had been unable to get hold of firearms was because the law on gun ownership had been tightened following a couple of incidents where a person who legally owned firearms went on a killing spree. Since then there has not been a similar incident.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM
jenl1625 @ #38, did you read the article you posted?
Here's the 4th paragraph "No-one was seriously hurt in the incident, which the FBI is probing."
He drove a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd and no-one was seriously hurt.
Hey, Wildfire, you see that? Not as easy as you think, is it?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Kevin DeGraaf:
I'm sure you a responsible, law-abiding gun owner. However given the number of people who can buy or easily steal guns who are neither of these things do you not see how people might think that the current legal controls on gun ownership are not doing the job they are supposed to?
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:30 AM
Just 'cos you're not as extreme as Charlotn Heston or some wacko militiamen in montana doesn't mean that you're not a self-important prick who thinks he has a right to shoot people.
So, wanting to have a way to defend myself if I'm attacked makes me "a self-important prick who thinks he has a right to shoot people". Nice. Because I always thought of myself as a woman who thought ahead and wanted a way to protect myself if it came to it. No "saving the day" fantasies, just something small enough to conceal yet big enough to set back a guy who's coming at me.
Of course, despite having a permit, I can't carry at work, so most of the time I'm still unprotected. . . .
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:30 AM
"I believe that citizens MUST have the right to own guns as long as their police and military do."
The US military has access to all kinds of fancy stuff.
Using your logic we would allow people to have their own F16s complete with cluster bombs.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 10:30 AM
With the talk of arming students and faculty, which always comes up:
If I were living in a conceal-carry state, my syllabus would make it clear that firearms are not allowed in my classroom. I would make that clear on day 1. If students have issues with that, they'll need to find another class to take. That would even go for the police officers I've had as students.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:31 AM
John (#39) You want the public to be bale to shoot the cops? Is that not just a tad extreme?
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:32 AM
John,
"I believe that citizens MUST have the right to own guns as long as their police and military do."
Gee, I really wonder how I can survive here in Europe, with all these nasty policemen running around with guns, and I have no right to have one myself.
Actually, thinking about it, I'm going to demand the right to own a nuclear weapon, if the military can have one, and GW is the guy who decides, I need protection !
Posted by: ChemBob | February 15, 2008 10:33 AM
From Yahoo News:
The newspaper said the man had helped write papers on self-injury in prison and on the role of religion in early U.S. prisons, work that earned him a dean's award.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 10:34 AM
John,
Do you own a tank, jet aircraft, portable missile systems? Do you have the powers to enter the homes of individuals against their will, detain them, and search for evidence of crime?
No? But the police and military have these things...
jenl1625,
Why would they care? How many of these people live to face justice? They're almost always suicidal, and they have the element of surprise on their side.
Also, how many panicked shooters are going to kill innocent people - either in the crossfire of a shootout between the assailant and armed private citizens, or because they thought that someone was armed and dangerous. Who will pay, morally and financially, for such mistakes?
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:35 AM
Jenl1625 @ #45 - you're right, I was generalising. In your case it makes you a paranoid prick who thinks she has the right to shoot people.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | February 15, 2008 10:35 AM
With the licensing system for driving a car currently in place in America, over 40,000 people a year are killed by cars. And this is with "car control" - a system where your license can be revoked if you are proven to be dangerous - is in place. That's the equivalent of 10 of these shootings every day.
How many more people would die if the motor industry took up the call, "it's everyone's right to drive a car, no licensing for drivers! Driving licenses infringe my liberties!". Sure, you'd get people who were safe in their cars, who would do driving lessons, and learn how to responsibly drive a car. Those aren't the people you'd be worried about though, and there'd be an awful lot more car-related deaths.
Gun control won't "solve the problem", no; the underlying problem is that mentally disturbed people exist, and it is apparently all too easy for them to get access to guns.
There's been a spate of shootings over here in Manchester in the UK recently; but the response here is not, "arm everyone in Manchester"! Manchester has both a gun problem, and a social problem: in that potential powder keg, you don't want to increase gun ownership, you want to deal with the social problem!
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 10:36 AM
then by all means let's make sure any and all police officers who respond to such an incident leave their weapons behind at the station first. wouldn't want them to act violently.
empathy and sympathy are very much called for, but a lack of forethought won't help.
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:37 AM
However given the number of people who can buy or easily steal guns who are neither of these things do you not see how people might think that the current legal controls on gun ownership are not doing the job they are supposed to?
What do you suggest? Saying that those of us who have permits can't own guns because they might be stolen? Saying that those of us who have permits should turn in our guns, despite knowing that the people who carry illegally won't be turning in theirs?
Personally, I think we need to do a better job of policing the *criminals* rather than trying to place further controls on the law-abiding. And we need to do a better job of preventing mass murders no matter what the weapon.
Per # 13 above: These people are mentally ill. They need people to recognise that they are suffering from mental illness and get them the help they need. Waiting for them to start shooting and then killing them is a total abrogation of the duty of care we owe to others.
That seems like a pretty good place to start, to me. . . . Stop worrying about the fact that it was a gun that was used to do the killing, and start worrying about how to identify people who are approaching the breaking point before they get there. Start looking at ways to help people with serious mental illness. Start looking at ways to fix our healthcare system in which mental health is considered both too expensive and too subjective, so it isn't emphasized and even people with health insurance get only rationed amounts of care. Start looking at ways to fix the unintended side effects of confidentiality laws that say that even if you think this person's mental illness is reaching the point where he could be a danger to others, you have to be really, really careful about who you share that information with.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:38 AM
How can one be VP of the University's "Academic Criminal Justice Association", and go on and become a major criminal ?
Posted by: Luis | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
The killers who have been executing these school shootings are all mentally ill, sick people. I suspect that the reason schools have been targets is that they are full of optimistic young people who are exercising their opportunity to learn and preparing for a productive place in society ... and the hateful, petty pissants who believe guns and violence are the answer resent that.
PZ, what the hell? I'm sure you're angry about this shooting, but try to engage your critical thinking skills a little. You really think the shooters all hold/held some kind of lifelong belief in the Power of Guns and Violence? You think they felt hatred for people trying to get an education? Don't quit your day job. Leave the psychological analysis to me, or to someone else with a little actual expertise and experience in the area.
And the gun control types in this thread are cracking me up. Every single one of these school shooters walked right through gun control to put people in the ground or in the hospital. And no one could do anything about it until it was far, far, far too late, because they were abiding by the law and not bringing guns to school. In every instance the cops were called. In every instance they came, bringing their perfectly legal guns. In every instance it was, again, far, far, far too late.
The only way I can think of to reliably and safely stop a shooter is to shoot him (or her) as soon as you possibly can. I would love to talk it out instead; I would so very much prefer that over harming another human being, however crazy -- but I don't believe I could rely on that to work. Other methods of physical incapacitation would require me to get physically near someone who has a gun, and I don't think I could rely on that approach either.
Gun control is not the answer to gun violence, because, get this, gun violence is illegal. People who choose to engage in it are already voluntarily breaking the law. The people who do not break the law are left with no way to respond except to hide, pray, and run. In the face of a determined shooter (like the one at VA Tech), those don't work very well.
To put it another way, picking a school as a place to shoot people works amazingly well, just now, because no one else around you is likely to shoot back. Is that so hard to understand? You ever notice that people don't go and shoot up police stations, shooting ranges, gun stores, or military installations nearly as often as school, universities, and malls -- places where no one is allowed to have a gun?
And noting that a preponderance of guns is correlated with a higher rate of gun violence fails to take into account that most people in the US are not allowed legally to carry guns. Where gun control is liberalized and more people carry, interestingly enough, you find that the Wild West does not ensue. (When's the last time you heard national news about gun violence in Vermont? And f'r chrissake, Switzerland? Not exactly a hotbed of gun violence. And the UK? Check those gun-crime stats again, remembering that the handgun ban was in 1997. E.g, page 48 of this Home Office report.)
The people who are willing to pay the fees, take the tests, get the background check and follow all the rules are, strangely enough, not the people who are interested in just shooting other people for the hell of it. You also find that gun violence in communities with higher rates of legal carrying is diminished. Why? I would guess that, sensibly enough, people know that the odds are not as good that no one will shoot back. That seems rational enough to me.
Posted by: APP | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat, the the shooter was an atheist, that liberals made it happen? or am I already too late.
Of course you're too late:
http://christiancrosstalk.blogspot.com
Horrible but true. The blogger doesn't even claim that the guy was an atheist. "Whether this shooter was an atheist or not is irrelevant. It's the atheistic influence in our society that has lead to the dehumanizing despair in otherwise mentally ill individuals."
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:43 AM
"then by all means let's make sure any and all police officers who respond to such an incident leave their weapons behind at the station first. wouldn't want them to act violently.
empathy and sympathy are very much called for, but a lack of forethought won't help."
I think you are missing the point here.
No one I think will deny that if someone is in the process of shooting people then something needs to be done, and that may well mean killing them.
But do not kid yourself, it is NOT a solution to the problem. By the time the shooting starts we have already failed. The solution is to stop people going around shooting in the first place. Of course having proper mental health services in place is expensive and bullets are cheap.
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:46 AM
Jenl1625 @ #45 - you're right, I was generalising. In your case it makes you a paranoid prick who thinks she has the right to shoot people.
Seriously? What is it that makes you think I'm paranoid? I live in a city where people get shot every day. I grew up in another city where people get shot every day. In both cities, people also get stabbed every day, and women get kidnapped and disappear with distressing regularity. In many cases, a few years later a body is found. In one case, a woman disappeared from her apartment (less than a mile from where I worked) in the middle of the night. Neighbors heard a scream but didn't do anything about it. If they ever found her, it was years later.
So in what way is it paranoid to think I may need to defend myself?
And as for that "right to shoot people," well - yeah. I think that if I have a genuine reason to believe that the person attacking me is likely to kill me and leave my body in a ditch somewhere, I think I *do* have the right to defend myself. You don't? Really?
Tell me, do you think that person has the right to kill me? Do you think I have the moral duty to let it happen rather than kill the person? On what basis? Would you passively allow yourself to be killed, or would you fight back? Would you allow your spouse or child to be killed - would you hold back because you have no right to kill the killer? Or do you think the police will get there in time to save you? After all, it'll only take them what, 4 or 5 minutes to get there? At best. I'm sure the attacker will take longer than that to get around to killing you.
And no, all of the above is NOT just because people have access to guns. It's because people have access to knives, and to baseball bats. It's because some people are bigger, and stronger, and are willing to attack others.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | February 15, 2008 10:46 AM
Works pretty damned well in the UK. Indeed, in the UK we've found that police officers + firearms all too often = major f*ckup.
Posted by: Rob | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM
To those who naively believe that control of access to guns would have prevented the NIU shootings, ask yourself how effective the War on Drugs has been. It is illegal and a felony to sell cocaine, and our prisons are full of people who have, but this has had little if any effect on the quantity of cocaine that is sold. Why would it be different with guns? The shooter at NIU had NO criminal record, NO history of mental illness, and there was NOTHING a background check or waiting period would have done to prevent this. Making guns totally illegal would NOT stop people from killing each other with guns.
negentropyeater
Secondly, comparing Western Europe and America is invalid. The social mores and accepted behaviors are totally different and the mindsets are not comparable. Compare France with Italy, or Germany with Austria, but none with the USA. Just because there are fewer school shootings in Western Europe, which has strict gun control laws, with a greater number of shootings in the USA, which has lenient gun control laws, does NOT imply a cause and effect. Anyone who has travelled extensively in Europe would know the comparison is invalid.
Matt Penfold
Trying to identify potential shooters is a cause with high merit, but this is only part of the solution. What happens when you miss someone and they go on a rampage? What are you "non-violent" proponents saying, to just stand there and hope the police arrive before you're dead? In any event, the police would shoot the guy just as dead as someone with a concealed carry permit, IF they arrived in time, which is unlikely. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be a gun. Somebody could jump the guy with a knife or whack him over the head with a chair. It's still violence, and it would save lives. Advocating not using violence to stop violent behavior is an untenable position.
The question that needs to be answered is how can we improve SECURITY so that there is some mechanism to stop people from committing these acts. Simple door locks with access control would have stopped the NIU shooting, and someone sneaking around the back of buildings with a shotgun will eventually get noticed. I work in a chemistry building, and there is NOTHING to prevent someone from walking in my lab and stealing a large bottle of NaCN. No security whatsoever. The reason? Because it is too expensive.
Sorry if I sound overly worked-up. My sister works at NIU and had to take responsibility for the safety of two dozen children between the ages of 2-5. Her fear has scared me.
Posted by: raven | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Is is one of theirs, [fundie death cultist] or one of ours, [Darwinist]?
He is from Polk county Florida, smack in the middle of the fundie heartland. Chances are it was one of theirs.
Really, these murderers are just seriously crazy people. We are forced to play the blame game because the religious bigots always, always, claim it was an atheist or biologist. Usually they are just Making Stuff Up and most of the time they are wrong.
I'm sure some fundies have already made the claim on zero evidence.
PS Polk county is a fundie stronghold where evolution is not taught in schools, being regarded as a satanic idea. Watch the wingnuts blame Darwin anyway.
Posted by: mirshafie | February 15, 2008 10:48 AM
I hate to sound like a smug European slimeball, but some of you Americans are truly insane. To pretend that banning guns makes you a freak, well, that is freaky. In Sweden it's punishable by law to carry a knife in your pocket. I don't see a pack of ugly, smelly Swedish old men complaining about their freedoms being raped. You know why? Because nobody with their head on the right way would want to carry a fucking knife to a campus anyway!
Imagine having a debate on weather or not people should bring guns to school to protect themselves from being killed by other people that also bring guns to school.
"England, where no one has guns; fourteen deaths. United States -- and I think you know how we feel about guns; whoo! I'm getting' a stiffy -- 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone."
-Bill Hicks, lost American genious
Posted by: Ashley Moore | February 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Just a quick note on something that has been alluded to here many times:
Switzerland has the highest rate of gun death in Western Europe.
Only Finland and Estonia are higher when all of Europe is considered.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:52 AM
The problem seems to be that criminals - or future criminals who, since gun shop owners are not typically clairvoyant, are rather difficult to identify pre-crime - seem to have regrettably little difficulty in purchasing guns legally as things currently stand.
Where precisely do you imagine people who carry guns illegally get them from at the moment?
Given the number of stolen guns currently circulating in the US, it might be nice if gun laws mandated and enforced rather more stringent security procedures around stored guns than seems to be the position at the moment. If they did then maybe there wouldn't be so many criminals with guns.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:56 AM
By that logic the Wild West should have been the safest place in 19th Century America. Since it clearly was not I think said logic might have a hole in it somewhere.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM
"Trying to identify potential shooters is a cause with high merit, but this is only part of the solution. What happens when you miss someone and they go on a rampage? What are you "non-violent" proponents saying, to just stand there and hope the police arrive before you're dead? In any event, the police would shoot the guy just as dead as someone with a concealed carry permit, IF they arrived in time, which is unlikely. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be a gun. Somebody could jump the guy with a knife or whack him over the head with a chair. It's still violence, and it would save lives. Advocating not using violence to stop violent behavior is an untenable position."
I am not advocating that nothing be done to stop the person shooting, although I do question the idea of people carrying concealed weapons. I seriously doubt such people have the same level of training as the police. I know in the UK that in order for a police officer to carry firearms they need to pass a tough selection process, then undergo several months of training and then will have to undergo further training and testing on a monthly basis. As a result the police in the UK have a good record when it comes to firearms. (The de Menezes case was a total cock-up but not one made by the officers who carried out the shooting).
How many of those who think allowing members of the public to carry firearms would require them to undergo such rigorous training ?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 10:58 AM
that'd be a great idea, were it possible. noone has given me any reason to think it is possible, though.
what we can do is minimize the frequency of such things. but as you mention, decent mental health care is expensive, and the results of it take time to manifest... whereas passing new gun control laws is very cheap indeed, and the lawmakers get to take credit right away.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:59 AM
Luis,
"Gun control is not the answer to gun violence, because, get this, gun violence is illegal. People who choose to engage in it are already voluntarily breaking the law."
I think we knew already that killing people in a school shooting is illegal.
It's about wether we want to make it easy for these people to get access to a Gun or not.
Here where I live, in Spain, or many other European countries, I have no idea how I'd be able to get hold of a Gun. No shops, no place to go to find one, can't get it via mail, on the Internet, how do I find a dealer ? I'm not saying it's impossible, but for someone who is psychologically unstable and who has never had a Gun or shot one before, that additional difficulty can be in some cases (not all, but a significant proportion) a sufficient barrier to stop him from acting.
How do you explain the huge difference in occurences of School shootings (and in General, assaults by Gun) between Europe and the USA. Just because the American society is intrinsically more violent than the European ? Well, if it's true, all the more reason to make it even more difficult to get hold of a Gun.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 15, 2008 11:01 AM
Just the other day, I saw an article in a London paper; a man had been arrested by armed police because he'd pulled an iPod out of his pocket, and someone called the police saying that he'd drawn a gun. A few years ago, when fears about IRA terrorism were running high, a man was shot by armed police while walking down the road carrying a chair-leg, because someone had reported that he had a shotgun.
If many people on a campus, or any crowded environment, are carrying guns, the first thing that happens will NOT be the gunning down of a would-be school shooter. It will be the gunning down of some random individual who, in the wrong light or the wrong circumstances, looked as if they might conceivably have been in some way threatening. Or of someone who reached into their jacket to adjust their holster and stop it chafing. Officer, he was about to draw a gun, I'm certain of it.
Life is not a John Woo movie. There is no director telling you that, when the camera starts rolling, three bad guys in black suits will leap out from around the corner, and those are the ones you, the mighty hero, should shoot.
I'm with Tim Krieder on this one:
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Sniper.JPG
Posted by: matt@dandderwen.co.uk | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
"that'd be a great idea, were it possible. noone has given me any reason to think it is possible, though.
what we can do is minimize the frequency of such things. but as you mention, decent mental health care is expensive, and the results of it take time to manifest... whereas passing new gun control laws is very cheap indeed, and the lawmakers get to take credit right away."
Western Europe seems to manage pretty well.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
Luis,
In the UK gun crime has indeed increased since the banning of handguns. Part of that is due to the way that gun crime statistics are collected and gun crime laws have changed. Now, more gun crimes are >counted in statistics than was previously the case (which is also true of almost every other kind of crime). Also, there has been a very real increase in the number of gun crimes, but that only goes to show that gun crime is more complex than simply control issues. Who denied it?
Also, whilst gun crime has increased, a large number of those crimes are robberies which involve only the threat of violence, or replica and non-operational firearms. Homicide by firearm is much rarer in the UK. How much more common would be the use of actual and fatal violence if criminbals thought that they were likely to face privately owned weapons? If you count woundings, suicides, and accidental woundings, then the UK is far behind the UK in per capita incidents. Finally, this kind of mass shooting is almost unheard of in the UK.
Gun control cleary does have role play in reducing gun crime. Although people in Switzerland and Canada, and so on, are able to own guns without using them as prolifically as Americans, that shouldn't be used to suggest that gun control is unecessary. If a cutlural change cannot be effected, for whatever reason, then other methods have to come into play. The majority of illegal firearms were either once legally owned, or else purchased illegally but via legal outlets.
Clearly, it is gun violence which is illegal, but but if fewer or better controlled legally owned firearms were in circulation, then fewer people would have access to firearms in order to perpetrate those illegal acts.
Actually, I don't even need to argue for the complete bannig of privately owned firearms, just better control. Why does any private individual need semi- or fully- automatic weapons? Why do private individuals need pump-action shotguns? Assault rifles?
I've seen how easily fireamrs can be accessed in the US, and indeed how cheaply.
Whilst in Vegas, I needed to produce my passport every time I wnet into bar, but in order to get my hands on an Uzi at a firing range, all I had to do was sign a piece of paper. I saw people buying handguns, and it seemed to be very easy; how many school-shooters have a felony record?
Posted by: CTO | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
I think one big problem is that people are not educated properly about mental health and getting the proper help if they need it. Also, I feel like a lot of youth feel like nobody has problems and if they get mental help they will be singled out by friends and peers. I hope more universities start to implement mental health advocacy programs on their campuses when they are developing programs to help prevent large acts of violence.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 11:09 AM
To the gun-lovers. There are about 34,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year. A little more than half are suicides. Of the remaining, most are done by family and friends. So, if you don't have a gun, you are less likely to die by the gun.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Posted by: gwangung | February 15, 2008 11:12 AM
This, of course, would most definitely NOT be the case.
They wouldn't care about going down in a blaze of gunfire if they managed to shoot six or seven people first--which they most certainly would. They have the huge "advantage" of firing first. Even with people who know there's going to be shooting, that allows them to kill. In a situation where no one knows what's coming, they'd be sure to have considerable time to shoot.
Posted by: tyaddow | February 15, 2008 11:14 AM
The gun control discussion seems to have come full circle several times over, perhaps because of the routine nature of these attacks. It's an important discussion, I know. There can be no denying the direct correlation between gun availability and gun crime. Clearly these problems stem from deeper psychological roots. I think Paul Shepard offered great insights on our retreat from our hunter/gatherer culture.
I'm interested in the prospect of limiting the 'fame' that comes to the shooters. How often is that a real motive, if ever? What are some of the ethical issues in limiting the broadcast of details? Similarly, where is the line between news and sensationalism? It would be most unfortunate to see these types of attacks become less sensational only after an increase in frequency. Making it headline news may be good for raising awareness and facilitating the grieving process, but how can it be more effective in preventing future incidents of the kind?
Posted by: uncle noel | February 15, 2008 11:15 AM
RE: Holbach. Unfortunately, the gun slinger hero fantasy has many flaws: distinguishing potential heroes from villians; heroes may not shoot straight; the chance that such a hero will be at the right place at the right time is small (unless many students are armed, which would motivate me to seek a different career); if cops arrive and several people are shooting at each other...mayhem; most of these deranged student killers commit suicide, so we could presume that they would not be deterred by danger. The NRA people care more about their fantasies than the fact that owning a handgun makes you much more likely to be a victim of gun violence. And the joker who wrote that as long as cops have guns, others should to: what are you smoking? Are you suggesting people should confront cops with a gun? Do you need someone to tell you how bad that idea is? Of course, Pandoras Box is open; our society is flooded with cheap handguns. No solution is going to work quickly.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 11:16 AM
i was born, and spent my first quarter century, in Finland. even after living the past nine years in the U.S., i think i still remember some of how a European person functions. but it's becoming ever more clear to me that many, perhaps most, Europeans do not understand Americans. it's patently obvious in this thread.
all you smug folks insisting that European solutions could be simply transported directly across the Atlantic and would work just the same in this, dramatically different, culture as they do over there --- you do not know what you're talking about. Americans do not think, act, or react as Europeans do; we do not share the same set of values. i've become Americanized enough to see that, now, and understand that fact for what it is.
i carry an eight-centimeter folding pocketknife (Benchmade Griptilian, google it) wherever i go, including to any campuses i visit, simply because it's a damned useful tool that comes in handy just about every day. (i just measured the blade with the ruler on my Leatherman tool, which has another knife blade. i don't use that one much, because it doesn't lock back, and so is not safe.)
the idea that you'd consider me insane for something so everyday, so unremarkable, and so patently inoffensive as that, just tells me that you don't understand Americans --- not even naturalized, immigrant ones --- and should consider not pronouncing sentence on an American way of life so smugly. you're speaking out of ignorance.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 11:17 AM
#48: "You want the public to be [able] to shoot the cops? Is that not just a tad extreme?"
No more extreme than the cops being able to shoot the public, is it?
I'm saying it's only fair. Police and military get to have guns, why shouldn't their citizens? What gives THEM the right to possess firearms? We're talking about two rather arbitrary groups of human beings, one of which is allowed personal lightweight weapons of long-range deadly force, while the other is not. That's too much incentive for abuse.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 15, 2008 11:18 AM
I was afraid this would happen.
Arming students would certainly treat the symptoms of the problem -- would-be shooters would be gunned down themselves. It might give some people a smug feeling of having accomplished something.
However, the classroom is supposed to be an environment for learning, not target practice. I don't want the threat intruding in the first place, and my lectures are not supplemented by fusillades of gunfire, whether from mentally deranged gun-freaks or a mob of armed students. Forget the whole idea of solving the problem by shooting someone -- that does not address the root cause.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 15, 2008 11:18 AM
I suppose I didn't think this would turn into last April's gun toting debate. But, it has.
I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to me campuses are about the last place guns should be carried, for many reasons, not the least of which is that they are a place of intellectual development. Recent events in Colorado churches notwithstanding, guns are typically not allowed in churches or other public places either.
As far as the car-mowing-down-people analogy goes, um, it strikes me as an odd example to give as a counter scenario. First of all, when was the last time such a thing happened outside of a movie or the odd case of an old guy in Cali plowing through a market? I have yet to hear of rampant car-on-crowd incidents involving homicidal manniacs with licenses and nothing to lose. Personally, I put no stock in that comparison. You also can't hide a car, and you can hear and/or see it coming. Many areas where large crowds would gather are also not easily assailed by street cars as well, curbs, gates and all. Seems to me if this was really a good example comparison, it would be happening far more often than it does or ever has.
Guns on the other hand can be concealed much more easily. But, they are also dangerous to handle and carry. Further, college/university campuses are places where male testosterone isn't exactly at a low level. You've got jocks, geeks, hippy-wannabes, druggies, future Nobel prize winners, etc. all mingling together. My guess is the liklihood of shootings based upon stupid he said-he said issues would make their ugly face known. The drugs and beer that inevitably would be involved would only make this more likely to occur.
And what of zones where guns will by policy not be allowed, like labs?
And the aforementioned scenario of 20 vigilantes trying to protect 100 other people from one shooter is entirely valid. You'll have 20 guys trying to be the hero, and others will get hit, end of story. Arguing for guns on campus only increases the liklihood more people will get hurt or die, on top of the fact that someone trying to stop the bad guy will inevitably get fingered for murder, then you've got this massive crime scene, 20+ weapons, reams of paperwork, several students now with criminal records...you guys are not considering the enormous snowball effect at play here.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 11:19 AM
Another issue to consider here:
There is no epidemic of classroom shootings.
During the 1990s, when there appeared to be a rash of shootings in elementary and secondary schools, the data still showed that kids were statistically safer in school than in their own homes (domestic violence, child abuse, living in violent neighborhoods.....)
Yes, we live in a violent society. It's less violent than it was a century ago, though. We're not dealing with some major trend in society, but with isolated incidents that people attempt to draw together to create patterns.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 11:22 AM
tyaddow,
"It's an important discussion, I know."
It doesn't look like it's that important. Listenning and reading the major news outlet, haven't heard of one journalist suggesting that America should now start learning from Europe and impose strict Gun laws.
It's not even an issue in this presidential debate.
In my view, the situation is even worst than on the religious issue.
It seems to be such a taboo, and people have been brainwashed so much...
Posted by: KM | February 15, 2008 11:24 AM
Bernard Bumner (throughout):
*applause*
Posted by: Peter | February 15, 2008 11:24 AM
mental health screening:
is there anyone out there who believes that this is remotely sufficiently advanced that it could work without getting a large number of false positives, and infringing a large number of citizens' civil liberties?
For all the money spent on psychology and mental health, the results are very modest. I don't believe throwing more money at it is going to achieve dramatic results anytime soon.
Peter
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 15, 2008 11:25 AM
#80:
Those groups of people are given consent by the people to carry those weapons. You think policemen and soliders just decided to band together, buy weapons, and tote them without consent of the people they are protecting? This argument makes no sense.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 11:26 AM
"all you smug folks insisting that European solutions could be simply transported directly across the Atlantic and would work just the same in this, dramatically different, culture as they do over there --- you do not know what you're talking about. Americans do not think, act, or react as Europeans do; we do not share the same set of values. i've become Americanized enough to see that, now, and understand that fact for what it is."
YOu know what, you are right. It is very hard to understand a country where nearly half the population believes the earth in only 6000 years, where seem to consider the constitution to be some kind of sacred document and to be followed regards how stupid the outcome, and where many object to limits on owning guns despite the huge death toll caused by them. You know why these things are hard to understand ? It is because they are not things that tend to be accepted by people who actually think about them.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Quite right PZ. Remembering the people I used to share class with throughout my University career, I doubt that the idea that any one of them could be carrying a lethal firearm would have done wonders for my concentration during lectures!
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Nomen Nescio,
Firstly, plenty of Americans support gun control.
Furthermore, if America cannot affect widespread cultural change, then it need to do something more drastic via legal change. Simply stating that Americans have their own peculiar national psyche is a banale truism which doesn't help to solve the problem.
I'm not sure that anybody arguing for tougher gun control would consider that to be a absolute solution - the situation is clearly more complex. However, it is at least a practical solution to the ease of availability and the feeling of normality - if not righteousness - of gun ownership.
What would you suggest? Rather than chiding the rest of us for being "smug"? Where are the useful "American" solutions?
Your argument could extend to permitting any group, nation, culture, subculture, or cult to do whatever they want. Because, unless you're a member then you wouldn't understand...
Posted by: mirshafie | February 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Nomen Nescio: so you heard about the Swiss army knife?
Yes, people in Europe have that, as I'm sure you already know. But the sort of pocketknives that come with a ruler and a toothpick on it are usually also very blunt. At least I think there's a big difference between carrying a knife that is designed as an everyday tool, than to carry a butcherknife.
And what's the relation to guns? Don't tell me that if your shotgun came with a flexible Philips screwdriver it would be ok to strut around with it on the street.
It would be very interesting to hear in which way Americans are so different from Europeans, by the way. Because I don't think we are that different. I think Sweden is full of homicidal, suicidal lunatics. But as negentropyeater wrote, guns are so inaccessible that even most criminals don't know where to get it. And I should know, because I'm a criminal.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Nomen Nescio, "the idea that you'd consider me insane for something so everyday, so unremarkable, and so patently inoffensive as that, just tells me that you don't understand Americans"
Maybe I do consider you insane. I am a natural-born American and spent more than the first half of my life in that insane asylum. For nearly twenty years now I have lived in Europe. There is no way that I would go back to America.
And don't tell me that I don't understand Americans.
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2008 11:28 AM
As a college student, who would carry a concealed weapon if allowed to do so, I am surprised by some of the comments of gun control advocates. It seems like many of the people here believe that given a crisis, people would just pull guns, close their eyes and blast away. I believe the average college student would behave more intelligently than the average police officer, and would feel safer if I knew my peers were armed, rather than just criminals.
Posted by: bill r | February 15, 2008 11:28 AM
Not being a gun owner, its appealing to think of banning them. But you need to remember what Tim McVey did with fertilizer and desiel oil, and what certain muslims have down with Molotovs and blocked fire exits. There is always a way...
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 11:28 AM
nobody sane wants to have such a threat intrude on them. but you cannot keep it out. nobody wants to have their car rammed by a drunk driver, either, but the mere not wanting it won't keep such things from happening. same reason.
Posted by: gwangung | February 15, 2008 11:31 AM
That's not a belief. That's empirically based.
Now you're just being stupid and elitist.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 11:32 AM
I believe the average college student would behave more intelligently than the average police officer, and would feel safer if I knew my peers were armed, rather than just criminals.
And what's the basis for that belief? I can't see one.
And if you insisted on carrying a gun into my class; you'd be asked to leave. If you refused, I would call in campus security to remove you.
Posted by: Oldfart | February 15, 2008 11:33 AM
bernardo - you provide no links to statistics that back up your position. 34,000 gun deaths a year? sounds more like the number of traffic fatalities. Most of them from suicides and family and friends? Prove that. "We all know...." doesn't get it. Point to the sources.
In my estimation it would take a trained individual 10 seconds or less to pull his/her gun and shoot down a killer. That could save a number of lives. But, as has been said here and elsewhere, a classroom full of armed people or a mall full of armed people is a police nightmare.
Euros - you have no room to lecture us on any of our laws or our problems with violence. You have just completed a century in which your tribal warfare has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people around the world. You are the most violent people on earth. The American murder rate could never keep up with that. So Hush up before you further embarrass yourselves with more hypocrisy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 11:37 AM
"As a college student, who would carry a concealed weapon if allowed to do so, I am surprised by some of the comments of gun control advocates. It seems like many of the people here believe that given a crisis, people would just pull guns, close their eyes and blast away. I believe the average college student would behave more intelligently than the average police officer, and would feel safer if I knew my peers were armed, rather than just criminals."
How much training do you think you should go through ?
In the UK, in order for a police officer to be allowed to carry a firearm they need to go through a rigorous selection process. Not all who apply get through. Would you be willing to undergo such an in depth evaluation ?
Those officers must also go through several months of full time training. Would you be willing to pay for that ? Would you have the time for that ?
The officers must also be re-assessed on a monthly basis. Would you be willing to be re-assessed similarly ?
The officers are also subject to no-notice drugs testing. No doubt that would be ok with you.
Posted by: guav.dna@gmail.com | February 15, 2008 11:38 AM
If the question is "How do we prevent these public shootings?" then obviously you are correct--violence is not the answer.
But if the question is "If you ever faced with a situation such as this and are unable to get to safety, what will give you the best chance of survival?" then you're wrong--the answer is clearly, unambiguously "violence."
It doesn't matter if you have a concealed carry permit and are able to take the shooter out with the firearm, or if you lunge at the shooter and plunge a pencil in his throat. Any sort of resistance is preferable to this:
Waiting to die.
That's not an answer.
On an individual level, I cannot prevent an event like this from happening in the first place. What I can do is decide how I will respond to such an event, and try be mentally and perhaps physically prepared to do so.
The fact of the matter is that the scenario is going to end violently: Either one of the intended victims will take the shooter out, the police will arrive and take the shooter out, or--as it transpires the vast majority of the time--the shooter will take themselves out at their own leisure when have run out of ammo or grown weary of executing innocent students who are waiting to die. No matter what, the shooter is going to die by violence. I see no reason why it should be on their terms rather than ours. Violence, committed sooner, will save lives.
I'm not a violent person--I've been a vegan for 17 years, I don't even kill bees--but I have had to defend myself several times in my life, and I might be dead if I hadn't. So I almost take offense when someone tells me that "violence isn't the answer," because sometimes it is; sometimes it's the only thing you can do--other than wait to die. And I'm not going to do that. Ever.
There are people who are violent and predatory, and there are people who are violent and protective; there is a difference between aggression and self defense. They most certainly are NOT "echoes of the same problem."
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 11:39 AM
Noman,
"Americans do not think, act, or react as Europeans do;"
Well, we had a different history, and different laws. But these things do change.
I've lived 6 years in the USA, and sorry, I don't think that we are intrinsically different, and that you need the right to bear arms, and we don't.
With that line of reasoning you can go about and justify almost anything, you know, like Iranians are different, that's why there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2008 11:41 AM
#97 "And if you insisted on carrying a gun into my class; you'd be asked to leave. If you refused, I would call in campus security to remove you."
I realize that. I assume you are trying to imply that I didn't.
Basis, just things that happened this week:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/14/Hillsborough/Video_brings_fire_on_.shtml
http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_080213_firefighterarrested.bd01f42f.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513875&in_page_id=1770
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/11/npolice111.xml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/ap_on_fe_st/odd_lousy_lawn
#96
"It seems like many of the people here believe that given a crisis, people would just pull guns, close their eyes and blast away. "
"That's not a belief. That's empirically based."
On what?
"Now you're just being stupid and elitist."
And you're just making assertions and ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: Rob | February 15, 2008 11:41 AM
Bernard Bumner
"Why do private individuals need pump-action shotguns? "
To hunt. You know, like shoot ducks or pheasant to eat.
"Why does any private individual need semi- or fully- automatic weapons?"
Fully automatic weapons are illegal for people to own in the US.
Semi-automatic weapons simply move a bullet into the firing chamber as the previous spent cartridge is ejected. I've seen people shoot faster with a revolver, which is not semi-automatic, than I can with my semi-automatic S&W 9 mm pistol. Why does a private individual need a gun? I have a 9 mm pistol for protection. My home was broken into in the middle of the day. I would prefer to confront such an individual with a gun rather than a knife or baseball bat. Which will be more effective? Now don't start lecturing me on having the gun stolen or being used against me. The gun is hidden such that no one could ever find it, but I can retrieve it in 10 seconds. The ammunition clip is hidden elsewhere. From anywhere in my home, I can have the gun in hand and loaded in 20 sec. It gives me a sense of security. And yes, I practice regularly, am expert in handling the weapon, and am a highly accurate shot from 10-30 feet (3-10 meters). Why is this better than a baseball bat? Because I doubt I could swing a bat with enough force to disable someone in a hallway or on the stairs. Furthermore, I don't want to have to get close enough to a potentially dangerous person to knife them or hit them with a bat. I hope I never have to use the gun in such a situation, but if my family or I were in danger of being physically harmed, I would not hesitate to protect myself.
BTW, I am a liberal, Democrat, atheist, college professor.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 11:42 AM
then they need to be sharpened, now don't they? blunt knives are not only useless, they're dangerous. (you have to use more brute force to cut with them, which means your fine motor control is lost, which means your hand might slip. sharp knives are easier to control.)
there's no relation to guns. the example is one of mindset and culture, and was meant as a demonstration of how America differs from Europe.
i pull out my pocket knife here, people go "nice blade" and show me theirs. i try that in Europe, people get worried that i'm some kind of dangerous criminal. this has nothing to do with the knife as such; it's all about states of mind.
Bernarda --- i've heard people say, quite earnestly, that they were "born American, just in the wrong country". that doesn't apply to me, although i do understand what the saying means. based on your statements, would it perhaps be fair to say you were born European but on the wrong continent?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 11:43 AM
There is a trend in this thread to suppose equivalence between cars and guns, and it is false to do so.
Yes, cars are dangerous when used dangerously or in dangerous circumstances, but they clearly have a purpose which has nothing to do with violence. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing things.
Cars, bleach, knives, powertools, etc, etc, are dangerous it is true, but that is not argument for the free availability of firearms.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 11:43 AM
Remind me again, what is the current population of Native Americans? And what is the average annual wage of those who are still alive?
Get yourself a mirror mate.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 11:44 AM
Maybe there is a compromise to be had.
The second amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This indicates that those who drafted and passed the amendment had in mind protecting the US. We are told that the US is involved in a "war on terror". Well if you have a militia, and are fighting a war then it would make sense to use that militia to prosecute that war. Thus I propose that any adult in the US who want to own a firearm can do so. However those who take up that right will need to discharge their militia duties. How about in Bagdhad or Kandahar ?
Posted by: Holbach | February 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Numbers 13,20, 26, and 35
Your responses to my post are incredibly liberal and so
blatantly irrational. The only way to instill reason into
your pathetic brains is to confront you face to face, as
posted words have no effect. So if there was a situation
where you are in imminent danger of death, and I happen to
walk by and you knew I carried a gun, and I asked you if
you would like me to use counter violence to save your life, would you refuse the offer? Like crap you would.
Then again, I could say that you are in opposition to such
violence on my part, so, sorry, you can go to hell. Would
you be content with that reply. Like crap you would. When
you are in a dire immediate danger of injury or death, your
liberal ideals become all too realistic when faced with
blatant realty. Then again, if I knew you were an atheist
and your killer is a religion scum, then I would without
hestitation save your life, even in your puny protestations
against killing the poor misguided and ill slime.
How does this equate with your damn liberal and unrealistic
attitude toward application of violence with violence?
Vent as much and vociferously as you will; I am intransigent when it comes to criminals and religion.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 11:47 AM
well, technically they're merely insanely heavily regulated. for all practical purposes, though, regular folks like myself can forget ever legally owning one; the background check alone is equivalent to what would otherwise get one a secret-level security clearance.
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2008 11:47 AM
#99 That seems excessive for people who aren't actively putting themselves in dangerous situations like policemen are.
Current CCW training seems about appropriate to me, for example:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/cc_booklet20070314.pdf
Posted by: Nick | February 15, 2008 11:48 AM
Here in England we have had precisely one school shooting. More than a decade ago. After that, all handguns were banned.
Don't get me wrong, criminals still use guns, but usually only to shoot one another. No massacres.
As for those who keep saying that keeping a gun is a right, fair enough. In Switzerland it is a legal requirement that every man owns a military-grade assult rifle. They manage to have one of the lowest guncrime rates in the world. Maybe some Americans just have the wrong attitude.
Posted by: Rob | February 15, 2008 11:48 AM
Lilly de Lure
Native Americans were savages and sub-human, as taught by the Christian church, and so their lives had no value. Sort of like the millions of Indians, Africans, etc., that were killed during Colonial European times.
They don't count.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2008 11:49 AM
Yeah, right.
Do something else with your testosterone fantasies. You're becoming an embarrassment.
What is this talk of "knowing"? By definition, amok runners don't think rationally. They want to go down in flames, so I don't think they care if they can kill 11 or only 10 people.
Now suppose someone wanted to run amok but couldn't get a gun anywhere. Suddenly it doesn't mention anymore how deranged they are...
To the contrary. It is an important part of "the rule of law, not of men" that the state has the monopoly on violence. Nobody must be allowed to wage their own private war.
I'm told that in the USA, when you call the police, it doesn't come till half an hour has passed, and that's assuming you're not in a "bad neighborhood". This is what needs to change. What for do you live in a state, as opposed to an anarchy, if you literally need to fight a private war against crime!?!
0Pepper spray.
I can't believe it. Why do you act as if the only method of self-defense were a gun?!?
What control?
Tell me, what control? If it were like at an airport, where people have to walk through metal detectors, then you might have a point.
You are acting as if it were completely impossible to improve the enforcement of those laws.
Not by US standards, no...
What kind of psychologist are you if you get so carried away by your emotions that you neglect to think your ideas through and check a few more sources? Verily, verily, I say unto you: the closer you get to humans, the worse the science gets.
For one, guns don't literally grow on shrubs. Next, guns can't be stored in powder shape in arbitrary quantities -- 5/8 of a gun is in most cases a broken gun.
Europe doesn't have such a cocaine problem. One reason is the "therapy instead of punishment" approach. But another is that there's no place nearby where cocaine can be distilled out of leaves...
Really taking guns out of the circulation would stop people from killing each other with guns. Nobody said that merely making a law and then twiddling one's thumbs would do anything. Have fun setting fire to your strawman.
Above: it doesn't matter how crazy an amok runner is -- if he can't get a gun, he can't shoot people. Period.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 11:51 AM
Thanks, I was not saying we were any better, the whole thing was disgusting. I was merely making a little point about glass houses and stones.
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2008 11:55 AM
#96
"It seems like many of the people here believe that given a crisis, people would just pull guns, close their eyes and blast away. "
"That's not a belief. That's empirically based."
On what?
"Now you're just being stupid and elitist."
And you're just making assertions and ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: gwangung | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM
Seems to me that's predicated on the principle of defense, where the situation is tightly constrained and you KNOW that anyone other than yourself and your loved ones is a probable enemy.
That's not necessarily the case in mass shootings, where there are various multiple variables (for example, it's not unknown for there to be multiple aggressors). Seems to me a better strategy would be to simplify the situation so that there are fewer variables such as potential victims or hostages, and clear the area.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM
Mark,
Excessive ? The training you suggest seems to be totally inadequate. I guess bullets fired by the badly trained are somehow less lethal to bystanders in your part of the world.
The reason police in the UK have such a tough training is to avoid having them kill bystanders. I can only assume that you do not care as much about bystanders as the UK police do.
Posted by: Candy | February 15, 2008 11:57 AM
A few anecdotes about "sensible gun ownership by non-criminals" craziness in America:
Here in Des Moines, a few days ago, a drunk couple and a friend went home to drunk couple's house after the bars closed to continue drinking. Drunk guy pulls out gun to show it off, and, assuming it is unloaded, puts it to his own head and pulls the trigger. Bang! Dead!
A neighbor of ours had a teenage son who had gone to a friend's house to hang out. Kids open parents' gun cabinet, take out gun, start messing around . . . Bang! Neighbor kid dead!
My cousin's wife's mother, distraught over the breakup of a relationship, takes the family gun out and shoots herself in the chest, two weeks before my cousin's wife graduated from high school. Bang! You get the picture.
A few months ago a woman came home from the bar drunk, tried to get into a window of the apartment house she lived in, apparently locked out and thinking it was her boyfriend's window. It was her landlady's and the landlady shot her in the head. Along the same lines, many years ago I knew a girl in high school who was walking on the wild side. She and another girl decided to break into a house. The homeowner caught them, and as she stuck her head through the window, he conked her with a baseball bat. End result: She lived and decided that crime definitely did not pay. If the old guy had had a gun, she'd have been likely dead, rather than going on to become a productive citizen.
I dated a guy for a while who would get pissed off whenever he'd had a few too many to drink, then threaten to shoot himself. When he got around to threatening to shoot me, I got out. He was an Air Force vet, btw, with no criminal record whatsoever.
Absolutely, gun access needs to be curbed in this country. And it's insane to think that if the government ever went all black helicopters on us, that the pitiful little home gun collection is going to stave them off.
I want to move to Europe. I have a lot of reasons for this, and one of them is that Europeans have much more sensible attitudes about violence. They don't watch as much idiotic T.V., for one thing. There are way too many people in the U.S. who think they are a poor man's Walker, Texas Ranger.
Don't forget about all the hunters who accidentally shoot themselves or other hunters.
I'm a woman, by the way, who lives in a presumably dangerous inner city area. I go everywhere I want, any time of the day or night, and never worry about it. And I definitely don't own a gun, let alone carry one. I do have kind of a mean cat in my apartment. Meow.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | February 15, 2008 11:58 AM
How the hell do they allow someone to purchase a weapon with a history of mental illness? I know about patient's right to privacy, but something must be done to prevent these mentally unstable people from buying weapons.
Posted by: mothra | February 15, 2008 11:58 AM
Assault weapons should be banned (the fact that this shooter used a shotgun and two (that's 2) handguns notwithstanding. Our commando-in-chief and the rethuglican congress of two years ago allowed provisions of a previous ban (Brady bill) to expire. For those who do not know, the bill was named in honor of President Regan's former press secretary who was shot in the head and is now seriously disabled. Set the bar VERY high concerning who can purchase handguns: permit, mandatory training, background check, two week waiting period, yearly re-certification, federally issued gun carriers ID card. Whether a gun is sold commercially or privately, these regulations must still apply.
Reasoning: String out the acquisition process and make ownership a bit onerous such that deranged individuals have difficulty remaining hidden from social workers and mental health care professionals. If you are a responsible gun owner you should be in favor of ALL of these provisions as you only stand to benefit by their enactment
Note: For 'personal protection,' carry pepperspray (I do and have never needed to use it). The goal of personal protection is to get away from an assailant and contact authorities- it is not 'to be a hero/heroine.' Any teaching to the contrary is misguided, dangerous and verges on petty vengeance.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 12:01 PM
Nomen Nescio, "based on your statements, would it perhaps be fair to say you were born European but on the wrong continent?"
Oh, I suppose I could live with that. But that doesn't change the fact that I know Americans - inside and out - and that more than half seem to be friggin crazy. Already more than half don't accept evolution. I wonder how many accept gravity.
BTW, Nomen, all my great-grandparents are from Finland and only one of my grandparents, also from Finnish parents, was born in the U.S.
Did you know that Finns were very important in the labor and socialist movements in the U.S. at the end of the 19th and beginning of the twentieth centuries?
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 12:01 PM
Oldfart, Bernardo is certainly correct.
In this country of 300 million people, with 65 million legal gun owners and 200 million guns, in 2005 "only" 30,694 people were killed by firearms, and 17,002 of them were suicides.
Certainly that's 30,694 more people than we would like to see die, but I think you think it's much higher than it really is. As far as accidental deaths go, 45,520 were killed in motor vehicle accidents, and 789 were killed in firearms accidents.
The source is the CDC.
As far as homicides go, the overwhelming majority of firearm homicides are drug and gang-related, and in most cases, both the perpetrator and the victim have prior, sometimes extensive, criminal records. In other words, they are not legal gun owners.
Still a problem, obviously--though moreso for those of us who live in economically depressed urban areas--but not quite the "millions of legal American gun owners just run around blowing everyone away at the drop of a hat" type thing that many in other countries (and this country) seem to think.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 12:02 PM
For those who are complaining that Western Europe and US are not alike, and that comparing them is a waste of time I have this to say.
Work towards the US being more like Western Europe in terms of guns laws, religiosity, healthcare, access to higher education and acceptance of science rather than superstition. These are all areas where Western Europe would seem to be way ahead of the US. Rather than bitch about it, do something about it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 12:03 PM
Oldfart,
"Euros - you have no room to lecture us on any of our laws or our problems with violence. You have just completed a century in which your tribal warfare has caused the deaths of tens of millions of people around the world. You are the most violent people on earth. The American murder rate could never keep up with that. So Hush up before you further embarrass yourselves with more hypocrisy."
Europeans are the most violent people on earth ? Having problems with the use of past and present tense ?
And sorry, your point about hypocrisy, it's just too funny.
And as far as lecturing, we're giving our opinion. If you disagree with that, go and f**k yourself.
Posted by: gwangung | February 15, 2008 12:03 PM
"It seems like many of the people here believe that given a crisis, people would just pull guns, close their eyes and blast away. "
"That's not a belief. That's empirically based."
On what?
Based on police records of actual incidents in the field of sudden violence and on military research on battlefield incidents where TRAINED soldiers often froze or fired wildly.
I don't know about you, but that says to me that the typical person thrust into the situation would not act cooly or in a collected manner.
"Now you're just being stupid and elitist."
And you're just making assertions and ad hominem attacks.
No, I'm being accurate. Most police have college degrees. All police have more training for crisis situations. Most college students don't. Saying that college students would react better is stupid and elitist.
Posted by: Ktesibios | February 15, 2008 12:03 PM
Something I'm surprised that noone has mentioned: late adolescence and early adulthood (a range which encompasses most college students) are the peak years for the onset of serious mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. People who are developing one of these can deteriorate amazingly quickly, especially if the prodromal symptoms go unnoticed.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to raise the minimum age at which a person can legally acquire firearms.
Posted by: SpotWeld | February 15, 2008 12:07 PM
There is a gun culture in the US, (not that I'm implying anything negative about that, there is also a car culture and a sports culture.) When a person is seen operating thier car in an erratic or unsafe manner it's generally undertstoof that citizens will either step in (to take the keys away from thier drunk cousin) or alert the authorities (call the police is someone is spinning out in a mall parking lot.)
I also realize that the grand majority of gun owners are normal rational people. But is there a similar understanding among gun owners (who I think are more likley to be in a position to witness other people's actions with firearms) to interceed or report people who seem unable to use thier firearms correctly?
Amittedly this is a bit removed from recent events, but it is something I've been curious about.
Maybe this is what is so different about Switzerland and the US...
Posted by: mirshafie | February 15, 2008 12:08 PM
guav.dna@gmail.com, Rob:
You're right that on an indivudal level, when something bad does happen, all you can do is try to stop the violence possibly by using violence yourself. I've been in that situation myself. (Not life threatening, because somehow, after doling out about ten kicks to the face even the most hormone-infested nazi boys have their senses rushing back too them, and they leave without killing. I suspect it wouldn't be so if they used knives or guns.)
Now I want to get back to comparing to Europe. Because if a robber would get into my house and try to rob me I'm quite sure he wouldn't have a gun with him. So I wouldn't really need to protect myself in that respect. Pretty convenient, huh? The criminals don't have guns which means I don't need one. (Again, of course they CAN get guns, but for some reason they don't. Again, perhaps it's because we have a different mindset... heh)
Also, why would I want to kill a guy that's rushing away down the stairs? Seems pretty stupid. So let him get away with my TV, it's not the end of the world.
oldfart
Hush yourself. You don't see anybody here defending thos atrocities, do you? So why do you feel compelled to defend the evident problems of your continent? It's not personal, old dude.
Nomen Nescio
Pocketknives are meant to cut dead things. That's why they are not razor sharp.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Rob,
You can hunt with conventional break-action shotguns (it is the pump-action which I object to, because it increases firing rate - and if you need that for hunting then you're not a very good shot).
Are automatic weapons illegal? I know that machine guns ownership is tightly controlled, but I was under the impression that automatic weapons can be purchased under licence from the Treasury after payment of a tax? (A cursory search suggests that Idaho, at least, allows private automatc weaponry...)
The point about semi-automatic pistol calibre and asault weapons is that revolvers have a more limited ammunition capacity and slower reloading rates.
Well, you know the statistics; you can't simply tell me that they're irrelevant because it isn't going to happen to you.
Even so, if it takes you 20 seconds to retrieve and load your weapon, then that is plenty of time for you to become a victim of violence whilst you hunt for your weapon. Alternatively, it is plenty of time to affect your escape; the best thing to do is flee from an intruder and never have to confront them in the first place.
Fine, but the fact that you own a gun makes you staistically more likely to be a victim of gunshots; most likely by your own hand or a member of your family, let alone potential intruders.
Your family are also statistically more liely to be gunshot victims; most likely by your own hand.
You'll no doubt tell me why it isn't going to happen to you, and I hope for your sake that you're right. Still, the facts stand.
All of which are, to greater or lesser degree, laudible qualities, but it doesn't exempt you from wrong-headedness, and it won't protect you from gunfire.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Bernarda, you're right that most firearm homicides here are by acquaintances, but you're misunderstanding what that really means. Criminals have relatives, friends, and acquaintances, too (and of course "acquaintance" can describe many sorts of acquaintances--drug dealers are acquainted with their customers, gang members are acquainted with their rivals, and prostitutes are acquainted with their patrons).
The best way to become of victim of gun violence is not simply to "have a gun at home or to frequent family or friends that have guns." The best way to become a victim of gun violence is to be acquainted with lots of criminals, and to engage in criminal endeavors such as drugs or gangs.
Contrary to popular belief, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four. The overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records, and a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM
"Something I'm surprised that noone has mentioned: late adolescence and early adulthood (a range which encompasses most college students) are the peak years for the onset of serious mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. People who are developing one of these can deteriorate amazingly quickly, especially if the prodromal symptoms go unnoticed.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to raise the minimum age at which a person can legally acquire firearms."
A very good point. To which I would add I am past adolescence and early adulthood and remember what I was like then, and I for one would not want the then me carrying a gun around. I rather suspect many will agree with me. And besides any college student responsible enough to carry a gun clearly has no idea of how to enjoy themselves. Probably the sort of people who grow up to become right wing politicians.
Posted by: tsig | February 15, 2008 12:13 PM
People would rather die than give up their guns.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 12:18 PM
David Marjanović:
While true on it's face, the problem is that people like that can get guns, and if they have the desire to do so, they always will. When discussing a world where criminals simply "can't" get guns, you might as well be discussing a world where we ride to work on unicorns and eat rainbows for breakfast--such a place is never going to exist.
Hey, remember when we banned alcohol, and suddenly there wasn't a drop to drink? Remember when we banned drugs, and now you just can't find weed or coke for the life of you? Yeah. See, the thing is, in theory a total ban might work. In reality, banning things don't make them disappear into a cloud of fairy smoke--banning things creates huge black markets, with the criminal smugglers, gangs, and violence that is attendant to such endeavors.
And the people who want that stuff get them.
Posted by: Candy | February 15, 2008 12:20 PM
Probably the sort of people who grow up to become right wing politicians.
Mr. Penfold, I guess it would depend on the right wing politician. Your comment gave me the horrible mental picture of Bush running around Yale drunk and coked out of his skull, packing heat. Now where did I leave that brain bleach?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 12:22 PM
"While true on it's face, the problem is that people like that can get guns, and if they have the desire to do so, they always will. When discussing a world where criminals simply "can't" get guns, you might as well be discussing a world where we ride to work on unicorns and eat rainbows for breakfast--such a place is never going to exist."
Well no, you are wrong. They cannot always get guns, as the fact that the attacker at Dunblane had use knives instead. He had tried getting hold of guns and failed.
Posted by: uncle noel | February 15, 2008 12:23 PM
Holbach, the point is how unlikely your scenario is. It is your hero fantasy. I am a high school teacher. I appreciate having armed police officers on my campus and no one else with guns. I do not know you so indeed I would not feel safe around you if I knew you were carrying a weapon.
Posted by: Thom Denick | February 15, 2008 12:25 PM
I just want to point out to those who think a car is not as effective as a gun. It certainly can be in the right situation. It happened "inadvertently" in Santa Monica about 5 years ago (at the farmer's market I normally go to on the weekend.)
In approximately 10 seconds this crazed loon in a beat-up car killed 10 people and injured 63.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller
That's more damage than any automatic weapon could do with one clip.
The key here is I still go to the Farmer's Market. These are abnormal incidents and as a rational person you should not allow them to shape how you live your life.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 12:28 PM
Guav,
In reality, most people comply with the law, most of the time. The point is that in the UK it is possible to obtain a gun, but very difficult unless you are already involved in criminality. The more difficult is to obtain a gun, the more unlikely it becomes that mentally ill people will be able to do so, either because they don't move in the right circles, or because their homocidal/suicidal impulse wanes, or because they are caught trying to do so.
Clearly, in the short term, prohibition will have the limited effect of taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding people, but over time it will provide a platform for making gun possession an abnormality - to effect the cultural change required - and to tackle the supply of illegal weapons.
Posted by: foldedpath | February 15, 2008 12:36 PM
Just saw a report a little while ago on CNN, where a police officer said the shooter had been on medications (he declined to identify what type), and that he had recently quit taking the medication. They interviewed people close to him, who said that after stopping the medication he was behaving "somewhat erratic in the last couple of weeks." So this may be something like schizophrenia or bipolar illness.
He obtained at least two of the guns legally, since he had no past criminal record and met all other requirements. If it turns out that it was a mental health issue, then that's the broken link right there: the fact that his medical treatment for a condition that might potentially involve danger to others, wasn't linked in any way to a block on firearms purchase.
Posted by: gwangung | February 15, 2008 12:38 PM
I am unconvinced that will happen.
I think that legislating morality works only occasionally, and mostly in cases where it augments a value society agrees with, such as equality between the races.
Here, there are multiple attitudes at play, and many of them contradict. Because of that, I doubt any cultural change will result, because there are multiple forces that support both gun banning and gun ownership.
Posted by: jeh | February 15, 2008 12:43 PM
We need--as a society--to take mental health as seriously as cardiovascular health. Obesity is not our only problem.
Unfortunately too many people think the solution is to treat an immaterial entity they call the soul, for which we have absolutely no medicine. I come from a family with a history of depression and most of my family members think the way to treat this problem is with God talk, but so far the efficacy of this "therapy" has been rather poor.
We have a long way to go in understanding how the brain works and how it goes awry in mental illness, but at least we do have some drugs and therapies now. The problem often is compliance with prescription, and unfortunately, this has been a very difficult problem in an era of deinstitutionalization and outpatient treatment. It would seem that the latest shooter is an example of what can happen when a person goes off a medicine that does work.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 12:44 PM
dead things are often harder than living things, and so are harder to cut. that's why i keep my pocket knife as sharp as my meager skills with a whetstone can make it. like i said, dull knives are dangerous.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 12:50 PM
To jenl1625 @ #60
Seriously? What is it that makes you think I'm paranoid?
You carry a gun around with you and are live in constant fear of being attacked. That's what makes me think you're paranoid.
Yeah, so you live in a city. I live in one too, London. It's a busy place and bad shit sometimes happens, but if I carried a weapon then I'd most likely end up with it used on me.
Some people get kidnapped. So fucking what? It's highly unlikely to be you, so you're highly unlikely to need to defend yourself against it. If you live in a city, where there's millions of people, then there will be news reports of bad things happening to some of them. That you are sure it will happen to you marks you down as a a self-centred paranoid prick.
And as for that "right to shoot people," well - yeah. I think that if I have a genuine reason to believe that the person attacking me is likely to kill me and leave my body in a ditch somewhere, I think I *do* have the right to defend myself. You don't? Really?
(my emphasis)
Damn right I don't, at least not by shooting them. How sure do you have to be before you kill someone? Should they be intimidating you? Should they be actually grabbing you?
Picture the scene: It's a cold, windy November night, you're walking down the street to get home. There's a man walking behind you who's made the same turns as you since you got out of the subway. He's got a hood up, sheilding his face, and he's walking fast, he's also breathing a little heavily. You feel intimidated (well, it was halloween the other night and it sure feels a little spooky) so you reach into your handbag for your gun so you feel better.
Why should your neighbour, who has his hood up to stay warm and is walking fast to get home soon and who is breathing a little heavily 'cos he's an asthmatic be at risk of being murdered by you, just 'cos you're a self-centred paranoid fantasist?
Would you pause before shooting him? What if he is a mugger? What if he grabs your handbag, you pull your gun and he grabs it out of your hand before you shoot, leaving you doubly at his mercy?
Would you allow your spouse or child to be killed
Won't somebody please think of the children?
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Matt Penfold:
What in the hell are you talking about? The attacker at Dunblane used two handguns. But aside from that fact, in the UK:
Now remember, we're talking about an ISLAND--an island smaller than most of our states. If the UK cannot prevent the flow of illegal guns into it's borders, and cannot stop criminals from getting firearms, if they want them, in the face of a complete and total ban, how exactly do you propose that we "make the guns go away" here? Even if every gun on American soil disappeared tomorrow morning, how would you suggest we keep guns from entering the country with 7,514 miles of land border and a maritime border of 95,000 miles of shoreline?
foldedpath:
That's interesting, and unsurprising. It seems that most of these shooters (all?) are on some sort of medication, often anti-depressants.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 12:53 PM
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 12:54 PM
I also have a lenghty comment with responses to Gwangung, Ktesibios, Mirshafie and Tsig, but it appears to be stuck in moderation.
Posted by: roystgnr | February 15, 2008 12:55 PM
Can you believe these people, suggesting that we echo violence with more violence? I'll bet most of these hypocrites would want to fine embezzlers and imprison kidnappers too, and they don't even recognize the moral equivalency that that creates between themselves and the "criminals"!
Clearly the only reasonable answer is outright gun prohibition. Once we make guns as hard to acquire as marijuana, we'll finally be safe. As long as Prohibition doesn't create another niche for organized crime to thrive in, I mean, but when in history has that ever happened?
Posted by: Rob | February 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Bernard Bumner
I can hunt with an over-and-under shotgun. Then I can fire exactly 2/3 as many shells as I can with a semi-automatic shotgun (you have to have a plug to shorten the magazine to two shells). Do you feel this is significant? In any event, I can reload an over-and-under as fast as I can a pump action or semi. So it's three versus two shells, and the fire rate for an over-and-under is faster than a pump.
Private ownership of fully automatic weapons is illegal. The key word is fully. You can buy automatic assault rifles, but this is just a semi-automatic weapon, modified from fully automatic. I'm assuming you know the specifics of the difference? One pull, one shot, versus one pull, multiple shots.
I'm not too worried about my family members. My partner wouldn't touch a gun with a ten foot pole, and has never fired one. My sister lives in Illinois, three states away. She has never fired a gun either. I think that I'm pretty safe on this one. I'm struggling to see how or why I would shoot my partner or my sister. I like them and would like to keep them around as long as I can.
Now, I generally try and not shoot myself. I've been handling guns for over 40 years, and have never had a weapon go off accidentally.
Furthermore, you know that statistics don't apply to individuals. Just because there is a 10% chance of someone falling in the bath and hurting themselves, this does not mean that I, personally, have a one in ten chance of doing so.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 12:59 PM
barring living in a nudist colony, you can never be entirely certain that some random stranger is not carrying a weapon. do you then feel unsafe whenever there is a stranger near you?
alternatively: should you feel unsafe, and if so, to what extent? what measures are reasonable to alleviate your fear, and which ones are not?
i submit that treating each and all random strangers as though you do not and cannot trust them (by insisting they disarm, en masse) is not reasonable because it (1) will not work, and (2) will make large numbers of those people feel insulted, distrusted, patronized and resentful towards you.
society is built on trust. most people can be trusted, even with weapons. the few exceptions can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 1:01 PM
Guav, nobody has claimed that a ban on guns would make them all go away, but it would take them out of the hands and homes of law-abiding citizens and would make things like school shooting much harder.
Sure, criminals would still shoot each other, but they're choosing to go outside of the law and hang out where there's guns, forgive me for giving much less of a damn about them in such circumstances.
Posted by: Heather | February 15, 2008 1:01 PM
Our school is having a lock-down drill today. We don't know which period it will be, only that it is a level 3 - lights off, doors locked, nobody in or out. This was planned on Tuesday, so it's not a knee-jerk response to yesterday's shooting.
In an inner city school, I wouldn't be shocked to find out some students are carrying. We've been told not to tell students it is a drill. What do you think they are going to do when they are told to prepare for a gunman on campus? How many weapons are we going to see come out of backpacks? It should be intersting.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 1:08 PM
David Marjanović: Very good point. I think I am probably committing some sort of logical fallacy by conflating the general institution of law enforcement with the crappy state of law enforcement as it currently exists in the US. As it is, I don't trust our law enforcement to operate without corruption. But perhaps the solution is not to leave citizens to defend themselves, but to reform law enforcement to remove incentives for corruption.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2008 1:09 PM
Most bank robberies and the like in Austria are done with fakes.
A FUCKING UZI!?!?!
Can I trust my eyes? Am I still having a sleep deficit from yesterday, or what?
8 cm is a bit extreme, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with carrying a Swiss army knife (some 5 cm) around to lots of places. That said, I don't see what you need a pocketknife for at a university -- I've never needed one so far. But I digress. We're talking about guns.
I don't think anyone said it's a trend (except the fundies who want to have a sign that the end is nigh). To me it looks like a steady state: chronically, lots more such massacres happen in the USA than in any other regions with 300 million people.
What do you mean "ours"? Our grandfathers' at worst. Certainly you aren't moronic enough to think the desire to invade Poland is inheritable?
She certainly wasn't born a true Scotsman.
Shock horror !!!11eleventyone11!!
As mentioned several times in this thread, they have the highest of Europe.
That's certainly true, though. Never seen such a high density of paranoiacs -- many of whom, at the same time, would never consent to pay enough taxes to sustain a police that could be taken seriously.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 1:09 PM
in most of the USA, you have to have a "reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury". keeping in mind that i'm not a lawyer, that basically means you have to be able to convince a judge and jury that the other guy was about to kill and/or cripple you right then and there. googling self-defense laws and use of force laws can give you many more details than you likely want to know.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 1:11 PM
tom p:
Perhaps it might make school shootings minutely less likely, statistically speaking. But statistically speaking, school shootings are not really a huge public safety issue. They are horrible, and sensational, but on the list of things likely to kill you, a crazed shooter is not very high on that list. I have a greater likelihood of being victimized by one of those armed criminals that you acknowledge will still have guns than by some depressed emo kid who goes off his meds.
So I do not find your "Disarm Millions Of Law-Abiding Americans And Deny Them Their Rights To Self Defense So That We Might Have One Or Two Less Sensational School Shootings In The Long Run" argument particularly compelling.
In the same way, the attacks of 9/11 were horrible and sensational. But statistically speaking, terrorist attacks are not a huge public safety issue in a country where 10,000 people die a year from the flu. Which is why I do not find arguments that we should surrender constitutional and civil rights to make us marginally safer from terrorist attacks to be particularly compelling either.
Sure, there are a lot of things we can do to make ourselves marginally safer from a statistic point of view. But those things need to be weighed with the cost--the cost in freedom, in privacy, and in our rights.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 1:17 PM
see, this is another example of cultural differences across the Atlantic. to me, renting an Uzi at a shooting range in Vegas would be a really cool, fun thing to do while on a vacation trip to sin city, a neat way to turn money into noise and create some good memories. (although were it me, i'd look for an M-3 "grease gun", Thompson, or other historical weapon instead. tastes differ.) to David, well...
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 1:17 PM
David Marjanović:
Not to purchase an Uzi, but to rent one to fire at the firing range. If you're going to flip out that such a thing is possible, please first provide statistics on how many shootings there are at firing ranges, or how many criminals have procured firearms by renting them for on-site use at a firing range. Otherwise, please tone down the hysterics.
Posted by: Holbach | February 15, 2008 1:20 PM
Bernarda @ #35 I watched the Taser video and I can
envision that tasers will be much more openly prevalent
than concealed handguns. I can picture the scenario:
"Hey, you bumped me: Zap! Even criminals will be carrying
them, as they will probably easier to acqiure than a
hand gun. They are quiet, unlike a hand gun, and can be
used to quickly subdue a victim for any purpose. I can
also imagine larger tasers fitted to the front bumpers of
cars and exacerbating the road rage phenomena! "Hey, you
cut me off", and the tasered car will lose control and
cause a massive pile up because the latest models will not
only disable the car but the driver as well! Good grief,
we may very well have, ala the Russkies, a taser gap!
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 1:21 PM
Matt opined:
What the fuck is that?
No you can't as you're limited by the amount of ammo and type of weapon you have. The larger the caliber the less you can carry. We're really lucky these wackjobs haven't been proficient in handling weapons. The fact they're off their meds in the first place probably has a lot to do with that.
I know of several car occurrences, but can't recall the dates or names of them all, but there is the case of Omeed Aziz Popal, who killed one and injured 14 with his vehicle (SUV) in a sparsely populated area and he drove for many blocks in San Fran.
There was another one that I remember in the New York City area awhile back too.
Google is your friend:
A New Jersey man was charged yesterday with killing a man and trying to kill 24 others, including a taxi driver, during a hit-and-run rampage in Midtown Manhattan in February. The defendant, Ronald Popadich, 41, of Garfield, N.J., is accused of using his car to run down 25 people on Feb. 12 and 14, including Neal Spicehandler, who died, said the Manhattan district attorney.
Fuck you very much.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 1:26 PM
Correction:
Anyone in the US can own fully-automatic weapons. You must pass the required background check and apply for a Class III permit.
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 1:30 PM
No wildlifer, not anyone in the US can own fully-automatic weapons. People who don't pass the FBI background check can't own them :)
(People who can't afford to shell out between $10,000 and $50,000 for a fully-automatic weapon can't own them either)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 1:32 PM
wildlifer, you also have to find such a weapon for sale and scrape up the asking price. the total supply has been capped by federal law since 1986, with the result that machineguns are now rich boys' toys --- even the cheapest go for several thousand dollars, and the sky's the limit.
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | February 15, 2008 1:34 PM
I was one of the students at Dawson College when a monster came in with a semi-automatic rifle and did exactly what this monster did. My heart goes out to the victims and families and fellow students of that university.
This is evil and immoral and it doesn't matter if he bought his guns legally or illegally, if he prayed to God, Bhudda, Satan or was an atheist. It doesn't matter why he did it and it doesn't matter how he did it. What matters is that five good people are dead, 16 people are suffering from agonizing injuries and thousands of people's lives will never be the same.
For all of you who are using this as an opportunity to launch you political campaign - be it anti-gun, pro-gun, anti-religion, pro-religion, whatever: you sicken me. This is a tragedy, not a soap-box.
Posted by: Moses | February 15, 2008 1:37 PM
Science in action: Without having read a single post in this thread, I predict at least one idiotic "If all the students had guns..." pr-gun troll (probably John C. Randolph) will start with their idiotic 2nd Amendment, contra-factual arguments.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 15, 2008 1:39 PM
Maybe the thing to do is not dispense medications that turn people into psychopaths when they go off them.
Reuters:
"Apparently he had been taking medication" but stopped and had become "somewhat erratic" in the last two weeks, Grady said. He did not describe what kind of medication was involved.
"There were no red flags. He was an outstanding student, an awarded student" who was even "revered" by faculty and fellow students, Grady said. "A fairly normal, undistressed person."
Posted by: Rob | February 15, 2008 1:46 PM
Steven Alleyn,
Sorry for upsetting you. My sister works at NIU and had to lock down 15 preschoolers in a bathroom for 2 hours. I'm upset too, but I have every right to discuss the origins and consequences of this. You don't have to read what I write.
Anyway, what is wrong with you that you would read something that sickens you? Ann Coulter sickens me, so I don't read her.
Go away.
Posted by: Becca | February 15, 2008 1:48 PM
"I suspect that the reason schools have been targets is that they are full of optimistic young people who are exercising their opportunity to learn and preparing for a productive place in society ... and the hateful, petty pissants who believe guns and violence are the answer resent that"
Really? I suspect that the reason schools have been the targets is that they are full of students.
Students under heartbreaking amounts of stress.
Students who are mostly young people (young people the world over are more likely to die violent deaths).
Students who are optimistic and idealistic, and who want to enact change- yet who are typically not in positions of enough power to do anything about it.
Students who are treated as little inconsequential pieces in a vast bureaucratic machine known as a school.
This sort of thing *doesn't* happen to most students. The US has in some ways a violent culture, and gun laws that also allow this kind of thing to happen. These are incredibly important issues that merit the kind of discussion they are getting here.
But I'm still suprised no one is talking about the other issues. Mental illness in students should be considered a part of the problem that we can have some influence over. It's not just an issue of a few 'hateful petty pissants'- it's an issue of what sort of school communities we create.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 15, 2008 1:49 PM
Those of you equating cars and knives as somehow equivalent or worse than guns in terms of killing power must surely then be lobbying local government representatives to equip every soldier with a Ford Focus and a Ginsu. Think of the money we'll save in military spending!
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to throw you off by suggesting that you should 'think'.
Posted by: andy | February 15, 2008 1:50 PM
"Personally, I think we need to do a better job of policing the *criminals* rather than trying to place further controls on the law-abiding. And we need to do a better job of preventing mass murders no matter what the weapon.
Which is the problem- right up until he stated pulling the trigger this guy was a "law abiding gun owner".
Clearly, fundamentally, problem one is identifying people who are prone to mental problems when they are little kids and giving them the help they need. This problem is no different at it's core than controlling disease with childhood immunization.
And at that point the argument ends when your gun nuts start jabbering about "nanny states" and letting "market forces decide" and how they don't want their taxes "wasted" helping other people's children.
Honestly, this infantile all-against-all philosophy of theirs needs to be stamped out!
Posted by: Moses | February 15, 2008 1:51 PM
Ah. Lilly has studied history. Well put.
BTW, 67 posts in and NO JOHN C. RANDOLPH? I'm disappointed. Though I've seen at least two who qualify in his absence.
Posted by: zer0 | February 15, 2008 1:56 PM
I feel like this is deja vu. We've had this same exact discussion before. Couple months back, some 400+ reply monster. Guns are amoral. Just as amoral as any other mundane tool you could kill with. It's the demented fuckwit human behind the gun that makes it dangerous.
Posted by: John Marley | February 15, 2008 1:56 PM
Here's another one to add to Candy's list (#117)
I hope all the "I need a handgun for home protection" types are aware of it.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment 117 bears repeating -- though let me just mention that Europeans almost certainly don't watch less stupid TV (...neither less TV that is stupid nor TV that is less stupid, that is!). You can even find Walker, Texas Ranger, if you look for it; in some countries, it was apparently shown at prime time -- the few Czechs I know have all seen it. Oh, and, over here, too, the hunters shoot everything that looks vaguely like a roe after a bottle of distilled alcohol or two.
Where I live, people evidently can get guns if they know how. The difference is that it's extremely difficult to get one. Not like in certain places in the USA where you can just fucking go and fucking buy a gun and ammo as if it were a loaf of fucking bread.
Over here, the black market for guns is tiny, because so few guns are in circulation in the first place.
I've already explained why "even" is bass-ackwards.
Will they? Do they in Europe or elsewhere?
Posted by: Moses | February 15, 2008 2:00 PM
Shoving your head up your ass and refusing to acknowledge the truth doesn't mean you're right.
I'll let you do the math since you're so fucking smart. Hint, it's nearly 40,000. Douche-bag.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | February 15, 2008 2:11 PM
Just his morning I was met with an e-mail of a situation on my campus of a violent felon that was arrested and expelled from the university for bringing weapons to school and making threats. He is now in custody, but when he gets out... well? I wrote a letter to the President, VP Academic Afairs, Security Chief and Faculty to request our security upgrade to a full police force. We only have Security w/o authority to do anything, even give parking citations. Threats have been given on my campus before. No one feels safe here. I've yet to get a response and I'm told it will probably have to be adressed in Faculty Senate if Administration ignors mine & others concerns. It makes you look askew at those students around campus now. Pitiful way to go about things I admit.
Posted by: zer0 | February 15, 2008 2:13 PM
#162 wins this thread.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 15, 2008 2:14 PM
Oookaaay... sorry. I got the point about the Uzi.
But still... firing an Uzi at a firing range? Isn't that, like, massive overkill? I mean, what next, a bazooka?
If you want to turn money into noise, why don't you play GTA or something? While I don't play any such games, I freely admit I'm fascinated with explosions, the bigger, the better -- just not in real life.
Holbach, you have a very good point about the taser.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 15, 2008 2:20 PM
This one by Mark is telling with respect to the pro-carry side:
"...I believe the average college student would behave more intelligently than the average police officer, and would feel safer if I knew my peers were armed, rather than just criminals."
Well OK then. Police officers are dumb oafs with guns, sticks and tasers who just happened by a rack of police Halloween costumes. In fact, the average late-teen/early/mid-20's college student can outthink cops and administer justice better, gun use being only one example of this.
Interesting take. I'll forward your contact info to the F.O.P. To quote someone in spirit from another thread, arguments like these are proof of just how far humanity has left to go.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 2:21 PM
Moses:
Is it really necessary to insult the people you're arguing with? I mean, I don't give a fuck if you do, but it doesn't make your arguments more or less valid.
Let's look at the list you posted. While it's true that the United States has firearm homicide rates higher than Brazil or Mexico--countries in which private firearms are heavily regulated/banned--you're not showing the entire picture.
Mexico's non-firearm murder rate is higher than our TOTAL murder rate. I believe the same is true with Brazil. Obviously the lack of access to guns is not saving any lives in those countries. Murderers just use other weapons (or, of course, illicit firearms).
Posted by: pedlar | February 15, 2008 2:22 PM
Jenl1625 @ #45:
Actually, as someone firmly in the 'ban 'em all' camp, I have no problem with armed women. My sister lives in the States. Very competent with a gun, and much safer than her ex-Marine husband who is a nice guy with a hair-trigger temper.
I've often thought the ideal compromise would be: Ban all male gun ownership/use. Only women can have guns. Now this is obviously a fantasy but it brings home a point that is so obvious it hardly gets mentioned. These shooters are always young men with penises. Probably small penises. Penises and male hormones. That's why talk of fertiliser bombs and (for crissake) car-slaughter is irrelevant. These are teenage boys who dream of going down like Butch and Sundance, with their penises firing full bore.
And nothing is more horrifying than the idea of a classroom of Holbach's heroes, just as full of piss and vinegar, hauling out their penises and returning fire. So yeah, arm the students. But only the women.
No, the reason the school is the target is because it's the shooter's homeground. This is a personal fuck-you, not a random wank.And, incidentally,
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 2:29 PM
really? grocers run an FBI background check on people who buy bread from them? and report people who buy more than one loaf at a time to the Bureau of Wheat, Rye and Cornmeal? this must be in some other part of the USA i am not familiar with.
or perhaps you were speaking of illegal gun purchases. i wouldn't presume to know if they're any more difficult in Europe than they are here, myself.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 2:29 PM
Moses:
Oh, and in 1994, the year you're talking about, Canada, Norway and Finland had gun ownership rates almost as high as ours, yet nowhere near the number of gun deaths per capita.
Isn't it possible that the causes of crime (and gun crime) have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with firearm availability? Perhaps the causes are cultural and econiomic? All the evidence seems to support exactly that.
Posted by: pedlar | February 15, 2008 2:30 PM
#175
What? It's a competition. Then no, #165 wins this thread.
Or is someone forciing you two to take part in this?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 2:32 PM
no, why do you think it should be? the Uzi fires 9mm Luger ammunition, same caliber that probably the majority of semiautomatic handguns in the world are chambered for. it fires them a good bit more often than your average police officer's sidearm, but the concrete backstop doesn't care.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 2:33 PM
David Marjanović:
I don't personally understand the allure of my friend who likes to go to the race track and zoom around at speeds that would be illegal anywhere else, in a car that is not legal to drive on the street, but just because it's not something I am personally interested in doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be allowed to do so in a controlled environment, and I don't think it makes him weird.
Luckily for him, he doesn't have to acquire my approval or blessing in order to do something which breaks no laws and harms nobody. Likewise, I don't need to acquire his approval if I decide to go to Las Vegas and fire an Uzi at a paper target on full auto. I don't even know that I'd want to do that, but there's no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Posted by: The other Dan from Milwaukee | February 15, 2008 2:39 PM
Lorax @5 wrote> How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat, the the shooter was an atheist, that liberals made it happen? or am I already too late.
Too late: Gov. Hucakabee was on the news this morning saying (to my best recollection) "We need to maintain the rights of students to carry guns so they can defend themselves in situations like this, before the police arrive."
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 2:41 PM
Pedlar:
I don't mind if only women are allowed to own guns (if you can ensure that male illegal gun owners are also disarmed)--but they're not allowed to own them until after they've gone through menopause. Deal?
Posted by: foldedpath | February 15, 2008 2:42 PM
Why would you jump to that conclusion? Many of the most serious conditions like bipolar can be brought under control with medication now, if the patient is compliant and takes the meds regularly (a big "if"). It's far more likely that this was an existing condition that flared up when medication was withdrawn, than some side-effect of a medication that "turns people into psychopaths when they go off them."
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 2:44 PM
You want to play with big guns? You want to shoot automatic rifles? Want to blow shit up. Join the Marines. They're always looking for people. especially now. I did, although that was a while ago and not for the reasons stated above.
Think your piddly little weapons will save you from your government? That's a joke. Tell me what your uzi's gonna do against an M1 Abrams or a strafing FA18. Think not knowing who has a concealed gun might deter criminals? Look at the murder rate, etc. during the wild west days.
Think there's a vast array of people out there who want to take away all your guns? You've been reading to many NRA magazines which propagate this myth and breed paranoia to sell magazines and merchandise and to give the more conservative Republicans a platform.
How about this, just think.
Posted by: kmarissa | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM
I have a (non-gun-related) question that I'm hoping that those more knowledgeable than myself can discuss. Speaking on the mental-health issue side of things, it seems like there must be a tension between acting to protect other students from someone with mental health problems, and risking unduly punishing someone who comes forward with those problems (and consequently discouraging students from seeking help even when they really need it). For instance, in this case, we don't have many facts yet, but it appears at this point that this may have been an otherwise exemplary student who became violent after stopping medication. The VA tech tragedy seemed to involve a student who had long had mental problems and, IIRC, had also stopped taking medication for one reason or another.
If we began to screen students more carefully to keep potentially dangerous people out of our colleges, wouldn't high school and college students avoid getting help as much as possible, afraid of being labeled as dangerous, and kicked off campus? On the other hand, how inclusive do we want to be, knowing the potential dangers when warning signs are ignored?
This conflict has puzzled me for a while, but as I know nothing about psychology (or campus administration), I'm wondering how real a problem it actually is.
Posted by: FredSaid | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM
"Legally, I have to pass a driving test, both written and in a vehicle, to have a driver's license. Why can't we require the same minimal requirements for access to gun ownership? Like stolen cars, it won't stop the criminal element, but it might slow down those who purchase only to kill."
Don't confuse something that makes you "Feel Safer" with something that will actually "Make you Safer".
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM
As usual, you guys completely misunderstand what is being said when people talk about the right of students to carry on campus. They are not saying that the solution is "arm everyone," or that "kids should have guns."
What is being said is that adults 21 and older who already have concealed carry permits and are already carrying firearms around in public every day--and have already had all the background checks, paid their fees, been fingerprinted, have no criminal record or DUIs and whatever other restrictions the particular state has to get a CCW permit--should be able to take their firearm with them on campus when they go to class. Leaving their firearm at home when going onto campus doesn't make anyone any safer from these suicide shooters.
I don't know that there is actually a "solution" to people losing their shit and deciding to start blasting away at bystanders, but it's clear that "Gun Free Zones" do a piss poor job of keeping these zones free from the guns of people who intend on committing crimes.
Posted by: zer0 | February 15, 2008 2:50 PM
Just pointing out that he's the only sane one, that walked into this dick measuring competition and told you all to get off your soapboxes and stfu and be respectful of the dead/injured.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 2:51 PM
You're right Dahan. A ragtag bunch of irregulars with only small arms and homemade explosives has totally not been holding it's own against the most powerful military force in the world for several years now.
Posted by: Anonomouse | February 15, 2008 2:52 PM
"Let's not see any more proposals that violence in reply is the answer, it isn't -- it's an echo of the same problem."
Translation - "This post is for the Bleeding Hearts only. This is an emotional issue with us and much like the Evangelicals we don't want to hear a differing opinion"
Posted by: Greywizard | February 15, 2008 2:55 PM
I'm a Canadian. Lots of Canadians own guns, but there's a difference sense of gun ownership here than in the US. In the US, as some of the posts show, there is what might be termed a 'gun culture', a culture in which owning a gun is to have power. Dahan shows that it's only a delusion of power, but it's still the connection between guns and power that does the trick.
Sure, Americans have the right to bear arms. That right derives from the Revolution, in which the colonists overthrew a government which did not have their interests at heart. So, the right to bear arms was important. Without it, the revolution wouldn't have worked.
But, as Dahan says, the firepower of the American military far outweighs any power that citizens might possibly accumulate. But the myth prevails. Gun ownership is power. And where gun ownership is power, that's the way the weak or the mentally unstable are going to express it.
No, possibly it's true, gun control won't make the difference. The difference will take generations. Perhaps it will never happen as long as Americans hang on to the myth of the equation between bearing arms and having power.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 3:01 PM
Nomen Nescio, I have read all your posts, and in fact, you have convinced me that you are crazy, nuttier than a loon. I am just judging by your words.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 3:08 PM
as Guav pointed out, there are guerilleros you can go tell that to.
and i'm flabbergasted that anybody would think carrying weapons doesn't impart a measure of power. i'm a bit over 180 cm tall (6 feet), a male in my prime; even though i'm not by any means athletic, i could probably beat up on about half of humanity, if i faced them one-on-one with empty hands. but i'd not get into a gunfight with any of them, if i could avoid it!
if all the world were reduced to fists and feet, i'm in a subgroup that could well end up on top of the pile. i have the physique to dominate --- even terrorize --- an awful lot of people, if i had to. but in america, i'd run the risk of facing Samuel Colt's equalizer; of course guns give power, that's one of their best and most democratic traits!
Posted by: BruceJ | February 15, 2008 3:09 PM
PZ says:
This is not what would happen. Would-be shooters, bystanders, and people trying to get out of the way would be gunned down.
I can state, with 100% confidence that NOT ONE of these 'Arm them all' gun-violence masturbators has EVER been in a situation like this. If they had they'd realize the sheer insanity of what they're suggesting. Adding more gunfire to a shooting incident WILL NOT HELP!
We had a shooting on campus a few years ago. A clearly dysfunctional student took out his frustrations on two professors who he blamed for his failure, during an exam.
Had some would-be hero opened fire in that chaos, there would have been more dead. Moreover, had there been more than one, the second armed student might well have thought that the gunfire coming from hero #1 was the bad guy.
Now we have three people shooting amid a mass of freaked out people trying to get out of two exits. This is a recipe for more Dead People.
Posted by: Fade | February 15, 2008 3:09 PM
So, beyond the Guns, Guns, Guns issue, which I understand IS important and in need of reform, how many of you want to take on the issue of the meds this guy was on and off of -
24 Gun incidents and Hundreds of thousands of gun owners. This guy bought his gun last week.
Let's have some stricter laws on the issuance of anti-depressants to anyone and everyone.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Loathe though I am to break up the usual gun-control love-fest, I felt I should ask a different (though equally predictable) question about this tragedy:
Have any of the usual shit-spewing fucktard ghouls blamed this on evolution yet?
I haven't been looking, but it's only a matter of time.....
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 3:13 PM
"You're right Dahan. A ragtag bunch of irregulars with only small arms and homemade explosives has totally not been holding it's own against the most powerful military force in the world for several years now."
You're right Guay, they haven't.
If you're refering to Iraq, that is no ragtag bunch of irregulars with only small arms and homemade explosives. Do you disagree with all the intel that has stated that they are being supplied by foreign powers? Those aren't homemade explosives. They're ones that we didn't secure when we went in and others being brought into the country by advanced military.
They also aren't a ragtag bunch of resisters. Most of them are veteran fighters. Ex-Bath Army, and trained al qaeda.
If you're referring to Afghanistan, the problems are similar.
Bad analogy, unless you've got a few tons of HE ordinance out in your back 40 along with HEDP RPG's and a few SAMs.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 3:13 PM
you're free to your opinion, of course, although i wouldn't mind discussing the matter with you. is there any particular statement of mine that strikes you as clearly debatable or questionable?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 3:20 PM
Guav, I mistook Dunblane for another incident. I apologise.
I hope you will recipricate and apologise for making misleading comments. You see Guav the thing is about these shooting is that the firearms are not obtained illegally, and for you to imply that they are is dishonest.
If you remember you said:
"Now remember, we're talking about an ISLAND--an island smaller than most of our states. If the UK cannot prevent the flow of illegal guns into it's borders, and cannot stop criminals from getting firearms, if they want them, in the face of a complete and total ban, how exactly do you propose that we "make the guns go away" here? Even if every gun on American soil disappeared tomorrow morning, how would you suggest we keep guns from entering the country with 7,514 miles of land border and a maritime border of 95,000 miles of shoreline?"
No one here has denied that restricting access to firearms means criminal cannot get their hands on them. The point is that the people who go on mass shooting sprees are not criminals in the conventional sense. Whilst their actions are criminal their part behaviour normally has not been.
The firearms used at Virginia Tech were purchased legally, and it seems they were in this case as well. Those who are involved in a criminal lifestyle are not the people who are carrying out these killings, and for you infer they are is just plain dishonest on your part. I call on you to withdraw your comments and apologise for making such silly claims.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 3:21 PM
so any police officers responding to a shooting incident ought to leave their firearms behind, then? it would seem to follow logically.
seriously, what would you suggest they bring?
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 3:22 PM
"of course guns give power, that's one of their best and most democratic traits!"
So everyone gets guns.
Someone's gonna up the ante then. If everyone has a handgun and I go with your logic, the criminals are gonna get fully automatic weapons. Next logical step. We all get them. Now the criminals will move onto high explosives, RPG's, etc. Guess we all go on a buying spree again. It goes on. I suppose all countries should have nuclear weapons? There power would be one of their best and most democratic traits!
This is obviously ridiculous. You have to draw a line somewhere. So why do you draw the line where you do?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 3:28 PM
wildlifer,
If you are unaware that GTA, short for Grand Theft Auto, are a series of computer games in which the player commits a range of criminal actions, including drive by shootings, then I suggest that maybe you are a little out of touch with modern culture. You are also likely not to read or watch much in the way of news as the games have been much commented on in the media. In view of the cloistered existence you must lead do you not think you may need to learn a bit more before passing comment ?
Posted by: benarda | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM
Nemon Nescio, just to mention a couple of things. There is your description of cutting. There is your talk about legal aspects. There is your fascination with shooting a Uzi. I stop there. If you like, I can probably refer to later posts. But I think that is enough already.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 3:30 PM
The incident I confused with Dunblane occurred at St Luke's Primary School in Wolverhampton.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM
Dahan:
Supplied with small arms and explosives. They are not driving around in tanks and do not have anywhere near the firepower of an M1 Abrams or a strafing FA18. They are running around in fucking flip flops, making detonators from cell phones.
They are using absolutely nothing that Americans do not have access to. Or have you forgotten that a couple of nutbags destroyed an entire building with a homemade fertilizer bomb?
In the vast majority of cases in this century in which they have confronted popular insurgencies, modern armies have been unable to suppress the guerrillas. That's why the Brits no longer rule in Palestine & Ireland; Why the French no longer rule in Indo-China, Algeria, and Madagascar; why the Portuguese no longer rule in Angola; why the whites no longer rule in Rhodesia; why General Somoza no longer rules in Nicaragua; why General Battista no longer rules in Cuba; why the Shah no longer rules Iran--not to mention our experiences in Vietnam or the Russians in Afghanistan.
We can't forecast exactly what would happen if the American people took up arms against a dictatorial government. But there's no evidence from the history of warfare to support the simplistic assertion that resistance could not possibly achieve any success, simply because the government has got bigger guns.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 3:41 PM
"Oh, and in 1994, the year you're talking about, Canada, Norway and Finland had gun ownership rates almost as high as ours, yet nowhere near the number of gun deaths per capita.
Isn't it possible that the causes of crime (and gun crime) have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with firearm availability? Perhaps the causes are cultural and econiomic? All the evidence seems to support exactly that. "
Guav, so your argument is that the US is a more violent country that Canada, Norway or Finland ?
Is that not an argument for making it harder to get hold of firearms ? It does say much for the US if your best argument for the number of people killed is that you happen to have a lot more violent people. It would seem to strength the case of those arguing that US society would seem to be somewhat dysfunctional.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | February 15, 2008 3:42 PM
Here is an eyewitness account of the Texas Tower shooting; the first of the university mass murders.
http://www.memoryarchive.org/en/University_of_Texas_Tower_Shooting,_1966,_Buck_Wroten
Posted by: foldedpath | February 15, 2008 3:50 PM
We don't know the details, we're just guessing here, but the odds are that this isn't a case of anti-depressant side-effects. Restricting the meds isn't the answer if the diagnosis turns out to be something like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, where meds are keeping it under control.
The real problem here is: what do you do with an adult diagnosed with a serious mental illness, who decides to stop taking their meds? This happens every day, everywhere, and it's a serious strain on friends and family. Our legal system in the U.S. isn't set up to force people to take these meds (which basically means being locked up in an institutional environment), unless there is a prior history of endangering themselves and others. There are even patient advocates who will support the right of an adult not to be forced to take their meds. What can happen in a few cases, especially with young males, is that the first real anti-social "episode" is an extreme one, like this shooting.
Most Americans don't want to live in a medical police state, where all childred are forced to take psychiatric evaluations at regular intervals, meds are prescribed by the State, regular urine tests are done for compliance, and so on. So there has to be some balance between personal freedom and the safety of others. Requiring doctors to notify the state so it can block firearm purchases for patients with certain mental illnesses, seems like a reasonable step. If I'm not mistaken, some states already do this (although the system can break down, as I think it did with the VA shootings).
Maybe some type of additional screening could be done at some point for young people without violating civil liberties, to catch those who wouldn't otherwise see a doctor for their problems. But it will always be a tricky balancing act.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 4:04 PM
Dahan, i draw the line at personal firearms for a number of reasons. let's see if i can outline a few without PZ kickbanning me for flooding his blog...
i called them "democratic" because i basically agree with George Orwell's analysis in his famous essay "You and the Atom Bomb". (worth googling and reading, it's online.) in a democracy, where government is of, by, and for the people --- i'm talking theory, here, obviously --- it doesn't make sense to disarm only that part of the people that aren't currently constituting "the government". by definition, the government are people not significantly better or worse than the rest of us.
i accept personal firearms because, by and large, people seem capable of owning and using them responsibly. the vast majority of guns, and gun owners, never do any harm --- and the few that do appear to mostly be cases of people who'd get into trouble even if you kept them locked in padded cells.
(then again, most mature adults are capable of owning and using pretty much anything responsibly. really, if we weren't, we'd have an awful hard time building a functioning society.)
i suspect that commonplace firearms ownership actually might save lives; the number of times a gun is used in self-defense in the USA is somewhere between 100,000 and 2,000,000 per annum, depending on whose statistics you trust. the figure dwarfs the total number of firearms deaths, clearly.
there's a good argument that social minorities benefit disproportionately from this effect. precisely the groups of people least likely to be able to rely on police protection (homosexuals and brown people, in the USA) are most likely to be able to scare off thugs who'd victimize them (the "armed gays don't get bashed" argument). this follows from the motives of hate criminals; few people are so rabidly bigoted they think a lynching is worth risking a shootout for. and yes, official police protection in the USA leaves a lot for social minorities to wish for!
i don't, personally, hold much stock in the "revolt against an oppressive government" argument. i wasn't born in the USA, and so i'm not so closely wedded to the late-1700s arguments a lot of U.S. natives seem to be. still, if it ever were necessary to start another civil war here (and please let me have the sense to run for the Canadian border before it comes to that!) then some decent stock of civilian weaponry might at least buy the rebels enough time to get the outside assistance needed to form up a good guerrilla movement.
i draw the line at more powerful weapons --- explosives, rockets, most cannon, and suchlike --- because they're too likely to cause undesirable side effects. you can't use hand grenades with any great care or precision, so if you do use them, you're too likely to do unwanted harm. same for RPGs, mortars, and fighter jets. (besides, paraphrasing Orwell, we're getting into anti-democratic territory here.) i'm honestly unsure about machine guns; i can see arguments on both sides for them, and the current extremely strict regulation is acceptable to me.
the reductio ad absurdum, namely bringing up nukes and chemical weapons, demonstrate my point here well. there's NO way a single, individual citizen could ever use such mass destruction against any threat that could reasonably face him or her alone. those are weapons for use against mass targets, against groups, and by groups; they're pointless for individual citizens. hence, there's no reason to want them freely available, and good reason not to.
i think, incidentally, that you're entirely wrong about your "arms race" slippery slope argument. civilians in the USA already have guns aplenty, yet we don't really see criminals racing to arm themselves with heavier weapons. in fact, it's mostly the police and SWAT teams that have machine guns, true assault rifles, and armored cars. it's an attractive line of thought, as slippery slopes usually are, but i think if it were true we ought to already see some evidence for it.
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM
#8
Funny you would say that. My first thought was that it's too bad this university is a "gun-free zone", because if any of the victims had been armed then this guy might have been stopped before he was able to kill so many. (Of course, this "gun-free zone" wasn't so helpful in stopping the killer from bringing a gun to campus, was it?)
And no, this isn't off-the-wall hypothetical nonsense. In 2002, for example, there was a shooting at the Appalachian School of Law (Virginia), wherein three people were killed and three more injured. The shooter had no intention of stopping, either, but two students were able to subdue him after running to their cars to retrieve their personal firearms.
The sad truth is that guns exist in the world, and you'll never get them all out of the hands of organized crime and the mentally ill. But fortunately for us in the U.S., one of the rights that we haven't lost just yet is the right to defend ourselves, with deadly force if necessary.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | February 15, 2008 4:08 PM
I have absolutely no idea about what should be done about mass shootings in America.
I am fairly confident that as long as the 'social cost' of readily available guns is not felt to be too great then nothing will be done. I am sad about the people who were killed or injured, but they are just part of the price US people pay for their gun culture.
This is not being particularly critical of America - many countries have particular cultures which seem to carry a prohibitive cost to other countries.
I guess that when the pain of changing nothing exceeds the pain of making changes, then gun laws (or whatever) will be changed. Until then...
Posted by: John Marley | February 15, 2008 4:11 PM
Jim Thomerson:
Is your link meant as an argument for or against CCW on campus?
Posted by: So Laris | February 15, 2008 4:11 PM
The right to own weapons under some conditions is a point I can debate, but - and we can see this in the NRA posts here - gun ownership is quite literally a fundamentalist religion to many people and impossible to discuss.
These sorts of people are driven by the same fears and inadequacies, and dangerous delusions of empowerment and self-righteousness, that plague the extremes of religion.
Dear gunfundies - we will oppose your imposition of your delusions upon our lives.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 4:11 PM
Matt Penfield:
No, Matt. In some cases, such as this one, they were obtained legally. In many others, they were obtained illegally.
The inability to acquire legal firearms did not stop the Columbine shooters, who built 99 improvised explosive devices, were not legally allowed to posses their handguns, and committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.
Are you saying that if the VA Tech shooter had not been able to get his firearms legally, that he would have just given up and said "Oh well, I guess I won't go on a shooting rampage"? Or would he have obtained them illegally, like other school shooters have done? Are you seriously saying that?
Like I said above, statistically speaking, school shootings are not a huge public safety issue. They are horrible, and sensational, but on the list of things likely to kill you, a crazed shooter is not very high on that list. I have a greater likelihood of being victimized by a criminal armed with an illegal firearm than by one of these suicide shooters.
So I do not find the "Disarm Millions Of Law-Abiding Americans And Deny Them Their Rights To Self Defense So That We Might Have One Or Two Less Sensational School Shootings In The Long Run" argument particularly compelling.
In the same way, the attacks of 9/11 were horrible and sensational. But statistically speaking, terrorist attacks are not a huge public safety issue in a country where 10,000 people die a year from the flu. Which is why I do not find arguments that we should surrender constitutional and civil rights to make us marginally safer from terrorist attacks to be particularly compelling either.
Sure, there are a lot of things we can do to make ourselves marginally safer from a statistic point of view. But those things need to be weighed with the cost--the cost in freedom, in privacy, and in our rights.
Earlier you said:
In 2000, neighboring Austria, France, Germany, and Italy--all with stricter gun control laws than Switzerland's--had murder rates that were 21%-112% higher than Switzerland's. You can see a pattern only if you carefully select the countries you compare. Furthermore, you see even less of a pattern when you compare total homicide rates rather than firearm homicide rates. When you do that, you see no pattern whatsoever between restrictive gun laws and lower homicide rates. In the absence of firearms, those inclined to commit homicides do so by other means. And after all, if you're dead, you're dead--it doesn't really matter what's used.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM
Nemon Nescio, as nutty as you are you can at least take consolation that there is someone here even nuttier, Guav.
Posted by: John Marley | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM
Here's an example of a campus shooter being stopped by another student. Without a gun.
http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1996/Sept26/CURRENT/heal.html
(BTW this was my freshman year at PSU, but I was not on campus that day)
Posted by: Michelle | February 15, 2008 4:21 PM
It's sad and crazy what happened. The guy was off his meds when he obviously shouldn't have been. What makes me shake my head though is this asshole:
http://kotaku.com/356999/jack-thompson-blames-niu-shooting-on-video-games
Why does that asshole always frickin' blame violent folks on video games? I played GTA, and I don't carjack people with a gun and take hos along with me. I played Megaman and I don't go around shooting people thinking they're evil robots from hell. Plus, NO ONE SAID the guy had an history of gaming.
He feeds off every damn tragedy.
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM
Guav,
"They are using absolutely nothing that Americans do not have access to. Or have you forgotten that a couple of nutbags destroyed an entire building with a homemade fertilizer bomb?"
Your ignorance is showing. IEDs directly account for over 40% of US deaths in Iraq (and a lot more realistically because of the troops we loose that have to be sent out on patrol to try to get rid of them). Most of those IEDs are made by using converted military artillery and mortar rounds (how many of those you got on you?)
As the war has dragged on, they've used these rounds, or C4 (got any of that?) to create some EFPs, explosively formed penetrators. These are the most dangerous type of IED to our personnel because they can actually punch through armored cars and even tanks. Most of the EFPs in Iraq show signs that they have been made or had parts created in Iran and Syria (how's your connections with them?)
BTW, a 500 Pump Action Mossberg (however sweet a gun that is) would just scrape the paint off a typical APC and piss off the gunner.
"They are running around in fucking flip flops, making detonators from cell phones."
Yes, you can use a cell or a garage door controller. etc. to set off the primer on an explosive, but that's not really the same thing as having access to compact HE ordinance is it?
"They are not driving around in tanks and do not have anywhere near the firepower of an M1 Abrams or a strafing FA18."
It could be argued that if you have the capability to take out an M1 Abrams with an EFP or a Sea Knight with a SAM, you do indeed have firepower of an equal magnitude.
The comment about using nitrate bombs is really kind of ridiculous. Very poor choice to use against a sophisticated enemy. Bulky, easily spotted, easy to keep out of the hands of the enemy (you need how many tons of fertilizer?) and mainly good against civilian targets, which is why they use them against markets and such and not our soldiers. If these were the sort of bombs the enemy had to rely on in Iraq... we'd be home by now.
"We can't forecast exactly what would happen if the American people took up arms against a dictatorial government. But there's no evidence from the history of warfare to support the simplistic assertion that resistance could not possibly achieve any success, simply because the government has got bigger guns."
Can I take it from this statement that you believe if properly resisted no invasion is winnable?
Actually, throughout history, military coups have been extrordinarliy effective. That's why they're still so popular today.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 4:24 PM
Matt Penfield:
That quite clearly is the case.
It's an argument for addressing the socio-economic causes of violent crime. Violent crime--and gun crime--is the a symptom of a larger problem. Putting a band aid on the symptom while failing to address the larger problem is moot. Furthermore, disarming those people who own firearms for self-defense before you disarm the people they're trying to protect themselves against is immoral.
And as far as these sensational and increasing (yet still rare) public shootings go, isn't it clear that there is something much more substantial causing them other than "there are guns in America"?
We've had firearms for centuries now, and semi-automatics for one of those centuries. These murder-suicide rampages are a very recent phenomena. What changed?
Our media culture changed. News is no longer about disseminating information and keeping the public informed--news is entertainment, and what better way to keep people glued to their TV than "Mass Murder in Illinois!" and talking about the deranged perpetrator for the next several days, 24 hours a day.
Somewhere out there, there is another person who's life is crap, who feels powerless and unnoticed, who is watching this and entering his own murder-suicide fantasy.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 4:25 PM
bernarda --- well, thanks, i guess. but to be honest, i really don't see why you consider me to be so crazy for (1) carrying a general-purpose tool that i actually use regularly (i also carry a flashlight and a lighter, incidentally); (2) being interested in the law, including (but not only) the parts that outline when and how it's legal for people to fight back against unlawful assaults; or (3) being interested in an unusually loud hobby.
still, you're free to have that opinion of me. i won't push my tastes on you.
Posted by: donquijotesrocket | February 15, 2008 4:26 PM
I frequently wonder about those who advocate concealed carry as a deterrent to violence. How does a weapon unseen function as a deterrent? I mean were I of a felonious bent seeking to rob an individual whose state of armament I did not know I'd just cap them first off out of GP worst case scenario planning and steal their concealed weapon along with everything else I intended?In the same vein I wonder about those who advocate capital punishment for its supposed deterrent effect.Why then are executions generally carried out deep in the bowels of the detention facility and at inaccessible hours with little or no public exposure? Where is the deterrent effect in that? The former concealed carry advocates always seem to me to harbor some deranged fantasy of enticing someone into an act that would justify the use of a weapon against them a sort of ambush scenario. Otherwise accept training to the level of the police you seem to seek to supplement or complement and carry your weapon openly.
Posted by: John Marley | February 15, 2008 4:30 PM
My last comment seems to be stuck in moderation.
I linked to the 1996 shooting at Penn State. The shooter was stopped by another student. Without a gun. Google "penn state shooting". It's the first hit.
I'm just saying.
Posted by: John Marley | February 15, 2008 4:31 PM
also, notice that no one says anything about the "need" to allow weapons on campus.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 4:33 PM
So Laris:
Funny you would say that, since gun control is much more an article of faith than gun ownership. Gun control has never in this country been shown to lower crime rates or make us safer, yet people continue to proscribe it, hoping it will one day start to work. Gun control takes upon faith that if we just disarm the law-abiding citizens, criminals will stop being criminals. Makes no sense whatsoever.Yet somehow we've been discussing it all day.
And the gun control arguments are totally not based on fear at all, nor are gun control proponents ever self-righteous.
Talk about delusional--what projection that is. My ownership of a firearm imposes absolutely nothing on you whatsoever. You are the one who desires to impose your beliefs upon me, by restricting and/or completely disallowing me to own that firearm.
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 4:37 PM
Nomen Nescio,
I appreciate your well expressed response, but still have to disagree with you on most points. I see your logic. However, I think it's flawed. Unfortunately, I've spent to much time on this post responding to Guav and have run out of time to follow up much at this time.
I think the "arms race" analogy still holds pretty true. Criminals will always go for bigger firepower. I believe that the fact that most of them don't feel the necessity of upping the ante right now is that most US citizens don't have guns on them.
Here in Minnesota, a few years back, we passed a conceal and carry law. Since that time, homicides and other violent crime have not dropped, as the authors expected, nor has it risen, as the proponents suspected. What has happened is that there are more guns on the street. This increases the likelyhood of more accidents and etc.
I'm not a gun hater, but I don't accept the gun-worship of some people either.
Posted by: Michelle | February 15, 2008 4:39 PM
Put as many gun laws as you will, criminals will just continue doing what they do best: being criminals and breaking the law.
Gun control is just imposing a restriction on normal law obedient people.
Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2008 4:39 PM
#217
Democracy, Racial Equality, Women's Suffrage, and many other concepts of our society could equally be classified as a "fundamentalist religion," according to your definition. Yes, even as a secular society there are certain concepts which we hold to be sacred.
Dear gungrabbers - we will defend you the next time someone commits a violent crime someplace where our CCW rights have not yet been restricted.
Posted by: Guav | February 15, 2008 4:40 PM
OK, I HAVE TO GO.
I've enjoyed discussing this with everyone, and thank you [almost] everyone for remaining civil. I have actual work to do though, and this has been very distracting.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me further or wants a response to something they said that I didn't see or reply to, you can comment at my blog or email me directly.
Have a nice evening.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 4:52 PM
How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat, the the shooter was an atheist, that liberals made it happen? or am I already too late.
About the same time we hear some left-wing nutjob try to blame it on the NRA.
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 5:00 PM
To Second Amendment Sister,
The NRA is pro gun. The killer used a gun. Yep, some people will see a correlation.
Liberals and atheist aren't known for being particularly pro gun, there's no correlation, yet we know we will somehow get blamed.
That's the difference.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 15, 2008 5:02 PM
CNN headline:
"University shooter interested in 'peace, social justice'"
LIBERAL!
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 5:05 PM
The data is pretty simple. The more firearms there in a society the more people get killed by them.
And the more cars there are in a society, the more people will be killed by them. Therefore, motorized vehicles should be banned.
Compare the number of people killed by firearms in the US to the number in the Europe. Compare the number of people killed in Switzerland, where every adult male below retirement age has an army issued rifle at home, with the number killed in the UK.
What about the numbers of people who were not killed because they used firearms in self-defense? A cost-benefit analysis has to examine both costs and benefits, not just one or the other.
By the way, no one is killed "by firearms", any more than anyone who dies in an auto collision is killed by an internal combustion engine.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 5:05 PM
yes, but it's a false one. when a pedestrian is killed in a vehicular homicide, if anyone were to blame the AAA, noone would take that argument seriously; yet, the NRA is considered a political boogeyman.
(i don't like the NRA, myself, but that's because they support too many republicans too strongly. they surely have never supported murder.)
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 5:10 PM
The NRA is pro gun. The killer used a gun. Yep, some people will see a correlation.
The American Automobile Association is "pro-car". Timothy McVeigh used a motorized vehicle to kill 168 people. Some idiots will see a correlation.
The NRA isn't known for bein particularly pro-murder, but we know they will somehow get blamed.
That's the difference.
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 5:13 PM
I didn't say it was a correct and positive correlation Nomen, I said people would see one. My point was supposed to be more about the fact of how unfair it is that we atheists and liberals get dragged into ANY kind of a bad situation.
And SES...we've all read the NRA talking points before. Some, like myself, were even members at one point in our life and own guns or have in the past. Got anything new? Because if not, we don't need to hear the same tired arguments about why gun control is antithetical to all things good.
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 5:15 PM
SAS, please see #237 in response to #236.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 5:17 PM
we don't need to hear the same tired arguments about why gun control is antithetical to all things good.
Nor do we need to hear the same tired arguments and HCI talking points about why guns are bad and outlawing them will solve all of America's problems.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 5:22 PM
Nomen Nescio, I have read all your posts, and in fact, you have convinced me that you are crazy, nuttier than a loon. I am just judging by your words.
Of course, you don't actually counter any of his arguments with facts or logic, but that's just a minor detail...
Posted by: Helioprogenus | February 15, 2008 5:27 PM
You all have to take a step back and breathe. This whole thread has turned into a political contest, when in fact, what we have to focus on here is that there's been another major tragedy that may or may not have been preventable. The universe is a senseless place, and we always look to find blame when sometimes, we have to be willing to accept that tragedies do and will always occur. Not to lessen the impact on the families of the victims, or even the potential future these victims may have had, but sharpening our political knives and stabbing each other with it at this moment will do nothing to prevent another similar tragedy. We should be willing to accept all possible solutions to such problems, but also, keep in the back of our minds that sometimes, no matter how prepared we are, there will still be random needless tragedies that will slip through our protective cracks and shock us into anger, sadness, irrational mood swings, posturing, etc.
For full disclosure however, let me say that I do believe in the right to protect one's private property, but owning a firearm should be an arduous process that should involve nothing short of a few thousand dollars, at least 18 hours of lessons on safety, ethics, state laws and a difficult test administered at the end which would cover all of those fields. This does not mean however, that I'm not open or flexible enough to reevaluate my views when shown more evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Dahan | February 15, 2008 5:29 PM
SAS,
I had to look up the HCI to see who they were, so guess I'm probably not going off their talking points. At first I wasn't sure what Human-Computer Interaction had to do with this.
And if you'll take the time to go through the comments, you'll notice very few of us are stating we should outlaw all guns and that that will solve America's problems. What is talked about is how perhaps we should use common sense in gun control.
You've obviously bought completely into gun-religion and the NRA myth of a vast liberal movement to take away every-one's guns. It's a stupid myth, as most are, seeing as even people like me who are probably exponentially more liberal than you aren't looking for that, but it's an easy sell to the paranoid. Makes the NRA a shit load of cash too. They know a lot of their clientele are rather fearful by nature, so it's easy to use that to keep selling their organization.
Blather away if you wish. You can have last comment. You're not looking to talk about reason anyway so I won't respond again.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 6:05 PM
"And the more cars there are in a society, the more people will be killed by them. Therefore, motorized vehicles should be banned."
Last time I checked cars were not designed with the intent of killing people. Indeed car designers go to great lengths to ensure people survive car accidents.
"What about the numbers of people who were not killed because they used firearms in self-defense? A cost-benefit analysis has to examine both costs and benefits, not just one or the other.
By the way, no one is killed "by firearms", any more than anyone who dies in an auto collision is killed by an internal combustion engine."
What people ? The murder rate in the UK is very low, and the overwhelming majority of people who are murdered are killed by a member of their family. In such a situation they would be more likely to be killed by a firearm than be saved by it.
You comment about no one being killed by firearms is pathetic. It requires no further response.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 6:10 PM
You've obviously bought completely into gun-religion and the NRA myth of a vast liberal movement to take away every-one's guns. It's a stupid myth, as most are, seeing as even people like me who are probably exponentially more liberal than you aren't looking for that, but it's an easy sell to the paranoid. Makes the NRA a shit load of cash too. They know a lot of their clientele are rather fearful by nature, so it's easy to use that to keep selling their organization.
And you've obviously bought completely into gun-control religion and the liberal myth of a Vast Right-wing Conspiracy (tm) bent on shooting everyone who doesn't agree with them. It's a stupid myth, like most, but it's an easy sell for Democratic politicians, whose constituents are fearful of guns and personal responsibility. Makes them a shitload of cash, too.
Blather away if you wish. You can have last comment. You're not looking to talk about reason anyway so I won't respond again.
No, I wasn't talking about reason, I was using it to talk about gun control. I'm willing to bet that you do respond, since that is what you have done in other threads after making similar promises.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 6:13 PM
"No, I wasn't talking about reason, I was using it to talk about gun control"
I read what you said. I think you will find that what ever it was you were coming out with had little to do with reason.
Posted by: Fourth Horseman | February 15, 2008 6:14 PM
Lot of money in guns for somebody and makes up for low self esteem in others. Economically sane.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 6:15 PM
i don't like the NRA, myself, but that's because they support too many republicans too strongly.
One Republicans is too many.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 6:22 PM
Last time I checked cars were not designed with the intent of killing people. Indeed car designers go to great lengths to ensure people survive car accidents.
Then they're doing a lousy job, since the number of automotive-related deaths in the United States has been below 40000 only once since 1975! Source: NHTSA. And why are car-bombs used so frequently in the Middle East and other parts of the world?
What people ? The murder rate in the UK is very low, and the overwhelming majority of people who are murdered are killed by a member of their family. In such a situation they would be more likely to be killed by a firearm than be saved by it.
Please provide evidence to document these claims.
You comment about no one being killed by firearms is pathetic. It requires no further response.
Oh, that's right. Those guns just jumped right out of their nightstands and decided to go downtown and kill some folks. Humans had nothing to do with it.
So, what is your solution for ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of criminals?
Posted by: Anonomouse | February 15, 2008 6:25 PM
"You carry a gun around with you and are live in constant fear of being attacked." - tom p
The Author is Projecting.
Seek Help.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 6:26 PM
I read what you said. I think you will find that what ever it was you were coming out with had little to do with reason.
Of course, you haven't supported ANY of your specious arguments with anything resembling evidence. Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: FredSaid | February 15, 2008 6:35 PM
"Had some would-be hero opened fire in that chaos, there would have been more dead." - BruceJ
BruceJ using his Divine Gift of Prophesy.
Thanks BruceJ!
Posted by: Kseniya | February 15, 2008 6:38 PM
I'd like to point out that a car without an engine isn't very dangerous.
Nice strawman!
Although, you know, on another blog I was told by a heartland conservative that it was probably "time to gun down all the liberals." Perhaps he was kidding. Probably he was, but considering the seething hatred he expressed towards anyone and anything that didn't fit his world-view, I do have to wonder.
You may dismiss that as an anecdote.
Oh. Nice. The old "personal responsibility" lie. Fuck you, too.
Good luck proving that.
Now that's a good question. Feel free to offer up some numbers here. Perhaps you're on to something, but how do we know? You ask the question as if asking it proves the asserion it implies. I've looked into that myself, and had trouble finding definitive information.
Re: Cars being in some way analagous to guns.
The only way in which they are similar is that they both have what's called "stopping power". In one case, it's a euphemism.
I just don't get why gun-control opponents simply CANNOT admit that guns, by design, have two (and only two) basic functions: One, to intimidate (when not used). Two, to kill (when used). Why not just admit this excruciatingly obvious fact, and move on to more compelling arguments? A gun is not a car, a baseball bat, a grape, an opiate, or even a meat cleaver - all of which can kill, but none of which are designed solely for the purpose of killing another living thing. It's a simple game of Which One Doesn't Belong, And Why?
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 6:39 PM
If you are unaware that GTA, short for Grand Theft Auto,
GTA also means Greater Toronto Area, Gulliver's Travel Associates, Greater Tokyo Area and Gran Turismo Allegerita, among other things. You seem to be unaware that three letters can be used to abbreviate more than one thing.
are a series of computer games in which the player commits a range of criminal actions, including drive by shootings, then I suggest that maybe you are a little out of touch with modern culture. You are also likely not to read or watch much in the way of news as the games have been much commented on in the media. In view of the cloistered existence you must lead do you not think you may need to learn a bit more before passing comment ?
Huh? One must be familiar with popular video games in order to comment on criminal activity in society or social policy? Does that mean I have to be an expert on baseball before commenting on global warming? This coming from someone who got his school shooting incidents mixed up (Dunblaine). Do yourself a favor and get a clue.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 6:43 PM
There is data on the UK murder rates here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#United_Kingdom
The US Department of Justice provides the following data:
MURDERER MALE FEMALE
Intimate 5.3% 30.1%
Family 6.7% 11.7%
Acquaintance 35.5% 21.8%
Stranger 15.5% 8.8%
Undetermined 37.1% 27.7%
Total 100.1% 100.1%
It would be reasonable to extrapolate the data to the UK I think.
"Oh, that's right. Those guns just jumped right out of their nightstands and decided to go downtown and kill some folks. Humans had nothing to do with it."
Ever tried killing someone by shooting them without a gun ?
"So, what is your solution for ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of criminals?"
Try reducing the number of available guns, have tough sentences for people who possess them illegally, and work towards changing a culture that sees guns as some kind of penis substitute.
I would also point out that in these shootings the guns obtained tend to have been obtained legally.
Posted by: Anonomouse | February 15, 2008 6:48 PM
"The right to own weapons under some conditions is a point I can debate, but - and we can see this in the GunBanning posts here - gun grabbing is quite literally a fundamentalist religion to many people and impossible to discuss.""
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 6:51 PM
"GTA also means Greater Toronto Area, Gulliver's Travel Associates, Greater Tokyo Area and Gran Turismo Allegerita, among other things. You seem to be unaware that three letters can be used to abbreviate more than one thing."
Context is all. The original comment was: "I think you've been playing too much of the original GTA.". Hmm, "I think you've been playing too much of the original Greater Toronto Area" does not make a lot of sense in that context does it ? Is English your native tongue ?
"Huh? One must be familiar with popular video games in order to comment on criminal activity in society or social policy? Does that mean I have to be an expert on baseball before commenting on global warming? This coming from someone who got his school shooting incidents mixed up (Dunblaine). Do yourself a favor and get a clue."
If a person wants to comment on society then yes, they need to know about society. Why is that so hard for you to understand ? Not knowing about GTA is not quite the same as not knowing who the Beatles are, but it is getting there. It does suggest someone who does not pay much attention to the news. Presumably you do not regard ignorance as a barrier to talking about something.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 6:55 PM
because, presumably, poor people's property is not as deserving of protection.
honestly though, this is a dilemma i can't resolve myself; i'm all for safe-storage laws (within reason), but gun safes cost a lot of money. legislating that gun owners must spend large sums on protecting their firearms from theft would amount to economical elitism, and likely be unconstitutional in the USA. i don't have a good answer, myself, and that annoys me.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 15, 2008 6:56 PM
Sistah, all you need to know is that the hot air produced by the steroid scandal in baseball is a component of AGW. ;-)
I agree that calling someone on not knowing GTA is kinda weak. Tsk, Matt. David's comment on GTA was right-on, I thought. Heh.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 7:05 PM
I'd like to point out that a car without an engine isn't very dangerous.
How is this relevant? Who's going to buy a car that doesn't have an engine, except to scavenge for parts?
the liberal myth of a Vast Right-wing Conspiracy (tm) bent on shooting everyone who doesn't agree with them.
Nice strawman!
Just like the strawman anti-gun crusaders like to use that gun owners think the black helicopters are coming to take their guns away. I was using it to prove that point.
Although, you know, on another blog I was told by a heartland conservative that it was probably "time to gun down all the liberals." Perhaps he was kidding. Probably he was, but considering the seething hatred he expressed towards anyone and anything that didn't fit his world-view, I do have to wonder.
And I've heard liberals saying the same thing about Repbulicans. What's your point?
You may dismiss that as an anecdote.
...because that's what it is.
whose constituents are fearful of guns and personal responsibility.
Oh. Nice. The old "personal responsibility" lie. Fuck you, too.
Where's the "lie"? That people should take responsibility for their own safety? That we shouldn't all become wards of the state? That we should not just politely ask the criminals if they would mind not shooting anybody until the police show up?
And the profanity does nothing to bolster your argument; rather, it reveals your immaturity.
Makes [Democratic politicians] a shitload of cash, too. Good luck proving that.
Let's see...Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-gun-control...their constituents are mainly pro-gun-control...Democrats get large amounts of campaign cash...see a pattern?
What about the numbers of people who were not killed because they used firearms in self-defense? A cost-benefit analysis has to examine both costs and benefits, not just one or the other.
Now that's a good question. Feel free to offer up some numbers here. Perhaps you're on to something, but how do we know? You ask the question as if asking it proves the asserion it implies. I've looked into that myself, and had trouble finding definitive information.
The fact that you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html.
Re: Cars being in some way analagous to guns.
The only way in which they are similar is that they both have what's called "stopping power". In one case, it's a euphemism.
They are also similar in that people can use them to kill large numbers of people. See car-bombs, and McVeigh, Timothy.
I just don't get why gun-control opponents simply CANNOT admit that guns, by design, have two (and only two) basic functions: One, to intimidate (when not used). Two, to kill (when used).
You forgot #3: to defend oneself against criminals, which can be done without firing or even cocking the hammer.
Why not just admit this excruciatingly obvious fact,
Because it is neither excruciatinly obvious nor a fact.
and move on to more compelling arguments? A gun is not a car, a baseball bat, a grape, an opiate, or even a meat cleaver - all of which can kill, but none of which are designed solely for the purpose of killing another living thing.
Neither is a gun.
Posted by: craig | February 15, 2008 7:15 PM
The car argument is bullshit.
People choose guns to kill because of the way it makes them feel. Guns are phallic. They are macho and cool. If you shoot people with a gun, you're a character out of the violence porn that books, movies, TV shows and heroic flag draped military recruiting posters are full of.
You can kill more people with a Ryder truck full of fuel oil and fertilizer. Worked once, anyway.
People want guns and use guns to kill because that satisfies a sick craving. I have mixed feelings about gun control, but if you honestly think most of these school shooters would choose some other method if they couldn't get guns, you're a fool.
Posted by: Second Amendment Sister | February 15, 2008 7:27 PM
Ever tried killing someone by shooting them without a gun ?
What kind of moronic nonsense is that? Ever tried killing someone by stabbing them without a knife? How about running over them without a car? Or suicide-bombing them without explosives? Or flying into a building without a plane?
Ever tried writing without using your brain? Apparently you have, and do on a regular basis.
The US Department of Justice provides the following data:
You said that the "overwhelming majority" of murder victims are killed by a member of their family. Yet the numbers you posted show that 12.0% of male and 41.8% of female murderers fit the profile (and, since murder is committed by men much more often than by women, the overall figure is going to be much closer to 12 than to 41). When did less than 40% become a "majority", much less an "overwhelming" one? Do you actually read what you post?
Try reducing the number of available guns, have tough sentences for people who possess them illegally, and work towards changing a culture that sees guns as some kind of penis substitute.
Reducing the number of available guns in a country with thousands of miles of border and more thousands of miles of coastline is not a trivial task, unless you want to open every cargo container that comes into the country. Heck, we can't even keep illegal aliens out, and it's much harder to smuggle in a person than an easily-concealed piece of metal.
I would also point out that in these shootings the guns obtained tend to have been obtained legally.
You have made this claim multiple times, but have not quantified it nor provided any evidence to support it.
Posted by: Spike | February 15, 2008 8:19 PM
As a somewhat rare perspective on this debate, I am the holder of a firearms permit in the UK. Yes, we are allowed guns for some things, isn't it shocking! Now, to get that permit, I had to show "good reason", i.e. that I wanted to do more than stand around admiring my engines of destruction. You have to be a member of a gun club, or have permission to shoot over areas of land. There is also an interview, background checks, etc., but the main point here is the "good reason". It has been decided that self-defense is not a sufficiently good reason. This seems entirely reasonable to me, which is rather backed up by the statistic that there were 49 fatal injuries due to firearms in England and Wales last year. Source. The idea that I should be able to kill someone seems a mockery of the point of having laws. What is the point of having trials and the whole rigmarole of the "rule of law" if you can decide to become judge, jury and executioner in your own home? Certainly the system in the UK is not perfect, and there are high rates of firearm crime, but that is partly due to the reporting of all incidents involving handgun shaped objects as firearm crimes (for a longer discussion of firearm crime reporting see here [.pdf]). Over two thirds of all firearm crimes reported in England and Wales in 2007 involved no injury, and I feel that this is very likely due to the general unarmed nature of the population. There is no need for death or glory firefights.
However, I am not against all gun ownership. I fully support the use of guns at rifle ranges or for sporting purposes. But please, leave the gun at the range.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 8:42 PM
#161 Last I looked I can get a full-auto M16 for $2500. Crooks can get them cheaper, since they don't have to pay for a background check.
#162 See above.
#163 cudos. Sorry I may have been part of the problem, but I tire of idiots who believe decapitation is a cure for cancer.
#206
If you are unaware that GTA, short for Grand Theft Auto, are a series of computer games in which the player commits a range of criminal actions, including drive by shootings, then I suggest that maybe you are a little out of touch with modern culture. You are also likely not to read or watch much in the way of news as the games have been much commented on in the media. In view of the cloistered existence you must lead do you not think you may need to learn a bit more before passing comment ?
Sorry, I'm not such a consumerist suck-ass that I would recognize the acronym. Nor do I believe that watching violent movies or playing violent games creates monsters such as we've seen this week.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 8:47 PM
but you can't do that. if by chance you shoot someone, even if in your own home, rest assured that the actual law enforcement authorities will investigate the incident to see if your actions were justified under the law --- society's law, not yours.
self defense is not a legal empowerment to act as any kind of enforcer; it is a legal defense against the charge of manslaughter and/or murder, which you can only employ in very specific circumstances.
self defense, even under the most seemingly draconian U.S. legal codes, doesn't allow you to mete out any kind of justice --- and hence, you're neither judge nor jury, and certainly not executioner. all that self defense allows you to do is attempt to survive so that you might face that judge and jury.
call me americanized, but i honestly have come to think that that's a right we all should have. at least in our own homes, even if --- especially if --- nowhere else. the right to attempt to survive, until such time as a court of law can tell us to stop doing so. does that really sound so very unreasonable to your British ears?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 8:51 PM
you say that as if it were pin money. i've owned cars worth less.
Posted by: Robert1 | February 15, 2008 9:01 PM
Spike said:
What an obsolete notion. Did you even pay attention to the other posters that noted that relying on police for personal protection is ineffective? The police are of course useful for removing criminals off the streets and placing them before a court.
For those who stated statistics claiming that gun control prevents criminals from obtaining guns (I.E. a correlation between gun control and the availability of guns to gangbangers), is it the gun control itself or the local criminal culture? I think it is criminal culture because the reasons below show that such claims are meaningless (besides the obvious existence of black market smuggling):
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/zoomedschematic.shtml
Chechnyan Homemade Firearms
Fablabs and Personal Fabricators
Tribal Homemade Automatics
Lets say if a population lives under powerlines and has weaker health, it could be the powerlines or the factor that the neighborhood's poverty itself is the cause. There might be even another cause. One must gather more data to find out. I just showed you links that indicate that crooks can obtain firearms at anytime if they want to.
Posted by: sil-chan | February 15, 2008 9:10 PM
As long as the government has guns, there is a need for the people to have guns.
"What do you think will happen?"
"The same thing that happens every time people without guns go up against people with guns."
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 9:16 PM
#268
I could afford a couple if I raped my savings and that's what I wanted. But it ain't $10,000 like was asserted.
Posted by: Spike | February 15, 2008 9:18 PM
Nomen, you misunderstand. If you shoot someone, and they die, that is it. There is not reprieve, no afterlife, nothing. No matter what happens to you after that, what trials you face, they are still dead. And you killed them. You took it upon yourself to decide that they had no further right to life, with no more consideration than it takes to pull the trigger. You are so worried about your ability to be given a trial, should not the same apply to the other man? I quoted the statistic that less than a third of all firearms crimes in England and Wales involve *any* injury to point out that not all criminals are going to kill you on sight. The idea that you need the gun to survive leads only to more and more deaths. Does this not strike you as counter productive?
Posted by: Robert1 | February 15, 2008 9:18 PM
I just posted a response to Spike @ #265. It has a few links in it therefore it will take a while to appear just after Spike's post. In short, I said that using gun crime statistics from Western Europe vs the U.S.'s to prove that gun prohibition itself prevents criminals from obtaining guns are meaningless. Differences in criminal culture are a more plausible explanation.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | February 15, 2008 9:27 PM
I've read this entire thread and it's fair to say that every conceivable point of view on gun law and culture has been vigorously represented. And quite a lot on the tension between mental health and personal freedom as well, so I won't lengthen it just to repeat what others have already said better.
Troubled students are a fact of academic life. Every professor I know has to deal with them. They wonder; "Could this be the one who returns with a gun?"
The only thing that surprises me is the sub-thread about pocketknives. I always carry one, it is sharp, and it is designed as a sturdy tool, not a weapon. But some people still react quite strongly when they see it, as if they cannot imagine a nonviolent use for it. Perhaps I am reading too much into their reaction but could it be that we Americans have difficulty even imagining nonviolence?
A pocketknife has hundreds of nonviolent uses, requires exceptional skill to use as a weapon, even then it has a small circle of danger, and against such use there are many defenses. A gun has very few nonviolent uses, a huge circle of danger, and is very difficult to defend against. There is no equivalence between the two.
Posted by: Anonomouse | February 15, 2008 9:28 PM
"You are so worried about your ability to be given a trial, should not the same apply to the other man?"
NO.
The "Other Man" shouldn't be in your home threatening your life.
Posted by: Robert1 | February 15, 2008 9:39 PM
decrepitoldfool said:
I'm not sure if your sentence is saying pacifism is a realistic idea. However, I will give my thoughts on pacifism itself. Pacifism is sheer and utter rubbish. If pacifism is realistic, then organisms that attack and consume other organisms shouldn't exist and the need for organisms to defend themselves from attacking organisms shouldn't exist. That would mean most of the Animal Kingdom shouldn't exist, including large smelly apes called humans.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | February 15, 2008 10:06 PM
No, I'm not saying that; I'm making a guess about our culture. If someone sees a pocketknife and the first thought they have (judging from their reaction) is that it must be a weapon, it just strikes me as odd. It's an indicator of sorts.
Our cultural heroes talk tough and shoot from the hip. They don't practice verbal judo. If you can't visualize what a nonviolent solution might look like (and our culture doesn't place a lot of value on nonviolent solutions) then you end up with a toolbox full of hammers and every problem looks like a nail.
It's no surprise our obsession with the use of force finds its way into the unstable minds among us, where it is amplified beyond restraint. And it seems to have filtered into our foreign policy as well, causing a lot of trouble.
Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 10:15 PM
decrepitoldfool said @ post #276:
Yeah, I just wanted to talk about pacifism. I assume @ post #276, that you are basically saying that starting fights with everyone around you is a stupid idea. I agree, it is just as stupid as pacifism. Both reduce your chances of survival. It is better to avoid starting fights while only using violence in self-defense.
Posted by: Spike | February 15, 2008 10:18 PM
Robert1@272, the point in my post about how less than a third of all firearms crimes in England and Wales involved any injury seems to have escaped you. I have made no argument about the relative availability of guns in the US and the UK, simply that self-defense in not, in my eyes, a good reason for having a gun. If less than a third of all crimes involving a firearm result in *any* injury, then, it seems to me, that the potential benefits of being able to stop a crime via violence are outweighed by the costs of increased risk of injury. If the criminal needs not fire the gun, then the risk to the general public is greatly reduced. As part of the public, I support this notion.
Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 10:37 PM
Robert said:
I could care less if you think that using a gun for defense is illegitimate in your eyes, in my eyes it is. In my eyes, a State that denies my right to self-defense is illegitimate, I just don't have the striking power to defeat all of its enforcers. The U.S. criminal culture (concentrated inside and near inner cities) prefers to use firearms. Are you going to persuade an armed rapist not to use a gun? Do you think you can ask the U.S. criminal culture to pretty please not use guns? A gun increases my chances of survival against another with a gun who breaks into my home. A knife, not so much, but it is better than nothing. How about dealing with the criminals instead of threatening us.
Have you even payed attention to my post at all? Did you even look at my links @ post #269? Your whole argument is meaningless. You make an assertion that gun prohibition prevents criminals from obtaining guns and using them. Thus allegedly improving "public safety". I just falsified that assertion.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | February 15, 2008 10:40 PM
Robert, I think you may be under some misapprehensions as to what pacifism is. One thing we can learn from pacifists is the mental habit of thinking long-term, of relationships, of consequences. It's a lot more than just "not starting fights". The refusal to engage in violence makes that mental habit a survival necessity. As a superpower we are deficient in nonviolent imagination and carrying a gun may foster the same mindset in some individuals.
Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 10:51 PM
decrepitoldfool said:
Please state your own definition of Pacifism.
My definition is: A pacifist believes all violence is wrong even in self defense.
According to my definition of pacifism, it is unrealistic and therefore it is just as useless as creationism. In fact both pacifism (my definition) and creationism imply anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism is the idea that the human ape is actually the so-called dignified human being, completely separate from all other living things and thus exempt from the same pressures that affect other organisms. A so-called special creature.
I think that's just mumbo-jumbo. Humans are just animals, just organisms. In fact, human apes are predators.
Posted by: bill zingrone | February 15, 2008 10:52 PM
I am doctoral student and teaching asst.in Psych at NIU. And like one of the above commenters I too have been looking at my classroom differently ever since Virginia Tech...like how the hell to get 56 students out of a non-opening thermopane window if some madman was at our door..like the professor at VTech who saved 21 of his 22 students and died in the process. I was two buildings away from the shootings Thursday. We have gun laws in IL and the shooter bought all his legally with the same State Police issued Firearm Owners ID card I carry. Gun laws cant stop criminals or those like our shooter who was 99.99% normal in his behavior for most of his life. I have to go back to that classroom Mon or Tues. as helpless as the TA and the kids who were shot in Cole Hall yesterday. I know the odds are astronomical...but I wish I was teaching in Utah where I could be properly trained to earn a permit to carry a concealed weapon and legally carry it at a university. PZ, I absolutely love your blog I have learned more from it in the last year than I can thank you for and I know to many of you suggesting to have concealed weapons on campus is nothing short of blasphemy. 48 states, except Il and Wis. have ccw laws. They have not turned into the "wild west" full of bar and road rage shootouts. Read behind the watered down news reports how people in plain clothes with concealed weapons stopped the killings short of further horror in the Nebraska mall and the Colorado church shootings. Trained citizens with concealed weapons have and will save lives. I've owned guns all my life and never shot anyone, just like everyone of us has a kitchen full of lethal knives and never stabbed anyone. And none of us would, except in self-defense. WAZ
Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 10:55 PM
For my post @ #280, I was quoting Spike, not myself.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | February 15, 2008 11:52 PM
Pacifism = creationism? Hmm. Well, you brought it up, it's obviously important to you.
Yours is fine, but it didn't go far enough. That is, the refusal to engage in violence requires thinking (if you want to survive) about long-term relationship consequences. It requires empathy and the ability to listen. IMO it wouldn't be much good when someone's finally pointing a gun at you (my Mennonite friends would disagree but I would leave them to argue that point). But it's a good creative frame when you're making funding decisions in early childhood development, or setting rules about bullying in schools, or deciding whether to invade another country. It's more important and useful at the input stage, than at the output stage.
I'm not the right guy to defend pacifism, but I think we need more nonviolent tools in our toolbox. And if you think we can't advance to less violent ways of living, watch Steven Pinker's TED talk about brief history of violence. We're not actually doing so bad compared to our history.
I was just trying to say that we're too quick to seize on violent interpretations of events, situations, and possibilities. It doesn't have to be that way. That, and pocketknives are very different from guns.
Posted by: Robert | February 16, 2008 12:03 AM
decrepitoldfool said:
I wouldn't be surprised that your "Mennonite friends" would support pacifism. They're religionists after all. If one uses faith instead of reason, then that individual will be more willing to accept even more mumbo-jumbo.
And it certainly makes sense to use peaceful solutions to resolve disputes first, but if my life is in danger from an aggressor in my home, I will shoot him in self-defense. Nobody has returned from the after-life to tell me that it actually exists.
Posted by: Robert | February 16, 2008 12:23 AM
Interesting link you posted there decrepitoldfool. I like it how Steven Pinker knocks down those idiots who think hunter-gatherers lived in some kind of Utopia.
One explanation is that costs of starting wars have risen while the benefits of commerce and progressing technology have risen, thus it is even more profitable to trade with another individual than to start a fight with him than before. But we're still animals and we still need to defend ourselves just in case someone foolishly decides it is more profitable to start a fight. That someone would also be more dangerous if he believed in mumbo-jumbo like the "72 heavenly virgins for suicide bombers" claptrap.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 16, 2008 4:38 AM
Matt Penfold writes:
The data is pretty simple. The more firearms there in a society the more people get killed by them.
Want to try again? Considering that gun sales continue pretty much unabated in the US, there are more guns in the US all the time. Yet violent crime has dropped sharply since 1994 (source: department of justice statistics)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm
If more guns == more violence, then we'd expect crime to have increased not dropped. Sorry to inject real data into your fantasy scenario.
As a personal note, it offends me when someone trivializes a complex problem like psycho killers and wingnuts as something that can be cleared up with a little knee-jerk legislation. That's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 16, 2008 4:47 AM
craig writes:
Guns are phallic.
Um, you do know that Freud's theories have been largely debunked as pseudoscience, right??
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 5:26 AM
Marcus,
"As a personal note, it offends me when someone trivializes a complex problem like psycho killers and wingnuts as something that can be cleared up with a little knee-jerk legislation. That's just ridiculous."
That's true, but noone claims that legislation would clear up the problem. The question is, would it improve matters ?
For example, if Steve Kazmierczak had not been able to just go down the road and buy these two handguns, in total impunity, would he have pursued his goal ? Unclear, but it is likely, that he wouldn't have.
I agree that it is a complex problem, and there are no obvious solutions. So far I know, there is only one concrete proposal that has a probability of working, and that's doing the same as in W.Europe, prohibiting Guns as much as we can. Of course, there are risks, costs, issues, uncertainties, and one can keep maintaining that what works here in Europe won't work in the USA, just because mentalities are different.
So, the valid question is still the same, are there sufficent reasons to believe that prohibiting Guns will help to significantly reduce gun violence, and what benefits, if any, would Americans loose from such legislation ?
I'm afraid that the only way to know for sure, is to try.
So, if Americans don't want to try and maintain that it won't improve matters, that's fine, but it does have all the appearance of a dogma.
Posted by: Robert | February 16, 2008 6:18 AM
negentropyeater said:
What do you mean by "dogma"? I just falsified the assertion that the restrictive gun laws of Western Europe actually reduces access of guns to criminals. Trying gun prohibition on that scale would possibly result in civil war.
For review, here are these links:
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/zoomedschematic.shtml
Chechnyan Homemade Firearms
Fablabs and Personal Fabricators
Tribal Homemade Automatics
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 16, 2008 6:33 AM
you know, for myself, that's actually true. but i'm a largish, healthy male in my prime. if i absolutely had to defend myself, i could probably manage even without a firearm. it'd be a messy, bloody, viciously brutal affair and i'd run a serious risk of injury, but i could likely do it. i'd prefer to use a shotgun, where the mere brandishing of it would likely be intimidating enough to settle the matter without violence, but i wouldn't have to.
how does someone small, weak, old, or disabled manage?
Posted by: Moses | February 16, 2008 6:53 AM
Wow, a lot of logical fallacies from you. We'll use the above post, through it is not the only one full of fallacies and I may co-mingle some of your arguments for the sake of not artificially pushing my post count to deal with all of your fallacies.
The first fallacy is the implicit argument that stems from your name. It was found, by the Supreme Court, way back in the 1930's that the Second Amendment was NOT an individual right, but the right of the States. The law is what the Supreme Courts says it is. Not you. Not I. Not some jackass jerking off for guns. The Supreme Court. Your name is a fallacy and you do not have, save by the grace of the State, anymore right to carry a gun than anyone in the meanest, most authoritarian dictatorship.
You've engaged in Post Hoc fallacies. One of your arguments is a various of the self-defense benefits of the so-called "right-to-carry" laws which (allegedly) "effectively reduce" public shootings and violent crime. (One of the many threads of the self defense argument.) This claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates since the mid-1980s in states that have passed such laws. However, the evidence is NOT sufficient to support the causal conclusion because crime-rates have been dropping since the 1980s. REGARDLESS of this law. Your "right to carry" law is just part of the ebb-tide of gun violence which is occurring in all States.
Another fallacy you use is the "bad analogy." Here, you are comparing accidental car deaths to gun deaths. Not only is you analogy bad, but you even add another fallacy, Reductio Ad Absurdum in some of your examples. So, let's be clear: virtually anything can be deadly and the mere fact that someone is killed by drowning, or electrocutes himself or is hit by a car doesn't extend to gun violence, just as they don't cross extend to each other.
Simply put, the designed purpose of the gun is to kill. Period. The designed purpose of the car is transportation. Period. It is absurd to conflate these two purposes. It is absurd to foster them as analogies.
And, at this website, most of us are too old, too educated to fall for your fallacious arguments. No matter how many names you call us. Or how long you shout them.
So, if you have an anti-gun-control argument that doesn't fall into the 2nd Amendment Interpretation fallacy or isn't full of other logical fallacies, please make it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 7:02 AM
As usual, the non-anti-gun freaks offer reasoning about on a par with Ben Stein's.
Posted by: Moses | February 16, 2008 7:02 AM
i think, incidentally, that you're entirely wrong about your "arms race" slippery slope argument. civilians in the USA already have guns aplenty, yet we don't really see criminals racing to arm themselves with heavier weapons. in fact, it's mostly the police and SWAT teams that have machine guns, true assault rifles, and armored cars. it's an attractive line of thought, as slippery slopes usually are, but i think if it were true we ought to already see some evidence for it.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 4:04 PM
Actually, you're so goddamn wrong it's fucking burning my eyes. It's well known the reason law enforcement now carry assult rifles and machine guns is because the crooks ramped up their fire-power significantly in the 1980s (plus they also started adopting body-armor).
When my step-dad was in the DEA, during the 1960's and 1970's most of the dope dealers carried small guns or didn't even always carry guns. The gangs and cartels got involved and violence shot out the roof. By the end of the 1980's, machine guns, street-sweeper shotguns and assult rifles were common place.
Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 7:06 AM
how does someone small, weak, old, or disabled manage?
Yeah, of course, no one in those categories manages without a gun. And argumentum ad ignorantiam isn't a fallacy.
Fuck but you gun people are stupid -- the same sort of stupid that comes from any religion.
Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 7:16 AM
The question is, would it improve matters ?
This brings to mind a quote I saw earlier today:
Looking at the list I got that from, I see some others that apply:
Posted by: Spike | February 16, 2008 7:20 AM
Robert, you said:
Your macho macho hero fantasies aside, where have I made this assertion? Of course, if handguns are illegal, criminals are going to get them. Hell, it makes identification of the criminals much easier. Does he have a handgun? He is a criminal. My point is that less than a third of all firearms crimes involve any injury. I cannot see violence as a suitable response to most crimes. Would you ask for all burglars to be executed? I am not threatening you, I am trying to point out that fewer handguns means fewer people killed.
Your first post had not appeared by the time I replied to your second, and you make this statement:
The important point here is not that crooks can't obtain firearms in areas with laws governing gun ownership, but rather that the desire to shoot victims of the crimes is reduced. If you look at the UK statistics, the number of crimes involving firearms is increasing, but the number of injuries caused during those crimes is decreasing. I am distrustful of anyone who publicly states that he is willing to increase the risk of injury to everybody else purely to increase his own perceived security.
Posted by: Moses | February 16, 2008 7:23 AM
No. Only the douche bags.
The dumb-fucks that make arguments like "Cars = Guns" because they both can kill. Or even stupider ones "Timothy McVeigh killed people with a car bomb; therefore ban cars!" Those people are seriously fucked in the head and deserve any and all scorn, insult and ridicule heaped on them. McVeigh killed people with a BOMB, the truck just got it there. Yet, they make the argument. IN THIS THREAD EVEN!!!
Or maybe someone who seems to be pulling lies out his ass and tells me that the Brazilian murder rate isn't reallya product of guns (it is) but knives (6.7% of homicides (sharp objects), give me a fucking break took me 20 seconds to find that out). Hell, I'd bet money the proportion of instruments in murder, in the Mexican homicide rate, is similar because, like the US and Brazil, the country is AWASH in guns.
Or make unreasonable demands for evidence which is perfectly available to them. Nothing more irritating than some DOUCHE BAG who gets on his "you haven't proven" something when the facts are so well known and readily available that there's no LEGITIMATE question about them. It shows that person isn't interested in any kind of honest debate, but only wants to cloud the waters and make things excessively difficult so he can find minor points from which to claim victory in some idiotic victory dance that goes like this:
"Ah, ha! Only 38,000 people were killed. Not 38,001! You lied! You were wrong!! All your base belong to me!!!"
So, yes, insulting the douche-bags that inevitably frequent threads like this is necessary. I don't play that faux civility game made up by the Republicans that's been set up where: "I be nice, you fuck me over and call me names, but not directly, just by aspersion."
Fuck that. I get that crap all the time because I'm an atheist. I'm not putting up with it. People who play that game are assholes. And I'm not going to treat them nice. Ever.
Posted by: Moses | February 16, 2008 7:34 AM
My family were Mennonites for hundreds of years. The roots and nature of pacifism go well beyond your idiotic put down. So, up yours! And have a nice day.
Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 7:39 AM
Is it really necessary to insult the people you're arguing with?
People who mistake choice for necessity are stupid. I myself choose to insult people who argue in bad faith.
Posted by: truth machine | February 16, 2008 7:58 AM
Hell, I'd bet money the proportion of instruments in murder, in the Mexican homicide rate, is similar because, like the US and Brazil, the country is AWASH in guns.
Indeed. A couple of seconds of google yields this pro-gun page with some pretty loony logic:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/
Armed with what? Guns, of course. The moronic author says "nonsense" but fail miserably to refute the claim; where do those guns come from? He doesn't say. All this paragraph manages to say is that a far higher percentage of the guns in the U.S. are unused (in murders). The author is attempting to use Mexico as an argument against gun control, but it fails miserably because of ... "cultural differences". Many of these murders are due to massive crime organizations armed to the teeth.
Note how this gun-loving ass Guav contradicts himself:
Obviously the lack of access to guns is not saving any lives in those countries. Murderers just use other weapons (or, of course, illicit firearms).
Obviously Mexico's gun laws don't prevent access to the illicit firarms used in these murders. But that doesn't mean that gun control in the U.S. would not.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 8:24 AM
Last year, in the US, more than 8000 persons were murdered by someone using a firearm.
With an equivallent population, and similar economic development, in all of Western European nations with strict Gun control laws, that number was less than 1000.
We're talking of a difference of 7000 lives each year (almost 2 9/11 per year) !
Now after more than 290 comments (and one can add the other series of comments in previous threads), I haven't read one single logical argument why strict gun control laws shouldn't be able to give the required results, over time, as they have given in W.Europe.
Instead one has to read a series of evident misconceptions, fallacies, half baked solutions that will obviously lead nowhere, preconceived ideas about human nature and God knows what.
- people will kill anyway, using cars or pocketknives
- how will grandmothers defend themselves ?
- and my constitutionally protected right to self defense ?
- it is a complex problem...
- Legislation can't change mentalities
- we should first treat mental illnesses properly
- it is ridiculous to compare the US and Europe
- Europeans should shut up because Hilter killed more people
- American society is inherently more violent
- It'll just save a few lives, it's not worth the trouble
- I feel safer with a gun, will only use it in self defence
- Trained people with concealed weapons is the answer
- etc...
When one attacks a dogma, irrationality always shows its ugly nose.
Posted by: Moses | February 16, 2008 8:27 AM
Some of the many Truths about Self-Defense:
Research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) Any rational person, when confronted with that statistic should recognize that guns are more dangerous than the danger they purport to solve. And yet... A thread full of woo!
The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). Seriously, when you pull a gun, you're taking the chance of upping the ante from "beat down" to "life or death struggle." And yet, a thread full of woo!
Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. Simply put, non-premeditated murders are crimes of immediate passion that, without the gun available, would either be less likely to be fatal (an assault perhaps) or simply not occur as the means was not available. And yet, a thread full of woo!
Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns (Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and Bela B. Hackman, MD, Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Simply put, a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that any significant substitution of methodology occurs. And yet, a thread full of woo!
Lack of Gun Control promotes a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, by the price determination through the operation of supply and demand principle, it would be much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns simply through pricing, never mind the source drying up and (eventually) disappearing. And yet, a thread full of woo!
So, considering all these facts... Why do the gun nuts think I'm going to be nice when they peddle their woo? Seriously, the Second Amendment article is total crap and we've known that for 700years. We have study after study that shows just how TOTALLY FUCKING DANGEROUS guns are while REMAINING REALATIVELY INEFFECTIVE for "self-defense."
You are, from the perspective of the rational universe, TOTALLY FUCKING DELUSIONAL and BEYOND REASON. So stop trying to excuse and minimize these tragedies or demanding respect for your woo! You've earned what you get - CONTEMPT.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 16, 2008 9:36 AM
and so suddenly, the relatively civil discussion takes a turn for the namecalling and the playground insults.
there's an old trope among pro-gun advocates that gun banners want guns banned because they're afraid of what they might do if they had one. it's a facile, patronizing put-down, of course, but every so often somebody comes along and lends anecdotal weight to this "psychological projection" theory. here, i'm counting a couple recent entrants.
i enjoyed discussing principles and reasons, even with folks like Dahan and Bernarda who clearly will never agree with me, but there's no point engaging in a cussing contest with anybody; that will never get anywhere. i've explained my actual reasoning, so i can bow out.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 16, 2008 9:52 AM
Nomen,
why bring up a new argument (gun banners want guns banned because they're afraid of what they might do if they had one) when you already know that it makes absolutely no sense.
Or am I missing your point ?
Posted by: MartinM | February 16, 2008 9:54 AM
You appear to have missed out a few details:
1) The shooter was out of ammo by the time he was subdued.
2) The two students with personal firearms were off-duty police officers.
3) According to the police, as well as other witnesses, two unarmed students had already tackled and subdued the shooter by the time the armed students arrived.
Posted by: MartinM | February 16, 2008 10:00 AM
There's another important detail missing here - namely, where exactly the shooters got their firearms. The guns were purchased (illegally) from their legal owners, as I recall.
Posted by: MartinM | February 16, 2008 10:13 AM
No, that's not quite right. More precisely:
Note that self-protection doesn't necessarily involve an intruder.
Posted by: Sean | February 16, 2008 10:18 AM
Moses, have you read any of the Kellerman studies you cited? Have you read any commentary or critiques of Kellerman's work?
The '43 times more likely' study has been so thoroughly thrashed that it is a gun control advocate's equivalent of a creationist's 'why are there still monkeys'. It just causes eye rolling and bits of giggling.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 16, 2008 10:56 AM
negentropyeater, my "point" was to insult certain unnamed participants in the thread by impl