nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

ANOTHER American College Shooting...

AircraftTechie

Oh great.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1305546,00.html

Breaking News

Gunman Opens Fire In US Classroom
Updated:22:25, Thursday February 14, 2008

At least 18 people have reportedly been shot after a gunman opened fire at Northern Illinois University.
It was unclear how serious the injuries were and whether any of the people had died at the college in DeKalb, about 65 miles west of downtown Chicago.

A local newspaper said the gunman was armed with a shotgun and a pistol.

It added that police radio traffic indicated that the man was "down".

Another local media report said police had the gunman in custody.

One student told a radio station that roughly 140 students were in a geology classroom when the man opened fire.

Other witnesses said bloodied victims were hit by buckshot.

A woman outside the classroom said students fled in terror.

More to follow...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kevmy

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

Whether or not they are carried is irrelevant. If weapons exist, criminals will get their hands on them somehow.

As I said above thats probably true but IMO if you make more illegal especially more of the high power ones then there is less chance the criminals will get there hands on one.

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

That's a bit simplistic. I think you have to take into account the cultural problems they have over there.. places like Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Canada etc. have loads of guns but low levels of gun crime because they have (imo) healthier/better societies.

I understand that it's simplistic and idealistic but as I said in an ideal world. If the culture of a country encourages murder then your first option is change the culture. If the culture won't change then sometimes you have to legislate to change for the good of the country or the world. We have seen this already in environmental legislation.

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

Well the idea here is that you're saying that law-abiding people should be banned from having them because of the 0.000001 (or whatever) percentage of them that use them to shoot people in schools, and because since they are law-abiding they will comply. Whereas the criminals will just ignore the ban and keep shooting each other, and normal people too. I have a lot of problems with this kind of thinking..

1) Collective punishment - taking away the rights/property of 60+ million Americans just because some kids go nuts.. that's unjust.

2) Making law-abiding people more vulnerable to those who ignore the law and keep their guns.

3) The amount of guns in circulation in the US is something like 200 million! No government would be able to collect even a small percentage of them.

4) The demand for guns would not go away, after a ban they would be available to buy from criminals with no background checks or records. No government can stop criminals selling drugs - and they have to be shipped thousands of miles over oceans - what makes you think they could stop criminals selling guns?

The only way to reduce the harm criminals (and nutters) do using guns, in a society that is already full of them, is to allow the law-abiding people carry guns to defend themselves. In parallel with this would be efforts to build a most just/healthy society.

No gun ban is possible given the history of the US and the demand there is for them. Any administration foolish enough to try a "War on Guns" would fair even worse than the "War on Drugs".

As for hurting the the many to penalise the few, you have to weigh up the pros and cons. If you are taking away some rights to put away criminals and prevent widescale murder. Is it a good thing overall?

Also the US has ran roughshod over laws and rights since 9/11 and most IMO in a backhanded way and of rights much more important than the right to bear arms (privacy, free speech etc.)

Manic Moran wrote: »

Cue big press conference. "We, Congress, declare all firearms to be illegal...(OK, now what?)"

It's utterly unenforceable. Not only is not every weapon going to be turned in, the experience of other countries or even certain States in the US is ample evidence of this, but there is no way of checking. Even if you had the manpower, which you don't, to go house-to-house to check every single residence in the US, and to search every single person, it's utterly illegal. USians are kindof fond of their 4th Ammendment rights against police harassment and unlawful search and seizure.NTM

Obviously it's not easy and obviously it couldn't brought in in one go but in a gradual fashion starting with the most dangerous weapons. First step should be the handing over of gun laws to federal government instead of state legislations.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you believe in the concept of protecting against the tyranny of government, they could be quite useful. Several of the court briefs make mention of this, and give examples where disarmament has pre-saged oppression.
NTM

Thats a fair if slightly obscure argument. If you think your country is going to launch a coup against you your probably living in the wrong country.

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the off-chance that you're not being sarcastic, I fail to see the benefit here. This is exactly the situation which resulted in the Luby restaurant shooting: One of the patrons, a Ms Hupp, to comply with the 'no guns' law, left her firearm in the car. A Mr Hennard did not comply with this law. As a result Ms Hupp was unable to prevent Mr Hennard from shooting her parents (and 21 other people). Ms Hupp subsequently drove a carry law through the Texas legislature.
NTM

In the end of the day this argument comes down to 2 things: fear and trust. Do you live in fear, waiting for something to diabolical to happen to you to justify carrying a gun?
Do you trust your toddler/kid/teenager to not find the gun and if they do use it properly?
Do you trust your police force to keep you safe or do you fear your neighbours and countrymen enough to carry guns?

Manic Moran

As I said above thats probably true but IMO if you make more illegal especially more of the high power ones

Well, here's the first problem. What high-powered firearm is it currently legal for me to go and buy in the US (Bearing in mind I do not have an NFA permit to buy machineguns) which you think should be banned, and why? So far any attempts to come up with a definition in the US have been misguided, based purely on perception and not fact, and have had as near to zero effect on criminal activity as makes no difference.

If you are taking away some rights to put away criminals and prevent widescale murder. Is it a good thing overall?

Go here. http://www.nbc5.com/news/15018666/detail.html

Click on the audio link to the recording of the 911 call released earlier this year. This is the right you are suggesting taking away. What do you think she did wrong? Did she call the police? Yes. Did she hide herself away and describe to the police as the intruder broke down the doors to get to her? Yes. Did those two acts make a difference to the outcome? No. Three rounds from a 9mm made the difference.

Can you explain to me how leaving her to scream on the telephone whilst the police are trying to get there is a good thing overall?

There is a lot more to it than simply calculating how many unlawfu or tragic uses of firearms there have been.

If you think your country is going to launch a coup against you your probably living in the wrong country

It could well be that this was the thinking behind other nations' populations at the time as well. Nothing wrong with keeping a backup plan. Witness the Battle of Athens, TN (1946), where a corrupt sheriff wouldn't stand down, and the Federal agencies refused to get involved.

Do you live in fear, waiting for something to diabolical to happen to you to justify carrying a gun?
Do you trust your toddler/kid/teenager to not find the gun and if they do use it properly?
Do you trust your police force to keep you safe or do you fear your neighbours and countrymen enough to carry guns?

No, no/no/yes, and no.

There's nothing wrong with insurance. The police do the best they can, but they are not always going to be there when you need them. If the police were a perfect solution, there would be no crime. Well, we know how close to reality that is. Look at the Korean shopowners defending their property in the 1991 Los Angeles riots, when the police thought it was too dangerous to step in. Similarly after Katrina, neighbourhood groups came together to protect their neighbourhoods from looting when there simply weren't enough police to go around. The police have no responsibility to me, the individual. Ultimately, the only person responsible for my safety is me. Are you willing to bet your life on the fact that the police will always protect you?

NTM

Overheal

Gun laws in the States are stupid for one - I've gone into a range half a dozen times now and havent even been ID'd. I imagine purchasing a gun is similarly easy.

I don't really have the energy to argue this one.

How many shootings will happen before they piece them all together and find a real cause for it - not just the Counterstrike Scapegoat?

One more reason I sleep better colleging in Ireland.

Cunny-Funt

I’m sorry but its just incredibly pathetic that in 2008 in a supposedly modern society people feel the need walk around with guns on them.
Having guns in the house is one thing (that I still think is pretty messed up) but people walking around their daily lives armed is pure madness.
It’s like something from the dark ages. Why don’t we all go around with katanas strapped to our backs, you know, for next time some scummer mouths off on the luis.

Manic Moran

for next time some scummer mouths off on the luis.

I'll bet you a lot fewer people will mouth off at you, though!

I imagine purchasing a gun is similarly easy.

I've been asked for ID any time I've purchased a firearm. Maybe I just don't look honest, though.

I’m sorry but its just incredibly pathetic that in 2008 in a supposedly modern society people feel the need walk around with guns on them.

Thank you for the moral pontification. Now, would you care to address the matter rationally with the aid of facts or statistics? Again, I refer you to the plethora of information available in the briefs by the pro-DC parties linked to above to allow you to support your statements. The US has a problem with violence and a lack of general respect for the laws of society. Firearms aren't it.

If I was in a University in the US and found out half the students were packing I'd be outa there in a flash.

What if you didn't know? Are you suddenly in greater danger because you now know the horrid truth?

NTM

utick

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

People can say what they like but I find it incredibly retarded that there's actually people walking around in the US with fecking guns on them constantly like its the ****ing wild west.

And Americas supposed to be a modern society :rolleyes:

If I was in a University in the US and found out half the students were packing I'd be outa there in a flash. Its just utter utter insanity.

so do u think switzerland is a retarded non modern country too? they have a much higher gun ownership rate than america but has one of the lowest murder rates in the world

Neamhshuntasach

utick wrote: »

so do u think switzerland is a retarded non modern country too? they have a much higher gun ownership rate than america but has one of the lowest murder rates in the world

That's because Switzerland's army is militia based and all males are required to attend mandatory shooting practice once a year and also go through militia training, kind of like conscription. so everyone who does this is entitled to own a gun. A lot of the general public may own guns but they don't walk around with them. Unless they are members of the militia or work in a job where their security may be threatened. The guns are owned for their country's protection, not their own. So maybe that has an effect on why they don't go shooting each other.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

^^^
That's a link to all recent school shootings in the world. It looks like around 80% is in the US. Who cares about other countries. It obvious that American's can't live in a society with such liberal gun laws without seeing a mass shooting every 2nd or 3rd month

Manic Moran

Look up the http://www.knabenschiessen.ch/
Five and a half thousand teenagers (13-17) at a shooting festival, shooting the Army's current service assault rifle. The use of firearms in Swiss society is not solely related to those who have been through military training. (At least, if the Schützenkönig in the top right corner has been through the military, the Swiss have different issues!)

The guns are owned for their country's protection, not their own

One of the respondent Amici briefs is by a bunch of military types, and they focus purely on the 'defense of the country' argument. They even reference Switzerland.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacretiredmilitary.pdf

The important factor is that the Swiss have the firearms available to them. That they (usually) choose not to use them in mass shootings is a societal factor, not one related to the firearms themselves.

There's also the 'rifle behind every blade of grass' argument, which is really a misquotation from

"Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. "Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. " 'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' "

NTM

astraboy

I've lived in the states, and while their attitude to firearms might seem strange to us, Irelands firearms laws are far behind the states, our licensing system is way out of date and needs an overhaul. I've been to ranges in the states, talked to gun owners, and I believe if a person shows a genuine reason to own a gun and they are of sound mind, they should be allowed. Common sense needs to apply basically. I'm not for everyone getting guns over the counter whenever they like, but if a person is in a gun club and has completed safety courses and goes to the handgun range once a week he has a right to own a handgun. The personal protection issue also applies. Most people have no need to walk around day to day in a large city with a handgun, but people may feel the need to carry protection in more rural areas of the US to protect against animals etc. The most dangerous part of a firearm is the person holding it remember. People in cities might feel the need to carry a concealed weapon against muggings for instance, I met one person in Boston that did and it seemed to work!

I lived in Massachusetts and the gun laws there are far stricter then many states, yet permits to carry can easily be applied for. What this means is that is only law abiding citizens that license their guns, and people that own a licensed firearm are some of the most law abiding people in the US, as they do not wish to jeperdoise their gun ownership.

Banning guns outright is stupid. and unworkable. Who is left with guns then? Criminals. In Ireland it is very very difficult to license a handgun, yet scummers have a fine supply of handguns and UZI's, shipped in with drugs shipments. These guns were never probably never legally owned.

A final point, in Ireland we cannot even get things like mace to protect ourselves. Granted these could be abused by criminals too but allowing everyone to carry a can of mace might put some of the scummers in their place.

iguana

This shooting has been heavily reported on, but there have been a number of similar shootings in the US in the last week.

http://itn.co.uk/news/0602c5c37c3f882d3263931fd7b1cee3.html

ITN wrote:

On February 8, a nursing student shot dead two women and killed herself in front of horrified classmates at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge.

In Memphis, Tennessee, a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and critically wounding a fellow student on Monday during a high school gym class, and the 15-year-old victim of a shooting at an Oxnard, California, junior high school has been declared brain dead.

Also, on February 7, a man opened fire on a city council meeting in the St Louis suburb of Kirkwood, killing five people before he was shot dead by police.

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sure. Just happens that these shootings never seem to happen in places where the students/teachers are armed. 12 states have no 'place of education' prohibitions at all, 38 do. (Though as is pointed out, some States are reviewing this policy).

An unsupported generalisation? "never seem to happen," with "seem" being anecdotal and not supported by rigourous research?

These campus tragedies are troubling, but I have yet to find someone with "The Answer" to the problem, without rigourous research and practice conducted (and then there will still be problems, but hopefully fewer).

Allowing university campus populations to arm, and playing "wide west" on campuses, will not improve student, teacher, staff, or visitor safety.

Only qualified, professionally trained campus law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry guns on university campuses, or members of the police in which the university resides. All we need now are generally unqualifed and untrained students, teachers, support staff, and members of the surrounding community carrying guns on campus, and whipping them out on the slightest provocation, some "shooting first and asking questions later," or blasting away in the general direction of a suspect and catching a lot of us students inbetween them, or in the buildings behind them.

We have about 30,000 students enrolled at USC, and I cannot fathom being safer with each being allowed to carry a gun on campus. Up to 30,000 guns! Get real! What about all the increases in shooting accidents with more guns about and unqualified people carrying them? "Hey man, that's a cool piece, can I see it?" BOOM!

I train in two MAs (TKD and sword), and it takes years to become proficient, and no silly week or two self-defense gun seminar for teachers, staff, or students, will make campus populations safer, but quite the contrary, so this is not a realistic alternative.

Manic Moran

An unsupported generalisation? "never seem to happen," with "seem" being anecdotal and not supported by rigourous research?

I know better than to make unequivocal statements of the sort on the Internet, as there's always one which is missed, but no, I cannot think of any mass shootings in areas which encourage firearms ownership. This may partially be because of the deterrent factor, but partially also because people with firearms stop the incident before it gets to the level of massacre.

I'm thinking, for example, of Appalachian School of Law (2002) where the shooter had killed three and was stopped by two students who ran to get firearms from their cars; Pearl High School Missisippi (1997) who killed two, wounded seven before being stopped by the vice principle who had a sidearm in his car, the Tyler Courthouse Shooting (2005) where a man shot two in the courthouse, and was engaged in a battle with police before being shot by a passer-by

The Colorado Springs and Arvado church shootings two months ago are a particular case in point. The gunman shot two and wounded two in the Arvado church, and drove off. He then went to the Co Springs church and shot and killed two in the car park, before going inside. He was then himself shot and by a woman who had a concealed weapon with her in church.

Because of the low(ish) death tolls, these incidents do not tend to make multinational news. For example, http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109 gives absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened had the gentleman in question not been stopped. All we know is that the guy was firing his pistol in the street, and was stopped by two armed citizens before he killed anyone.

Allowing university campus populations to arm, and playing "wide west" on campuses, will not improve student, teacher, staff, or visitor safety

An unsupported allegation. I have just given incidents above where it has helped and, as mentioned, in the 18 States where such carrying activity is legal, it certainly doesn't seem to have caused any harm. Find me incidents of permit holders acting irresponsibly or dangerously. You won't find many.

If you go back a bit, you have the Charles Whitman shootings at University of Texas which are a counter-argument to my position. Firearms were authorised on campus (And indeed, were not prohibitied anywhere, really), and he killed 14 from his clock tower position. On the other hand, he could well have killed more, for after a while, he started receiving return fire from other students who had retrieved their hunting rifles, keeping him pinned down until the police finally climbed up and shot him.

All we need now are generally unqualifed and untrained students, teachers, support staff, and members of the surrounding community carrying guns on campus, and whipping them out on the slightest provocation, some "shooting first and asking questions later," or blasting away in the general direction of a suspect and catching a lot of us students inbetween them, or in the buildings behind them.

A commonly stated fear. Every time a State legislature decides to allow concealed weapons carry, there's predictions of blood on the streets, people shooting each other over traffic accidents, whipping out their pieces because someone looked a them funny. And guess what? It doesn't happen!

We have about 30,000 students enrolled at USC, and I cannot fathom being safer with each being allowed to carry a gun on campus. Up to 30,000 guns!

I strongly doubt that 30,000 students at USC are eligible to carry firearms. Of those who are eligible, I strongly doubt the majority actually would. Again, look at Univ Utah: Over 20,000 students, and an estimated 500 firearms. And these people are the exact same people who, if you were to run into them in the street at the local town, probably are armed.

Oh, incidently, I just checked the fine print at the back of the California Concealed Permit form, which lists the places I can't be armed. Guess what? USC isn't one of them. Feel happy now? Anyone in your university who is 21 might be armed, unless there's a USC policy I don't know about. (and I just checked the USC policies web page). And even then, I'm starting to run into people who have decided that they'll follow the law, even if it means breaking the policy. They may get expelled, but they'll be alive. In the meantime, the viable alternative? I see NIU staff saying "We did what we could, we put our emergency practises into effect!" Yes, set off loudspeakers saying "Run and hide! There's a man with a gun on campus!" This is a piece of information which the people in that lecture hall probably did not need to be told, and probably didn't do them a hell of a lot of good.

What about all the increases in shooting accidents with more guns about and unqualified people carrying them? "Hey man, that's a cool piece, can I see it?" BOOM!

What about them? Please, show me the scores of... heck.. any.. CCW permit holders who have been killed in such a manner. With 48 States permitting CCW, it shouldn't be too hard, no? Probably about as many as have cut themselves with swords.

I train in two MAs (TKD and sword), and it takes years to become proficient, and no silly week or two self-defense seminar for teachers, staff, or students, will make campus populations safer, but quite the contrary, so this is not a realistic alternative.

That's the joy of firearms. Unlike swords or combatives which I acknowledge is quite a skill, and I wouldn't have a hope at, in order to be adequately skilled with firearms does not actually take a hell of a lot of training. Further, however, those who choose to jump through the CCW hoops tend to be people who do spend a lot of time on the range and more often than not will outshoot police officers for whom a sidearm is simply a tool, not an interest. Finally, one of those killed in Illinois has been identified as a 32-year-old Army veteran who had left the army to go to college. You don't think that sort of student might know one end of a pistol from the other?

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote:

A commonly stated fear. Every time a State legislature decides to allow concealed weapons carry, there's predictions of blood on the streets, people shooting each other over traffic accidents, whipping out their pieces because someone looked a them funny. And guess what? It doesn't happen!

Perhaps you should spend more time in Los Angeles, dear.

What you're talking about on a relative scale is a buildup of weapons... whats the point? Strikes too many chords with Mutually Assured Destruction: everyone wants them just because someone else has them and eventually the stage is reached were owning a firearm is unnecessary. It will get to the stage were 1 in 5 people owns a firearm such as a handgun. What happens when the deranged psychopaths start bringing in P-90 Sub Machine Guns and M-4 Carbines? And oh yes, the Pipe-bombs. That will happen for a while before someone gets up and says 'hey I should be able to carry around an assault rifle while I'm in the grocery store or learning Exobiology too!'

The whole concept of owning firearms has gotten completely shot to ****.

edit: and oh yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bP_RQIkrOM

Dave!

Manic -- do you think that there would be any need for passers-by to save the day with their concealed guns, if the guns weren't so freely available at the time? I'm just guessing, but I suspect that most of the university shootings were done with guns that were either legally owed by the assailant, or else legally owned by someone else (and taken/stolen by the assailant).

Is that not the case? I'm not familiar with most of the stories you mentioned

qwertplaywert

School shooting? 4chan will have a field day.

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, incidently, I just checked the fine print at the back of the California Concealed Permit form, which lists the places I can't be armed. Guess what? USC isn't one of them. Feel happy now? Anyone in your university who is 21 might be armed, unless there's a USC policy I don't know about. (and I just checked the USC policies web page).

You claimed to have "checked the USC policies" regarding firearms on campus? What about Policy "11.00 Behavior Violating University Standards and Appropriate Sanctions," specifically "11.47 Unauthorized use or possession of firearms or replicas, ammunition, explosives, knives, flammable substances or other weapons in the university or at university-sponsored events?" It's easily found online under public safety, including in the e-version of the SCampus Student Guidebook 2007/2008.

As a followup, I called the USC Department of Public Safety (DPS) and asked them what they would do if they found a student with a gun on campus, even one with a permit, and they said if the person was not a recognized member of law enforcement, they would be charged with a violation of Policy 11.47 and subject to appropriate sanctions. If they did not have a permit, they would be arrested (USC-DPS by agreement with LAPD have all Peace Officer Powers), and later turned over to LAPD. When I asked what they thought about arming professors and students, they asked "Why?" When I referred to this board.ies thread about campus shootings, they laughed and commented "Arming students that sometimes drink too much would be a nightmare waiting to happen!" They further offered that, in addition to armed DPS officers trained in rapid response teams, they have 125 unarmed Trojan Student Officers (nicknamed "yellow jackets" because of the yellow jacket they wear), that patrol campus 24/7. So you might want to dig a bit deeper before voicing erroneous conclusions, or making inappropriate comments like "Feel happy now?"

Manic Moran wrote:

That's the joy of firearms. Unlike swords or combatives which I acknowledge is quite a skill, and I wouldn't have a hope at, in order to be adequately skilled with firearms does not actually take a hell of a lot of training.

As an MA/self-defense instructor with a decade of training, I find myself very concerned about people carrying deadly weapons without "a hell of a lot of training" on my campus, or anywhere for that matter.

Manic Moran

When I saw 'unauthorised', I read that as to mean without a permit from the State. USC, after all, is subject to State law.

However, you will note I pointed out in the earlier post the distinction between State law and local policy. The Trolley Square Mall shooter was stopped by an individual who carried his sidearm onto the property in violation of the mall policy, but in accordance with State law. Doubtless TSM will prohibit him from ever shopping there again. How will he possibly live with himself?

Pay close attention to what the lads you spoke to said and didn't say. Call DPS again and ask them as to what section of the student policy code or the California Penal Code would be violated if a non-student with a carry permit brought a sidearm onto campus. Let's say Joe Smith, a 21-year-old from San Diego, decides to visit his sister. Would he be breaking any law or policy? The list of prohibitions on posession in the CPC includes government buildings, courthouses, and public schools. It says nothing about universities. Heck, it's an open campus. What if someone just wanted to check out the university? With or without a permit. Does USC have barbed wire perimeters and metal detectors at every entrance? Their flippant comment about students drinking too much is equally unwarranted: How many drunken shooting rampages have you heard about by CCW holders? The average 21-year-old nationwide probably doesn't drink much more or less than a USC student. (I focus on 21-year-olds because one may not apply for a CCW below that age)

they have 125 unarmed Trojan Student Officers (nicknamed "yellow jackets" because of the yellow jacket they wear), that patrol campus 24/7

Sounds like high-visibilty targets to me. If you can care to explain to me how a bright yellow jacket would have overcome Cho's Glock, I'll be curious to hear it. They would have dazzled him into dropping his pistol, perhaps? NIU claim to have gotten officers on the scene within 30 seconds. That's a pretty damned fast response time, and I tip my hat to them in acknowledging it. Still, it doesn't seem to have done a lot of good, does it?

As an MA/self-defense instructor with a decade of training, I find myself very concerned about people carrying deadly weapons without "a hell of a lot of training" on my campus

As a rifle instructor and military officer with no small amount of experience in the world of firearms including a decade in uniform, I submit your concerns are misplaced and better yet, are not supported by the statistics. This is a nation of 300 million people in 48 states where CCWs are legal. By your parade of horribles, it souldn't be too hard to find a whole bunch of cases where a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon has acted irresponsibly. When you do find a few, start crunching the ratios. You've probably got more chance of getting run over by a car.

Perhaps you should spend more time in Los Angeles, dear.

And how many of those individuals were permit-holders? The figures show that CCW holders are incredibly law abiding people. You've got more chance of finding a police officer convicted of wrongdoing than a CCW holder. (I believe the ratio is 5:1 but I need to check). Between 1987 when Florida started issueing CCW permits to 1994, over a quarter million permits were issued. Total crimes conducted by CCW holders? 18. And only one was violent.

Manic -- do you think that there would be any need for passers-by to save the day with their concealed guns, if the guns weren't so freely available at the time? I'm just guessing, but I suspect that most of the university shootings were done with guns that were either legally owed by the assailant, or else legally owned by someone else (and taken/stolen by the assailant).

This is, indeed, often the case. But just like every other tool ever invented, they can be mis-used.

NTM

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

Pay close attention to what the lads you spoke to said and didn't say. Call DPS again and ask them as to what section of the student policy code or the California Penal Code would be violated if a non-student with a carry permit brought a sidearm onto campus. Let's say Joe Smith, a 21-year-old from San Diego, decides to visit his sister. Would he be breaking any law or policy? The list of prohibitions on posession in the CPC includes government buildings, courthouses, and public schools. It says nothing about universities.

You may wish to check the validity and reliability of your information? I give specific citations for mine.

Once again you are in error when you say "nothing about universities" as applies to Calif. Penal Code. I guess you have never heard of the California Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 as amended by the passage of AB 2609, and codified into California Penal Code 626.9(h)? "Any person who brings or possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of... a public or private university or college... unless it is with the written permission of the university or college president... shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years."

At the federal law level, I guess you have not heard of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, Public Law 103-382, 20 USC8921, Section 14601, which requires all schools in the United States that receive federal funds to prohibit firearms on campuses (which was reiterated and affirmed by the No Child Left Behind Act passed under the Bush administration)? So California was acting in compliance with federal law when they passed their California Gun Free School Zone Act a year after the federal law was passed?

The USC policy was in compliance with both California and Federal laws (cited above)?

Further, just like USC (a private university), all the Universities of California, and all the California State Universities are "open" campuses and are covered by the "Zone" (should you wish to read the California Penal Code or Act cited above). These laws apply to everyone, students, faculty, staff, and visitors to campuses (only campus and other law enforcement officers are exempt).

Manic Moran

I read the packet I received from the Santa Clara Sheriff's Office with my CCW application form. It's on my desk within arm's reach, was easier than going online. If there were a prohibition on universities not mentioned in the packet, it would be a pretty blatant omission. Given the response as stated by DPS, if it were flat illegal, why would they have differentiated between 'with permit' and 'without permit' in the handling of a student?

Perhaps the answer lies in the same legislation you quote, did you check out CPC 626.9. (l)? Compare your

(only campus and other law enforcement officers are exempt).

with the text of the legislation.

This section does not apply to <snip police, military, security guards...>

a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4

12050 is the issuance of CCW permits to Joe Public.

You may ask yourself then, 'Why would they bother with such legislation, if carrying a firearm without a permit is unlawful anyway?" The difference lies with sentencing: Carrying a firearm without a permit is a public nuisance with a (typically) $200 fine and loss of the weapon in California for a first offense (12028(a)) as long as it's your pistol, you're not a gang member, and a few other criteria. (I think nunchuku and throwing stars are felonies. Don't ask me, I didn't write the law). Doing so in contravention of CPC 629 is a prison sentence.

The act referring to school zones refers to.. oddly enough, schools, not third-level education. The Gun Free Schools Act gives "School" the same definition as found in 18 USC 921 (a), namely.

The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

I may be guilty of adding to the confusion as earlier in this thread I was using 'school' in the vernacular, not the legal definition.

NTM

wyk

The issue with America is the combination of it's vastness, it's immigrant and non-homogenous population(with it's varying traditions and culture), and the ready availability of firearms since it's inception. Add in the fact it is a highly capitalist and greed-driven civilization, with it's children being groomed to be selfish from a young age, and learning to have to fight for everything, and fend for themselves as much as possible, and contention is seeded. With such a large immigrant population, there is no single thread that binds Americans(regardless of how nationalist they may seem). No one group identity truly exists other than being capitalists and 'freedom-loving'. Even the laws and Constitution are constantly being fought over by extremist on all sides. An American can be a lot of different things. A lack of cohesion culturally, and a great lack of any responsibility to one another socially unlike you often see in Europe, also leads to the 'every man for themselves' identity. The sheer size alone means you won't have the social cohesion you see in Europe; one of the largest countries in Europe, France, is smaller than Texas is. And ask Manic Moran - Texans are VERY different from Californians.

Add in plenty of paranoia, drug gangs, ghetto gangs, lack of any background checks in many states for private gun sales, and the fact there are millions of firearms in America, and the Petrol Stations on every corner, and theres is a vast pool of violence and guns for America to draw from.

No single law, or group of laws would really have any affect on gun violence in the states. You would have to have full confiscation to even start putting a dent in it. But, such a thing is not likely any time soon, and would likely actually escalate gun violence since most citizens would refuse to surrender their guns and NO criminals would give theirs up, nor will it address the serious social issues America has that most european countries do not yet have(though France and England are starting to show similar issues with their poor and gang-involved immigrant populations).

Texas allows anyone with a gun to sell it to any other private individual without any need to check with the local authorities. In fact, I can legally just give anyone a gun whom I see fit while I am in Texas, even if you are not a US citizen. You can legally carry a gun in your car without any sort of permit required in Texas, and hidden on your person in public with an easily acquired gun permit. Far easier than getting your full driver's license in Ireland; it requires one weekend, the equivalent of €100, and the pass ratio is something like 98%. I managed 300 out of a possible 300 on both my renewals, and I am no genius. California requires one go through a registered dealer that holds a Federal Firearms License, does a background check on the buyer or recipient, forces the recipiant to wait a week or so before they can pick up the gun, assuming they have passed the FBI/ATF NICS check, and then register the gun to that person. Very very few can acquire a permit to carry a gun on their person in public, and it is not gauranteed to the population in California after having passed a course like it is in Texas. A refurbished police trade-in Glock 17 9mm handgun sells for about the equivalanet of €250, and I can buy one in Texas and walk out within minutes from any licensed or unlicensed gun dealer.

Who do you think have the worse gun crime? It's California, of course. There is a wider economic disparity and a far far larger gang/ghetto and immigrant population(even considering Texas' huge Mexican population). Texans traditions and culture, even amongst it's immigrants, are mostly homogenous. I had never met a Mexican immigrant in California that called themselvs a Californian, whereas most of the Mexican immigrants I know and have met in Texas considered themselves Texans, with many of the ones not claiming Texas citizenship stating they were Tejanos(a minor difference without going into too much detail, but a difference nonetheless). So the cultural and social cohesion is missing there in most states.

In the states you can shoot someone(s) and flee to Canada, another state, or Mexico relatively easily. The vastness makes it easier to be anonymous and easier to hide or run a gang operation unimpeded. If an Irishman started going crazy with a screwdriver, he basically has to flee to Spain or Poland, as there's few palces to hide in Ireland. And no Irish is gonna really enjoy themselves exiled in Poland. And they occasionally get popped while in Espanola.

My stance? While in Texas, I carry one of my guns on me(http://www.pbase.com/wyk/guns). The chance of being threatened with lethal force is rather high compared to here. I've been in 1 gun fight, and been shot at on 4 occasions. I was doing repos in Texas, so that's to be assumed. In Ireland, I carry my Nikon D2H digital camera. http://www.pbase.com/wyk/images_of_killaloe

I feel a similar safety in both places so armed.

Y'all take care, now,

WYK

[Deleted User]

Does anyone see the irony of advocating the use of more guns to solve the college shooting problem? (e.g., Manic Moran above?)

As wyk has pointed out above, America's college shooting problem is complex, not simple. Are American gun advocates offering a simple solution to to complex problem?

Easy access to guns in America, be it legal or illegal, certainly contributes to the problem of college and school shootings, no matter how gun advocates use circular arguments to often state it's not the gun, but the person using it?

Scholarly studies of gun use in America, and use by its youth are troubling indeed, and should serve as an early warning system for those of us who are Irish citizens interested in prevention of school and college shootings.

Linking Gun Availability to Youth Gun Violence (Blumstein, A. and Cork, D., Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 1: 5-24, Winter 1996): "We find that, while there has been a significant decline in homicide rates committed by older offenders, homicides committed by younger offenders grew dramatically beginning in 1985. An important factor in that growth has been a significant increase in the availability of guns to young people."
Correlates of Gun Involvement and Aggressiveness among Adolescents (Ding, C., Nelsen, E., and Lassonde, C., Youth & Society, 34, 2: 195-213, 2002): "This study examined adolescents' aggressiveness in relation to their experiences, beliefs, and attitudes concerning gun use... Correlation coefficients and regression analysis revealed that males who had more experience with guns reported reacting more violently to frustration and also admitted to having participated in greater numbers of violent incidents."
Patterns and Correlates of Gun Ownership Among Nonmetropolitan and Rural Middle School Students (Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 3: 432-442, 2000): "Reasons for gun ownership were strongly associated with rates of antisocial behavior."

What American gun advocates (and the gun lobby) don't want brought to the public attention are the number of gun-related deaths reported. The American Center for Disease Control (CDC) compiles and issues reports on the leading causes of death in the United States. In year 2000, the 8th leading cause of death was gun-related. Specifically, "Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 -- average of 79 per day -- 16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides..."

Would you have guessed that there were anyplace near that many American firearms-related deaths in one year? 28,663! Yikes! American deaths per year in the Iraq War are considerably less? But of course, American gun advocates proclaim that guns are not a problem in America, only gun users who pull a trigger on themselves or another human being?

coffeepot

So Blue_Lagoon, what is your solution? What would you suggest?

Are you saying that the only people that should have guns are the criminals and the police?

Who in your opinion should have access to firearms?

I hear that in the UK gun crime has increased 5 fold since they effectively banned hand guns.

[Deleted User]

coffeepot wrote: »

So Blue_Lagoon, what is your solution? What would you suggest?

I don't have THE ANSWER, as I doubt anyone on this thread does. It's a very complex problem that needs rigourous study before leaping to conclusions (such as the overly simplistic "Rambo solution" of arming students and faculty, and counting on capricious civilian vigilante action, as proposed elsewhere in this thread).

In a recent discussion I had with the head of an administration of justice program at a nearby university, he said that the solution lies in a "bundle" of well funded, long-term comprehensive and integrated programmes that involve not only the college campus, but also the surrounding community in which it resides. There would be no popular American quick fixes, or 10 easy ways to solve the problem.

From a preventative of school or college shooting standpoint (as well as reducing crime risk in general), he suggested that the surrounding communities need to return to "community policing strategies," namely getting the cops out of their squad cars and walking the beats, and integrating them better with their communities, to where they get to know their citizens on a first name basis (especially the troubled youth). Now there seems to be largely an adversarial "us" and "them" mentality that separates the police from their communities. He mentioned that in many instances, such as the school shooting in Colorado, in retrospective, the troubled kids where "shouting for help," but no one was listening at the school or community levels.

He noted that early research on past school tragedies suggested that there was a lack of comprehensive integration and cooperation between campus governance groups, campus police, surrounding community police, community social services, religious groups, juvenile courts, probation, and correctional systems. In many cases these troubled youth and young adults were from dysfunctional homes, suffering in silence, and left to their own resources or those of deviant peer groups. As a preventative measure, community cooperation and integration would have to occur, but once again, evaluative and action research would have to be conducted during a continuing cycle of implementation and improvement over protracted periods of time. There are apparently many community-based pilot programmes running in various cities around the nation, one of which holds promise based upon early results: identification and mentorship of troubled youth, including youth-at-risk from dysfunctional homes.

There were several other strategies that were to be a part of the bundled solution to school and college shooting problem, but we did not have time to delve into them.

coffeepot

I don't have THE ANSWER, as I doubt anyone on this thread does.

I would agree with you that nobody has the perfect answer. Manic_Moran's answer is not 100%, but it does seem to be the best option at present.

the solution lies in a "bundle" of well funded, long-term comprehensive and integrated programmes

I agree, but in the mean time you have no solution. This does seem to keep happening. Perhaps due to the lack of any viable alternitive Manic_Moran's option is the best that you have.

communities need to return to "community policing strategies," namely getting the cops out of their squad cars and walking the beats

Sounds right. But again takes a long time for this to make a difference.

There are just far too many guns out there and you are never going to get control of them.

We do not have a CCP (thank God!) in Ireland and IMHO we dont need it. I think it would be counter productive here. However in the US I think you do need it.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

As wyk has pointed out above, America's college shooting problem is complex, not simple. Are American gun advocates offering a simple solution to to complex problem?

We do not submit that it is a solution to society's problems. We do submit that it is a remedy for whoever the poor unfortunates are who happen to be in the classroom at the time, in much the same manner as it is a remedy for anyone caught in an unfortunate situation outside of the classroom, whilst the sociologists and politicians actually figure out what the proper solution is and carry it out. Currently nine State legislatures are looking at removing the prohibition on carrying firearms in universities. Or, you could take the policy announced by the Governor of Washington two months ago.

"One thing parents shouldn’t have to worry about is the safety of their children while they attend college,” said Gregoire. “But in the past year, we have been reminded that our campuses are not immune from violence.”

The governor’s supplemental budget proposal includes:

- $8 million for instant warning systems.

- $2.85 million for community notification. For improvements in systems at the UW, The Evergreen State College, Western Washington University, and the community and technical colleges so students and staff can get warnings via e-mail, text messaging and web alerts.

- $2.2 million for facility mapping and security cameras for first responders. Community and technical colleges, and The Evergreen State College, will complete full facilities mapping, giving responders detailed maps of each floor in each building on campus. In addition, Eastern Washington University will purchase security cameras that transmit pictures wireless to monitors in campus police vehicles.

- $395,000 for redundant communications. The UW and WSU will be able to install outdoor alarms and speakers to direct students to safety and allow for the orderly movement of people off campus or back to the classroom.

- $829,000 for access control and shutdown. The Evergreen State College will upgrade its network to allow for the centralized, classroom-by-classroom lockdown on campus. WSU will install key-card access control at each door in selected buildings. The UW will enable emergency ventilation shut-off for each building.

That's over $14 million dollars, which, unless I'm missing something, does absolutely nothing to stop a shooting from happening, and does no good at all to anyone who happens to be in the unfortunate situation of being in proximity to the shooting. This is typical of some of the solutions being proposed. Forgive me for not being overwhelmed by the feeling of security this would impart.

Easy access to guns in America, be it legal or illegal, certainly contributes to the problem of college and school shootings, no matter how gun advocates use circular arguments to often state it's not the gun, but the person using it?

I will accept that. But you must also accept that firearms have a use for purposes other than unlawful slaughter. Further, you must also note that easy access to firearms for children is not a new concept in the US. Mass shootings like this are: The issue is with society, not the weapon.

What American gun advocates (and the gun lobby) don't want brought to the public attention are the number of gun-related deaths reported. The American Center for Disease Control (CDC) compiles and issues reports on the leading causes of death in the United States. In year 2000, the 8th leading cause of death was gun-related. Specifically, "Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 -- average of 79 per day -- 16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides..."

What anti-gun advocates don't want brought to public attention are the number of times firearms are put to good use. From the brief of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons:

But the benefits of guns are undeniable:
one physician surveyed published studies
and estimated that the defensive use of guns saves 25
to 75 lives for every one lost to a gun. Miguel Faria,
M.D., “Public Health and Gun Control – A Review
(Part I: The Benefits of Firearms),” 6 Medical Sentinel
11 (2001).

Fourteen studies have been conducted to try to figure out how many times a firearm is lawfully used against crime. Figures vary from 700,000 at the low end, to 2.5million at the high end. Per year. The figure estimated by the DOJ in 1994 is 1.5million.

Suicide rates are not linked to firearms in themselves. From the same brief.

Japan, Hungary, and Scandinavia all have far more
restrictive gun control than the United States, and
yet they have suicide rates 2 to 3 times higher than
the U.S. For example, the suicide rate in Hungary is
35.38 per 100,000, compared to only 12.06 per
100,000 in the United States. See “International Violent
Death Rates” (May 17, 2003).9

Would you have guessed that there were anyplace near that many American firearms-related deaths in one year? 28,663! Yikes! American deaths per year in the Iraq War are considerably less? But of course, American gun advocates proclaim that guns are not a problem in America, only gun users who pull a trigger on themselves or another human being?

Is this an incorrect assessment? As you point out yourself, the underlying causes are extremely complex. Yet you wish to focus on an inanimate tool as the root of all evil. And further, the solution of simply getting rid of them isn't feasible.

Now, if you want to really be shocked, look up the numbers of deaths due to medical malpractise in the US.
http://www.personal-injury-information.com/index.html

In the United States, over 200,000 people die annually due to mistakes by healthcare professionals, surgeons and pharmacists. In fact, medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the United States, with 3 per cent of all hospital patients becoming victims of medical mistakes. The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) breaks down the annual figure further: 100,000 deaths from adverse effects from medication, 80,000 deaths from infections contracted in hospitals, 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery and 7,000 deaths from medication and prescription error. However, one area that does not receive much press is the fact that more than 10,000 doctors in the US have been disciplined for incompetence, misconduct and negligence

45,000 a year on car accidents... Two days ago in Maryland a poorly driven car killed eight people standing at the side of the road. Hell, this guy did better than the NIU Shooter, and he wasn't even trying.

Why not ban doctors and cars? Obviously because they provide an overall benefit to society far greater than their detremental effect. What people fail to realise is that firearms have a far greater benefit to society (especially for the law-abiding) than their negative effect. The difference is that the latter is publicised in international news, and the former is almost never mentioned, thus creating a skewed perspective.

By the more extreme example, you note that you teach sword-fighting. What possible benefit to society does a sword have? Obviously some people can consider them to be a threat to sociey, the UK has just announced a new ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7138735.stm. Even a smaller blade can be used to stab a number of people. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-22-grocery-store-stabbing_x.htm (Oh, and look who stopped him: A man carrying a gun)

Elartrice Ingram, 21, was charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, police said. The attack Friday apparently stemmed from a work dispute, investigators said <snip>

Ingram, chasing one victim into the store's parking lot, was subdued by Chris Cope, manager of a financial services office in the same small shopping center, Memphis Police Sgt. Vince Higgins said.

Cope said he grabbed a 9mm semiautomatic pistol from his pickup when he saw the attacker chasing the victim "like something in a serial killer movie."

"When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope told The Associated Press. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."

I'm sure your sword has never hurt anyone you didn't mean to hurt. At least my firearms can be argued to have a greater practical use in the real world. In the meantime, however, I suggest that I leave your form of self defense alone, and you leave me to mine.

NTM

Overheal

For civilian defensive application, what is the use in supplying lethal ammunition types? Surely rubber rounds have enough stopping power in them for an assailant. I dont see the use of letting loose thousands of lethal Full Metal Jacket rounds into society.

Manic Moran

Surely rubber rounds have enough stopping power in them for an assailant

In a word, they don't. You're just going to piss him off. Look at the size of the rubber bullets fired for crowd control, and imagine how effective they are against a guy with a real gun. Even when shooting live rounds, you keep pulling the trigger until the threat stops, it's not a one-shot-stop deal.

I dont see the use of letting loose thousands of lethal Full Metal Jacket rounds into society.

I use jacketed hollow points as my round of choice, as do most people but there is some option in favour of using rounds like Glaser. Hollowpoints are less likely to overpenetrate (either people or walls etc), and do a far better job of transferring energy into the target. FMJ is generally military issue only, where immediacy of effect is not an issue (and deforming rounds are forbidden by treaty anyway). If there's a gun battle going on in the street, you want the round to stop the target immediately. Not necessarily kill him, but incapacitate him. (Survival rates for JHP are actually higher than for FMJ)

NTM

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's over $14 million dollars, which, unless I'm missing something, does absolutely nothing to stop a shooting from happening,

Neither does the overly simplistic "Rambo solution" of capricious citizen vigilante action?

Citizen vigilantes do not prevent the shootings from happening in all the anecdotal cases you cited thus far. The shooting starts first. In the recent classroom shooting incident at Northern Illinois University the deranged person began shooting with a shotgun before a potential citizen vigilante would be able to act, so your solution is not preventative.
Unlike the Rambo sterotype that assumes years of training, your citizen vigilante would require little (according to you in two of your earlier posts). Although there will be exceptions like yourself (US Military?), those will be exceptions, with citizen vigilantes carrying guns into the classroom generally with less training than campus police, local law enforcement, or SWAT in most cases? I worry about increasing the numbers of untrained or poorly trained vigilantes and the likelihood of increasing what military types call death or injuries due to "friendly fire," or what the news media calls "collateral damage?"
Your solution assumes that students and faculty will arm themselves to such an extent that there will be an armed presence in most or all classrooms at any given moment of time? At USC during a normal semester session, that would mean that hundreds of guns would have to be present on campus.
Your concealed gun permit requires that the citizen vigilante be at least 21 years old. That greatly reduces the number of university students that would be eligible to carry guns, as the vast majority of students enrolled are undergraduates, and would either be 4th year (seniors) or have already graduated by age 21? Further, 4th year students don't normally take 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year classes, having already completed them, therefore the chances are greatly reduced of a 21 year old traditional 4th year (or older than 21 nontraditional student) gun carrying student will be present in the vast majority of classes? Graduate students are generally older and generally attend graduate and not undergraduate classes, so they would not be present in the vast number of classrooms as students.
The shooters, according to all the reports and studies I have read, are emotionally disturbed people, not your criminal types that may consider risk as a factor before committing a crime, so there is no rigorous scientific support based upon these exceptionally few and anecdotal shooting cases that would suggest that knowledge of classroom vigilantes would have a deterrent effect (i.e., be preventative), only unqualified heresay.
Faculty carrying guns into classrooms I doubt is a plausible part of your solution. I called my USC academic advisor and they had already discussed some of the solutions to campus shootings in prior meetings. When faculty were asked if they would carry a gun into a classroom, not one said they would do so; to the contrary, the notion of a gun in the classroom was thought to be more of a risk and counterproductive to a learning environment.
I know several at USC in student government, and have been asking around about their position on changing the USC policy about carrying guns into the classroom. All said they would oppose guns in the classroom, and would protest such action if the USC administration considered it. (As you might have guessed, I've told them that I would be willing to serve on the committee to protest guns on campus should it be necessary)
Citing a study that predicts that so many lives would have been saved in classrooms if students or faculty were armed I find problematic indeed from a scientific research standpoint, given that the college shootings are case studies that are retrospective, occurring at one moment in time, lack controls or quasi-controls, unique and anecdotal at best, and are too few in number to be statistically significant, representative, or generalizable, hence predicting is spurious (i.e., unscientific armchair nonsense).

In referring to other fatalities associated with guns in my prior posts, one thing was common about all the references, namely guns, not vehicle accidents, medical errors, or other non-gun sources of death mentioned, whether accidental or criminal, often used by gun advocates to distract from a gun-related problem. The high availability of guns in the United States has to be considered a serious part of the problem, to where it is easier for criminals, gangs, mentally disturbed, and persons without minimal firearms safety training to acquire them.

Manic Moran mentioned in an earlier post how little training would be needed, based upon his US military experience, for a person to pick up a gun and defend themselves, as opposed to other forms of typically non-lethal self defense that might take years to master? The same can be said about how easy it is for a mentally disturbed college shooter to pick up a gun, if they are highly available in the United States.

I was disappointed that only $14 million dollars was allocated to the college shooter problem by the Governor mentioned in an earlier post. Perhaps more of the monies that are allocated to Bush's Iraq War (estimated at one billion dollars a day in his proposed budget to Congress), could be used to make college campuses a safer place to learn, than seeking an oversimplistic "Rambo solution" using citizen vigilantes? Typically vigilante action occurs when law enforcement fails to do its job, so maybe more monies to research and discover how to reduce, if not eliminate the college shooter problem? A billion dollars a day of war money could help solve not only this problem, but also other domestic problems?

The irony of proposing a gun solution to the campus shooting problem does not escape me, but is obviously unappreciated by those advocating guns? Where is Jonathan Swift when you need him?

Manic Moran

Hopefully a quick one: The new Knight Rider is on in a few minutes. (I don't know if I like KITT as a Ford Mustang, but anyway)

[*]Citizen vigilantes do not prevent the shootings from happening in all the anecdotal cases you cited thus far. The shooting starts first.

It is true, the shooting does. Our difference lies in what happens afterwards.

In the recent classroom shooting incident at Northern Illinois University the deranged person began shooting with a shotgun before a potential citizen vigilante would be able to act, so your solution is not preventative.

It is very preventative if you happen to be in the room but not victim to the first shot or two. Assume, for the sake of argument, that someone starts shooting in your USC lecture hall. It'll take a shot or two to realise just what's happening. Nothing to be done about that. Assuming that you are one of the majority not actually injured, what are your options from that point on? (1) Join the mad rush of people trying to get out the door, assuming that the shooter isn't blocking it, and hope that you don't get hit should the shooter decide to aim at the mass of people. (2) Cower in the hopes that someone with a gun (i.e. police) gets to the shooter before he gets to you. Neither of these are particularly pro-active solutions, and in both cases you are reliant on two factors: The amount of time it takes for the police to show up, and just how long it takes for the shooter to hit you. Neither of which are under your control.

This is a process of damage limitation. The difference between four people being killed in the Colorado church shootings, and maybe a dozen. (He had nearly a thousand rounds of ammunition, apparently). Now, I don't know about you, but assuming total prevention isn't going to happen, I think lower death tolls are preferable to higher ones.

Unlike the Rambo sterotype that assumes years of training, your citizen vigilante would require little (according to you in two of your earlier posts).

I make no Rambo stereotypes. The simple fact of the matter is that aiming a pistol at a target and pulling the trigger is a fairly simple process, which has been managed by anyone from gangbangers to psycho students to private citizens under stress. The woman in the 911 call I linked to earlier didn't even own the gun she used to kill her attacker, it had been loaned to her by a friend the day before. Now, when you start getting into one-on-one scenarios such as quick-draws, or tactical fire and movement (Particularly in teams) then yes, much more training is required. Putting steel on target is much simpler.

Although there will be exceptions like yourself (US Military?), those will be exceptions, with citizen vigilantes carrying guns into the classroom generally with less training than campus police, local law enforcement, or SWAT in most cases?

Again, I point out that those who undertake CCWs are often better shots than the police for whom their sidearm is merely a mandatory annual qualification. You teach martial arts, police and military are given unarmed combat training. Do you really think the average cop will best you in unarmed combat? I know that the standard I received in the Army wasn't to the level that I would like to take on someone for whom it's an interest.

I worry about increasing the numbers of untrained or poorly trained vigilantes and the likelihood of increasing what military types call death or injuries due to "friendly fire," or what the news media calls "collateral damage?"

Apparently 10% of shootings involving police hit bystanders. I need to look up the cite, but I'll get back to it, I just saw it today. The figure for private citizens is 2%, though this figure is skewed heavily because most private citizen shootings tend to be in places like the home where there are no bystanders to hit. And frankly, if the shooter is going around firing at will, I don't see what benefit there is to not taking the shot.

Your solution assumes that students and faculty will arm themselves to such an extent that there will be an armed presence in most or all classrooms at any given moment of time? At USC during a normal semester session, that would mean that hundreds of guns would have to be present on campus.

Well, despite the fact that the hundreds of guns known to be on campus at UU don't seem to be a problem, if other people wish to be defenseless, that's their problem. I see no reason why someone else's fears should prevent someone who wishes to be armed from doing so.

Your concealed gun permit requires that the citizen vigilante be at least 21 years old. That greatly reduces the number of university students that would be eligible to carry guns,

Correct. But it also increases the amount of chance that someone with a firearm will be in a position to take action. Again, note the 32-year-old veteran killed in NIU, for example. There is no reason to believe that this person would have chosen to be armed, but even the option was not available. Having increased chances of stopping a rampaging shooter earlier, even if not 100%, cannot be a bad thing. By the way, I object to your repeated use of the term vigilante. That implies someone who takes the law into their own hands. I'm talking about people who act within the law.

The shooters, according to all the reports and studies I have read, are emotionally disturbed people, not your criminal types that may consider risk as a factor before committing a crime

Again, it's the difference in numbers. Mass shootings stopped by someone carrying a gun aren't mass shootings, because they were stopped before they got to that point.

When faculty were asked if they would carry a gun into a classroom, not one said they would do so;

That's their choice. I choose otherwise.

the notion of a gun in the classroom was thought to be more of a risk and counterproductive to a learning environment

If you don't know about it, I'm not sure how that can be a problem. Perhaps given the stigma in urban California regarding firearms, just no faculty member chooses to openly admit that they carry a firearm for fear of unwarranted ostracisation. After all, if it's a concealed weapon, it's counterproductive to tell someone you have it.

I know several at USC in student government, and have been asking around about their position on changing the USC policy about carrying guns into the classroom.

Have you asked them what their preferred course of action would be if they found themselves in the same lecture hall as someone with perhaps less respect for human life than most people? Mr Kazmierczak appears not to have been too concerned about anyone else's positions on carrying guns into the classroom.

hence predicting is spurious (i.e., unscientific armchair nonsense).

The number of school shootings is indeed a small sample size. The number of private citizens using firearms to prevent crime or violence is a much greater number, and far less deniable. Since we are only suggesting that the same people who carry outside of class carry inside of class, I see no reason to believe that the statistics for the one cannot extrapolate to the other.

The high availability of guns in the United States has to be considered a serious part of the problem, to where it is easier for criminals, gangs, mentally disturbed, and persons without minimal firearms safety training to acquire them.

Yes. But access to firearms is not new. The root problem is something other than the firearm. This argument also happily ignores the benefits to firearms ownership.

The same can be said about how easy it is for a mentally disturbed college shooter to pick up a gun, if they are highly available in the United States.

As has, I believe, now been demonstrated. Given, however, that there will be no reduction in the amount of firearms sales in the US, you need a solution which takes into account the fact that there are 200million firearms in the country, and that normal citizens will always be able to buy them, at least until the Constitution is changed.

so maybe more monies to research and discover how to reduce, if not eliminate the college shooter problem?

I have no quarrel with this concept. I, too, think the money would be better spent that way than on warning systems. In the meantime, however, I see no reason this can exclude the legal carrying of firearms in addition.

As you might have guessed, I've told them that I would be willing to serve on the committee to protest guns on campus should it be necessary

The implication here is that there is a movement in USC's population to permit it? (I don't know if there is or not).

The shortest question though is 'who is responsible for the safety of any individual student?' I think any solution must take that question into account. Please note that the question of "Do the police have any duty towards a private individual" has already been answered by the Supreme Court.

NTM

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran...
Fair enough. Your perspectives on guns, self-defense, and a college environment conducive to learning are obviously different from mine, and during our exchange we have both made a few points from our different perspectives. We can agree to disagree, and leave it at that.