Okay, so its pretty clear that the fights over gun control are going to go on whether we wish for them to or not. Instapundit and his ilk started in almost immediately with the “if they had more guns this might not have happened!”. To be fair, I am sure there are some gun control advocates who started in with the opposite argument almost immediately. Insty is nuts; having more people armed in a situation like that is a recipe for more innocent deaths, not less. Considering that no state requires people to go through training on how to deal with a random, chaotic, panic filled situation and how to identify legitimate targets in such situations, it is completely unreasonable to expect that armed students would have done anything other than add to the chaos and death. Life is not like a bad revenge fantasy movie. The deterrent argument is just as silly. The man who did this was broken. Sane people do not commit random massacres. You cannot deter someone who is that far gone, who has so abandoned his connection to humanity, to himself, to his loved ones that he would walk into a crowded place and open fire. The point at which such a person could be deterred from anything has long since passed.
A lot of the gun control arguments will probably turn out to be just as silly. Its far, far too late to bad guns in this country, even if we could. Besides, the weapon was probably purchased legally. The only gun control that would make sense would be some methodology for keeping people who are depressed/homicidal/etc from getting legal weapons and to require a psych exam on a regular basis to catch gun owners who have slipped into such a broken state. But I am not a psychiatrist, so I have no idea if that notion is practical.
At the end of the day this was an extraordinary event and as such it is a lousy template upon which to build policy or narratives. I understand the desire to, to some extent. People are hard wired to want to know, to understand why things happen. Insty is telling himself a fairy tale to make himself feel better, to allow himself to believe that what happened at VT fits into the neat, understandable world we all think we inhabit. It doesn’t and it cannot be made to. It wasn’t neat; it wasn’t understandable; it didn’t belong in the worlds we try and make for ourselves. It was horrific in part because it reminded us how fragile those worlds, those stories we tell ourselves about hard work and decency and rewards and the good life really are.
What happened yesterday has almost nothing to tell us about gun control, aside from a reminder that its a good idea to keep firearms away form the mentally and emotionally broken. No matter how we may wish otherwise, none of the fairy tales of deterrence or reprisal or prohibition can no more explain what went wrong yesterday than philosophers can define beauty. Stop trying to find that explanation. Let the living bury their dead in peace. The arguments don’t really have much to do with them, anyway.
Judd
Kevin
Kevin T. Keith
leanleft
tgirsch
Gonna disagree there. Yes, it is possible but it is not as likely as you think.
You can google up ‘tacoma mall shooting dan mckown’ or ‘Mark Wilson tyler texas shooting’. Dan likely minimized the number of deaths there as did Wilson (who saved the shooter’s son). Wilson died. McKown loss use of his legs (I met him last year, nice guy).
Those are the only two mass shooters who I know of that were actually confronted by someone who was armed. In both cases, I think they minimized the casualties because the murderer was too busy being shot at.
[...] I’ve seen this said today, mostly recently by Kevin who notes: having more people armed in a situation like that is a recipe for more innocent deaths, not less. [...]
If citizens could own SAMs, the WTC would probably have been saved.
On the other hand, the net effect of kids with guns in school would undoubtably result in more deaths than those saved by stopping a lunatic on a killing spree. Not withstanding the fact that annually 100s of individual, below the news radar, shootings don’t capture the imagination like the worst shooting rampage in the history of the country.
“Those are the only two mass shooters who I know of that were actually confronted by someone who was armed.”
Read the police reports of shootings at theaters or nightclubs or drive bys. While not mass murderes in intent, those situations can and have very quickly spiraled out of control when more than one armed person is present. And in both those situations you mentioned, there was only one other armed person and the shooter was obvious and obviously safe to target. Neither would be the case if the mall, for example, was filled with CCW holders.
Shorter Ted: Well, he got a point so let’s take it to a logical extreme, no matter how stucking fupid. In other news, if Joe Bob had an H-Bomb, we could have stopped WW2 and wouldn’t even be in Iraq!
And there’s a difference between arming kids and arming responsible, law abiding adults.
Kevin: And how many shootings at those venues involve lawful CCW holders responding? Probably not many.
“Its far, far too late to bad guns in this country, even if we could.”
In as much as the ‘d’ and ‘n’ are typed with different fingers on opposite hands, that must be a “freudian” slip.
“Insty is nuts; having more people armed in a situation like that is a recipe for more innocent deaths, not less.”
Kind of hard to imagine a person using a firearm for protection unintentionally killing several people while engaging the attacker. Generally I avoid ad hominem remarks, but you seem to have no such compunction so what the hell: you are an idiot.
“What happened yesterday has almost nothing to tell us about gun control, aside from a reminder that its a good idea to keep firearms away form the mentally and emotionally broken.”
It would seem that the attacker in this case had _very_ good control of his gun. Disarmament zones (i.e., “gun control”) do nothing but assure an attacker (who may be nuts, but is not necessarily stupid) that his intended victims will not have an effective tool for resistance to the attack.
“Besides, the weapon was probably purchased legally.”
Wrong, as usual.
“it is completely unreasonable to expect that armed students would have done anything other than add to the chaos and death.”
I suppose it was better for the students to just go quietly? Finally, if left alone, the gunman would have run out of bullets? Are you nuts?
“You cannot deter someone who is that far gone”
Hundreds of people have been deterred from killing more people by someone stopping them with a gun. Dead men don’t kill.
Your whole post is illogical and doesn’t make any real world sense. How are things in that ivory tower you live in? You have been given examples of armed citizens who have stopped massacres. Do you have any examples of situations where legally armed citizens have caused the situation to be worse because they fought back and defended themselves and others?
“And how many shootings at those venues involve lawful CCW holders responding? Probably not many.”
I’m sorry, do CCW people get special training on how to identify appropriate attackers? The situation is the same, Uncle, even if you don’t like the implications.
Bob
You are an idiot. Yes, it possible to imagine people with guns shooting at someone and missing, thus hitting an innocent or innocents and having no effect on the actual mass murderer. It is much more likely that someone in that situation will miss — just ask cops, who miss more often than they hit. The world is not a video game, mate. How do you tell which of the ten people with guns is the real killer? And how do you make that decision in the split second you have? And how do you make sure that one of the the other ten people with guns doesn’t think you are the shooter? Real life shows you that lots of people with guns in a violent situation does not a happy ending make.
I meant to delete the first line about whether or not he purchased the weapons legally. I sent the post and then realized I hadn’t deleted it. I’ve heard several different accounts. We’ll have to wait and see if he got the guns legally.
Yes, it possible to imagine people with guns shooting at someone and missing, thus hitting an innocent or innocents and having no effect on the actual mass murderer.
That’s cute.
He asked you for examples and you provided him with hallucinations…er…imagination.
in many places, they do. or they get the effective equivalent of that.
any decent CCW education and training course should include sections on responsible use of force, including stressing the difference between police officers and the rest of us as far as rights, duties and responsibilities go. any class on the legalities of self-defense will stress that juries tend to get skeptical of people who run towards the sound of the guns when their own lives and limbs aren’t at immediate risk. any decent gun handling class will cover Cooper’s four rules, the last of which is all about identifying your target.
localities that allow people to carry concealed without such training and education are, IMHO, short-changing their citizens. such training can only serve to make you a better person, a more aware citizen, and a more skilled gun owner. it is compulsory in many states, and i wouldn’t object if it were compulsory nationwide.
“in many places, they do. or they get the effective equivalent of that”
I agree that they should, but I am not aware that any state requires anything like the kind of training that polcie or militry people get. Could be wrong — google is hardly infallable — but I haven’t found any evidence of it.
Sailorcourt
Yes, because the first post to Uncle doesn’t point out an entire class of situations where the evidence points the other way. Nope. Not at all.
“I’m sorry, do CCW people get special training on how to identify appropriate attackers?”
What in the world is an “appropriate attacker”? If someone is going around randomly shooting people, don’t you think that a reasonable person would assume that person is an attacker? Good grief!
In my state, CCW permit holders are trained and tested on when it is appropriate to use your weapon.
“How do you tell which of the ten people with guns is the real killer?”
You are a real idiot.
And there’s a difference between arming kids and arming responsible, law abiding adults.
Of course, any attempt to actually ensure that the people being armed are “responsible, law abiding adults” before allowing them to arm themselves is generally met with contempt and derision from the gun-nut community. “Responsible” and “law abiding” are talking points, but the fringes of the gun community don’t really care about either, because they oppose any and all attempts to assure them.
Nomen:
any decent CCW education and training course should include sections on responsible use of force, including stressing the difference between police officers and the rest of us as far as rights
Well, sure, but try to actually force people to take “decent CCW education.” Here in Tennessee, my CCW education was a whopping eight hours, roughly a third of which involved the instructor pontificating about how the “lib’ruls” in “gub’mint” want to “turn us all into victims.” Simple things like properly presenting a weapon from a holster — which you’d think would be a key requirement — weren’t even covered, unless you wanted to take a second, more expensive class, which was in no way required for the permit. (To be fair, they did briefly discuss the IDOL rule, but it was simply discussed, and as I said, it was brief.)
You know what? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m willing to make that trade. Expanded CCW, where there’s actually meaningful, extensive training required (rather than just the basic “how not to shoot yourself” training most seem to get), and where proficiency must be routinely demonstrated (say, annually) to retain that permit. You want to carry like a police officer? Meet at least the same training and proficiency requirements as a police officer.
But again, you start talking about requirements like that, and you get to hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the EEEEVIL nanny state, and overbearing government, etc. For gun advocates, “responsibility” is something that exists only in the abstract, or at best, is something that exists solely at a personal level. It’s an asinine notion of “as long as I behave responsibly, absolutely nothing else matters.”
So as much as I generally support gun rights, I think that gun advocates are mostly full of shit when they talk about gun ownership in the context of public safety. They mostly couldn’t give two squirts of piss about public safety. They care only about their own safety, everything else be damned. And they believe that their guns are the most important thing wrt their personal safety. So even if it became crystal clear tomorrow that a gun ban would eliminate 90% of violent crime, they’d still oppose it. (And, no, I’m not saying that’s what would happen, and in fact I don’t believe it would — I’m just using this as an example to illustrate the fact that they don’t give a shit about anything other than themselves.)
[Not addressed to anyone in particular, but to gun advocates in general]
You want responsible gun ownership? Then, work to enforce it, for fuck’s sake, rather than all your elitist talk about of how people “ought to” behave and about what happens if everyone acts according to how you think they should. And when you work to enforce it, bear in mind the ounce of prevention/pound of cure ratio, rather than feeding us that same old, tired bullshit about “enforcing existing gun laws” (virtually all of which you oppose and would repeal if you could).
[/Not addressed]
Fred:
In my state, CCW permit holders are trained and tested on when it is appropriate to use your weapon.
A written test, or a field test? It’s one thing to know what to write on a piece of paper when there’s no stress. It’s quite another to react appropriately in the heat of the moment.
And what’s “idiotic” about asking how one will identify the actual attacker in a stressful situation? If CCW were prevalent, and you wind up in a shooting situation, presumably several CCW holders would hear shots and draw their weapons. Now if you only heard the shots and didn’t see where they were coming from, by the time you look, several people have weapons drawn. Who’s the “threat” and who’s just defending themselves? You’ve only got a split second to decide, and people with months or years of training still make the wrong call too often; what makes you think that civilians with only casual training would fare any better?
what sort of training, exactly, are you thinking of here? because training standards for police and military varies wildly, in the first case with geography and jurisdiction, in the second with service branch and MOS.
police officers in particular don’t tend to get much firearms training, at least not as compared to legal, procedural and investigative training. which is as it should be, because they generally don’t shoot much on the job. most officers can still get through their entire careers without a single shot fired in anger; they need training in communication, conflict resolution, and unarmed restraint techniques more.
most military people don’t do much head-to-head, individual fighting either, and what fighting they do do is quite different from what civilians might worry about. soldiers pretty much never fight alone, always in teams, and seldom fight just to stay alive, more often to see to it some other bugger doesn’t. they also have access to levels of force no CCWer can or should use, or train for.
if you have suggestions for what ought to go on a national CCW education and training curriculum, i’d love to hear them, but “police and military-like training” seems too nebulous (and irrelevant) to be useful.
“Responsible” and “law abiding” are talking points, but the fringes of the gun community don’t really care about either,
They are not “talking points”, the point is that your laws, regulations, stipulations and requirements ONLY AFFECT responsible, law-abiding citizens.
Irresponsible, non-law abiding citizens ignore them.
As is apparent in what happened at Virginia Tech. The rules against guns sure didn’t stop the perpetrator, now did they? They only stopped any LAW ABIDING students who may have been on the campus from defending themselves.
In this particular instance, it is unfortunate that there weren’t more non-law abiding, irresponsible gun owners around to stop the lunatic considering that the responsible, law-abiding ones were disarmed.
Yes, because the first post to Uncle doesn’t point out an entire class of situations where the evidence points the other way. Nope. Not at all.
Um…what???? Sarcasm, in order to be effective, generally needs to make sense.
Ignoring that bit of nonsense and returning to my point in response to your imaginings:
I can imagine lots of things. I can imagine little kids skewering each other with Bar-B-Que forks over playground arguments. I can imagine enraged dump truck drivers flattening Geo’s for being cut off in traffic. I can imagine angry little old ladies flailing innocent Pit Bulls to death with their 20 pound pocketbooks.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your perspective) my imaginings, just like yours stated above, have no bearing on reality or historical fact. Which is WHY you were challenged to provide examples.
Real life shows you that lots of people with guns in a violent situation does not a happy ending make.
If true, then you should be able to provide just SCADS of examples from…you know…real life, rather than just using your imagination.
“what sort of training, exactly, are you thinking of here? because training standards for police and military varies wildly, in the first case with geography and jurisdiction, in the second with service branch and MOS.”
According to my friends in CPD, they have a decent amount of field testing for when to draw and when to fire. That’s the kind of thing I am talking about.
Sailorcourt:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you blind to the history of, say, the Robert Taylor Homes? Do you pay no attention to gun crimes at all? Do I really effin need to walk you through the history of drive bys and club shootings and the like? Or mistaken identity shootings? Or, hell, the history of lynching in this country???
Sailorcurt:
Methinks you miss my point, and actually, the point of this post. Nobody is arguing that more/better gun control laws would have prevented the Virginia Tech incident. What we’re saying, instead, is that these laws, or the lack thereof, won’t make a damn bit of difference in situations like this.
Sure, if there were properly-trained CCW holders present, and if they were actually carrying, and if they were within range to actually do something, and if they managed to maintain their cool in a stressful situation, and if they were able to quickly identify, and if their aim was good enough to neutralize the attacker (who would likely not be as accommodating as a stationary paper target at the range in preventing a front-aligned immobile target to shoot at), then maybe the outcome is less bad. But that’s a lot of “ifs,” and if any of them doesn’t hold true, you have the potential for an even worse outcome.
CCW as it currently exists (where it exists) is no more likely to defuse such a scenario as “better” gun control. The bottom line is, the Virginia Tech incident tells us almost nothing about the gun debate in this country, one way or the other. Which is why it’s idiotic in the extreme to try to make political hay out of it.
P.S. Irresponsible, non-law abiding citizens ignore them.
Since this argument could be applied to literally any law, I’m glad we’ve now correctly identified you as an anarchist, ideologically opposed to all laws. Thanks for that.
(Seriously, that’s an idiotic argument. For the most part, laws aren’t there to prevent anything; they’re there to stipulate what to do with the people who break them. But instead, you give us a third-grade reading level argument equivalent to “everyone speeds, so speed limits accomplish nothing.”)
Just as a point of clarification I think some are arguing past each other.
The central questions as I see them:
If more, (perhaps many more) members of the general population were armed and trained in the use of firearms, would the incident at VT have been as bad as it was?
My assumption without anything close to certainty is that no, it would not have been as bad, perhaps in the dorm, perhaps in one of the classrooms, an trained, armed person could have stopped things. There was a relevant example in Tacoma where an off-duty Police Officer was able to make good decisions and help prevent a bad situation from becoming much much worse.
Would the rate of firearm related deaths, accidents, and suicides go up if more people were carrying firearms as part of their daily activities?
My assumption again without definitive proof is that yes, we would be stopping the occasion rampage at the price of many other deaths and injuries that are far less visible to the public.
Remembering my own college days in rural Oregon, many people had guns on campus, they were locked in a gun safe in the dorm, and you could pick them up as you left to go hunting or shooting off-campus. But keeping a gun in the dorm was a ticket to jail. It was a dorm, there were fights, there was drinking, and the general and congenial nincompoopery that 19-year-old men do. Having guns at the ready in that situation could have been a very bad thing indeed.
I think where Kevin is (and where I am as well) is that yes there ways to prevent incidents like monday’s massacre, but the cost of trying to take most firearms away from people (non-trivial firefights from those who would resist even if there were any political will, which there isn’t) or encouraging or requiring gun ownership (a greater number of smaller-scale accidents and criminal acts) would both be greater than the cost of the occasional rampage.
Feel free to disagree
“And what’s “idiotic” about asking how one will identify the actual attacker in a stressful situation? If CCW were prevalent, and you wind up in a shooting situation, presumably several CCW holders would hear shots and draw their weapons. Now if you only heard the shots and didn’t see where they were coming from, by the time you look, several people have weapons drawn. Who’s the “threat” and who’s just defending themselves?”
The one shooting randomly at unarmed people is most likely the villian. Duh!
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Are you?
Are you seriously comparing “wars” between opposing groups of criminals with [meaningless talking point alert] law abiding citizens [/alert] defending themselves?
Mistaken identity shootings? You mean like in New York, where on duty police shot and killed an off duty policeman who was trying to stop a crime? There was another, almost identical incident within months of that one but I can’t remember where. If that’s not what you mean, please elaborate because I don’t know what you’re talking about.
The history of lynching in this country? You mean in the South…against blacks…who were, through Jim Crow laws, prohibited from owning or carrying defensive firearms? As a matter of fact, I am currently reading a tome that addresses, in part, that very issue…it is called “America in Black and White” by Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. I checked it out from the local library, I’m sure you could find a copy.
How about you? Do you pay attention to gun use at all? I recommend Clayton Cramer’s fine blog dedicated to the issue: The Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog. With its multiple entries every day identifying defensive use of firearms, it can be quite eye opening. As long as I’ve been reading that blog, I don’t remember ONE story in which an innocent bystander was hit by defensive fire.
As far as your mandatory training concerns. I agree wholeheartedly. I think that training on proper, safe and effective use, storage and carrying of firearms should absolutely be mandatory. Beginning in about the seventh grade. Right between Mathematics and Social Studies. The backstop could be built into the End Zone of the football field and you’d have ready made firing lines at various ranges up to 100 yards.
“My assumption again without definitive proof is that yes, we would be stopping the occasion rampage at the price of many other deaths and injuries that are far less visible to the public.”
This hasn’t been the case in states that have allowed a larger number of law-abiding citizens to have CCW permits. You can have your assumptions all day long, but they don’t amount to truth.
I am never surprised by the number of anti-gun fools that pop up after a tragedy such as VT. Their knee jerk reaction is always to blame the Gun. “The Gun did it.” If that line of thinking is correct, then we should first ban all automobiles in this country, or why not the world? Cars kill far more people in this country than guns do. These anti-gun nuts will not come to terms with the fact that it isn’t the guns falt, it’s a problem with society as a whole. We allow our kids to grow up watching movies and TV shows that allow them to think that killing someone is “cool.” We are NOT doing our jobs as parents! We are allowing our kids to grow up idolizing the Hollywood freaks that want to do our thinking for us. We are NOT taking enough time out of our “buisness first” lives to teach them that it is WRONG to live out the lyrics of their favorate Rap song.
Wake up America. It’s not the guns that are killing our kids. It’s the “I don’t have the time” Parents that are pulling the trigers.
Fred:
The one shooting randomly at unarmed people is most likely the villian. [sic]
Again, easy enough for you to identify in the abstract from the comfort of your chair, but quite a different matter when the rubber actually hits the road.
This hasn’t been the case in states that have allowed a larger number of law-abiding citizens to have CCW permits.
You’re right; without exception, it hasn’t made one damn bit of difference one way or the other in those states. They’ve basically followed the same trends as the rest of the country. But see, that only serves to underscore the point of this post: that CCW would neither hurt nor help in the grand scheme of things.
Sailorcurt:
There’s no such thing as a “defensive firearm.” It’s a bullshit term, and you know it. If I went around blathering about “offensive firearms,” you’d pop a blood vessel so fast, it would take a week to clean up the blood. There are only firearms, not “offensive” or “defensive” ones.
And it may surprise you to learn that I’m not at all opposed to the idea of firearms training in schools, although I think you underestimate just how complicated the logistics of actually implementing such a program would be. You teach kids about guns for the same reasons you teach them about sex — sooner or later, they’re going to encounter it, and you only hope they make good decisions when they do. Educating them increases the likelihood of that.
(As a side note, we did do archery in high school…)
“This hasn’t been the case in states that have allowed a larger number of law-abiding citizens to have CCW permits. You can have your assumptions all day long, but they don’t amount to truth.”
That depends on the number of CCW permit holders as a percentage of the population we are talking about. My understanding of the typical profile of a CCW holder is a responsible, experienced, and trained gun-owner. Having more people like that would be a good thing, perhaps a very good thing. But I think we are already at the point where all such people who fit that profile already own a gun and a CCW.
Does anyone know the specific laws in Virgina or on the VT campus?
And Fred, What about specefics on the whole CCW thing? What percent of the population has a CCW and carries a gun regularly? How would or could that number be increased without making my assumption a reality?
Let me also localize it for me. I work at a High School where we have a diverse rural population. Many of the students have access to guns at home, the vast and overwhelming majority of them would never in a zillion years think of doing anything. But all it takes is one kid on one day to do something horrible. Now as it happens, I can read statistics and know I should be more afraid that there is asbestos in the wall or that the mold stain on the celling tile could cause health problems down the road. Would there be a net gain in safety by adding guns in some form (locked in a safe? carried by faculty? carried by a guard?) or is it far more likely that random buffonery by a student or staff member would lead to tragedy? Who get’s trained and who pays for that training. How much more would the liability insurance cost?
Is there a community (and not just some members of a community) willing to try that out? Has it been tried out?
I just can’t see even our local NRA members thinking it’s a good idea to add guns to our school to repel the possible but unlikely threat of gunfire at school.
In fairness I should mention that we used to have an armed county sheriff responsible to this section of the county posted to our high school, but he was here only about 20% of the time anyway, and if people want to argue for more cops that’s different than what I think we are talking about here.
[...] Kevin at Lean Left: At the end of the day this was an extraordinary event and as such it is a lousy template upon which to build policy or narratives. I understand the desire to, to some extent. People are hard wired to want to know, to understand why things happen. Insty is telling himself a fairy tale to make himself feel better, to allow himself to believe that what happened at VT fits into the neat, understandable world we all think we inhabit. It doesn’t and it cannot be made to. It wasn’t neat; it wasn’t understandable; it didn’t belong in the worlds we try and make for ourselves. It was horrific in part because it reminded us how fragile those worlds, those stories we tell ourselves about hard work and decency and rewards and the good life really are. [...]
this has largely been the experience in my home state, Michigan also — when CCW was liberalized here a few years ago, crime statistics didn’t budge an inch either way.
to me, the question become then: “if this thing doesn’t hurt, but does allow for a slight bit more individual liberty — in a context a lot of citizens (rightly or wrongly) consider a matter of civil rights — shouldn’t a liberal, free society allow it?”
it doesn’t hurt. so what if it doesn’t help, either? what doesn’t injure society ought to be legal.
Man, sad to see the rhetoric flying like this over here.
In any event, why do so many think the idea that “more armed people in this situation would make it worse” is an idea that will survive even the mildest scrutiny?
If there’d been a policeman intervening, you’d certainly not begrudge him the use of his gun. Why is it “law enforcement” or “intervention” or “saving the day” when cops do it, but “crossfire” or “making it worse” when I do it?
Bullshit.
Cops have been shown to hit their targets an average of 15% of the time. The idea that guys who work 60 hours a week and shoot a simple qual course once a year are magic super duper marksmen who have skills the rest of us don’t have is bullhuckey of the more delicious variety.
Time and again (see Uncle’s post) an armed citizen has stopped a bad guy. It’s been shown so often that I’m not sure how you can offer the stupid premise that “shooting back makes it worse” with a straight face.
There’s no such thing as a “defensive firearm.” It’s a bullshit term, and you know it. If I went around blathering about “offensive firearms,” you’d pop a blood vessel so fast, it would take a week to clean up the blood. There are only firearms, not “offensive” or “defensive” ones.
Of course, strictly speaking, you are correct. But I think you know that my usage was to indicate the intent of the owner, not the over-riding purpose of the tool itself. Blacks at the time were denied the carry of firearms for any purpose, defensive or otherwise…which easily gives lie to your implication that I was assigning motivation or purpose to the object versus the user.
In the hands of the perpetrator of the recent outrage, his firearms WERE offensive because that was his intention in their use. If I had the exact same models of firearms on my hip, they would be defensive tools because that is MY intent.
The problem is the use of a term that assigns motivation based solely upon the firearm, not the intent of the user. In the next few days, when the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership starts crying that the WEAPONS the perpetrator used were inherently evil and I shouldn’t have access to them because they are “offensive” or “assault” weapons…yup, I’ll pop a blood vessel.
I must admit, your comment was a nicely crafted diversion…but I did not fail to notice that you avoided addressing the actual POINTS that I made in concentrating on this minor semantic disagreement.
although I think you underestimate just how complicated the logistics of actually implementing such a program would be.
The logistics didn’t seem too difficult 40 or 50 years ago when many schools had marksmanship teams. I read an account not too long ago from a gentleman recalling riding to school on the New York Subway with his rifle in the ’50s. The logistic problems today would revolve around soothing the inevitable hysterics from people deathly afraid of an inanimate object, not in any truly practical problems.
I missed your earlier post until just now, let me address that one too:
Seriously, that’s an idiotic argument. For the most part, laws aren’t there to prevent anything; they’re there to stipulate what to do with the people who break them. But instead, you give us a third-grade reading level argument equivalent to “everyone speeds, so speed limits accomplish nothing.
Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding…give the man a cigar. You just defined why gun control laws DON’T WORK. Because they ARE there to prevent something…namely gun violence. Laws against murder aren’t there to “prevent” murder per se but to ensure that justice is done to the perpetrator of such. Any deterrent effect is only a bonus.
Laws that are designed to prevent the ownership of guns entirely rely on the principle of “prior restraint”. Basically, criminalizing an otherwise non-criminal act as a “preventative measure”.
I’m not an anarchist and you know it. You are simply using hyperbole to construct a straw man. I have nothing against laws that penalize criminal behavior. If I use my firearm irresponsibly, cause injury to an innocent, misuse or abuse my Second Amendment rights…cuff me Danno.
But that is not what you are proposing. You are saying that my Second Amendment rights should be completely abrogated on the off chance that I MIGHT abuse them. That is tantamount to taping the mouths of theater patrons closed on the off chance that they might shout “fire” and cause a panic.
You don’t advocate licensing or restriction of someone’s FIRST Amendment rights PRIOR to their abusing them, only holding them responsible for abusing said rights.
And, guess what…if you did, only the law abiding would pay any attention to those rules and the non law abiding would go on saying whatever the heck they wanted.
The point is that “Prior Restraint” DOES NOT restrain the non law abiding.
As you well know…I’m NOT advocating the elimination of ALL laws, just the ones designed around the concept of “Prior Restraint”…you know…like gun control.
Oh, and by the way…speed limits are a “prior restraint” law…which is why they are completely ineffective and universally ignored. Police should be concentrating on arresting aggressive/reckless/negligent drivers, not people who are driving safely, but at a rate faster than that approved by big brother.
ps. Thanks for spelling my name right. Is Kevin trying to be funny or does he really think my name might be “Court?”
SebastianPGP:
I think you go to far. I don’t think even you would deny that whether more armed people would have made the situation better, worse, or made no difference depends entirely upon who’s armed. Yes, in just the right circumstances, it could have helped. In certain others, it could have made things worse. In many it wouldn’t make a difference at all. It seems to me that this is the conclusion that any amount of honest scrutiny comes to.
Sorry, but 30+ people massacred isn’t a political win for anyone, pro-gun or con, and it’s shitty evidence of anything for either side.
I’d also like to remind you that the plural of anecdote is not “data.” As repeated many times, any honest analysis of firearms data shows little to no impact. Neither blood in the streets, as the the “antis” claim, nor safer neighborhoods, as the “gun nuts” claim.
So why can’t we let the families of the victims bury their dead, without dancing on their graves and using them as a cheap fucking political prop? I’m sick and tired of BOTH sides doing this. And I’m more than a little bit ashamed at how long I’ve hung around here.
P.S. Assuming your figures are correct, cops hit their targets 15% of the time. How does this help your point? The average cop, even one with minimal training, is still likely to have considerably more than your average firearm-toting civilian. It would seem to follow, then, that John Q. Civilian is likely to do even worse than that. So how do you get from there to it being a good idea to have more, less-qualified people carrying?
P.P.S. Believe it or not, I’m actually on your side on most of these issues. But it doesn’t help gun rights one iota, and hurts them terribly, that the vast majority of vocal gun rights activists turn into insufferable, self-righteous assholes [speaking in general, not referring to you specifically] whenever the subject comes up. Still less when they make broad generalizations about how arming everyone will make the world a better, safer place, without a shred of real evidence (other than a few anecdotes) to back this up — it just adds undermined credibility to the already-bad impression they’ve made on the general public.
Sailorcurt:
I haven’t addressed any of your points because, in all honesty, I’m not the least bit interested in any of them. But I will say this: if you think armed blacks fighting back against lynching by shooting their white oppressors would have led to anything other than a large-scale massacre, in which the blacks came out on the short end, you’re just plum ignorant of human history. There’s a reason Dr. King argued for peaceful resistance — he knew that violent resistance would have led to slaughter.
As to first amendment rights versus second amendment rights, you make a grave mistake if you think I’m a strict constitutionalist. If we were solely debating constitutionality, it’d be a short debate. I frankly don’t care about constitutionality. I care about what’s a good idea or what’s not. In that respect, I’m very much a pragmatist. (Does this mean I think we should flush the constitution? Of course not. Just that constitutionality is irrelevant to whether or not something is a good idea. The constitution is not gospel.)
You think arming everyone who wants to be armed and simply trusting them to behave themselves with deadly weapons (“If not, we’ll clean up the mess later…”) is a good idea. I respectfully disagree. It’s as simple as that. You think that a proficiency requirement would effectively “infringe” the 2A right. As it happens, I disagree on that one, too.
Finally, Kevin types everything wrong (did you not READ the post?). Don’t read too much into him mistyping your name.
I’d also like to remind you that the plural of anecdote is not “data.” As repeated many times, any honest analysis of firearms data shows little to no impact. Neither blood in the streets, as the the “antis” claim, nor safer neighborhoods, as the “gun nuts” claim.
You are correct in that anecdote does not equal data. I agree completely. However, when the anecdote includes the words “I” or “me” they become very important on a personal level very quickly. The bottom line is that, individual gun ownership may not affect the OVERALL crime rates, but they can have a direct impact on one’s PERSONAL safety and security.
I understand exactly what you are saying about people trying to score cheap political points on this issue. I’m sure you think that that’s what I’m doing; this is VERY personal to me, however. Why? My daughter attended Virginia Tech. My son and his wife are both students in Virginia public universities that preclude them from carrying firearms for self defense (please note that I corrected my semantic error).
The committee that has, for two years running, killed the bill that would have allowed them to avail themselves of their right to self protection consisted of three Democrats and two Republicans. The swing vote on that committee happens to be the ostensibly pro-gun Democrat whom I voted for in the last two elections. Yes, MY delegate bears personal responsibility for killing those two bills.
I engaged in a debate with her in January over this very subject. I was ASSURED by both her and the Virginia University administrators that my children are “safe” on Virginia University campuses and that affording them the right to defend themselves would only make them less safe.
Basically, this VERY OCCURRENCE has been considered and dismissed by my representatives and college administrators as a paranoid fantasy.
I am extremely pissed off about this for that reason. It’s not like this just came out of the blue and I am just an opportunist jumping on the bandwagon. This is very personal to me. When the virtually inevitable “copycat” crimes occur over the next months and years…my children will STILL be as defenseless as sheep while on campus. I take that rather personally.
All of these arguments about “arming everyone” and “if everyone had guns it would be worse” are absolutely specious and sophistic.
No one is advocating issuing a firearm with every birth certificate. No one is contemplating “forcing” anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Most people are nothing more than sheep. They don’t want to be responsible for their own self protection, they don’t want to think about ever needing to be. They want to believe in the fantasy that “someone” will come save them. There will never be a situation like you fear so adamantly, where an attacker starts shooting and a majority of his intended victims pull their guns and start shooting back willy nilly (unless the attacker was stupid enough to choose a VCDL meeting or gun shop as his venue). The fact is that there are probably only a handful of students or faculty on that campus that HAVE concealed handgun permits and could be legally armed were the rules changed. The chances are that none of them were among the victims or would have been in a position to stop the attacker. But that is no reason to eliminate that chance completely. No one is saying that the attacker would have definitely been stopped and the death toll would have been lower had the rules been different. All we are saying is that the possibility exists and that the current rules GUARANTEED the high toll that this attack took.
The average cop, even one with minimal training, is still likely to have considerably more than your average firearm-toting civilian.
Why? because YOU say so? Most Police departments only require firearms qualifications once a year. You ASSUME that Police train more often than that because it seems logical to you…but where is your DATA? Ammunition costs money. Police Departments only fund the minimum required to satisfy some bean-counter’s concept of “proficiency”. Sure, some police officers take the initiative and train on their own time at their own expense; but, in my experience, they are not the norm. Every person I know with a concealed handgun permit (and I know a LOT of them) practice regularly. Most are gun enthusiasts and shoot just because they enjoy shooting and many shoot in competitions like the International Defensive Pistol Association matches. You may make ASSUMPTIONS about the proficiency of your average CHP holder but they are nothing more than assumptions and are no more valuable to this discussion that my points which you are so quick to conveniently disregard.
But I will say this: if you think armed blacks fighting back against lynching by shooting their white oppressors would have led to anything other than a large-scale massacre,
I don’t rely on my own thoughts and assumptions for those conclusions as you do…I rely on the historical record. Dr. King preached passive resistance against the oppressive, government sanctioned Jim Crow laws…he had no issues with self defense in the face of criminal attacks by extra-governmental thugs. Have you ever heard of the Deacons for Defense and Justice? You can make all the assumptions about it you want, but the historical fact is that, while not a guarantee of safety against violence, firearms used for self defense by southern blacks proved to be an effective deterrent…which is exactly why Southern whites instituted gun control to PREVENT blacks from utilizing them.
I frankly don’t care about constitutionality.
Then you are the anarchist. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Your position is that the law should be ignored simply because YOU think that it would be better to do so?
Exactly who do you think you are that you can make a determination, all by yourself, that you know what’s best for everyone else? You assert your assumptions and opinions as fact and then have the audacity to say that because YOU THINK SO, the Supreme law of the land should just be tossed out like used bathwater? Methinks you are suffering from delusions of grandeur if you truly believe that you are more qualified than the founding fathers to determine what level of freedom and liberty are “best” for everyone.
In short: you, sir, are a tyrant.
“But what does freedom mean? It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit — regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters…”
–Thomas Sowell
“without exception, it hasn’t made one damn bit of difference one way or the other in those states.”
Not necessarily true and hard to peg down. In both FL and TX, there was a decrease in violent crime shortly after they passed CCW laws. Of course, said decrease also coincided with an overall trend of decreasing violence nationwide. correlation does not equal causation and all that. But I don’t think we should assume it hasn’t made ‘one damn bit of difference’. Rather, it’s likely had a negligible impact.
“The average cop, even one with minimal training, is still likely to have considerably more than your average firearm-toting civilian.”
Wanna bet?
First: Yeah, sorry about getting your name wrong, Sailor. I am a lousy typist and there wasn’t anything mean by it. If I wanted to insult you, I would be much more direct.
Believe what you want, people. Its clear you are going to anyway. Someone who would hold up the Deacons for Defense and ignore the history of the early reconstruction era is not someone who is going to be talked out of his fairy tale.
See, when things got bad on the South Side, there was hardly a day that went by that some little kid wasn’t caught in the crossfire at the RTH. Whether you want to own them or not, those people were gun owners and they were doing exactly what you want gun owners to do: responding to gun violence with gun violence. Your belief that an armed society is a polite society is tested in some of my old neighborhoods every singe day — and every single day it is found wanting. To counter the two examples of guns helping: I have been held up at gun point twice and been in a public place where a shooting took place. In not one of those cases would a gun have done anything for me. I never saw the robbers guns until they were on me and I never saw the gun at the other shooting. The only thing a gun would have done is maybe let me shoot one of the robber sin the back as he walked away. Making policy on my history, though, is making policy an anecdtoes not data – -the same thing making policy on VT would be.
I don’t want to ban guns, as I said in my post. I want more regulation, to keep obviously dangerous people from having them and to keep them out of places where judgment is known to be weakened or tempers to fly (colleges, courtrooms, bars …). The horror at VT doesn’t prove a thing about the real, everyday world. It was an aberration, and extraordinary event. Using it as the basis for any kind of policy or discussion of policy is not only disrespectful to the dead and the survivors but it is dumb and leads to very bad policy. If you believe that more guns or less guns would have made this more or less likely, then you are telling yourself a fairytale to make yourself sleep better.
I am done with this thread; the conversation is not longer useful.
“I want more regulation, to keep obviously dangerous people from having them ”
Everybody wants that. But how do you do it? I’m being serious. Most gun control proposals impact the law-abiding.
In this specific case, gun control that prohibited a person accused of stalking two women and institutionalized for manic depression could be prohibited from buying a handgun.
But that really does not matter to me. Since the shootings at VT occurred, more than 33 people have been shot to death in the US by hand guns (based on historical averages). We don’t hear about them, so they don’t matter. We only hear about 33 people being shot at one time, so we formulate the debate around this unique circumstance.
I could be wrong, but I believe that an increase in the number of people owning and carrying firearms will significantly increase the number of shootings in this country. And don’t tell me about Switzerland. The US is not Switzerland.
On a side note, I must say I really enjoyed the comment above that laws making murder illegal are not primarily intended to deter murder. That is perhaps the most twisted thinking I have encountered here in quite some time.
Can I tell you about Mexico, Columbia, South Africa and Thailand? bonus if you can figure out what they have in common.
A few points, then I’m done, too.
Sailorcurt:
Why? because YOU say so? Most Police departments only require firearms qualifications once a year. You ASSUME that Police train more often than that because it seems logical to you…but where is your DATA?
Data shmata; for starters, I never said that police train more often than once a year. What I said is that it might not be a bad idea to require those who want to carry to get at least as much training as the police have. (Should the police get more? Maybe, but that’s another discussion.) In your world, I’m just supposed to trust that anyone who wants to carry a gun goes out and trains properly (and stays up on those skills) before they do so, because requiring them to do so would be the equivalent of taking their first-born child or something. If we simply required it rather than just trusted people sight unseen, most of our quarrel would disappear.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Your position is that the law should be ignored simply because YOU think that it would be better to do so?
Dude, calm the fuck down. I never once said the Constitution should be ignored. Not once. I said that I don’t care about the constitution in the context of whether or not something is a good idea. If it’s a good idea, then the law (and, if necessary, the constitution) should be modified to enable it. If it’s a bad idea, law/constitution should be modified to prohibit it. The constitution is not a perfect document, it’s not the be-all and end-all of what’s good and right and proper (even if it is the be-all and end-all of what’s legal).
Nobody’s arguing for disregarding the constitution here, and nobody’s behaving as a tyrant. It’s exactly this sort of overreaction and overblown rhetoric that makes you [collectively] seem totally unreasonable on this subject. I thought you were capable of understanding that legal doesn’t necessarily mean good, any more than illegal necessarily means bad. And I didn’t think constitutionality today was a strict constraint on discussions of how things ought to be.
Turn it on its head: if 2A were repealed tomorrow, would this change your opinions on gun ownership? Fuck no, it would not. So why should I (or anyone else) act as though the existence of 2A is the be-all and end-all of the gun debate? It makes no sense. And mind you, I’m a supporter of 2A.
This is why these discussions always make me so angry, and why Kevin’s probably right to abandon the thread. Among gun advocates, absolutely no dissent is ever tolerated. Not even a tiny shred. If I stray even one micrometer from the party line, I’m suddenly a “tyrant” who’s no better than the “gun grabbers.” It happens time and time again. And then gun nuts wonder why people think they’re, well, nuts.
Uncle:
Everybody wants that.
Bullshit. From what I’ve seen, some gun owners claim to want it (and “it” almost never means “more regulation”), but it’s true only in the abstract. If there’s even the slightest bit of cost or inconvenience or sacrifice to enable this, they’re out. In other words, they’re unwilling to give up absolutely anything to get there. That’s not “wanting” something, that’s dreaming.
“but I believe”
On what do you base your beliefs? You don’t need to look at Switzerland. Check out England and Australia since they banned most guns.
Fred, I base my belief on my life experience here in the US. I have seen many (and been directly involved in three) incidents where one, or a group, of individuals were intent on inflicting as much bodily harm on another as possible. I believe that had firearms been present in those cases, someone would have been shot. On the other hand, I have never seen (much less been directly involved in) situations in which firearms would have saved someone from being shot.
As for banning guns, you might note that I said nothing about banning guns. Also, it makes sense to consider why a society would choose to ban guns after a period of allowing. I believe in most cases a society would act this way in reaction to rising gun violence. If this is in fact the case, then cause and effect will be obscured, especially in the short term – where a ban has no impact. I don’t know the specifics of Australia, but my sister has lived there for 15 year and she tells me that the crime rate (mostly due to skyrocketing drug addiction) has exploded, along with gun violence.
But again, I am not concerned with a gun ban at this time. I am responding to those who claim an increase in the number of people carrying guns in public will reduce the number of people shot. I don’t believe this to be true. If it is true, then the first step to reducing gun violence must be to tear down all the metal detectors around the country.
(And please don’t, in one breath, tell me how gun control does not work and in the next tell me how CCW licensing will result in only law-abiding folk packing heat.)
(And please don’t, in one breath, tell me how gun control does not work and in the next tell me how CCW licensing will result in only law-abiding folk packing heat.)
I have never taken that breath. Quit making up things. You are insane if you think I’ve ever said, breathed, or imagined that CCW licensing will result in only law-abiding folk packing heat. Even for you, that is bizarre (and that’s saying a lot). You are a strange person.
Fred, sorry, that was not intended for you specifically, but readers in general. I was anticipating one of the other posters making that point, since it has been made further up.
Nice over-reaction though. Glad I gave you an opportunity to throw out your typical barrage of insults. That, and ignore the bulk of my post.
Classic: Circular arguments. Strawmen. Avoid the questions and points that are inconvenient…then bow out.
In this specific case, gun control that prohibited a person accused of stalking two women and institutionalized for manic depression could be prohibited from buying a handgun.
Accusations have never been sufficient for denial of rights and (in my humble opinion) should never be. If he was GUILTY of stalking, he should have been charged and convicted. If he was not, there were no grounds for denial of rights. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
As far as being “institutionalized for manic depression”, that actually IS grounds for denying a purchase. Were it actually true, it may have prevented the perpetrator from purchasing his guns. Unfortunately, being “taken to a mental health facility” due to concerns of one’s parents does not constitute being “institutionalized”. The report doesn’t mention that he was held for any length of time so it appears as though he was evaluated and released. Perhaps he SHOULD have been committed, but he was not, therefore, the point is moot.
Or, are you saying that anyone who has ever been accused of a crime, or received mental health treatment or an involuntary evaluation, regardless of the outcome, findings or disposition of such, should automatically become a “prohibited person”? Heck, why bother with expensive, inconvenient trials or evaluations to begin with? Accused of a crime? Go directly to jail, do not pass go. Someone thinks you’re suicidal or depressed? We’ve got a nice, windowless rubber room just your size. Due process? That’s just the law. We don’t care about the law, now do we?
On a side note, I must say I really enjoyed the comment above that laws making murder illegal are not primarily intended to deter murder. That is perhaps the most twisted thinking I have encountered here in quite some time.
You’re right that it does sound a little silly when taken out of context. The point I was making about prior restraint laws is still no less valid, however. I realize that it is easier to make light of someone’s inarticulate statement than it is to actually address the point, but that doesn’t invalidate the point.
If I stray even one micrometer from the party line, I’m suddenly a “tyrant” who’s no better than the “gun grabbers.”
No, I called you a tyrant because you “…frankly don’t care about constitutionality.” You “frankly don’t care about” the law. According to you, your preferences take precedence over the law because…um…well…I don’t really KNOW why.
You refuse to address my concerns because “I’m not the least bit interested in any of them.” And then you say I call you a tyrant just because you “…stray even one micrometer from the party line…”? Are we even reading the same thread of comments?
You are not a tyrant because you don’t toe the party line. You are a tyrant because you self-admittedly do not care about differing viewpoints and self-admittedly do not care about the law. You apparently feel that you should have the ability to force your viewpoints on everyone else because…well…again, I’m at a loss.
I am responding to those who claim an increase in the number of people carrying guns in public will reduce the number of people shot. I don’t believe this to be true.
Upon what do you base this belief? If it is not based on facts and evidence, it is no more valid than my belief that the moon is made of green cheese. I freely admit that the evidence in support of gun ownership reducing crime is not conclusive. However, evidence that reduced gun ownership reduces crime is non-existent. Based on the evidence, worst case scenario, it is a wash. In that circumstance, doesn’t it make sense to you…if no harm will be done…to err on the side of liberty?
And please don’t, in one breath, tell me how gun control does not work and in the next tell me how CCW licensing will result in only law-abiding folk packing heat.)
Um…where did THAT come from? We’ve got to come up with a new term. An Uber Straw-man. Not only is no one HERE arguing that liberal firearms laws will ensure that ONLY law abiding people will be carrying…I can’t imagine that that particular straw-giant has EVER been argued by ANYONE.
Well. As much as I’ve enjoyed this discussion, since everyone else seems to be taking their ball and going home and my points aren’t worthy of consideration anyway (except, of course, for taking out of context and semantic cheap shots), I guess I’ll just go home and pout too. This was fun.
“Fred, sorry, that was not intended for you specifically,”
I guess I was thrown off by the fact that you addressed the post to me. When you address someone and then make an accusation, it is not an overreaction to assume the accusation is for the person addressed. Maybe you could work on those English skills.
“Um…where did THAT come from?”
The same place that much of Ted’s ideas come from. You will find that he has a vivid imagination.
Fred, I apologized. I should have added that the comment was not addressed to you. Let it go.
Sailor, if you are still around, I think you have conflated two or more commenters. Re my comments, I was not advocating gun control based on stalking and perceived mental stability, I was simply responding to a previous question as to how controls could keep guns from dangerous people. Clearly what I proposed is not feasible in our society.
As for number of shootings vs number of guns, my belief (I clearly state it as a belief because I don’t have data to back it up) is based on my experiences, boundary condition analysis, and what to me is common sense. (If you do in fact believe the moon is made of cheese based on experience, boundary condition analysis, and common sense, then more power to you. I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise.) First the easiest, the boundary condition analysis. If nobody has a gun, there will be significantly fewer shootings than if everyone has a gun. This does not prove much, but it is a starting point. (If, on the other hand, zero guns equated to the same number of shootings as universal gun ownership, then I wouldn’t go any further.) Only ten guns in a country with 200,000,000 people, not very many shootings. 1000 guns, more shootings, but less than we have now.
200,000,000 guns, and I’m thinking more shootings than we currently have. Is there some magical flat spot on this curve centered around the number of guns currently owned? Perhaps. I have no proof there is not.
Second, my life experience. As I have mentioned above, I have experienced situations where the presence of firearms would have resulted in people being shot. I have not experienced situations where the presence of firearms have (or would have) prevented people from being shot.
As for common sense, let me ask you a couple of questions. Given the choice, would you prefer to be in a bar frequented by power drinkers who regularly get into fights – and everyone is armed, or would you prefer to be in the bar across the street where the same guys go but have to leave their weapons outside?
Next, do you think the use of metal detectors at courtrooms to prevent people from bringing in weapons is a good idea, or would the courts be safer if people were allowed to enter with weapons? Same for schools, airports, and any other place where the common wisdom seems to be keeping the weapons out increases safety.
Finally, would you prefer to be mugged by an unarmed guy, or would you prefer to be carrying a firearm and be mugged by a guy pointing a loaded weapon at your head?
I could go on and on, and yes these might sound like extreme examples, but I also think they are examples where common sense tells us that the presence of weapons puts us at more risk than the absence of weapons. (It is within this context that I above preempted comments about only allowing qualified people to carry weapons – a statement you took exception to.) To be fair, I will grant you that if all the students at VT were armed, many fewer people would have been shot a couple of days ago. But keep in mind that since the VT shooting, a greater number of people have been shot accidentally or in a non-premeditated fashion than in that one historically unprecedented case.
So, in summary, I am claiming two things. One, arbitrarily increasing the number of weapons increases the number of shootings, and two, if we assume gun control does not prevent potential future shooters from getting weapons, then we must also assume that increasing the number of weapons will also increase the number of weapons in possession of potential future shooters. The key here is potential. Dedicated criminals will obtain a weapon. No stopping that. But the individual who has an anger issue and maybe drinks too much, or is lackadaisical with his gun safety – these are some of the folks that will, in a culture where everyone carries a weapon, contribute to inflated shooting statistics. That is my belief.
“I have not experienced situations where the presence of firearms have (or would have) prevented people from being shot.”
One of my favorite sections in the NRA magazine is the section where they compile newspaper accounts of people who defended themselves or others with their guns.
Fred, yes, you have mentioned this before. Please understand I am attempting to compare magnitudes here; I don’t claim there are no – or even few – occasions where defensive use of a firearm occurs. However, you can also pick up any paper on any day and read about local shootings. The frequency of the latter vastly outnumber the former. So, if we increase guns in general, the net number of shootings will probably increase. Granted you will be able to have even more enjoyable reading material because there will be more saves. And those who focus on the primary impact, the increase in assaults, will be disheartened. We are free to choose what we focus on.
“So, if we increase guns in general, the net number of shootings will probably increase.”
Yes, Ted, you have mentioned that before. However, other than your beliefs you have never given any foundation for your statements.
Sailorcurt:
According to you, your preferences take precedence over the law
See, this is why you can’t be taken seriously. First, I never said any such thing. Second, when I clarified statements that could be misconstrued as meaning that, you simply ignore the clarification, and continue to assert in the absence of all evidence that I place my personal preferences above the law. When you have to misrepresent your opponent’s position to make your argument, you’re not worth taking seriously. When you do this shortly after complaining about strawman, it makes you look ridiculous.
You are a tyrant because you self-admittedly do not care about differing viewpoints and self-admittedly do not care about the law.
Huh? WTF are you talking about? Do you really have to twist that hard? I made it clear that I don’t care about the law in the context of what is or is not a good idea. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about the law at all. When the law is at odds with what makes sense, it means we should fix the law, not that we should ignore it; I’ve never argued for the latter, and yet you insist on claiming that’s what I want. I don’t know how much more clear I can make it. YOUR piss-poor reading comprehension doesn’t make ME a tyrant, or anything like it.
As long as you insist on misrepresenting my position, you don’t get to complain about anyone else’s straw man.
I agree with tgirsch. He can’t be a tyrant. Fortunately, he does not have the power to implement his doctrines.