Now that the identity of the killer has been revealed as being a South Korean student, I wonder how long it will be before someone calls for foreigners to be restricted from entering US schools? Someone will seriously float the idea within the next 48 hours, I'd bet.

Here IS an example of armed students stopping a shooting before it became a massacre.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20020917a.html

The idea that encouraging students to carry in class would reduce deaths is SO speculative I'm having a hard time believing it is being advanced as serious.

I could speculate that for every death prevented in situations like yesterday's there would be an additional one due to drunk altercations, fights, accidents, road rage, and "friendly fire". I'd have just as much ground to stand on as you.

as information is emerging about this, i find it increasingly mind-boggling.

i dont see anything that could have been done that would have changed the course of this.
the notion of armed students is little more than a bizarre compensatory fantasy, the kind of thing that you might dream in a revenge fantasy kinda way, reflecting nothing more than a combination of anxiety and a desire for control over the conditions that you imagine responsible for it. the associations that make this kind of thing appear to be even sane--which it is not--reside there, in the desire for control, for the elimination of arbitrariness. which is in itself a delusion.

the abstract condition of possibility for this is self-evidently the easy availability of guns.
there is no getting around this.
i can understand why the guns=freedom set would want to be proactive and attempt to counter incoming information with scenarios that at first blush may appear rational, but this seems to me little more than damage control--whether the talking points are informally worked out or co-ordinated somehow is irrelevant.
it is however a sick state of affairs that there would have been enough incidents like this for the guns=freedom set to recognize in it a recurrent public relations problem.

at any rate, the condition of possibility--the easy availability of guns--is just that. i do not know that changes in this would function to prevent this kind of incident. but i do know that without ease of access to weapons--the handguns in this case--this would not have happened. i suspect that any conversation about this matter will immediately be streamed into the usual nra talking points concerning legal vs illegal guns, us vs them blah blah blah: none of which is relevant.

all this because at this point i am unclear that there is any wider meaning to be taken from this.
it is simply arbitrary.

the kid who did the killing is of course described as "a loner"....maybe he was, maybe he is framed that way in the press as a device for isolating him, putting him into some floating category of the Other, maybe a sociopath...maybe not a sociopath until he engaged in a self-evidently sociopathic action.
did he "snap"?
what does "snapping" mean?

for me, the only wider meaning i have been able to assemble from all this comes from relegating this to an example status which functions in the context of the rather vague sense that something is fundamentally pathological about the environment within which we function in the states. but that is structurally no different from any other attempt to work out a general meaning to something that appears, well, arbitrary.

i find it disturbing that folk seem to want more pervasive general security, that people actually believe that pervasive state security could somehow have changed anything. but i find that less disturbing than the inverse argument, that everyone everywhere shold wander about with a gun strapped to them...to bars, to parties, to classes on a unviersity campus; to meetings to discuss grades or to wrangle some administrative advantage; to dinner at a dining hall where you may not like the food. all that seems to me to be a recipe for is a tighter calibration between frustration leading to a sense of loss of control over a situation and escalation into violence and death. and where the guns=freedom set would prefer to see scenarios in front of kitty's saloon at high noon involving sober cowpokes admnistering rough justice to the black-hatted forces of Evil, i imagine shootouts at fraternity parties involving drunken, frightened kids.

i dont know. there seems so little to hold onto about all this. the arbitrary, the Singular is like that. and this is what makes it intolerable for many.

I'm not sure that anyone is 'encouraging' students to carry. Most will obviously not want to and that is perfectly fine. What is wrong is flat out denying others that wish to take up that right and responsibility for themselves simply because others 'feel' safer thinking that guns are not allowed.

For Roachboy: When you say this - the notion of armed students is little more than a bizarre compensatory fantasy, the kind of thing that you might dream in a revenge fantasy kinda way, reflecting nothing more than a combination of anxiety and a desire for control over the conditions that you imagine responsible for it. the associations that make this kind of thing appear to be even sane--which it is not--reside there, in the desire for control, for the elimination of arbitrariness. which is in itself a delusion.

You sound like every other gun control spokesperson out there that has zero evidence or facts to back up your position and the only thing you can do is espouse your opinion by flavoring those that don't agree with yours as bizarre, deluded, anxious, etc. etc. etc. All of the popular terms one uses to hopefully ridicule any other idea but yours.

According to Title X of the US Code there are two classifications of militias: organized or unorganized. Well regulated militia fits better into organized because they are regulated by the structure of the organization.
Not according to my English professor. The language still meant regulated as we say it today according to someone who know more about the language of that time than I ever will. I'll see if I can find a link online, but the internet is swamped with pro gun propaganda, so I don't hold out much hope.
That means properly training future criminals, too. I can't live with that.
I can't say it's either collective or individual. It's more organization based. Members of said well regulated militia are provided the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms so long as they follow the laws of the land.
The right to free press is organization based.
But it also arms everyone, be they emotionally sound or sociopath. Not only that but the temptation of using the gun is always there. In a dangerous situation, if everyone pulls a gun, we get constant gun fights and a lot of people can die.
They do already. If it's more difficult to get a gun, it's more difficult to carry out gun related crime.

How often are gun crimes stopped by civilians that carry? Now compare that to how often gun crimes would happen if guns were very difficult to get.

dk:
your post no. 105 made me laugh.
let me rephrase some elements from my last post that you obviously missed.

1) the abstract condition of possibility for this was and remains the easy availability of guns.
but if you actually read the post, i make no argument for gun control on that basis--in fact, most of what i wrote was about the simple fact that this is a singular situation, arbitrary..and from there that i find it really quite difficult to make any general arguments from it.

that you do not find it to be difficult as well strikes me as bizarre.

what i see in your posts is a proactive defensiveness: it is like simply stating the obvious fact concerning the ABSTRACT condition of possibility being the easy availability of guns for you amounts to an argument for gun control.

the proximate cause that links this abstract condition of possibility to these particular actions is whatever the psychological situation was of the guy who did the shooting. i dont know what that situation was--AND YOU DONT EITHER----so there is at this point nothing more to be said on this until more information comes out, if it does.

2. i do not care whether you disagree with my assessment of your proposal that students carry guns around with them as they move through a university as totally insane. there is nothing you have said, can say or could possibly say that would persuade me that this idea is not wholly insane.
so that is the end of my interaction with you across this point.
there is no debate.

3. recourse to psychological terminology is not an argument for gun control except perhaps in your private world. i considered the terminology that i used and meant the categories i used in the way in which i used them--you know, in the context of the actual sentences i wrote.

if anything, i was being nice by using these categories on the topic of your proposal that university students walk around strapped. i was being nice by trying to connect it to some level of coherent motivation that had something vaguely to do with the situation at va tech.

your entire motivation here appears to be warding off possible threats to your guns uber alles politics. i find this bizarre.

btw: i dont buy any of your arguments--not one of them--for unlimited availability of guns.

but for your information, i am kind of agnostic on the question of gun control---my position had shifted based on some of the saner arguments i have encountered here---i tend to favor local controls--and i would favor tight controls in urban areas. but i haven't gpt a position on universal gun control. sometimes that surprises me.

but i can also tell you this: your positions have done nothing to alter my views----if anything i find them to be so out there that they make me question them, wondering whether some kind of universal gun controls might be a good idea--so i would seriously ask myself what kind of service your way of arguing does for the politics you espouse.

Doesn't it all come down to the fact that if you carry a firearm, you know how to use it and are prepared to do so. That is, you are prepared to kill or seriously mame someone.
What's so civil about that kind of society.
And as for it being a constitutional right, wasn't that written after the war with England when the very liberty of the Republic was at stake?
Its been almost 300 years since US independence has been threatened, the time for citizens bearing arms is OVER.

First of all, I did not include the Russian incident in pointing at other countries because it was a terrorist action.

Secondly, I do not see such a disproportion. Certianly the United States has more of these incidents than other countries, but with a population of 300million the United States is the most populated western nation. According to your list, Germany (a nation with strict gun control laws) is second in school shootings, and with a significantly lesser population of 82million, Germany is the most populated nation in Europe. Where is the disproporton?


Now if you want schools and universities to be "gun free" zones, and not have any more lone gunmen cause horrific school shootings, here's how you do it. Wall off the campuses with a three foot thick, twelve foot high steel reinforced brick wall. Run Razor wire along the top of the wall. Have a heavily armed security staff run checkpoints at every entry and exit point with full vehicle searches, bag seaches and metal detector scans. Sure it will be at significant cost to the taxpayers, but can you put a price on the saftey of our nation's students?

one issue with people carrying, lets say there are four people (very hypothetical), at a corner in a hallway, one in the first hallway and 2 in the second, one at the corner.

one person of the 2 in the hallway (the bad guy) pulls his gun and shots the other in his hallway. the person at the corner sees this, draws and shoots the bad guy. the one guy in the other hallway sees only the corner guy draw and fire (maybe he wasn't looking and thought the first shot was also from him) so he draws and shoots the corner guy, who was defending himself.

basically, this is a crappy way of saying, when everyone is armed and defending them self, how do they distinguish themselves from the aggressor. and how do we stop a massive blood bath of mistaken identity.

in the case that just happened, anyone being armed would have made it turn out better imho, however, in a smaller scale event, it can be made much worse with more guns.


just things to think about

Ok from the reports i've heard there was 2 guns both with the serial numbers rubbed off. One of the guns was legally purchased in March (they have the receipt) the other one I haven't heard yet. In addition from one news source (I haven't confirmed this from any other sources yet) he used extra large clips which were illegal until the assault weapons ban expired.

I for one welcome the idea that the only people who can bear arms are on the payroll of the president and congress who put an end to habeas corpus and the bill of rights as we know it (Military Commissons Act of 2006). :mad:

I really don't understand how someone who realizes how corrput the government has become only wants government employees to have weapons. That makes no sense.

Why can't people understand prohibition just DOES NOT WORK. It failed with alcohol it failed with drugs it fails with everything. Banning guns will not stop gun violence. There are just too many of them. Don't you realize that even if 1% of the American population won't give up their guns that's over a million armed citiziens? Have fun going door to door grabbing those.

We need responsible citizens like professors, teachers, bus drivers, convience store owners, pilots etc to be given fire arm training and permits to carry. Enough is enough. We trust enough idiot cops with firearms, why not trust a few people who are actually in the right place at the right time to stop this nonsense.

I don't think we should eliminate guns entirely. Instead I think we need better background checks and tracking of weapons. Also certain types of weapons need to be restricted or banned. None of us need an assault riffle, RPG, machine gun, ect. Finally we need much harsher punishments for gun violations.

I think every gun made should be fired prior to being sold and the bullet should be used to fingerprint the gun. This fingerprint should be added to a database. Thus if a bullet is found it can be tracked to the original owner. In addition, there should be laws forcing reporting of transfers of ownership and reporting of stolen weapons. If you buy a gun and it is later used in a crime then it is easily tracked to the last legal owner.

How stringent should these background checks be? should a speeding ticket be grounds for the denial of the right to bear arms? Because that's all that the VT shooter had (according to all current info that is). Also, banning certain types of weaponry for civilian usage is pretty much declaring that the framers of the constitution and BoR were idiots that had no business declaring individual rights anyway. Maryland has already spent over a billion on the bullet printing technology and it hasn't solved a single crime yet and if you wish to have a law that mandates telling authorities when your property is stolen, why not make it mandatory to notify authorities when ANY of your property is stolen?

DK, how about psych profiles?

what about them? what do we establish as normal? or non dangerous? who makes the rules? Do we even go so far as to say that if a person IS on an ADHD med, they can't have a gun? But if they AREN'T on it, they shouldn't own a gun?

The more checks and requirements you establish for a person to exercise a right, the less it becomes a right and the more a priviledge. Do you NEED the government to tell you what you can and cannot do?

He didnt even have the speeding ticket when he bought the Glock....he bought it in March and got the speeding ticket April 7th

So DK do you think you should be able to own a RPG? A submachine gun? An assult rifle? A 50 caliber sniper rifle?

DK you have yet to address the point that the clips this shooter used were banned under the AWB which expired under Bush. Had he not been able to buy these clips the damage could have been much less.

For the background checks as mentioned before I think psych evaluations would be a good idea, so would interviews with people who know or are acquainted with the person wanting to buy it similar to what they do when you want to get security clearances but on a much smaller scale.

I believe the military has a way of viewing this. They would see this as a friendly fire incident resulting from a failure to ID the target prior to engaging. There was a situation like this in Afghanistan where a US pilot thought he was being engaged by hostile ground forces, and before getting an ID of the target, he engaged the ground forces and killed several Canadian troops.

Everybody who purchases a firearm should go through mandatory training on proper gun use and firearm saftey. Getting an ID of the target is critical in any firearms situation. If person 3 hears gunshots and then sees person 2 pull out a gun and fire in a direction that person 3 has no visual on. The initial gunshots were fired before person 2 had the weapon drawn, so person 2 either shot just himself in the foot, or person 2 is responding to the initial gunshot. Since person 2 is not dancing around cursing god with blood all over his foot, then it's clear that person 2 was responding to the initial action. At this point the question facing person 3 is, was person 2 responding to eliminate the threat or was person 2 responding as an accomplice to the threat. The best way for person 3 to get an answer is to ready his weapon and observe person 2's followup action.

There is a lot to think about in such a situation and at best only a second to think about it, but owning a firearm is a big responsibility. All the freedoms granted by the constitution come with responsibility.

I'm not surprised to find that I agree with <A HREF="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_15-2007_04_21.shtml#1176841593" TARGET="Wander">Eugene
Volokh's take</A> on the VT massacre's significance for the
debate over gun control:<BLOCKQUOTE>even if one thinks that either gun control or gun
decontrol would have helped in this instance, we
shouldn't make broad gun policy based on these highly
unusual incidents -- which, tragic as they are,
represent a tiny and extraordinarily unrepresentative
fraction of all the homicide that's out there.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you dear ShaniFaye for proving such an excellent point about background checks. :bowdown:

Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

the size of the magazines are irrelevant. I can change a magazine in about 1 second. If I carry 2 30 rnd mags or 6 10 rnd mags, the amount of damage I can do is the same. The Hi Capacity Mag argument is probably the second most frivolous argument for gun control there is.

While I agree with that statement loquitur it should also be stated that it should not take a massive tragedy to make changes that should be done in the first place (reguardless of what your stance is).

I think that was my point.

But Title X USC does not refer to to either as "well regulated". If the intent of said code was to discriminate between the two for the purpose of defining the 2nd Amendment, would it not be reasonable to assume they would have used the language in the ammendment.
Unfortunately the opposite is also true. Equally unfortunate is that your professor most likely has strong opinions on the issue that may be swaying his judgement (assuming that you asked him about the language in the second ammendment, and not just the archaic definition of regulated). I have heard several different explanations from several different professors, each subtly (and not so subtly) influenced by thier veiws on guns.
Criminals seem to be doing just fine without any training at all right now...

Perhaps you would at least agree that gun safety classes should be mandatory in our schools?
The right to free press is an individual right, part and parcel with the freedom of speech.It does not arm everybody, it just allows them to be armed. Remember: the dangerous sociopath will arm himself regardless of laws against it. The dangerous gunfights breaking out everywhere are farsical, were it true then we would expect far more shootings in right to carry states than in rights restricted states, which is not the case.
You missed my point. IF you could wave a magic wand and make all of the guns in the US dissappear, and decided to disarm your law-enforcement personnel as well, what would happen if a criminal got his hands on a firearm? How would you stop him? The Army?

dk why do you need an RPG or any of those other weapons? Do you think you should also be able to own a tank? An Apache Helicopter? A nuclear missile?

The weapons i'm listing are weapons which are not designed for protection but instead for damage. They are made to maximize damage. I mean how can you accurately hit a single person with an RPG or a submachine gun?

Rekna: The term "assault rifle" is almost as loaded a term as is "sniper rifle". Using either term in an informed debate shows a certain level of ignorance (wilfull or not) about the subject that further hazes the truth and moves people father rather than closer to a consensus.

.50 caliber sniper rifle is not a loaded term as it is a specific class of guns. You can call an assault riffle a loaded term but that was a term to describe guns long before the AWB.

How about an .50 caliber non-sniper rifle, is that OK?

Well look at when they're written. The USC isn't 225 years old.
I asked him first about the word by itself, then about the word in context. He had the same answer for both. I'm aware that some people would skew their translation based on their personal beliefs, just as I feel many pro-gun people sway the meaning to their benefit.
I'd say that not only do many criminals train, but many of them see repeated action. That's the best training of all.
I agree that anyone who chooses to have a gun should absolutely be trained to the point where they are safe with that gun. I don't want my daughter to take a gun class (unless she chooses to do so).
But it's the same basic concept. The press is based in organizations. The freedom is for the individual, but it applies to the individuals of an organization, just as I was explaining about the militia. I see the two as similar.
I understand that.
Would you care to elaborate on this being an absolute? I agree that sociopaths COULD get guns despite a ban, but you act as if they can make them magically appear. They would have to redouble their efforts in order to attain guns in a place where they are almost not available. It would be considerably more difficult, case in point: the UK.
We don't because not as many people carry as one would believe, and of them, almost none of them are ever in a situation where they need it. I hope you get my meaning.
Non-lethal weapons are very effective. Have you ever seen tear gas in action? Have you ever been shot with a bean bag? Have you been maced? Tased? These are not toys. They are powerful weapons that just happen to be difficult to actually kill with.

I have experienced all of the above, and none of them will go toe to toe with a gun. Nor, I might add, will any sane user of said non-lethal weapons stick around if presented with lethal force.

The people you trust your safety to, and I am one of them, use a force continuum. In some unfortunate instances deadly force is the only option to resolve a situation.

I understand that you value life very highly, but do you value it above all other things?

Why would you not want her to take a gun safety class?
There are many criminals in the UK with firearms, and the cops there are better armed than most officers in the US.
You are right about that last bit, thank God. Most people who do carry simply walk around with a useless couple of pounds of metal on thier waist most of their lives, they don't actively stop any crimes and they don't commit any crimes. Why are you so worried about them?

You've experienced tear gas, mace, tasers, and bean bag ammunitions? You'll have to excuse me if I say you're credibility has stretched to the point where it has snapped.

I've been shot. Had I been armed with a bean bag gun at the time, I would not have been shot.
But if there were a functioning gun ban, you and I would be in a different continuum. I hope that's clear.
That might be a complicated answer. Could you be more specific?

If you doubt my credibility than you needn't reply to my posts. Suffice to say that all non-lethal equipment we are trained on, we must experience the effects of.

As for your bean-bag scenario, I would put to you that if you can say that you can just as easily say that if you had a pistol you wouldn't have been shot either, and it would have been a damn sight easier to pack around than a 40mm grenade launcher or a 12 gauge shotgun (which are used to fire bean-bag projectiles).

What do we establish as normal? Behavioral patterns that are not conducive to aggressive violence. You'd think that would be obvious. Don't give guns to people who have clear tendencies and patterns that would suggest dangerous behavior.
Who said anything about the government? I think it should be the gun companies that do it, and they are simply monitored by local government. They are the ones who keep the door to Pandora's box perpetually open.

What type of mace were you exposed to? Where were you hit with the bean bag?
The point is that I would have been substantially less likely to mortally would the shooter with a bean bag gun than a gun.

THe US has four times the population of Germany and more than 10 times the number of random school shootings (35 to 3) in the last 10 years.

That is not disproportional?

Freeze +p and in the chest with a 12 gauge bag at 20 meter. Neither was pleasant.
So what? He was shooting at you! Now he's probably off shooting other people since you couldn't stop him shooting at you.

Robert Frost once said that the definition of a liberal is a man so fair minded that he won't take his own side in a fight.

You fit the bill perfectly.

And what would be the chances that you just happened to be hauling around a huge piece of hardware at the time?


Edited for literary justice...

What is there to "get"
hmm, yeah it is interesting that we haven't heard of a shooting in utah, but guess what, Oregon HAS had shootings, and it's one of the two states that allows students to carry guns on campus. It's also ridiculously easy to carry in oregon, you don't need a permit to carry a loaded gun on your person as long as it's in plain sight--you can set a LOADED GUN in your seat next to you or up on the dash for example!

me loves me guns in oregon ;) but shit, man, take a LOGIC class.
obviously allowing students to carry is not the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE if you have two states with similar laws but one of them with different outcomes.

If there is anything to GET it's that these type of events are RARE.
Most people who get shot are involved in crime or are loved ones!
Strangers popping strangers is RARE RARE RARE. What is so hard to understand about that?

No one I know of who is properly trained, even in combat tactics, walk around quickdrawing their weapons. These kids were SITTING at their desks enjoying class when someone walked in and started dropping bullets from a gun.

The only people who could seriously believe that even a properly trained and armed person would have stopped that have NEVER been on the receiving end of this kind of event. It's pure randomness that the gun carrier would have not been killed in the initial spree, and then whether someone would have semblence of mind to pick the firearm off the dead body and weild it is just pure ludicrous. They weren't even rationally thinking when they barricaded the door, just plain reacting in panic mode.

I just don't get the allure of guns. Probably a cultural thing for me.

But there's lots of things I don't get, like country music or cricket. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean the govt should regulate big hair or bats.

Um, okay.
The police caught him almost immediately. Oddly enough, the gun was legally purchased and licensed by his father.
Actually, I think it's:
I'd like to consider myself broadminded. I have fought back in fights of my youth, but I've found that when one postures and you posture back, you're asking for needless quarreling.
Thanks.
Considering I was a minor, better than the chances I was packing heat.

Whats with Ismail Ax? Anyone hear anything on that yet?

All I could get was Ismail Yk, A "Sean Paul" type of guy from Somewhere...

In looking at US National Center for Education Statistics and Germany's Federal Office of Statistics, the disproportionality fades. School enrollment statistics of the two countries for secondary education and higher show that the United States has 7 times the number of students enrolled. Also, the secondary school dropout rate of the United States is 10%, the secondary school dropout rate of Germany is 5%.

With half the school dropout rate, it would seem that Germany maintains a better school system and a lesser percentage of students enrolled feel the need to extract vengence on their schools.

willravel,

I raised my eyebrows when debaser listed all the stuff he'd been on the receiving end, but as I read the rest of the post it looks to me like he is in law enforcement. If you believe that, it's true that he would have been subjected to all those non-lethal tactics.

I wasn't sure if you picked up on that, or if you simply don't believe he's in law enforcement, so I wanted to toss that out there.


I really don't understand the basis of your argument, mirevolver, but I think you should stop making it. I didn't take the time to suss out what you were trying to justify with your statistical "analysis" but I don't know of a single criminologist, who do such things for a living, who would argue that the US has disproportionate levels of violent crime compared to other western nations. In fact, it's one of the single most glaring issues we face in explaining.

If he's in law enforcement.....yes, it's entirely possible. It's also very convenient.

Don't be coy, you asked.

Good thing drugs are illegal!

About as convenient as you being shot, and everything being berrys and cream after you failed to do anything about it.

And for the record I work both as law enforcement and in the military, how convenient is that for ya?

Don't be ridiculous. We've all got "convenient" perspectives, yourself most definitely included. I, for one, would not be the least bit surprised if a law enforcement officer was drawn to this thread.

And are you implying that our disproportional violent crime rates are because of our gun policy? Are you saying that I should cease my side of the argument just because you personally can't think of anyone off hand that would see my point of view?

Seems our violent crime rate isn't such a big difference after all.

There is a marked difference between not opening fire and not doing anything about it. I chased him down in my civic. For the record, weeks of physical therapy is neither berries nor cream.
Very well.

a) no, I've stated repeatedly in this thread that gun policies are not adequate independent variables (CAUSES) of violence
you are combining two different arguments: violence vis-a-vis gun control and that we don't have disproportionate levels of violent crime.
The first point is a matter of debate
The second point is not...you are empirically wrong

b) it's not offhand, it's within my discipline and career
you should stop misusing information you don't understand
your arguments don't make sense to someone who analyzes this type of data in his professional and academic career

I didn't have any problem with your *opinion*, but now you're slapping a bunch of figures around and making illogical conclusions about them...please stop trying to make arguments about better school systems, school violence, over all violent crime in Germany, etc. based off one variable of drop-out rates.

that's all I'm saying; I don't imply stuff so much as you try to head me off at the pass by suspecting what I may say.

you should note that both myself and roachboy, two of the most leftist people on the board, refuse to take a hardcore stance on the topic of gun-control on a national level. At best, we've both argued that it's totally irrelevent to this topic. But whatever, if you want to keep assuming you know what I think because you think you know my politics, I can't stop you but only suggest that you read what I say for what it is and not who you think I am or may be implying.

mirevolver, how do you read the portion you qouted and come away with the idea that it supports your claim that our violent crime isn't a concern and disproportionate? It clearly says that while crime isn't any higher HOMICIDES are. I don't want to be rude, but wtf is wrong with you people?

This is exactly why I asked you to stop mishandling the stats you don't understand. That's a WIKIPEDIA entry, as such it doesn't explain how we calculate "violent crime" in the US. In the US we compile stats on RAPE, ROBBERY, ASSAULT, and MURDER. I don't know how they do it Canada, for all either of us know, Canadians consider burglary to be violent crime, too. SEE NOTE

But even if they used the same incidents, we have no idea how they are compiled. The only thing relevent to this discussion in CONTEXT is the HOMICIDE rate, since this thread has been, is, and will continue to be about KILLING STUDENTS. So lifting a piece of evidence that CLEARLY states our homicide rate is almost 200% higher than our closest neighbor worse than ignorant! We teach entire courses on international comparisons of crime rates, you aren't going to pull it off adequately from a WIKI blurb...I'm sorry.

2nd EDIT
NOTE: A few posts down you'll notice that I actually go read the wiki entry after my post is deleted on accident. When I do, I find that mirevolver leaves this second half of the sentence from his quote: "note from the references, however, that the US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Simple Assault (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm)."

What this means is that homicide in the US is almost 200% that of Canada.
Additionally, while mirevolver attempts to fudge the quote to give the impression that Canada's "violent" crime is double ours, what he leaves out is that what this quote really says is that only ONE measure, aggravated assault, is HALF of ALL of Canada's "violent" crime that includes everything from aggravated assault to assault w/o a weapon that doesn't result in bodily harm!

That's a MUCH DIFFERENT picture than mirevolver was trying to paint.
There is no way this data supports his position IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
Furthermore, this is a universal opinion criminologists. I have never heard, seen, or read anything from anyone anywhere who deals with this data to suggest otherwise...except mirevolver.

Smooth, are you saying that problems in the school system are completely unrelated to school violence? I for one see a dropout rate as a clear indication of how well as school system performs. If a school has a high dropout rate, then it is a failure to its students. Would it not be a stretch to say that failing schools with high dropout rates have higher incidences of student on student and student on staff violence?

I don't know what you think, that's why I asked questions about what you said. Furthermore I did not compare to all violent crime in Germany, but to violence in German schools.

Also, I referenced violent crime because that's what you said, if you mean homicides, say homicides.

I never really did either until went to a gun show for the hell of it and saw an m1 garand. The age and character in it was unbelievable. I was totally in awe of the history behind the rifle and had to have one. The first time I shot it was amazing.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the anti-gun crowd who fears guns like the plague (I'm not implying you fit that description loquitur) actually went out and shot one once. Or maybe studied the history behind the United States along with other countries and realized what an important part of history guns are. Guns are a symbol of freedom.

Who knows, maybe some of them would change their mind?

He's right Will. The cops are put through the mace / teargas chamber, they're shot with tazers, and they're often shot with beanbag guns as part of their training. I've done stories on it.

I will say that shooting to the chest with a beanbag gun for training seems incredibly stupid, since hitting it just right can stop the heart.

In all honesty, I doubt there's a correlation between a school's performance and school-related violence. This guy didn't do this because VT isn't the number one university school in America, and the Columbine kids didn't go ballistic because their school wasn't an A+ school. These are psychopathic, mentally unbalanced people who commit these kinds of crimes. The human brain is an incredibly complex machine which is fundamentally disturbed by "being bumped" or "being picked on". Most people get by with time, etc, but not these people. I believe these kinds of people are ticking time bombs, and they would be just as likely to do these kinds of things at the meanest "ghetto" school as they would at Harvard Law.

I would just to point out an additional fact, which has been talked around to some extent (in my opinion) concerning the notion that students packing heat could have averted such a thing. In light of the improbability that an armed student would have actually gotten to this kid in time to do anything, the other aspect is the deterrence affect. The notion that knowledge, on the part of the shooter, that other students might have been packing would have made him rethink. I think that in light of his suicide, that is highly unlikely. It may have exacerbated the situation.

Not that it should be relevant, but I'm not an anti-gun nut. I own guns. I've shot guns. I was raised around guns. I still think the idea of a student population walking around on campus carrying handguns, shotguns, whatever...is absolutely nuts.

What's the law on having a handgun locked in your glove compartment? Anyone?

Pigglet hit the nail.

I'm one of the most pro-gun advocates on the planet. I live in Alaska. Where out on the Russian River a person carrying a loaded weapon, from pistols to shotguns for bear protection is more common then a 4 year old kid picking his nose. I'm one of those people, I also hunt, I also have educated my 13 year old son about guns, properly. He has a Hunter Education card, etc.. etc.. I went the right way about it.

However, there is a BIG difference between being pro-gun and the insanely ridiculous idea of allowing every kid who's "responsible" to walk around carrying a loaded weapon on a college campus. It's absurd, and it's more of a radical type of idea then a political stance. I use guns for a purpose, for a reason, for protection from a real threat, and for feeding my family.

I'm pro-gun. Your borderline insane and advocating putting LOTS of guns into the hands of people, for ALL the wrong reasons.

I was a US Marine for 6 years. I've got some experience with them and am quite comfortable in my ability to aim and hit the target

I think for the common petty criminal, this knowledge of the possibility of guns being pointed at him would be a deterrent. However, with the recent evidence which has been revealed, it turns out that this asshole was stalking a specific girl for some time. In fact, she was one of the first ones he killed. He was just another pathetic sociopath. Though I'll admit that I'm still speculating, I believe his priority was to kill this one girl. Everything else he did was in addition to this primary goal, in which case he probably couldn't have cared less about being shot, since he would've shot the first bullets anyways.

As troubling as it is, I don't think there's anyway to stop this kind of behavior that wouldn't cut deeply into privacy and civil liberties. If the Patriot Act is as detrimental to civil liberties as it is, imagine if the government decided to probe into each of our daily lives to see if we were up to anything bad...

I doubt removing guns would've done anything to prevent this from happening. In this case, guns were the easy solution. By all likelihood, if guns weren't available to this guy, then he probably would've crafted a bomb of somekind to accomplish the same goal.

I had a long post but I didn't hit reply for a long time and the forum logged me out. Rather than type it out, I actually went and read your quote. Imagine my surprise when I noticed what you left out, here is the portion in it's entirety:

So I'm curious, WHY would you leave out the rest of the sentence...other than it directly undermines your argument. And if that's how you'd like to proceed, I'm not going to participate in discussing things with you.

You not only misuse information due to a lack of knowledge, you're willing to clip relevent information out from your own sources in order to support a point that isn't being made by the source itself!

which rules out nearly the entire human race, including your military and law enforcement, and while I know that you think the world would be better off without guns, they exist so how do YOU fix that issue?

I would normally believe that nobody is capable of this kind of deluded thought......

I'm glad you know how to use an RPG. Most people don't. Would you be comfortable if I were running around with one? What about your next door neighbor. Would you want him patrolling his yard with an RPG? Seems kinda insane doesn't it? Letting the guy next door to you have something that could blow up your house if he screws up with it?

Perhaps you would be fine with a populace armed with devastating weapons. Fortunately, saner ideas are likely to prevail.

depends on your state of residence.

And the only reason we hear about these is because of where they happened. We often don't hear about this at the meanest "ghetto" schools because the kids there are more likely to get killed in gang related violence on the streets outside the school. Inside the schools, the security is almost at the level of a prison.

If this guy at VA Tech saw his girlfriend with another guy at an off campus bar and then shot up the bar, it probably would never have made national news. Instead this happens in the classroom and the whole world sees it, then follow the typical reactions of; guns, video games, TV, music all being the problem. In the following months we'll get the typical news stories about how this guy liked to play first-person shooter games, or listened to eminem, or saw the movie grindhouse.

So before the typical calls of "more gun control," "ban video games," and "more censorship," perhaps we should look for the root problem. At this point it's looking like this guy had some jealousy issues, combined with a lack of friends. If this was at a high school, people would already be demanding the heads of the school's administration and counseling staff. But with this being at a university where the staff isn't supposed to keep records of every student's personal problems. So what do we do? Have congress pass a law telling everybody to be sensitive to everyone else's feelings? That would quickly make the list of most useless laws.

Yeah, that's probably just as bad as telling someone to stop arguing because you can't think of anyone who might follow the same line of thinking.

Here is the thing though....Every weapon has it's purpose. Would I question the rationale of someone patrolling his backyard with an RPG? Damn straight. Would I question that same individual if the LA Riots were in his backyard? Probably not, except to ask if he had another one. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to own one though, so long as he didn't become irresponsible with it or show irresponsibility. You folks are basically telling people that they can't own something because they MIGHT commit a crime. That's like saying we should remove peoples vocal chords because they MIGHT yell fire in a theatre.

For the progun advocates here other than dk do you also feel you should be able to own RPGs, submachine guns, and other high damage imprecise weapons?

In Iraq if you own an RPG you are a Terrorist in the US you are a NRA member.....

Most Americans could have an RPG sitting in their closest and it would never see the light of day. Most American's have the ability to own or do own firearms. How often do you see them patrolling around the neighborbhood with them? The 'what if's" in this thread are getting totally ridiculous.

Oh no. No no. You're not getting away with that. You want to believe the 2nd guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, then you have to accept it when people bear the arms that they keep. He's bearing the RPG when he's patrolling his yard with it. We're not gonna have the "whatever dksuddeth says goes" version of the 2nd here.

Either you believe the 2nd gives only militias the right to weapons, or you believe that it gives everyone the right to weapons. Either way, there is no distinction between the "keep" part and the "bear" part. Whoever is allowed to keep arms, is also allowed to bear them.

If you're going to tell me that your neighbor has the right to acquire and own an RPG, then he definitely has the right to bear it when he's walking around his yard. If you don't like that scenario, then may I suggest you take another look at the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd.

No, you are WRONG. You misread the data, misunderstood what you read, and then misquoted it to support your position.

I deal with this data, am well-versed with it, know what I'm talking about, have statistical training, outlined how wrong you were, and yet you still just keep arguing rather than admitting you are FACTUALLY WRONG.

Seriously, you would at least leave with some semblence of respect if you just demonstrated you had enough intelligence to understand when you are wrong when it's been clearly pointed out to you.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that ONE measure of aggravated assault in the US is comparable to HALF the rate of ALL the measures of assault Canada uses (even "non-violent" assault, unless you think that assault without weapons that doesn't result in bodily harm is violent?)

That means to be a fair comparison you'd have to compile ALL the reports of every kind of assault every reported to police in the US. There's a reason why we don't use those numbers in our official data....we'd be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE ABOVE THE REST OF THE WORLD.

seriously, now you're crossing the line from ignorant to unintelligent.
I tried to warn you politely before that you were mishandling the data, but since you persist in digging your heels in, there you go...my opinion is you lack comprehension skills.

Most Americans will never have the opportunity to defend themselves with a weapon. By your logic that means this entire discussion is moot, and it's OK to ban guns, because if something isn't likely to happen we don't need to think about it.

I wouldn't want trained military personnel with weapons of that (RPG, submachine gun) destructive force, let alone a civilian. How many civilian deaths have there been in Iraq in the past 4 years? How many deaths and injuries due to friendly fire? Think about it.

I simply extend that philosophy to handguns and rifles. I don't trust anyone with a weapon of that power. People make mistakes, and if anyone ever accidentally killed my daughter, I'd lose my reason to be a pacifist. I'd rather live in a world with the goal of peace instead of the world with the goal of safety.

Read very carefully what you asked me. You asked about him patrolling his back yard. You did NOT ask about him owning one. I responded with having NO PROBLEM of him owning one, as long as he wasn't walking aimlessly around with it WITHOUT a necessary purpose.

Just like us in the military, we did not patrol our secured perimeter with a tank or a harrier. We DID patrol it with machine guns and handguns and had RPGs and grenades in our armory. It is nothing different in a civilian aspect either. Trying to pin me in a corner with my own words isn't going to work so long as you use my correct words and not yours.

Really?

Yes, that was an excellent explanation as to how you were well versed in statistical data and how much training you have. I can clearly see how I erred.

You could have perhaps presented evidence that a school dropout rate is unrelated to school violence. Or made a presentation in a manner other than I think you're wrong so stop speaking. And I would not have gone and presented obviously flawed evidence to see how far you would run with it.

Now before this threadjack goes any further, I would suggest returning to civil debate.

I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of discussion to suggest that students carrying arms at school would be disastrous. I think it's possible, but we simply do not know. I think it could have a deterrent effect, who knows?

It's really rude for people to tell others to stop participating in this discussion just because they don't agree with the opinions out here. We don't have to agree but at least keep it civil.

The thing I fear most is the media and public panicking and running away with this incident and creating and cultivating a culture of fear where we need the government to step in and protect us from each other. I'm not so sure running into the arms of the nanny state is a good idea.

Someone wanted to talk about root cause behind these shootings. Well I think it's because people stop taking responsibility and accountability for themselves. Everyone has problems, now they have this syndrome or need this drug or can't (or won't) take a job or their girlfriend broke up with them or someone picked on them when they were little; the excuse drag on forever. This "lashing" out is simply inexcusable and does not need to be pandered to.

In the end, I really do think this is far less about guns or gun control than a deeper syndromic fight between taking responsibility for oneself or blaming others for everything in life.

No, your logic is that you see RPG's commonly parading around the streets and you equate that to gun ownership. I know you don't see that happening.

I have no clue how you imply that it's ok to ban guns from what I said.

'Because someone never has the opportunity to defend themselves with a weapon it's OK to ban guns?' You are drawing a conclusion out of thin air.

I did. I know what I asked you. The 2nd says "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms in the closet." He has the right to carry his gun around if you believe he has the right to have a gun at all. You don't get to define when it's OK to carry the gun. If he wants to patrol his yard with it, he can. If he wants to patrol the sidewalk with it, he can. As I said before, if you don't like it, then I suggest you take to heart the concept that only a well organized militia has the right to keep and bear arms. After all, if we went with that standard, then you wouldn't have to worry about what your neighbor was doing with his RPG.


The 2nd says "ARMS." It does not restrict what arms those are. If you have the right to carry a gun, then you have the right to carry a knife, a sword, an RPG, a nuke. . anything. The 2nd does not restrict WHERE you are allowed to carry it.

You do not get to completely rewrite the 2nd to suit yourself. You cannot go against the words in the 2nd. While I will admit that the "well regulated militia" part is open to interpretation as to what constitutes the well regulated militia, the "keep AND bear arms" part is quite clear. If you get to keep a gun, you get to bear it. It does not say "keep and bear arms as long as you are not patrolling somewhere that dksuddeth doesn't like."

The only thing left for the anti-gun crowd is to strawman. Strolling around with an RPG in a threatening way is crimminal. They need to stop equating that to gun ownership for crying out loud.

Define 'arms'.

I tried. But I've posted this three times now:

"Why is it so hard for you to understand that ONE measure of aggravated assault in the US is comparable to ALL the measures of assault Canada uses (even "non-violent" assault, unless you think that assault without weapons that doesn't result in bodily harm is violent?)"

And he argues that I haven't presented any data to support my position that he was misunderstanding the data. The fact that he sliced the quote is the basis of my assertion that he mishandled the data.

I understand the mods' jobs of keeping flames down...but fair debating REQUIRES that people assess the data accurately. After it's positively shown that someone isn't doing so, what recourse does one have? Report the post?


Seriously...perhaps you can use your mod voice and explain in a less flamboyant fashion how it's simply apples and marbles to compare ONE type of violent assault against ALL types of assault? It's right there in his own quote...what kind of standard is this that allows slipshod analysis at the expense of me being gentle with him after repeated attempts to be reasonable?

I think it's pretty crazy to bring the idea of RPG's and nuclear warheads into a debate that should be about the idea of professors and students having the ability to carry a handgun. It's like you're grabbing for the most improbable circumstances and using them as the basis for your argument.

Stop dodging the question. Define "arms."

Whatever dude. I didn't tell him to stop participating in the discussion. IN FACT, I said I valued his OPINION, but that he needed to stop MISUSING stats that don't support his position! READING COMPREHENSION people. wtf

you need to cool down. Insulting everyone is only going to piss people off and guarantee that they don't pay attention to what you want them to understand. You talk about fair debating in an attempt to defend your calling people stupid. That's possibly the most hypocritical thing I've read on these forums in a long time. Be nice. If you can't be nice, may I suggest you cool off away from this thread for awhile, because you're not going to convince anyone of anything until you can post in a civil manner.

You win. A nuclear warhead shouldn't be carried into a university classroom for self defense.

Can we get back to how insane it would be for trained professors or students to carry firearms?

I really don't care.
I posted evidence three times.
I filled in the rest of his own quote.
He left out the portion that undermines the point he tried to make with the first half of the sentence.

That's DUMB.
INTELLIGENT would be oh, let me go re-read that evidence.

Then someone else comes along and MISQUOTES what I said.
I never told anyone to stop participating in the discussion.
That's DUMB.

I'm calm, and if it's insulting to some people (and I only insulted TWO people, for specific reasons, not "everyone") and it means they don't learn anything, so be it because they evidently don't have the capacity to understand simple English.

And if you think it's hypocritical to call people dumb when they aren't demonstrating simple 8th grade reading skills, then so be it as well.

The best thing that could happen to me is for someone to dismantle my account because I could use my talents elsewhere rather than get drug into conversations with unintelligent people.

A lack of knowledge is not dumb, an unwillingness and inability to read simple English is when someone spells t out for you in simple terms.

We won't have much to discuss there because I agree. But then I think it's insane for the populace as a whole to be running around packing heat.

LMAO, evidently both sides have 'em :D
I have no idea why they drug you down that path, or why you and I went down it. I thought it was a waste of time when you started....

I'd hate to see this thread closed. We've seen so many threads like this die, but a few have survived. It'd be nice if this were the latter.

I apologize to mirevolver, jorgelito, shakran, ubertuber...you four in particular.
Anyone else that may have been turned off by me turning into a raving asshole, I'm sorry too.

I respect a lot of people on these forums, and I even wrote earlier that I didn't have a problem with the opinions of mirevolver...I never meant to turn personal like that.

I'm dealing with some hefty personal shit right now, and it's no excuse or justification, but it provides context.

I'm sorry and I'm taking a break.

Take care of yourself smooth...

And will: I've got faith! :thumbsup:

Hey, we're cool. Everyone's an asshole sometimes, but not everyone has the guts to own up to it. Hope things get better for ya.

Ok Lets get this back on track.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266596,00.html
These men are the secret service and even they have accidental discharges. Now what will happen if we put guns in the hands of students on campus? Do I need to remind anyone that college students are the primary group of people that binge drink?

You know who else gotta have faith?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/images/a...m_gallery4.jpg

Getting back....

Rekna, that's an interesting article, and it's really damning for those who seem to be hell bent on arming every man, woman and child.

Smooth, while I appreciate the apology I didn't really require one, but thank you.

I really enjoy your posts usually as I find them to be challenging and thought provoking. What I'm trying to say is, it's cool man, no worries mate. I hope you stick around man and keep contributing. Best of luck to you and dealing with your stuff. Take care.

This RPG/automatic assault weapon argument is rather pointless because under current gun laws one no one can own these weapons unless you have a special permit that is typically reserved for gun/arms dealers and then only a select few of those actually deals in these types of weapons and they have been investigated and placed under intense scrutiny. So to answer the question, if my neighbor owns one of these weapons I wouldn't worry in the least. I'm more concerned about Joe Blow down the road that has an illegally acquired .22 hunting rifle. The amount of crime that is committed by someone with a class 4 permit {i believe it's a class 4, someone correct me if I'm wrong} is virtually non-existent while the amount of crime committed by someone without any permits or that has illegally acquired a weapon is virtually almost all the crime that is ever committed.

i'd like to ask a few quick questions about this thing with smooth and mirevolver, and if the modding is going to be public from here on out, then i'll ask them publicly.

1. what happened to all the talk a few months ago about tfp opening up and people being able to call a spade a spade? i recall at least two long threads where people were bitching and lamenting that we had to put the kid gloves on. it seems to me that those sentiments are almost like little bubbles that erupt, and then everyone returns to beating around the bush instead of directly expressing what they think.

2. if i were smooth, i'd have been pissed too. if i understand correctly, he called someone out for misusing their own statistical data. instead of admitting he was wrong, mirevolver said that he basically intentionally misused the data just to fuck with smooth / the rest of the discussion? wtf? on one hand, who gives a flying shit? this is online discussion, blahblahblah. but if we're all about the evolution of philosophy and discussion...shouldn't we at least pretend to be having some openness and honesty in this shit? the only distinction i draw with smooth is making the claim the mirevolver is DUMB, which he clearly isn't. i would say just being intentionally obtuse. i mean, its like an advertisement for host or something.

i'm not really trying to attack mirevolver too much here, but to the extent that i have to call this situation out in order to make the point and ask the questions, i am i suppose. if that's a problem, pm me or mod my post or whatever is necessary.

as for the rest of this thread: the last thing i want (no offense dk, debaser and other military guys) is a marine just back from combat, potentially with ptsd, walking around my neighborhood with a fucking rpg. look, keep handguns and shotguns and rifles in your house. i personally have no problem with them being in your car; although i do think you should have to have a permit for it. but the stretch from there to the college environment is just fucking up your side of the argument. its as though you want to convince people that are moderate on this that you are, in fact, fucking insane when it comes to guns. as pointed out earlier by smooth, you've actually got some potential common ground with two of the more "left" members of this board...including fucking roach, and instead of working on general gun control ideas, you're breaking out this notion that people are going to be able to effectively concentrate in lecture with everyone having a pistol on their leg. or that a professor will feel comfortable in front of 250 kids, any one of whom might have a pistol in his backpack. let me know how that works out. tell you what, how about take your family for a walk around the greek houses after the first homecoming game on a campus where people are locked and loaded? see how much safer you feel with your kids hanging out because these kids might save you from a robber or something.

I don't think you have anything to worry about as it's just as illegal for a "Marine just back from combat, potentially with a ptsd" to own a RPG as it is for you yourself to own own one. It is also illegal for just anyone to own a automatic weapon.

On a completely different note but along these same thoughts, some of our pro gun control crowd needs to brush up on current gun laws. Over 99.9% of the objections that have arose and state pro gun control reasons are already illegal but for whatever reason keep getting hashed and rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

One thing I'm curious about is how it can be legal for a green card holder to buy weapons, especially with our current concerns about terrorism. I think this policy should be at the forefront of the debate rather than gun ownership as a whole.
In light of all the information coming out about the shooter another noteworthy question that needs to be answered is was this gentleman ever under the care of a doctor for psych reasons. This is one of the questions you have to answer on your paperwork when you legally purchase a firearm. We know that he was supposedly referred to counseling for some his writings. As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

scout: on the rpg thing, i'm not saying its currently legal; i'm just saying its come up in the thread, and i think arguing for that as a personal possession item is something i'm pretty much abso-fucking-lutely against. as for the rest, i agree with your points about this guy in general and have wondered the same things. we'll see what comes out.

His creative writing professor said she informed not only the administration, but also the authorities about the disturbing things he was writing, so I figure at least she tried to do something. I's likely everyone else probably dismissed it and just referred him to counseling, although it's doubted that he actually went to any sessions.