surferlove007

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Being a student at a large university makes you wonder if maybe yours could be next. Although I've noticed most of these shootings don't take place in Texas and if they did...more than likely the shooter wouldn't get far. I'm certain there are students on the Texas Tech and Texas A&M campuses who carry and conceal their guns for instances just like this.
The law says it's illegal for students to carry guns on campuses, but if someone comes on with one wiping everyone out I think a student with a gun taking out the gunman would be a thanked instead of punished. Although I'm sure there are tons of folks that would disagree with that option.

James got his CHL...when I turn 21 I'd like to get mine. Planning to anyway.
I also carry a knife on me everywhere I go, it's in my hand when I'm about to get into my car after my night classes.

It's pretty messed up these shootings keep happening. I disagree that people need to ignore the war and focus on the homeland. The military can't force these kids not to run a muck, might as well stick to their objective. But that's just my opinion. (Please don't comment on my military comments)

Umm..notice how many gun shootings happen in Texas on a weekly basis. I think guns are more difficult to get in Texas and more states of the Southwest than elsewhere.

Oh and to mention something else.
The Texas Tech Mascot carries guns, so...obviously that shows you what people in Lubbock believe if something happens on our campus.

I disagree, I think that mentality is right in the right situation.
For example, I'm a female student living in a town home complex. If some man breaks into the house and attempts to either rape/and or kill my roommates and I, I plan to do all I can to survive and kill the bastard. They know what they're doing is wrong, how is it wrong to be prepared for such as instance? I see nothing wrong with having a gun ready in case it is necessary.
James has his AR-15 and 45 ready to go by the bed in Houston, you better believe he wouldn't think twice about taking someone out if they broke in and threatened our personal safety.

I enjoy shooting, I wish I had more time to go shooting with James but often when he goes I'm doing something else. My dad and I are going out to the gun range this weekend if there is time.

You make it sound like every person carrying a gun in their house is a ticking time bomb which I think is a bunch of bull shit.

MSD

There are plenty of students who carry in violation of school policies, and less who do it illegally. As this kind of thing happens time and time again, it becomes more likely that a spree killer will encounter an armed civilian. A shooting spree will make national headlines regardless of how it ends, and if it is ended by an armed civilian protecting himself and others, it may force the idea into the public mindset that good people with guns can be a good thing. On the other hand, it could end up like the shooting in Texas (I think) where the guy who shot in self defense was an off-duty cop and it just faded into the stream of crap coming out of the TV. If it happens, people can realize that heroic actions that save lives aren't limited to someone with a uniform and a badge; it'll also be better PR for gun owners than "from my cold dead hands." (which, for the record, was said at a meeting a year after the Columbine shootings.)

Willravel

In the right situation, the mentality is understandable. The right situation, though, is a situation where the odds of a home invasion are plausible. Let's say you lived in Kosovo in 1992, when the Serbs were invading often and they would routinely invade homes with violent or murderous intent. In this situation arming one's self seems totally reasonable. The odds of needing the gun excuse owning it for just such an occasion.

What are the odds of a home invasion in your area? 1/600,000 like Illinois? 1/1,000,000 like Finland? The "if" in the sentence "If some man breaks into the house and attempts to either rape/and or kill my roommates and I" is a fantastic if.
No, I said that I understood Crompsin, who owns guns for responsible recreation. Not only that, but Crompsin lives near DC, which does have a very high crime rate (11 robberies a day in 2004). I also never mentioned anything like a time bomb. All I suggested is that home defense is not likely a reason for owning a gun, but rather an excuse. This is something I still stand by and that I've seen no evidence to contradict.

The time bomb situation is a separate issue. That has to do with reasonable background checks including mental health history when someone applies to get a gun. That kind of thing could have very easily prevented the Virginia Tech shootings, as well as the shootings in the OP. It's common sense.

surferlove007

Sounds to me like you're very intent on shoving statistics into your arguments like they actually have any weight.

You can't force your anti-gun beliefs down on everyone who opposes them. And the odds of home invasion in my area are not that great however my argument was that having guns for certain situations should they arise is not a bad thing.

I never mentioned Crompsin in my post, I mentioned that I enjoy recreational shooting when there is time. Not to mention ammo is expensive right now. Owning a gun is a choice, not an excuse.

Let it go, you're not changing other folks minds, don't bother with mine either. I was just stating my opinion.

dc_dux

I hope you are right and dksuddeth is wrong that it is easy to get illegal guns in Texas.

But just for the record, according to FBI stats, Texas ranks 14th in violent crime on a per capita basis

Not that is relevant to the broader discussion.

My original point was that the laws preventing persons with histories of mental illness from purchasing guns legally are not working.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

surferlove007

I see, I misread your OP. My mistake.
Yea I believe the border affects the statistics in a more negative connotation than the rest of the state.

Hain

If you keep saying it enough, I'll believe it is true. Mention it some more and I'll figure why I don't agree with it.

I don't understand "protection" as an excuse for owning a weapon.

Fixed that for ya. The objective isn't to kill them, it is to neutralize them as a threat, which can be accomplished by shooting extremities.

Willravel

Statistics are about applying reality to theory. The theory that you're in danger must be supported by factual evidence or it is not a logical fear. So far, it is not a logical fear.
I can "force" logic on people all day. Whether people want to listen or not isn't my call. You have said yourself now that the odds of a home invasion are very low in your area and you own a gun for home invasions, therefore you either are over-prepared or there is another reason you have a gun.
You were responding to my post that was not necessarily directed at you. Don't act like I started our dialogue.

I happen to change people's minds all the time, including but not limited to subjects regarding guns. So I am changing other folks minds, just not yours apparently. That's fine. Believe what you want.

What I mean is protection isn't the actual reason that people own these guns. If it was about protection, then people would be preparing for equally likely or more likely dangers as well, which they don't. They're being selective and choosing a firearm specifically to be selective about, which strongly suggests another reason for owning the gun. Crompsin's reason, for example, is entertainment. I would imagine that he's not the only one that uses this.

There are other reasons, but trying to assign them to people would require more study. I couldn't really venture a guess as to why dk has so many guns without knowing him. I can tell you it's probably not about self defense, though.

Hain

I see this reasoning... but again, still don't find owning a gun as an excuse.

I am handy with an aluminum bat. Is keeping a bat behind my door illogical? I lived in a quiet neighborhood, until one year houses, cars, garages, everything was getting broken into, robbed, vandalized...

The fact that statistics say one is safe doesn't change the fact that outliers occur. With people, you often see one bad thing leads to another. Why? Because people being nice does not get noticed

surferlove007

Very true. Although...if you shoot extremities sometimes you hit arteries and they bleed out. (Had to throw that in there). I remember that one lady who shot an intruder in the leg and stopped him from running away. Good call.

Hain

Wouldn't that just come back to convenience? You buy a gun and bullets... whala your safety is "secure." Granted it still depends on one's proficiency with the weapon and maintaining it.

The intruder should think of it as my way of being polite. My intention is not to extinguish the intruder's life, just make sure that a portion of his life is spent thinking about what he has done wrong. If he and I have the rotten luck and I hit a major artery... We'll it was an extremity shot, and the officers should note that.

Decided to reword that.

Willravel

I get that there is still a 1 in a 1/600,000 statistic, but does being prepared to be that one if it means bringing a deadly weapon into your home (which statistics actually say is more likely to kill on accident) really worth it?
If I had a gun, I'd learn how to use it. I'm sure if you have a gun or guns, you're trained. That doesn't mean everyone is. A license doesn't always require training, I've found. In some places it requires virtually nothing.

As for convenience... shouldn't we be worried when it's convenient to get and have a gun? I was almost run off the street coming back from visiting my dad because some idiot thought I cut him off. His Chevy Silverado went from being transportation to being a weapon in an instant and he used it to attack an innocent person. If it wasn't for my Eibach coil springs and Tokico shocks, I may not had had the maneuverability to avoid him and could be dead. My point is it's not easy to get a drivers license. You actually do have to know how to drive. Still, this asshole or psycho managed to get a license despite the fact that he was prone to violent road rage. If this can happen with a seemingly normal person in a car, what's to stop a seemingly normal person with a 9mm in his glove compartment or a shotgun in his house? I can drive defensively and make sure my car is limber and I am a good driver to avoid assholes like I did tonight. How can I make myself bulletproof? And why do some people seem to think that also having a gun somehow makes one safe?

Hain

So investing in a Brinks home security system is a waste, too? I mean, statistically... I won't need it. Is my lucky Louie (I have a classy wood bat in my living room, in addition to my aluminum bat) illogical too?

Now we want to talk about convenience of buying the gun? No, let's not.

By convenience I mean: convenience in taking steps towards the goal. Walking down the sidewalk or avoiding all sorts of certain foods and finding all the alternatives is a hassle. One just buys the gun, and one feels safer. It doesn't make it so like I have pointed out.

Yes there should be a stricter additional process before acquiring guns: training, maintaining, safety regulations... when that will happen... doubtful in my lifetime.

dksuddeth

It's easier to get a gun on the street than it is in a gun shop or show in texas, if you're around the major cities.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

MSD

Shooting extremities doesn't work in real life and the poorly-aimed rounds will go through walls, etc. until they hit something, hopefully not an innocent person. The only acceptable place to aim is center of mass. If you can disable someone with a limb shot, you are not in enough danger to justify deadly force.
I completely disagree. Gun ownership is a lot like licensing for cars. You don't have to be good at it, just good enough to prove to an instructor that you can aim it in the right direction and make it go.
Agreed. Almost any drug dealer other than the guy who sells pot to his college friends will have enough connections to be able to get illegal guns because of the almost inevitable tie-in with organized crime. I've never heard of someone having problems finding drugs, and people don't tend to specialize in black market activities, they do what makes them money.

samcol

Its the same way in Indiana. Even though I have my conceal carry license, I still have to go through that Federal background check everytime I purchase a Firearm.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

StanT

My wife and sister both graduated from NIU, this one hits a bit close to home.


There are a large group of people that look at this incident and think to themselves "Damn, there are too many guns in this country and they are too easy to obtain". There is another group that thinks "Damn, if only there were more guns, these folk could have defended themselves". There really isn't any middle ground, nor is there room for compromise, yet that is what has to happen.

Willravel

The Brinks system assists with not just police but fire and medical emergencies. It makes perfect sense. The bat? If you like playing sports as much as I do I'm sure it makes sense to own a bat. As for keeping it by your bed? You have to keep it somewhere.
Ah, misunderstood.
Measure the convenience against both:
1) The risk of owning the weapon
2) The unlikeliness of needing it

That's my point. Every day 5 children under 19 die because of an accidental shooting or suicide by gun. Look up accidental shooting stats, they're everywhere. Then look up how rare opportunities for using your gun in self defense are.
Why? Why can't we change?

samcol

Why doesn't the media highlight cases where CCW people saved lives?

Here's an example where a woman stopped a gunman who had enough ammo to kill hundreds:

Again what is wrong with responsible concealed carry?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Hain

"Damn, there are way too many crazy people in society! Why are they going crazy and think shooting people in a blaze of glory will make their end better?"

I don't know.

You should know that I was implying that I keep one bat behind the door and one in the living room for the same reasons people own guns.

Damn you might make a good lawyer. Didn't have me fooled but damn, how good are you at turning a statement?

StanT

For the case in question, she was an ex-cop, assigned as a security guard, not someone that happened to CCW. Your example makes a case for improved security, not CCW.

Willravel

But we're in agreement that things would probably be better if proper training were a part of the licensing process? I ask because DK disagrees strongly with this.
Well to be fair teens aren't committing suicide with Louisville Sluggers, and if someone steals your bat they can't go rob a bank or do a drive-by. Okay, owning a bat purely for home defense probably doesn't make sense, but bat's are useful for other functions. Guns only shoot.

Still, you're missing out. Baseball may be boring as shit to watch, but it's fun to play.
Heh, ty. Both I and my future clients hope you're right. I plan on being a public defender and then a civil rights attorney eventually.

samcol

Uh, she was someone who happened to CCW. Only some of the guards were armed. The unarmed security guards would of been all but helpless against the gunmen.

Not sure why being an ex-cop or a designated 'guard' makes a damn bit of difference. The fact that she had a CCW, a level head, and a gun is what made the difference.

This is a case for CCW.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dksuddeth

ex-cop yes, assigned security no. she volunteered to do so, along with another person who had a weapon but did not intervene.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Hain

dksuddeth

some people are still under the impression that cops get superhero training and are able to do things with guns that us average folk are incapable of.

I disagree with which part? training? licenses? probably be better?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

You've said you were against more regulation in all it's forms, including requiring training in order to get a gun. Has this changed?

Plan9

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I will PAY for you to take a concealed carry class.

This kind of ignorance is perpetuated by non-gunners and the media.

"Oh, just shoot out a leg. Shoot the gun out of his hand. It's easy."

Complete hogwash.

...

You use a firearm when there is no other option of force available. It is the absolute last resort after harsh language and other physical implements fail.

When you pull the trigger on a firearm that is pointed at someone else...your intent is to destroy them. You shoot to kill, you don't shoot to wound.

You focus your front sight over the bad guy's sternum (center mass) and squeeze in short successions until he goes down.

This is both a philosophical and legal principle. Regardless of the outcome of your shot, the intent is, was, and should always be to kill.

If you have to unholster a firearm and point it at someone because of a life-threatening situation (the only viable reason)... you should be in the mindset that you are going to shoot your weapon with the purpose of killing them. There is no wounding, there is no grazing... the righteous use of firearms goes: "I am defending my life by taking yours." Serious shit.

We don't have any Star Trek "Set phasers to stun!" technology yet.

Firearms are lethal weapons and should be treated as such.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

"THAT'S POPPYCOCK!"
*throws a sponge, angrily*
*opens fire with gun*

I dunno... doesn't that strike you as 11 different kinds of crazy?

Plan9

Crazy is using something that can quite easily kill somebody to do less than it's intended purpose.

Either don't use the gun at all... or use it for what it was designed to do. That sounds pretty sane to me.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

no, it has not. It is absurd to require a license, granted by the government, to exercise a right protected by the constitution in order to keep that government in check.

Training? I believe everyone should be trained to use weapons, just not mandated training. If you don't want to train or own a gun, by all means don't. Just don't presume to tell me how to be responsible with a weapon when you don't even own one.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Tully Mars

No law enforcement agency in the nation, that I know of, trains it's officers to shoot to wound. I know that's not what I was trained to do. If you draw your weapon you'd better have a damn good reason. If you discharge it you do so to permanently stop someone.

They train that way for a reason.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Willravel

So then I didn't misrepresent your stance at all. Good.
As long as anyone has a gun, people will be in unnecessary danger. If you suddenly think you're at risk of being in danger and open fire, I don't want to be caught in your crossfire as you play Rambo. So yeah, I can tell people how they can be responsible as my safety and the safety of the public is at risk.

Hain

1. If you are buying, I wouldn't mind learning something new.
2. I would much rather an ambulance arrive to make sure they live, but if it came down to it, I would kill if they didn't stop
3. Legal reasons to kill the perp?
4. Don't think I do not appreciate this fact.

There is no argument here that you will know better than I, so I ask would you point me to some excellent reading material?

StanT

The fact is, she wasn't a random parishoner with a CCW. She was specifically asked to carry and act as security that day because of her training and a prior incident in Denver.

The point is that organized, trained security stopped the gunman. Not a random CCW.

I have no doubt that someone can come up with a case where random CCW actually stopped violence, but this isn't it.

samcol

Well trained security stopped the gunman? Try a well trained CCW holder.

You can spin it however you want, but a security guard ex-cop with no CCW wouldn't of done jack shit. This same lady in a 'gun free' zone would of been another helpless bystander.

Another thing I don't understand is 'random CCW'. What is random about deciding to walk around with a loaded gun in the case that you may need to use it to protect yourself or stop a mass shooting.

There is nothing 'random' about a CCW license.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Hain

I believe random was meant that the CCW did not have previous special training like one would receive on a police force (or military, etc).

Like others have said, to really spark something in the media, it would have to be a "random" CCW. This story does not qualify. That is my opinion.

StanT

Apparently, "spin" is in the eyes of the beholder. Using an ex-cop assigned to specifically watch for this scenario after a similar incident a few miles away to make a case for CCW, seems pretty far fetched to me.

"Gun free zone" applies to random CCW, not police or private security. For what it's worth, the church in question is marked as a gun free zone. Obviously, private (volunteer) security was able to function.

dksuddeth

police do not receive 'special' training with guns. Most departments only require an officer to qualify once a year.

How would YOU, as someone who doesn't own a gun and is most likely unfamiliar with regular usage of one, expect to know how to tell others who ARE experienced in the ways of being safe with that gun?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Hain

1 - That scares me now.

2 - Who says everyone that has a gun has enough experience to use it properly? Will's comment does seem directed to you, but lets step back and consider everyone that now can get a gun.


Crazies? Why they want to take out others? Anyone? Anyone?