Six Dead in NIU Shooting
 

We should be be getting familiar with this song. Columbine, Virgina Tech, and now NIU.

ABC 7 Chicago Article

DEKALB, Ill. (WLS) -- A gunman who opened fire at an NIU lecture hall Thursday afternoon -- killing five and injuring more than a dozen people -- shot himself to death, police said.

NIU President John Peters said there were 22 casualties in total - six deaths and 16 injuries.

Four females and two males, including the shooter, died. Four people, including the shooter, died on the scene. Two victims died at the hospital. All of the five victims were undergraduates.

Eighteen victims were sent to hospitals. Most went to Kishwaukee Community Hospital. Six victims, the most critically injured, were transported via helicopter to other hospitals - three to Good Samaritan Hospital in Downers Grove, two to OSF St. Anthony Medical Center in Rockford, and one to Rockford Memorial. One male died at St. Anthony.

I don't know where this thread should go. Moderators, thanks if you move it else where.

Oh...

Happy Valentines day.

Not the only one this week...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/...s/niu_shooting
You know, ktspktsp and I have received constant news of car bombings and assassinations from Lebanon, every 2-3 months for the last 3 years... where the killings actually have a purpose (not saying I approve of the purpose or method AT ALL, but it can't be denied that there is actually an objective being carried out). I mean, we're talking about the Middle East there.

And then I get this kind of news from the US, where you're not supposed to have to worry about being a victim of that kind of random violence as a college student. I mean, WTF? What is so fucked up with our country that we have bastards like this walking into schools and shooting people, for NO FUCKING REASON??

If these individuals had been born in the Middle East instead of the US, would they have become suicide bombers instead? Is this some kind of pathological thing that would happen anywhere these people were born, or is it something about the US that makes these *type* of killings unique? Why guns? Why university campuses? Christ.

Oh, Superman where are you now? When everything's gone wrong somehow?

How do we stop this? How do we get into the mind that justifies these bloody actions? Where do we start? How does it end?

We are always left with these questions. We think there will be another answer if we look a little harder. We convince ourselves, "There must be a motive." What happens when it is this time that there was no motive. There was no reason. There was no justification.

We could just as easily call it insanity. What if it was not even that?

Is this the world we live in?

To further clarify my post... let's say that instead of school shootings, that these were indeed car bombs a la Middle East. They do end up killing 5-10 passersby every time they go off, and there is no warning beforehand. How would the American response be different, if these shootings were perceived as a terrorist threat? Why are these shootings NOT labeled terrorist, even though that's exactly what they are? Is it because they have no political motive, and therefore they can be brushed off like any other sad headline in the news?

How many school shootings will it take before Americans start to think, "Oh, wait, the greatest threat to our safety is actually happening HERE, on our own soil, at the hands of our own insane people, with our guns in their hands?" I'm rambling, but these are the questions that come to mind.

Oh no, I understand. I have many the same questions you have. I agree with you.

I am rambling on a different topic.

My question is, what happens when there is no motive? What happens when these atrocities have no reason anymore? What do we think?

There never is any reason that would justify these shootings. But there is a reason to these people. What happens when there isn't even that?

You need a motive to kill other people. Anger. Revenge. Insanity.

There's a reason... not necessarily a good one, but still a reason.

...

(looks at his gun safe)

Yet again... mine didn't do anything yesterday.

...

What a nightmare.

I can see my future tuition costs going to cover the campus SWAT team.

Instead of a new laptop, I'll need to buy a friggin' Uzi for my junior year.

:grumpy:

...

How do you counter this insane behavior? Harsh language?

Useless metal detectors? How about special skin-tight uniforms?

Professors should be able to carry concealed weapons.

Imagine the nightmare where someone doesn't even have those as reasons. No motive, no reason, no actual insanity, just decides to waste a classroom full of kids.

When you have crazy emo shooter training camps funded by outside powers, promoting school shootings then you have a terrorist threat. These guys though aren't even up to Unibomber standards.

Cars are an even greater threat to our safety. You deal with these threats as best you are able foreign or domestic, and responses will be different.

That would be in the 'insane' group.

People are not terminators ala the movie. We are still social animals with motives and goals. When that gets crosswired somehow you get insane actions.

Good point. Ktspktsp reminds me of this all the time, when I get scared about traveling in Lebanon.
Agreed. But I'm wondering if you would be willing to use the same explanation for suicide bombers in the Middle East, hmm... anyway, that's another thread.

I believe this to be either the fourth or fifth school shooting in a week.


I think its a matter of time before we see students with concealed carry permits bring their sidearms with them everywhere, regardless of school approval. That's assuming there aren't several out there who do this right now. As it is, I know of several students in my area who won't leave home without carrying a knife due to an outburst of muggings and shootings in town over the past few weeks.

Of course, a suicide bomber is HIGHLY motivated, and I'd say most of them are not insane.

Its the motivation, the indoctrination, the social pressures that create them, that let them do what to those outside look like insane actions.

Thats really the difference between a terrorist and some wacky shooter like this.

A wacky shooter is more like a force of nature. Its someone defective, someone who for whatever reason has lost their grip. A terrorist is not insane, but guided with malicious intent.

A wacky shooter doesn't have malicious intent? I think it's a bit much to say that these guys are just random mutations in society, without looking at the context of the society itself... why aren't there similar mutations in every other society? The only other school shootings I have heard of, have been copycats of the American school shootings... and are still very rare.

I think there is at least a casual relationship between one who engages in a terrorist act and a "random" school shooter: There are significant stressors that drive them to commit these acts. Neither a terrorist nor a shooter (in most cases, at least, I would say) simply decides "hey, I think it would be good or interesting to kill some people; I'm not doing much else today, so why not? I've always been curious, and it's not like I like these people very much, I hate them even. And I don't even know them. I think I'll do it."

In either case (again, I will suggest this is most but not all), these individuals are acting out as being driven by stressors that come from society and individual situations. Yes, there are such things as cultural and other conditioning, especially in the case of the terrorist. But indoctrination alone does not drive one to end their lives in a swath of risky violence. There is more to it than that. An extremist of any form does not usually act out in such a way without an accumulation of stressors (or a single extraordinary one) that push them over the edge.

If it isn't stressors, it could simply be mental illness. Either way, I don't buy the argument that there is no motive, no purpose...that they do this for nothing.

They have malicious intent but they are not guided by outside motivations, just their own internal demons.

The only other school shootings I have heard of, have been copycats of the American school shootings.

Its how we do things, perhaps its part of our culture, but you could just claim all the american ones are copy cats too.

Same shit, same planet. Shootings before suicide seems to be the new way to get attention.

Part of the problem is if you start handing out guns to everyone, the shooters will just turn to bombers. Unless they are trying to target specific people or types of people, bombs work. Just look to the Middle East. They don't go around shooting people, they blow up.

It isn't very hard to figure out why these happen. Sure there are thousands of people who might be possible school shooters and don't, so that is the hard part, determining who is going to do this and who isn't. I would say that this was caused by jealousy and emotional problems that he was unable to cope with, and instead of just killing himself, it made sense to take out the people that were happy and successful that reminded him of how much of a loser he was.

Maybe in elementary school they should mention that if you tease and bully other students that they might come back and kill them a few years down the line.

A: Suicide bombings don't seem to fit the emo "out for justice, gonna make things right" mentality quite yet. The idea of this really scares me, though.

B: As George F. Kennan put it... society's delicate compulsions... keep us in check. Those that completely fall away from the mold are lost. Sometimes they turn to substance abuse... sometimes they kill themselves... sometimes they kill others with a Glock (www.Glock.com) in a blaze of emo glory... sometimes they just play WoW.

C: They do mention it. Turns out the Dr. Phil generation isn't listening to it. We're all "special and unique snowflakes that deserve a chance." Pfft.

:shakehead: Used to be when you told someone to "be careful" as they headed to the mall or class, it meant "don't fall, don't wreck the car." Now, it's come to mean "Duck if you hear gunshots."

Why do these crazies with guns feel the need to take out everyone in their path when they're suicidal? Go back to the good old days when crazy boy went out back and did himself in. Alone.

I just want to say that I am enjoying this thread more than I've enjoyed any of the threads that revolved around the other school shootings.

Thanks.

Which part are you enjoying? Just curious.

The only effective way to stop a crazy with a gun is to have a gun of your own...

...or be Chuck Norris.

The math sucks... gun + gun = dead body. Only good thing to come from it is that maybe the "good guys" won't always be on the right side of that equal sign.

FTW.

There are no guarantees in these scenarios except more deaths when one side is denied the ability to effectively defend themselves against those that ignore the laws/rules.

What about crazy-with-a-gun prevention?

That features two distinct parts:

1. Crazy (a noun for person)

2. Gun (the implement of choice)

...

Is it easier to "fix" a gun or "fix" a person?

I'd suggest that the gun isn't broken... it's doing what it was designed to do: propel metal projectiles in one direction.

How do we fix the person? Good parenting, education, afterschool sports, social programs, less TeeVee, more sex.

...

Mmm, I should think about this some more.

Even if we argue that the gun is somehow broken or flawed in some way, 'fixing' it doesn't solve the problem. If I've learned anything from watching James Bond films, it's that nearly any household object can be fatal.

It's still a situation where I'm not sure adding more guns is the right thing to do. Then again, I don't know if there is a right thing to do. I do know that I'm more unsettled by the idea of random people on the street being armed than I am by the idea of nobody being armed.

(Yeah, I know, those aren't exactly the choices offered...)

Hey I know....maybe its time Americans re-examine their whole "right to bear arms" bullshit. Guess what, the British aren't invading any time soon (which was why that was put in the Constitution in the first place).

I can see no valid reason for a civilian to carry or own an assault weapon of any kind. Time for the laws to change and guns to be restricted. Moving in the other direction, students arming themselves, will be utterly disastrous.

First: Define "assault weapon." Funny, huh? Turns out I can assault you with ANY weapon, including my fists, a baseball bat, or sack of dead babies. Go figure! Don't use bullshit pop culture media labels to describe firearms. Daddy's precious family heirloom deer rifle and an AK47 do the same damn thing: They go BANG. Bullets fly out.

Second: Gun control / confiscation would be impossible in the United States. Just handguns alone? Americans legally own fifty-six million according to the gummint.

Where did he get the guns, and how can we use this information in the future in order to prevent this?

A thing isn't always merely a sum of its parts. We shouldn't ignore the gun simply because it was the only thing that was "right." A crazy with a pillow isn't so bad, after all.

Not to sidetrack this thread in to constitutional interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, but your premise and theory is dead wrong. The 2nd wasn't written because of the possibility of british invasion, it was written because the framers had an inherent distrust of government and KNEW that the 'people' were the ultimate sovereign holders of liberty.

provide some evidence for proof of this statement please.

Where didn't the dead kids get their guns and how can we use this information in the future in order to prevent this?

Touche, Grand Master Funkenstein.

Crazies will always find better and better weapons. Pilllows to nerf bats to napalm.

We, as a society, need to focus on being able to defend ourselves through both mindset and physical means as well as encouraging.

Funny how the world is such a safe place and yet the most dangerous thing we encounter while we're alive.

The scouts always used the mantra, "Be prepared." I don't know how that applies to crazies, but I know how it applies to me.

tell that to the person he/she smothers with said pillow.

They also didn't intend for women and non-Whites to vote. Did you put people in quotation marks to indicate that the framers also considered "people" to be "landowners"?

There are amendments for a reason. Times change. Change or die.

EDIT:
That would be up to the orderlies and the institution.

Another EDIT:
Crompsin, I find it hard to believe that any individual would need more than one gun. Two at most. Three or more is borderline paranoid, or crazy. Having this amount tells me: "I like things that kill people. A lot."

Holy shit, you're so funny!!! :expressionless:

This makes me really sad.

Uh, you need a pistol for conceal carry, a shotgun for home defense and a high capacity rifle for the zombie apocalypse.

Crompsin has guns for entertainment. Yes, that's kinda scary, but quite frankly it makes a lot more sense than having one to defend your family from an intruder or some garbage.

Don't misread it. The keyword was need, which was italicized with intent. You can want certain things because "hey, I'm a collector, or enthusiast," but to procure these things (especially at 3 or more) because y:paranoid:u think y:paranoid:u need them sounds at least a bit paran:paranoid:id to me, or crazy.

AMEN, BROTHER! We'll take it to those brain-eating bastards!

some things change, like finally acknowledging that women and minorities are people, other things don't, like some people could give a shit about taking your life for 20 dollars.

like was said above, one pistol for carrying for immediate self defense, a shotgun for home defense, a large capacity semi-auto rifle for multiple armed home invaders, a hunting rifle and shotgun.

aw, geez. not this shit again.

I wasn't trying to be funny, and I'm glad you got the point.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7192/protectny0.jpg

Students bringing multiple firearms into school is a fairly recent phenomenon isn't it?

You should throw in some C4, just in case the home invasion turns for the worse; that way, you could level the place and no one gets anything. Kinda like a self-destruct sequence. But seriously, how shitty is your pistol and shotgun that you'd need something else against home invaders? Or do you have poor aim? Or by multiple home invaders do you mean that army of zombies? Is this a paranoia thing?

Statistically speaking, BOTH are totally safe considering that home invasions in Illinois, your home state, are at an all time low... 19 total in 2006 out of a population of what, like 12 million?

That means you have a 1 in 630,000 chance. Statistically you're more likely to be hit by lighting.

C4 is a cutting charge due to high det velocity. You'd want to use TNT, Baraka. It pushes more and is better for leveling a house. And it's much cheaper to procure.

I'm going to try to phrase this in the least confrontational way possible. Let's see if it works.

I strikes me as an observer that Americans seem to be some of the most fearful and paranoid people in the developed world (so much for non-confrontational). I don't have a weapon that I carry in public in case of attack. I do not have a home defence strategy (I suppose, if it came to it, I could swing my bass guitar at an intruder; that sucker's heavy). When I lay me down to sleep at night, the last thing on my mind is what I intend to do in the event of a home invasion. Baraka_Guru, a fellow Canadian, believes that anyone who feels the need to possess more than one firearm is being unreasonably paranoid. And we're not alone up here; the only Canadian owned firearms I have ever encountered in my 24 years riding this rock around the sun were exclusively for use in hunting. We're talking bolt-action long guns totally unsuited to any other application. You want to defend your home with one of these bad boys, you damn well better get them on the first shot.

I can count on one hand the number of murders I've encountered that were closer to me than a newspaper page. Three of the four just happened to occur in the same town as me, in towns where such events were rare enough to be remarkable. The fourth was a friend of a friend. Firearms were not involved in any of the four.

I'm not passing judgment on the right to keep and bear arms. That's a decision that you all as a nation have made, and it's your right to run your country in the manner of your choosing. If you support it, more power to you. But I can't help but wonder. The United States of America is a nation founded in violence. The founders felt the need to protect the nation and it's people because they were dealing with personal experience; they'd just come out of a bloody rebellion with what they deemed an oppressive government and they were understandably paranoid that the same thing might one day happen again. The effectiveness of small arms against fighter/bombers and main battle tanks notwithstanding, what is the real probability that the general population of the United States of America will need to rebel against it's government in the near (or even distant) future?

Again, not passing judgment. The answer to that question is entirely a matter of opinion.

There has not been, to my knowledge, a single Canadian Prime Minister ever assassinated by use of a rifle or any other means. The worst our nation's leaders have to worry about are pies and pushy reporters. So far as I'm aware, England can make a similar claim, although I'm not familiar enough with English history to assert that with any real confidence. And while random shootings do occur throughout the rest of the world, they do seem to be much more prevalent in the United States of America. Initially I thought it might be population, but other equally of more populated nations don't seem to suffer the same problems.

None of this provides a solution, or even a clear argument really. I just sit and I wonder. How much of the fear comes from the very right that's meant to keep you safe? If everyone has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, how much more do you feel you have to defend yourself against all the other people who potentially exercise that right? And how much does having a culture in which firearms play such a prominent role encourage these sorts of tragic events?

Unfortunately, I don't have any answers. The only thing I'm really good at is asking more questions.

Martin, can you rephrase that to "SOME Americans"? I can't stand guns and think the idea of defending yourself with a gun is an excuse, not a reason.

*gives WillRavel a Uzi, a S&W 686, and a Mossberg 590*

Ssssh, you're just like the rest of us.

Funny, some people call those things "sniper rifles." Guys like Carlos Hathcock sent plenty of souls to hell with the exact same kinda rifle.

...

A scoped bolt action rifle is many times more dangerous than a handgun.

No, it isn't. In my day, it wasn't unusual to have your hunting rifle or shotgun in the trunk of your car to go hunting after class. What is new about it is that now they are being used against other people.......perhaps because these shooters now know that there aren't any weapons in trunks?

To those that look at the statistics and odds of anything violent ever happening to them as being so miniscule so as to not bother being prepared for it to happen, so accepting that if it ever should, just lay down and die, I have to ask you....how much do you value your life?

give me a .308 with a scope, any target within 800 yards is live or die, my choice. :thumbsup:

The 80s? :confused:

I doubt it has to do with their perceptions of who may or may not have weapons. Clearly, in this day, just about anyone could have a handgun in America. But what I was getting at was that it is new that these shooters are now bringing the guns into the schools and, yes, using them against other people.

I have far more important things to worry about than dying from a gunshot wound. I tend to focus more of my time being a safe driver and pedestrian, maintaining my non-smoker status, exercising, eating a balanced diet, using common sense when doing something potentially dangerous, and generally being kind to others.

In answer, I don't see it worth going through the trouble and expense of having a firearm in my home, knowing how to use it safely, and knowing how to take care of it. If someone wants to bust in and take my shit, then fine. I don't want to kill anyone over that. If they want to do worse, well, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Adrenaline can do crazy things when used properly.

I think Martian helps keep perspective. You need to know where we Canadians are coming from. Maybe since we're so socialist we don't have as many social ills and dangers such as violence and crime. Maybe it's because of our social makeup in general. I don't know. I've said this before: If I told my family and friends I was getting a firearm for home safety purposes, they'd think I was nuts. I'd barely be able to get them to support my getting a rifle for hunting.


* * * * *

Martian, thanks for your insights.

I'm sorry, that was my mistake actually. Seriously. What this does to me is demonstrates the point; murder is so far out of my head that I don't even think of it as a valid application for a firearm. My thoughts are hunting/sporting, home defence, personal defence. A scoped .30-06 is great for one of these activities, and arguably pretty lousy for the other two.

Any gun is dangerous. A little .22 handgun can kill a man just as sure as a big badass Barrett rifle firing .50 BMG can. All the same, some are better suited for different applications. I don't use a claw hammer to knock dents out of sheet metal, and I don't use a ball-peen to nail two by fours together.

That's not really a valid argument. For one, nobody said anything about 'lay down and die.' In the unlikely event that an intruder breaks into my home or a stranger mugs me when I'm out on the town and in the even more unlikely event that my attacker is satisfied with nothing less than the end of my life, I'll fight back with everything I have. However, feeling that I need to live in fear of this unlikely circumstance is, to me, a bit absurd. That's my personal opinion and it's very clear to me that you feel quite differently on the matter.

I don't let the fear of lightning stop me from going outside, even when it's raining. The fear of being struck by a runaway driver doesn't stop me from crossing the street. I face death on an everyday basis, as do we all. Preparing for one scenario simply because it's 'scarier' and with no regard to the actual probability of that scenario coming to pass doesn't make sense to me. And feeling the need to purchase and keep multiple firearms to safeguard against that unlikely scenario is so alien to me that I don't even know what to make of it. This is my opinion as a Canadian and I suspect it's an opinion shared by a great many of my countrymen. I will not attack your belief in your right to keep and bear arms. That's for you guys as a nation to decide and I don't pretend to know what's best for 300 million people better than they do. I just thought it might be insightful for some of you if I shared my observations as an outsider. And that's really all there is here.

I value my life enough to live it without unreasonable fears. I don't wake up clutching my gun. I don't walk around with a gas mask on worried about Sars. I don't avoid things that pose me virtually no danger.

Having been shot (how many times have you been shot, dk?), I know it's not really something to live in constant fear of. So long as it doesn't hit a major artery or a major organ, you'll probably be fine.

Quite frankly, it's a lot like being hit in the face the first time. You're scared of it before it happens because you don't know what to expect. When it does happen it hurts... but you survive and suddenly it's not this big monster in your closet. It went through my calf and I drove myself to the hospital. They stitched it up, I limped for a few days and now there's barely even a scar. So does that mean that I went out and spend thousands of dollars on tons of guns to defend myself? Shit no. I'm fine. When you combine the FACT that you're likely to never be home invaded with the FACT that things like security doors and dead bolts can prevent someone from getting in your house, you finally come the to understanding that the menace is a phantom. It's not any more real than the boogeyman or WMDs in Iraq.

Carrrying a gun as a self defense tool does not equal living in fear. If it were that way, what does that say about every policeman out there?

Yes because you get the gist of it threw thew interweb and the press.


Ditto.

Me either, but thats just stupid on both our parts. Nothing wrong with being prepared.

Nor I. It used to be will the wife put out, now its will the kid sleep through the night. Home invasion rates would also most likely go up with a lack of firemarms, if for example we followed the pattern seen in england where the gun ban had lead to a rise in violent crimes and thefts.

Only guns outside of those on the police and some other security personal people I've encountered were hunting/target rifles.


I'd rather have a bolt action gun than a knife in a fight.

Thats 4 more than me. No one I know even remotely has been murdered. Kinda funny that you mentioned the lack of fire arms, I wonder if that is comfort to the victims.

People look at their lives when its 'good' and think that it will always be good. Its funny you mention English history, which has had more then its share of assassinations and political murders, just not recently. Governments can change, democracies can become dictatorships in the span of a few years, and I'm willing to live with the extra 'danger' (which I'm not sure is so extra, my chance of being murdered as a middle class white male are about the same as my European counterparts) to maintain an armed populous.

I'd also add that were Canada to become a superpower you would see a change in how things work rather quickly. It was less than two lifetimes ago that the president could walk in the open shaking hands.

Apples and oranges. The police are empowered by the people to uphold the law. This is a profession which puts them in a position where they're far more likely to face violence. Having the proper tools to counteract that threat is an essential part of their trade.

Anyone who has ever watched COPS should know that the police enter into high-risk and potentially dangerous situations on a daily basis. Their job is to confront felons. Felons can be far more dangerous than the general population. That the officers of the law have a firearm strapped to their hip acts as a deterrent and also provides them with the means to apply necessary force in the unlikely and unhappy circumstance when it is called for.

I, on the other hand, do not confront felons as part of my job. I do not intentionally put myself in potentially life-threatening situations to uphold the values of the society of which I am a part. I have no need for a weapon.

Cops carry guns because the likelihood of them needing to have and use a gun is relatively high when compared with the rest of us. Frankly, I'd be happier if they didn't have to, but one could argue that if they didn't their role would be redundant anyway.

Are you actively seeking out violent criminals? No? That's because you're not a policeman.

And I totally didn't see there was a second page all ready, good going me.

To steal from one of the most poorly thought out movies:
"Guns don't kill people, but they sure help."

Like Crompsin said, it would escalate from pillows, to nerf bats, to napalm, to the latest fashion craze: strapping homemade bombs to your chest. I hear it's all the rage in the Middle East.

Tomorrow it will be a bigger bomb. Tomorrow it can kill more people. Tomorrow it will be just the last day of lectures. "School's out for-ever!" Pay close attention today, because I am only going to do this once. Class dismissed.

Are you really purporting that we have more crazy people shooting up buildings with guns because there are less people carrying guns in their trunks?

Uh, no, dude. Obviously this problem has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the impact of stressors in our society. Crazy doesn't do gun control, dude. Crazy obviously doesn't care if it dies. Crazy usually takes itself out in case you haven't noticed. Fear of sane people with guns is for the sane.

I'm not contesting that. As I said, these are simply my observations. I don't think every American is a gun-toting cowboy, but I have noticed there seems to be a large (or at least highly vocal) segment of the American public who advocate guns as personal defence tools. This segment is largely absent in many other populations, including Canada's. That's more what I was trying to highlight.

I don't consider it stupid. There are all kinds of unlikely events that I'm completely unprepared for. Should I be more concerned about this one because teevee tells me to be?

This is not necessarily a case of black and white. There's all kinds of middle ground between 'everybody can have a gun' and 'nobody can have a gun.'

Also not contested. My point was more that the only people I know here who even have firearms buy firearms whose intended purpose is as far away from home defence as it's possible to be.

I did mention that my knowledge of English history is somewhat lacking. I could well be wrong. I also disregarded any assassinations carried out before the advent and widespread acceptance of firearms, as they're not really relevant to the discussion.

I think one could argue that while you may not feel the need to possess a firearm yourself, you seem more than happy to use the fear generated by them to your advantage. My argument isn't really rooted in violent crime statistics. Actually, to be totally honest I don't really have an argument. These posts are the forum equivalent of thinking out loud, just some musings on the subject. Regardless, I do still wonder if a society that was created by a rifle doesn't implicitly encourage it's use. Would these shooters have been shooters if they'd been a different nationality? That question, of course, is impossible to answer.

I enjoy the direction this took: from Crazies with guns blowing away people in classes, to the students carrying guns to protect themselves from the crazies, to why have guns to protect ourselves in the first place. //sarcastic//

Granted I can't say anything since a conversation with me has [less than] a 15 minute window of distinct information relating to the topic till I get bored and wander to the next [logical] topic.

and non-policemen DON'T face violence at all?

no, i don't actively seek out violent criminals, but those violent criminals certainly seek out you and I as everyday citizens, don't they?

then explain why all these mass killings happen in 'gun free zones'? you don't see any mass killings at gun shows or gun stores. Does it mean that gun control laws are responsible? indirectly, yes they are. they ensure an unarmed pool of targets until an armed person shows up, which is usually when the crazed gunman then takes his own life.

Apparently not, according to reliable and verifiable statistics.

They're paid to step into violence. Citizens are not.

Unfortunately yes they do, but statistically, you are safe-ish.

There can still be mass killings in a gun show. Armed or unarmed targets is up the crazy shooter.

I am not against guns. I am against people going crazy.

Are you under the impression that America has been a society always existing with a plethora of guns always in sight and that is the reason that nuts haven't been on the loose shooting people? I could ask my parents. My mother was born in 1939, my dad in 1930. Do you suppose if I asked them, they would claim that guns are less existent in their lives now than they were growing up? I think not.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't be hearing all the cries for stricter gun laws when one of these oh so rare occurrences happen, would we?

which is it? are random acts of violence so rare that nobody needs a handgun for defense, or are they becoming so much more common that people start wondering if everyone has gone mad?

Does that mean that we should not step in to violence if another citizen is being assaulted?

statistics don't mean crap when it's you that becomes the victim.

mass killings happen because none of the victims have a means of defense. They don't happen in gun shows because the people in there have a ready means of equal firepower to defend themselves, limiting any carnage and murder.

Am I under the impression there were more guns? no, nor did I say that there were. What i said was that back then, people weren't restricted in the places where they could carry guns for protection as compared to now. THAT is why nutcases have an easier time of shooting people.

I think you've demonstrated time and time again that one occurrence is enough to outrage some people.
Most people aren't aware of how rarely they need a gun, which explains the gun owners and explains all the anti-gun people. Gun owners respond to sensationalized media by arming themselves for combat, and anti-gun people respond by saying that we need to stop criminals from getting guns. I personally believe that the latter is more prudent and reasonable, simply because removing guns/making it difficult for criminals and emotionally unstable people stands a chance of actually stopping the few crimes that do happen.

The only cries for stricter gun laws that I have heard recently are not for new restrictions, but rather the need to recognize that the current federal (and state) laws that already prohibit the sales of guns to persons with medical histories of mental illness are not working......both the Virginia Tech and NIU shooter, who were able to walk into gun shops and walk out "armed and dangerous", are graphic examples. I recall a fairly recent FBI report (if I can find it) that noted about 1,000 homicides/year by persons with mental illnesses....most dont make the news.

The conundrum is these same persons have a right to privacy with regard to medical records.

I dont know how you resolve that.

dk...do you have a problem with that current provision of gun laws? Should persons with medical histories of mental illness have a right to bear arms?

fixed that for ya!

I don't think it can be fixed. There is no possible way to prevent any and all private sales, so people with adjudicated cases of 'no guns for you' are still going to be able to acquire them.

should they be allowed to defend themselves at all?

Think it would be funny if I started wearing bull's eye shirts to class?

Sure, they are still able to acquire guns....if they know where or from whom. Thats for more difficult than walking into a gun shop.

I would weigh the need for personal defense against the potential threat to oneself (suicide) and or the public at large...and come out on the side of the threat being greater.

I don't think the other students would understand your humor.

Did you read my post?

If they know they are going to be denied at a gun shop, it's far easier for them to buy one off the street, which isn't that hard to do.


cool, who gets to decide who's rights are important and who's rights are not so important?

yeah, i read it. i could also say that most people aren't aware of how rarely they need a seatbelt or a fire extinguisher also. not many people are truly aware of how rarely they need any tool or device, that is until they actually need it. by then, it's almost always too late.

Do you really believe that most middle class, twentysomething white guys who are off their medication know where to buy a gun off the street?

Maybe in Texas.

Federal and state laws have already decided, with overwhelming bi-partisan public support (including most of the gun lobby).....minors, convicted felons, persons with medical histories of mental illness.

I'm really glad you brought this up, because it allows me the opportunity to compare gun stats to car accident stats and home fire stats. Do you want me to do that again? As I recall last time you ended up simply falling back to the "are you willing to bet your family's life on statistics?" argument. If I post the stats, will you respond like that again?

or new mexico, arizona, hell it's easier to get a gun off the street in california than it is in a gunshop there.


see, and here I thought that the constitution only gave government powers to run the country, not decide who gets rights and who doesn't. wow did we come a long ways.

pretty much, yes. because it's always going to be some person out there declaring that the odds of being a victim are infinitesimal, so you don't need a gun....but they are never there when someone is actually a victim. So pretty much, your quoting stats is an irrelevant waste of time because people still die.

That argument doesn't hold water unless you prepare for other unlikely dangers, too. Do you have a lightning rod? Do you wear a gas mask in public? Do you always wear gloves? Do you not eat red meat or spinach?

The fact that you only choose to be paranoid when it comes to guns overrides your excuse that you don't want to be a statistic. Either you believe in statistics or you don't. Picking and choosing makes no sense whatsoever.

But will, you also pick and choose and have declared so on this very thread. so you make no sense either?

While not "an irrelevant waste of time," I feel the same way.

The excuse: "Oh, I only have a 0.04% chance of getting hit by a distracted, cellphone-blabbing driver in a zillion-pound SUV while crossing the street today." doesn't do jack diddly-shit once you're one of 0.04% that gets hit and ends up in the hospital with cast on your arms, legs, and love muscle. Turns out insurance companies still charge the same whether you're a Mr. Cocky McFuckypants or a realistic old hermit. Turns out to be a case of "last place ya looked" syndrome. Body massage - GO!

Hey, statistics are good for educational purposes, studies, and being snarky... but shouldn't be something on which you bet your life.

Pfft... I sure don't. Turns out I like this life thing lots.

That and... I'm not a genius.

...

Then again, I have my concealed carry permit and rarely carry when I'm by myself out 'n about. I almost always carry when I'm out on dates. Bodyguard syndrome?

What did I pick and choose? Where did I flip-flop?

In your choice of whether to keep a gun to carry or at home for defense of family and self. You said that you don't feel the odds of being a crime victim are worth getting a gun. That is a choice, yet you can still be a victim of crime as you have experienced.

Maybe I can make this more clear with an illustration. Let's say you play the lottery all your life and you finally hit the lotto. Do you think that makes it more or less likely to hit the lotto again? The answer is simply that your odds stay the same. If you have a 1/6,500,000 chance of winning and you win... your odds of winning again are still 1/6,500,000. My experience didn't mean that the odds changed, and I'm not the type to make an emotional decision about buying a gun. It absolutely has to be logical. Logically, I'm not likely to be shot again. Just like logically, I'm not likely to be hit by lightning or get flesh eating bacteria. Just as I don't own a gun for protection, I don't have a lighting rod and I don't wear gloves and a gas mask.

Does this make my stance more clear? I hope?

This thread makes me feel... oh, I don't know...


Aaah, Pipboy! Thanks.

OK I am not against guns. I eat red meat. I like spinach. I don't wear a gas mask. I don't wear gloves (but I wash my hands enough).

• dksuddeth: "Does that mean that we should not step in to violence if another citizen is being assaulted?"

  Not at all. How often are you going to be doing that? Luckily the last time I stepped up to stop people from making a bad move, I just needed to grab something blunt.

• dksuddeth: "statistics don't mean crap when it's you that becomes the victim."

  Agreed. I don't want to be another victim. But chance doesn't change just because it happened once. I can happen again.

• dksuddeth: "mass killings happen because none of the victims have a means of defense. They don't happen in gun shows because the people in there have a ready means of equal firepower to defend themselves, limiting any carnage and murder."
  Just because it hasn't happened at a gun show, does not mean some nutjob can't walk into a gun show packing and blow away some people. The only difference is his ass is grassed by the patrons of the gun show, thus removing said nutjob's luxury of ending his own life.
  
• Crompsin: "Think it would be funny if I started wearing bull's eye shirts to class?"

  They come in my size. I bet you can find one too.

• @ Willravel:

  The other things I can prepare for... well they can be out of my hands. Natural. A nutjob walking into a restaurant is not natural. At least it shouldn't be for this century. PM me links to threads or sites that warn me of the dangers of my ignorance. I trust you to hand out safe websites, if not legitimate sources.

I AM NOT AGAINST GUNS!

Is it because our generation is a bunch of underachievers, overstimulated by video games and mass media, end up working at the last minute, buys coffee at Star Bucks for $3.00 a jolt when they could have made it for $0.30 at home? (I'm done stealing a friend's interpretation of what the fuck in wrong with this generation.) I want to know why our generation is going down the tubes.

I don't think nutcases do have an easier time shooting people. There are just more nutcases...with guns. My parents grew up in Atlanta. It wasn't the old west. Every other guy on the street was not carrying.

You know, just because an event involves a gun, it doesn't make it a gun control issue. One way or the other. Neither stricter nor more lax gun control laws would have necessarily prevented this disaster waiting to happen.

Wow. Crompsin, I have to be honest here: if I found out that my date was carrying a gun (anywhere, but especially on a date), that would seriously freak me out. It would probably be a dealbreaker right there. Not that my opinion matters, since I'm married anyway, but just wanted to comment on that.

Agreed. It doesn't matter how, if a crazy wants to take out people, armed or not, they will accomplish it with or without guns.

Nice to see that the thread that I thought was progressing in an interesting direction for a change turned in the same old same old.

Nice to see that we still know how to beat a dead horse.

/end sarcasm

Yep, still pretty new here but when I saw this thread my first thought was to go add a comment about the shooter and his lack of medication recently. Maybe add something about the victims. But nope! I was waiting for the thread to open and I realized it would be another gun control argument.

Like I said before, not the direction I wanted to take. Gun control isn't the issue. Crazy control is my issue.

I should go add sarcastic tags to that comment.

Augi no worries... you made a great effort.

Sometimes the crazies have weapons other than guns. :lol:

Thanks Charlatan.

the medication part is something that should be discussed. how does society MAKE/FORCE a person to not discontinue their meds?

It doesn't require that people go off their medication.

Is there any more information on the Louisiana Tech shootings?

But medication control would be a new horse to whip.

I guess we come from completely different backgrounds. I can understand your perspective, I really do. I hope this helps.

Think of it as some kind of macabre good luck charm, a carry-over from my time in the army where I carried an automatic rifle with a grenade launcher for an entire year at a time without every once having the opportunity to squeeze either trigger. Voodoo. Karma. Magic. A bizarre protective talisman. Just having it kept me alive.

I seldom carry a pistol due to my current lifestyle (school), not all that often in comparison to most people with this type of license... but when I do carry it? I never need the damn thing and I never worry about needing it... because it's there. Not once has the thing left the holster in an emergency. Not even close. I figure it never will.

I take comfort in that fact, not the fact that I have a firearm.

...

I have a concealed weapons permit because I feel that if I carry this two pound piece of metal around with me sometimes... I'll never need to use it.

...

Statistics, silly little numbers they are, dictate that I will never need to use my concealed weapon. Not even close to once in my entire life. Infinitesimal chance. However, on the impossible chance that I'm, oh, shoe-shopping at the outlet mall or catching a late movie at the cineplex with the girlfriend and some nutjob with a shotgun and Glock (TM, the Preferred Weapon of School Shooters) wants to get all homicidal and emo on the crowd? After I'm done belly-flopping on the ground like a soldier yelling "Incoming!" and have carefully inventoried all my fingers and toes, he's in for a real surprise: victims that shoot back. There would be zerp joy in doing such, either. It would suck.

...

I'm not some paranoid schizo who talks to his piece and plays quickdraw in the mirror.

I've never hurt anybody. I certainly don't plan it on, either.

My life is worth carrying a silly piece of steel around.

I don't have a badge-of-the-man but I will in the future.

Does that make it easier to understand?

...

I'm a sane, responsible, hard-working pseudo-civilian. Why are you afraid of me being armed in a country where the bad guys are often armed?

Thanks, I appreciate this. I hope you know I wasn't being critical in my comment... it was just my honest reaction to what you said. And hey, as long as your dates aren't freaked out by you carrying a gun, then as I said, my opinion doesn't really matter on that issue.

I also appreciated your level-headed explanation of why you carry it. I can see how our backgrounds differ, and I know your military experience must have a strong influence on your reasons for carrying a gun.

But I must say, having walked around in downtown Beirut in recent years, with tanks and guns pointing at me on several street corners--soldiers at the ready to fire at any of us, anytime--(god knows how they could possible stop a car bomber that way, since there is never any warning of that kind of thing), it still never occurred to me that I should also be walking around armed. It has never occurred to me to walk around armed, even in extremely dangerous places.

I have held a gun to shoot BB's at pop cans when I was maybe 8 or 10 years old. I knew where the gun in our house was, growing up, and I hated knowing it was there. We lived in a remote place, far from any law enforcement's ability to get to us quickly, but still it never occurred to me to ever have to use a gun. The only people I ever knew who carried guns were usually paranoid relatives who were basically stockpiling their own weapons cache (wanna-be paramilitaries) who freaked me out in general. My 10 year old cousin walked around with rounds of ammo across his chest. I stayed very clear of him.

Not that any of this contradicts your reasons for carrying, but I just wanted to confirm our different backgrounds. I also wanted to clarify what you said here:

I know that you're a sane, responsible, hard-working pseudo-civilian. :) I'm not afraid of you being armed, that's not the issue. My only point in responding earlier was that if I was dating someone, no matter how sane and responsible they were, if they were carrying a gun around on their person... that would be the end of it, right there. That doesn't mean I would be afraid of them, or that I wouldn't be friends with them... quite the opposite (I like you, man!). :) I would just not want to ever be romantically involved with them. I don't know how to explain it, but that's just the way I personally feel.

I should also put in a little perspective that my husband has gone so far as to refuse to ever work for any company that is related to weapons manufacturing, no matter how good the money is. He grew up in a civil war, where everyone was in a militia, everyone was armed, people were shooting not just guns but mortar fire and launching bombs around his city on a daily basis. He wants nothing to do with those things, and I'm alright with that.

It comes down to sharing values, I guess. I think deciding whether or not it's okay to pack a weapon is along the same lines as whether or not people want to have children, or have an open relationship, or what have you... those kinds of values have to be in agreement. I never thought about gun ownership in those terms before, but since you mentioned it, Crompsin, I've had to think about it. Thanks for that. :)

I think if you really looked at it, you would find it is in fact fear. It sounds like you have always had it.

A nutjob breaking down your door isn't natural. It's rare... as rare as being hit by lightning. Spending money on guns in order to JUST prepare to defend your home means that you fervently believe that those odds still are enough to warrant preparedness. The problem, though, is that dangers are are far more likely are not prepared for. You're more likely to be hit as a pedestrian by a drunk driver, but you don't see people avoiding sidewalks. This strongly suggests that preparedness for this unlikely home invasion is an excuse, not a reason. It's a weak excuse that covers for the real reason. '

BTW, your biggest threats come from poor diet and exercise. Eat healthy and exercise at least 30 minutes a day and you'll have just warded off the top 10 or so causes of death in the US.
I'm doing just fine. I've been in big business since I was 21, when I graduated from a great private college early, and I make 3 times what all my friends from high school make (except my friend that opened a Karate school... turns out that's REALLY lucrative). I'm also putting things in motion in order to get into law school. I don't drink coffee because I view caffeine as a crutch and I don't like the taste.

I'm a business leader today and if I've got anything to say about it, I'll be a community or possibly even governmental leader in the future.

what a load of crap. This is you attempting to belittle and marginalize those that prepare for the possibility of being a crime victim to mask your own fear of guns. plain and simple.