Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

cowboy idiocy

ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
edited February 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)
These people aren't stupid. They target places where they no that there are law-abiding citizens going unarmed.
That's right folks, the college shooters pick schools based upon where it would be best to suffer a mental breakdown and going on a shooting spree in a few years. Seriously, the movement should get rid of the person who made this claim for making them look bad. It's almost as bad as the NRA representative who must have forgotten that there were police involved in the council shooting, because she claimed that deaths wouldn't have occurred had people in that room been armed.

Scalfin on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.

Posts

  • Peter PrinciplePeter Principle Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)

    And you actually thought that was sound reasoning? Who exactly was this "specialist"? Arthur Kellerman?

    C'mon, you think that someone walking around actively trying to kill people is less likely to kill someone than a stray shot from a defensive shooter?

    "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2008
    Its not a black and white issue of guns being allowed on college campus'.

    The question is whether licensed Concealed Weapons Permit holders should be allowed to carry on campus.

    Its much less simple than you think--especially for IL which doesn't even have CCW rights.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)

    And you actually thought that was sound reasoning? Who exactly was this "specialist"? Arthur Kellerman?

    C'mon, you think that someone walking around actively trying to kill people is less likely to kill someone than a stray shot from a defensive shooter?

    Well it's not stray shots they're worried about. It's targeted ones. The fear is that if a large number of the student body is armed, when the nutter starts shooting everyone draws and starts shooting at each other in the confusion. Given the average number of casualties caused in each spree, it's not entirely unreasonable to think the casualties caused by have a go heros would be greater then that of the shooter.

  • Peter PrinciplePeter Principle Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)

    And you actually thought that was sound reasoning? Who exactly was this "specialist"? Arthur Kellerman?

    C'mon, you think that someone walking around actively trying to kill people is less likely to kill someone than a stray shot from a defensive shooter?

    Well it's not stray shots they're worried about. It's targeted ones. The fear is that if a large number of the student body is armed, when the nutter starts shooting everyone draws and starts shooting at each other in the confusion. Given the average number of casualties caused in each spree, it's not entirely unreasonable to think the casualties caused by have a go heros would be greater then that of the shooter.

    No, it still seems pretty unreasonable. The chain of events required to get a casualty in that manner is still much greater than the steps required to get a casualty from an active shooter. And of course, a large number of the student body won't be armed.

    "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Leitner wrote: »

    Well it's not stray shots they're worried about. It's targeted ones. The fear is that if a large number of the student body is armed, when the nutter starts shooting everyone draws and starts shooting at each other in the confusion. Given the average number of casualties caused in each spree, it's not entirely unreasonable to think the casualties caused by have a go heros would be greater then that of the shooter.

    This is common sense, but if you've ever seen a firefight spark consisting of poorly trained people firing in [what becomes more or less random] self-defence, this is totally what happens; utter chaos. The idea of a well-armed student body efficiently taking down some nut on a gun rampage with a neat double-tap is just pure propaganda, which is convieniently unfalsifiable because it has never happened before, because nobody has been stupid enough to arm a student body.

    It's also a blindingly obvious microcosm of the entire US gun debate going back 200 years. Has the right to bear arms negated gun violence in the US? Er, I think not. Will introducing CCW for college students negate gun violence? Let's see...

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)

    And you actually thought that was sound reasoning? Who exactly was this "specialist"? Arthur Kellerman?

    C'mon, you think that someone walking around actively trying to kill people is less likely to kill someone than a stray shot from a defensive shooter?

    A few professors and someone from a thinktank, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, I can't find the names on the web at the moment.

    I think that the last thing we need is bullets coming fro two directions, especially considering the fact that the Israeli Army is generally considered one of the best trained militaries in the world, but it still can't seem to avoid civilians. The American military hasn't done much better. Plus, the success of people who go on shootings involving police officers (St. Louis [he killed the police in front of and in the room, and was taken down by police who rushed in when they heard shots], Moscow Idaho, et cetera) seems to show that arming civilians won't help.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Peter PrinciplePeter Principle Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Leitner wrote: »

    Well it's not stray shots they're worried about. It's targeted ones. The fear is that if a large number of the student body is armed, when the nutter starts shooting everyone draws and starts shooting at each other in the confusion. Given the average number of casualties caused in each spree, it's not entirely unreasonable to think the casualties caused by have a go heros would be greater then that of the shooter.

    This is common sense, but if you've ever seen a firefight spark consisting of poorly trained people firing in [what becomes more or less random] self-defence, this is totally what happens; utter chaos.

    You have some examples of this happening in the US? There are at least 200 self defense killings in the US every year. How many of those involve a chaotic firefight with dozens of dead innocent bystanders?
    The idea of a well-armed student body efficiently taking down some nut on a gun rampage with a neat double-tap is just pure propaganda,

    Not quite, CCW armed individuals HAVE mitigated or stopped killing sprees before they started. It's not a magic cure, but it's better than the morbid joke that some gun law is going to do anything.
    which is convieniently unfalsifiable because it has never happened before, because nobody has been stupid enough to arm a student body.

    No one's talking about giving every incoming freshman a firearm, just to clear up that particular strawman. It's just a case of allowing whatever CCW program that a state already has to exist on a college campus as well.
    It's also a blindingly obvious microcosm of the entire US gun debate going back 200 years. Has the right to bear arms negated gun violence in the US? Er, I think not.

    Nor would any sane person expect that. Firearms aren't a magic panacea, but it certainly makes another nice strawman, doesn't it? If nothing else, there are a sizeable portion of people who don't go armed.

    "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
  • Peter PrinciplePeter Principle Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)

    And you actually thought that was sound reasoning? Who exactly was this "specialist"? Arthur Kellerman?

    C'mon, you think that someone walking around actively trying to kill people is less likely to kill someone than a stray shot from a defensive shooter?

    A few professors and someone from a thinktank, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, I can't find the names on the web at the moment.

    I think that the last thing we need is bullets coming fro two directions, especially considering the fact that the Israeli Army is generally considered one of the best trained militaries in the world, but it still can't seem to avoid civilians. The American military hasn't done much better.

    Militaries operating in hostile urban environments using armor and airstrikes and huge numbers of advesaries proves this? Bad analogy.
    Plus, the success of people who go on shootings involving police officers (St. Louis [he killed the police in front of and in the room, and was taken down by police who rushed in when they heard shots], Moscow Idaho, et cetera) seems to show that arming civilians won't help.

    Cops are in uniform and a shooter can mark them as first to go before he starts shooting.

    "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    The military is also highly trained and able to coordinate its movements.

    I think it wouldn't be that hard to spot someone drawing a weapon from a concealed area, as concealment and ese of reach (can't remember word) are inversely related.

    I should also note that the two developed countries w/ the loosest gun laws, America and South Africa, have the highest crime rates, with flamethrowers installed in cars not even lowering South Africa's carjacking rate.

    I can think of self-defense gone wrong where the person who touched it off wasn't even dangerous. In Texas, some drunk started pounding at a neighbor's door, and the neighbor thought the best course of action was to shoot the guy in the head through the door. He wasn't even arrested due to the castle doctrine.

    This whole thing started by my saying that a representative chose a stupid argument to back up his claim. People do not choose where to have a mental breakdown, and, even if they did, loose gun laws would attract them because nobody expects to get caught.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    You have some examples of this happening in the US? There are at least 200 self defense killings in the US every year. How many of those involve a chaotic firefight with dozens of dead innocent bystanders?

    I have some personal experience of it happening, I'm not sure why it would be any different in the US. Do the laws of physics & human crowd responses work differently in America? Also, how many of those 200 self-defense killings occur in a crowded lecture hall? Answers on a postcard please. Guns + crowd + bang = increasing numbers of dead people.
    Not quite, CCW armed individuals HAVE mitigated or stopped killing sprees before they started. It's not a magic cure, but it's better than the morbid joke that some gun law is going to do anything.

    Interested to see how you prove that they stopped a 'killing spree'. Did the spreer leave a pre-spree note of intent? Also, I will believe you when you can show me a comparison of CCW people 'mitigating' a killing spree vs extra casualties caused by CCW joining in, and the first figure is higher. Except that of course you cannot, because you cannot prove a negative (ie how many would have been killed). So let's just go with figures on No. of killing sprees stopped by CCW vs No. of casualties / accidents caused by CCW, shall we?
    It's also a blindingly obvious microcosm of the entire US gun debate going back 200 years. Has the right to bear arms negated gun violence in the US? Er, I think not.

    Nor would any sane person expect that. Firearms aren't a magic panacea, but it certainly makes another nice strawman, doesn't it? If nothing else, there are a sizeable portion of people who don't go armed.

    Therefore suggesting it as a solution to these college gun sprees is...er...?

    You just seem to be operating in a hypothetical universe where, yes, it could work out okay under certain conditions, while ignoring that in the real universe you don't get hypothetical conditions, though you do get a whole ton of extra random shit that is liable to fuck any assumptions up.

  • SteveSSteveS Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    You have some examples of this happening in the US? There are at least 200 self defense killings in the US every year. How many of those involve a chaotic firefight with dozens of dead innocent bystanders?

    I have some personal experience of it happening, I'm not sure why it would be any different in the US. Do the laws of physics & human crowd responses work differently in America? Also, how many of those 200 self-defense killings occur in a crowded lecture hall? Answers on a postcard please. Guns + crowd + bang = increasing numbers of dead people.

    Actually, there is some research (by FSU Criminologist, Gary Kleck) that estimates there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. The majority involve no shots being fired. Actual incidents where there are shots fired typically involve the 'defender' firing 3 shots or less. There are 41 states that either have no laws prohibiting concealed carry or are shall issue. Despite this, there don't seem to be 'blood in the streets' or 'wild west shootouts' as some critics feared. Incidents where bystanders were killed or hurt are rare. I am sure there are some, butI couldn't find any.

    I don't know how many occured in crowded lecture halls, but I was able to find one that happened in a crowded shopping mall and one that happened at a church with 7000 people in attendence. No bystanders were hurt by CPL holders.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    SteveS wrote: »
    You have some examples of this happening in the US? There are at least 200 self defense killings in the US every year. How many of those involve a chaotic firefight with dozens of dead innocent bystanders?

    I have some personal experience of it happening, I'm not sure why it would be any different in the US. Do the laws of physics & human crowd responses work differently in America? Also, how many of those 200 self-defense killings occur in a crowded lecture hall? Answers on a postcard please. Guns + crowd + bang = increasing numbers of dead people.

    Actually, there is some research (by FSU Criminologist, Gary Kleck) that estimates there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. The majority involve no shots being fired. Actual incidents where there are shots fired typically involve the 'defender' firing 3 shots or less. There are 41 states that either have no laws prohibiting concealed carry or are shall issue. Despite this, there don't seem to be 'blood in the streets' or 'wild west shootouts' as some critics feared. Incidents where bystanders were killed or hurt are rare. I am sure there are some, butI couldn't find any.

    I don't know how many occured in crowded lecture halls, but I was able to find one that happened in a crowded shopping mall and one that happened at a church with 7000 people in attendence. No bystanders were hurt by CPL holders.

    An off duty cop and a security guard did their jobs, which they were probably extensively trained for. You weren't expecting us to read the stories, were you?


    This just in: Jack Thompson is a jackass.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    So ABC asked those college students lobbying for guns on campus to justify their stance against specialists in the subject saying that such things would just cause more deaths due to crossfire, and they got a letter saying (as I remember)

    And you actually thought that was sound reasoning? Who exactly was this "specialist"? Arthur Kellerman?

    C'mon, you think that someone walking around actively trying to kill people is less likely to kill someone than a stray shot from a defensive shooter?
    The media appear to be describing the IL shooter as a a hardworking and exceptionally bright student, with a bright future in the criminal justice field. So unless you have the plan on vigorously testing people who want to bring guns to class, and rejecting most of them, I think I'll take my chances with the slim possibility that a psychotic maniac might jump out from behind a PowerPoint screen and shoot me, rather than have a prospective "defensive shooter" grace me with his or her dubious protection.

  • Peter PrinciplePeter Principle Registered User
    edited February 2008
    You have some examples of this happening in the US? There are at least 200 self defense killings in the US every year. How many of those involve a chaotic firefight with dozens of dead innocent bystanders?

    I have some personal experience of it happening,

    Please share.
    I'm not sure why it would be any different in the US. Do the laws of physics & human crowd responses work differently in America?

    Let's see, there's the case of Jeanne Assam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Assam, a volunteer security guard for a church.

    Then there's the cases of Mark Allan Wilson and Brendan McKown. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/tacoma_tyler.htm

    Joel Myrick's case http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

    And I remember hearing an account of a CCWer in Israel stopping a terrorist or two. Let me see if I can find that story. I could only find passing reference here http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/tactics/concealed-carry-and-terrorist-threats/

    Oh well. There are four cases of civilian CCW involved in a spree killing. Please tell me which of those instances illustrates your concerns.
    Guns + crowd + bang = increasing numbers of dead people.

    I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that if some sort of civilian CCW response were to have stopped Seung-Hui Cho after killing only one or two people, that in this alternate universe there would have been more than 32 fatalities? If that's the case, how exactly would that have happened?
    Not quite, CCW armed individuals HAVE mitigated or stopped killing sprees before they started. It's not a magic cure, but it's better than the morbid joke that some gun law is going to do anything.

    Interested to see how you prove that they stopped a 'killing spree'. Did the spreer leave a pre-spree note of intent?

    You're joking, right? Do you see some ambiguity of motivation when someone begins shooting random people?
    It's also a blindingly obvious microcosm of the entire US gun debate going back 200 years. Has the right to bear arms negated gun violence in the US? Er, I think not.

    Nor would any sane person expect that. Firearms aren't a magic panacea, but it certainly makes another nice strawman, doesn't it? If nothing else, there are a sizeable portion of people who don't go armed.

    Therefore suggesting it as a solution to these college gun sprees is...er...?

    A pretty good idea, all things considered. I'm still waiting for some actual evidence indicating otherwise.

    "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
  • Peter PrinciplePeter Principle Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    An off duty cop and a security guard did their jobs, which they were probably extensively trained for.

    Are you sure about that? What sort of firearms training does the typical cop receive?

    "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - Eric Hoffer, _The True Believer_
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    blah

    The personal experience was that I was an infantryman and I've seen what happens when a firefight develops among an armed crowd. Lots of people get shot more or less at random. You have demonstrated no reason to think this would be any different in the US, lack of automatic rifles aside.

    You provided some examples which singularly failed to address my two points which were:

    1. Un or poorly trained people carrying weapons - you cite security guards & school principals and so on, but we are talking about arming a student body of 18-21 year olds. Slightly different. If you roll out CCW on anything like a large scale, the vast majority of people carrying weapons will not be sufficiently trained. Even trained soldiers suffer from this as conscription / army sizes rise, to argue that you can train a mass of individuals without any formal standardised training or gradual exposure to live fire situations is a fantasy.

    2. You fail to do what I asked, which is compare the number of lives CCW saves to the number who die from ND's, accidental shootings, and so on. You judge the efficacy of any solution not by only counting the benefits, but by weighing the benefits against the costs.

    Also, some of your sources have the credibility of Pinnochio.

    One, the Snubnose CCW site which tells us that gun shops & classes started filling out in London after the 7/7 attacks. Now why would that be, considering that owning or firing a handgun is illegal in the UK anywhere but at a firing range? I live in London; there are no handgun shops, and no reason to go to CCW classes, because there is no CCW. Alternatively, because it isn't entirely clear, he means that people in the US are signing on after a terrorist attack in London. This doesn't strike you as being somewhat removed from reality? Did people start buying Stinger missiles after 9/11 incase a plane flew at them? It's bollocks US gun propaganda and/or hysteria, and you are swallowing it whole.

    Two, the 'good guy' piece, aside from pointing out that, er, CCW didn't work, advocates more aggression on the part of the CCW defender. This is good tactical advice, and if you see elite soldiers at work, this is exactly what they do: hard, fast, and very violent. It is also a bloody good way to get more collateral damage among bystanders if you aren't very well trained, equipped & informed. The article says: shoot more, move faster. Both of those things blatently obviously reduce accuracy and increase rate of fire. This increases the chances of bystanders getting hit. So, cheers for supporting my point.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    An off duty cop and a security guard did their jobs, which they were probably extensively trained for.

    Are you sure about that? What sort of firearms training does the typical cop receive?

    And now you are just being ridiculously disinguenuous. The typical cop recieves a shitload more firearms training than the typical CCW owner. End of.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited February 2008

    And now you are just being ridiculously disinguenuous. The typical cop recieves a shitload more firearms training than the typical CCW owner. End of.

    And the typical armed security officer recieves quite a bit less. Take a look at the requirements for getting a CCW. Its requires demonstrating proficiency with your firearm. Firearms are heavy, and not everyone is willing to carry one. Id love to be able to carry my firearm to my classes because frankly the classrooms are fucking death traps.

    Anyone could walk in the door and mow down the entire class with no way for them to get out except the door the shooter just came in, with the long fixed desks funnelling people into the middle like its a god damn shooting gallery. We had an article about letting people who go through the process of getting CCWs carrying them on campus, and we had our glorious idiots chime in with the statement of " What if an instructor were to shoot at a gunman, miss, and hit a student." Well lets see the armed gunman whos currently killing people en masse continues killing people.

    We have seen time and time again that these situations only end with either a suicide or someone with a gun shows up and deals with it. Banning guns wont work, frankly its unconstitutional. Creating gun free zones has only lead to shooting galleries for those who disobey the rules.

    What is wrong with letting people who pass the CCW course be able to legally bring their guns to campus? A responsible gun owner in the right place will end these situations alot faster and with alot less death. At worst a crazy kills as many people as he would have in a gun free zone, at best he gets one or two shots off before someone in the class responds and kills/drives him off. Your only improving the situation by allowing people to defend themselves.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Sigh, the idea of this mythical 'responsible gun owner' drawn from classes of 18-21 year old kids, who can calmly assess the situation among a crowd of students scared for their lives and take the correct action with only range experience and little to no conflict-situation experience or training...is this some bizarre Americanisation of responsible which means non-existent?

    Do either of you have any actual experience with this kind of thing? Policemen, ex-military, perhaps? Because I don't know anyone who does who would argue that giving weapons to untrained kids is a good idea. Also, well done for once again totally ignoring my point that the number of deaths this prevents is likely to be far outweighed by the accidents caused from having lots more people carrying weapons around. When you carry a loaded weapon around for long enough, even the best trained people make mistakes. That is the major problem with letting kids carry weapons on campus, if you really need a reason.

    By the way, though I see how the level of training for security guards is likely to be variable, I don't see why the legal requirement for training of a security guard would be lower than for a citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Don't you have standards for these things? If not, how the hell can you claim this 'responsible gun owner' idea? Surely a security guard is required to meet at least the same level of proficiency before they are given a gun, as an individual is for getting a CCW?

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    But surely there's no video evidence that even police can mishandle a gun, in a classroom setting even?

    edit: Ogrish is a snuff site that deals in gore and death, don't go there.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Not SarastroNot Sarastro __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    Yeah, I was thinking of linking that, but more apposite is taking a look at the number of deaths / casualties from ND's among soldiers in warzones (ie where you are carrying a weapon 24/7). It's very high. And that's well-trained, disciplined lads killing themselves because they got distracted / lazy cleaning a weapon or such. How much higher do you think it would be with far-less-trained kids in an undisciplined environment where they are trying out drink & drugs for the first time?

  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited February 2008
    You keep constructing the straw-man that people somehow want to arm the entire student body--freshmen up.

    The debate is over relaxing private property restrictions- which would ONLY allow 21 year olds who have passed their state CCW course (if that state even allows CCW) to carry a gun on campus.


    Because you know what?


    When I get my CCW I am going to do it anyway.

    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
This discussion has been closed.