Three Simple Reasons Not to Arm College Kids
April 10th, 2008 by Riley FirthOnce again, public policy is being manipulated by people who watch too many action movies. In light of the recent events at Virginia Tech, a number of states, including Virginia and Louisiana, unfortunately my home-state, are considering a brilliant new law to deal with the problem of shootings on college campuses: allowing students and teachers with the proper licenses to carry concealed handguns with them to class. You heard me: concealed handguns in classrooms.
State Representative Ernest Wooten of Belle Chasse, La. (where there must be some serious inbreeding going on) has proposed that we arm more people on campuses – not just allowing guns in dormitories, but allowing students with the proper licenses to carry concealed handguns to their classes. In Virginia, NRA representatives have pushed legislation to allow basically the same thing. Under this proposal, college kids would be required to carry weapons to school.
Ted Nugent. Who needs photoshop when the world is populated by so many idiots?
I’ll make this real easy for you to figure out. Here’s three simple reasons why arming college kids is about the dumbest idea any statesman has proposed since Hitler decided Russia was worth invading.
3. Psychos are not deterred by guns.
Now, I realize that you and I, the average Joes, are pretty terrified of having our brains blown out. The college kid who decides shooting up a college campus is the best way to solve problems is, however, not the average Joe. Just consider a couple of the most recent examples of how these nuts commit suicide after shooting up a school:
Stephen Kazmierczak shot seven classmates and then himself at Northern Illinois University.
Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 schoolmates and then himself at Virginia Tech.
Right here in Louisiana, a nursing student shot and killed two women and then herself at the Louisiana Technical College. It’s pretty obvious to me that anyone deranged enough to shoot up a school is not going to be deterred by somebody’s concealed Beretta.
2. College guys are often on the prowl for a fight anyway. I don’t know if you remember your college daze as well as I do, but I recall most college-age guys putting off enough testosterone to intimidate the starting line of the Dallas Cowboys. Just think back on all the stupid reasons guys in their 20s beat each other senseless. I know, you’re saying, “but we arm our soldiers at that age!” Yeah, but soldiers and law enforcement are trained to use guns. We’ll look at that more in a moment. First, let’s look at a very typical college scene.
Greg just failed his College Algebra exam. He’s not doing as well as he needs to in order to stay on the track team, and he’s having a pretty bad day. Rufus is, unfortunately, the guy who gives him a reason; Greg catches Rufus laughing with Greg’s girlfriend Alice as they do homework together in the Student Union. In the good, old-fashioned, Andy Griffith version of this scene, Greg lashes out with a mean right cross and knocks Rufus’s block off.
In the Dick Cheney-sanctioned version of this scene, Greg reaches to the small of his back, pulls out the .45 tucked under his shirt, and blows Rufus and Alice’s brains out. Greg runs, but realizes after burning off the adrenaline that he has just killed his girlfriend, and shoots himself in the head. Unfortunately, Greg does not die – he just suffers massive brain damage and is then elected President. …well, I guess I was wrong on that one. Things worked out better for Greg in Scene II, right?
1. And the number one reason this is the dumbest crap I’ve ever seen: guns in untrained hands = chaos. Alright, we’ve seen on the news what happens when just one irate student opens fire on a college classroom. Can you imagine the devastation if there had been guns in the hands of five or ten classmates – all untrained in the use of a firearm? It would be a war-zone – worse, a war-zone full of idiots who can’t use a gun properly.
Imagine the devastation if one guy walks in brandishing a pistol, and eight people in the back row decide to take him down before he can hurt someone. In a matter of seconds, everyone in the front of the class is on the floor, dead.
Conclusion
This has got to be the stupidest shit I have ever seen anybody suggest. After Columbine, parents just said we had to stop letting our kids listen to devil music and we needed to censor everything. Now, Dick Cheney and Ted Nugent would have us believe we need to put more guns in schools. Do these morons really think a bunch of untrained, testosterone-laden college kids will be able to prevent more deaths when these shootings happen?
It seems like the theory is, if pantywaist liberal professors cannot protect our kids, let them protect themselves. Someone needs to tell Cheney that the flaw in this logic is that it is not a college administrator’s job to protect our students. That’s what campus police are for, you Darth Vader look-alike imbecile. Come to think of it, why would anyone even consider any gun law proposed by the guy who shot his hunting partner!?
April 10th, 2008 at 3:56 am
Anyone who wants a gun will get one. Sure, a psycho may not be deterred by a gun, but he can still be killed by one. The more guns in the hands of the good people, the less damage these psychos can do. Exactly why mass shootings don’t happen at firing ranges and gun shops.
I agree that any avarage joe would not have the training , etc. but some people might, and not just campus police. Require that they demonstrate their skill and give them a phychological evaluation before giving them a gun and licensing them.
It’s pretty clear that the current system allows someone with a gun to become God. Not enough guns in the hands of the good guys. They have to call police and have them clean up the mess. That’s not good enough. Something needs to change, no?
April 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
To whomever wrote this drivel, you truly are an idiot of the first order.
To answer your 3 objections:
You said, “3. Psychos are not deterred by guns.”
They also are not deterred by signs proclaiming the campus to be a gun free zone, also known as a target rich environment for psychos intent on killing.
The events of VT are tragic, in any scenario. Had some well trained, armed, sane, rational person with a concealed carry permit been there, perhaps a well placed bullet would have deterred Cho and we would not have lost so many.
You said, “2. College guys are often on the prowl for a fight anyway.”
Perhaps a testosterone challenged fool like you behaves that way but most students I know, and I know a lot of them, are content to have a good time and are not looking for a fight. To the contrary, they make more sense in their dialogue and reasoning that you do with this drivel.
You said, “1. And the number one reason this is the dumbest crap I’ve ever seen: guns in untrained hands = chaos.”
The problem now is guns in the hands of nut jobs who, by the way, will always manage to get guns despite your bleeding heart. It is clear from your commentary that you have no clue about the requirements to get a concealed carry permit nor the regulations that are required of one carrying. The role of university police as the case with most law enforcement officers usually is recording the history of what happened and rarely being in a position to intervene in such a crisis situation. There were university police at VT, NIU, and probably in the area of the La. Technical College. Things were over before they arrived. Your logic fails scrutiny. Gotta call bullshit on you.
It is clear that you live in some convoluted dreamed up utopia rather than the real world where plenty of armed nut sacks with no concern for your life or mine are perfectly willing to use capital punishment on us. A few sane, trained citizens with concealed carry permits would be a greater deterrent than a sign, gate, warning system, or some other contrived “we feel safer, though we aren’t” foolishness.
Of course, I don’t expect you to understand this. Otherwise you would have not written such a poorly supported tome.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
[…] The War On Bullshit » Blog Archive » Three Simple Reasons Not to Arm College Kids […]
April 11th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Guns for everyone! Problem solved!! Yikes. To quote David Bowie:
I’m afraid of Americans
I’m afraid of the world
I’m afraid I can’t help it
I’m afraid I can’t
April 11th, 2008 at 7:26 am
“Perhaps a testosterone challenged fool like you behaves that way but most students I know, and I know a lot of them, are content to have a good time and are not looking for a fight.”
Yes. Exactly. This guy loves to take the actions of the few and apply it to all members of a group. Same deal with his “don’t trust the police” article. A few bad cops exist, therefore it’s your duty as a citizen to treat them ALL like shit, you have the right to resist arrest and act like an asshole and they can’t so much as look at you wrong. There is no authority or law or rules in this world according to him. I tried and failed to enlighten him. It’s quite hilarious really.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Then please explain why it is not such the “dumbest idea ” in Indiana and the multiple other states that allow 18 year olds to legally carry.
We’ve been doing it for 70 plus years now and we have almost 400,000 thousand CCW holders. My town has almost 20 percent of all adults with a CCW.
Yet…strangely we find NONE of your fears realized. There are no bodies laying on the streets when I wake up each morning, no students shot down over a doughnut argument.
That is a very major problem with people such as you… there is an absolute ton of evidence pointing to the FACT that you are as wrong as can be about CCW holders…. and you totally ignore it and just pretend that it doesn’t exist.
And ~that~ is why we just don’t trust you.
And your Hollywood dreams about everyone shooting everyone else? Working on a script?
With several million CCW holders across the country it certainly has no bearing on ~reality~.
But your post does give an opportunity to point people to the free book at http://www.gunfacts.info where they can get the latest DOCUMENTED facts about guns and gun usage instead of hysterical bleatings.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I think I will go over what I think are the flaws in logic here. First of all, the arguments against strict gun control rely on a flawed theory that people are safer with more guns. The facts simply don’t support this. Check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and it’s pretty consistent that states with looser gun laws have more violent crime. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule.
You guys are right that criminals will get guns, no matter what. Why would we make the problem worse by giving EVERYONE guns, when it clearly does not prevent crime? It will simply add more crossfire to the situation when one of these whackos shoots up a school.
Also, several of the comments bring up CCWs. That is not what Ted Nugent and Dick Cheney are proposing. They want college students to ALL present arms at the beginning of the schoolyear - not just card-carrying cowboys, but every student in a Virginia college. That is simply insane, and anyone who would support it is just as whacko as Cho.
To Jack… sure, there are not bodies in the street. I never suggested there would be. However, if there were a school shooting at Indiana State University, I firmly believe the tragedy would be made worse by a bunch of would-be cowboys thinking they can save the day. Let’s pray we never find out which of us is right. Also, you say that we have several million CCW holders across the country. You’re right, we have more guns here than any other country in the world. …and we consistently have the highest crime rate of any developed nation. Coincidence? I seriously doubt it.
The one post here I can definitely agree with is Kim. I’m afraid of Americans too. Unfortunately, I am one.
p.s. this post was not by Kavan. I wrote the article for his War on Bullshit, and hope to piss off lots more conservatives with lots more articles. Take no prisoners, indeed.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
“I think I will go over what I think are the flaws in logic here. First of all, the arguments against strict gun control rely on a flawed theory that people are safer with more guns. The facts simply don’t support this. Check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and it’s pretty consistent that states with looser gun laws have more violent crime. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule.”
The Dept of Justice under Clinton found that there are approx. 1.5 MILLION defensive guns uses a year.
“You guys are right that criminals will get guns, no matter what. Why would we make the problem worse by giving EVERYONE guns, when it clearly does not prevent crime? It will simply add more crossfire to the situation when one of these whackos shoots up a school.”
First, no one is proposing to give EVERYONE a gun. That is known as a strawman argument and should be well beyond what an ethical poster would use as an argument.
And isn’t it amazing, folks, that people who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should look for advise on how to use guns for self defense?
While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years or even lifetimes of experience with guns, really don’t know our butts from a hole in the ground about guns, and without the anointed ones’ guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?
Like they say: When you’re sick you go to a car mechanic; when you’re in court you need a butcher; and when you want to know something about guns, you go to this blog.
“Also, several of the comments bring up CCWs. That is not what Ted Nugent and Dick Cheney are proposing. They want college students to ALL present arms at the beginning of the schoolyear - not just card-carrying cowboys, but every student in a Virginia college. That is simply insane, and anyone who would support it is just as whacko as Cho.”
Suuure they do. You have, of course, a cite on that claim about the Nuge and Cheney?
“To Jack… sure, there are not bodies in the street. I never suggested there would be. ”
Oh really, Then perhaps you should go back and re-read what you wrote.
“However, if there were a school shooting at Indiana State University, I firmly believe the tragedy would be made worse by a bunch of would-be cowboys thinking they can save the day. Let’s pray we never find out which of us is right. ”
1) Your “belief” is not backed by any expereince in carrying a gun
2) Your “belief” is not backed by any defensive training with a gun
3) Your “belief” is not backed by any evidence at all from anywhere, anytime.
4) My “belief” is backed up with all three, and the experiences of millions of people who do carry.
I would much rather not have a shooting to prove I am right, but there’s no doubt that your “beliefs” are based on vapor and nothing else.
“Also, you say that we have several million CCW holders across the country. You’re right, we have more guns here than any other country in the world. …and we consistently have the highest crime rate of any developed nation. Coincidence? I seriously doubt it.”
Perhaps you might want to read this. Education is good.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm
“p.s. this post was not by Kavan. I wrote the article for his War on Bullshit, and hope to piss off lots more conservatives with lots more articles. Take no prisoners, indeed.”
You’re going to have to work a lot harder to “piss off” those who know about guns. Right now you’re in the position of someone claiming that the reason the New England Pats didn’t win the Stanley Cup is because their first baseman didn’t score enough free throws.
We’re laughing at you, son.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Ironic! An anti-gun rant that has an ad for concealed weapons training at the bottom of it. Priceless. You morons obviously are not checking your ad-sense content, eh?
By the way - you say the psychos aren’t deterred by citizens with guns. How are those gun free zones working out then?
April 12th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Perhaps Kavan should stick to writing his OWN bullshit rather than having someone else make his blog look even more stupid.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:06 am
And today an ad for getting your gun collector’s license. That is so frigging hilarious, I am falling off my chair.
Well - time to go to the shooting range now….
Peace out.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Here’s the flaw in YOUR logic:
You said: it is not a college administrator’s job to protect our students.
Answer: You’re right. That’s why we allow them to be armed so they can protect themselves.
You said: That’s what campus police are for, you Darth Vader look-alike imbecile.
You’re wrong: The Supreme Court has ruled that the police (meaning ANY police) are NOT responsible for protection of the individual. Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) is one such case. Another is the case of the D.C. women who were brutally raped for 14 hours (I forget the names) while the police did nothing. The general rulings were that the job of the police is to protect the public at large, enforce laws, and investigate crimes, NOT protect the individual.
And as for Darth Vader: Hmmmm… people like YOU are the only ones I see trying to take control of people’s rights
April 12th, 2008 at 7:13 am
i am impressed with the amount of idiocy vomited up by the redneck masses.
you want guns because….other people have guns. that makes a whole lot of sense. im not for prohibition, but you dont make a strong case against it. im all for further restrictions of handguns. i live in D.C., murder capital of the world. about 70% are from handguns. the text of this new law pretty much says if we arm EVERYONE, then everyone will be safe. that makes absolutely zero sense. how many people are killed a year by accidental gun discharges? that will increase exponentially. of course, thats not important, because everyone will be safer…right?
April 12th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Jesus H Christ indeed.
Completely clueless troll.
70% from handguns, huh? Assuming that fact was not pulled from your ass, out of how many of those 70% did the victim have the capability to fight back, ie a gun of their own?
April 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“i am impressed with the amount of idiocy vomited up by the redneck masses. “
I’m impressed with the emotional hostility and obvious bigotry of the poster. Do you have a special hatred for the chinks, the jews, the niggers, and the wetbacks also?
you want guns because….other people have guns. that makes a whole lot of sense.”
It’s not the “Bill of Wants.” It’s the Bill of Rights.
And if someone is mugging YOU with a gun you’re welcome to say, “Stop or I’ll say Stop again,” all you want to. But others of us would rather have more effective means of self defense at our disposal.
“ im not for prohibition, but you dont make a strong case against it”
How strong a case do YOU make by labeling your opponents “redneck masses”?
“. im all for further restrictions of handguns. i live in D.C., murder capital of the world. about 70% are from handguns.”
Yes… and we see quite well what your “restrictions” have done for DC…. By your own admission the murder capital yet the city with the most “restrictions.” At some point in time you’re going to have to face reality.
“ the text of this new law pretty much says if we arm EVERYONE, then everyone will be safe.”
Actually that is a strawman argument and pretty well (supposedly) beneath the integrity of someone who really wants to discuss the issue with honest intent.
NO ONE is saying “arm everyone.”
“ that makes absolutely zero sense. how many people are killed a year by accidental gun discharges?”
Out of 380 MILLION guns? About 100 or so. You do the math and tell us just what percentage that is. And you do realize that the numbers of guns have been increasing while the number of accidents have been decreasing?
There are more accidental deaths with skateboards, swimming pools, and even five gallon buckets.
“ that will increase exponentially. of course, thats not important, because everyone will be safer…right?”
1) No it won’t increase “exponentially” since you don’t even know what that word means.
2) Accidents do happen. When you figure out the way to remove that gene from the human population then get back to us.
3) Are you willing to see a trade off between the possibility of a very slight rise in accidents against the sure thing that many of the helpless and weak will now have the protection against social predators that they are now lacking?
Would you rather see that 100 lb woman raped and dead… or see her standing over the dead body of her would be rapist with a smoking gun in her hand?
April 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Re: Ads, I’ve seen McCain-related ads, Ann Coulter-related ads, gun-related ads… I’d give 19 to 1 it’s intentional as a joke or to make a point, and people here are falling for it. If not, it’s just how some random ad generator at Google picks through the words here, I suppose.
Re: Point number three in the original post, there are two flaws here. First, the point is that you shoot the killer. I think deterrence is secondary at best; the people you’re ranting against, for better or for once, most want to see potential killers just shot to pieces. Secondly, a much better point you could make is that a true killer, with a modicum of intelligence and the desire to make a splash, might very well just use different methods of killing people, like bombs or such. But someone wanting to make an impact would be deterred from shooting at a group of well-armed people, because getting shot before doing very much damage does not satisfy his/her (realistically probably his) need to go on a power trip, or make a statement, by massacring others.
Re: Your points two and three, you have a nice pair of anecdotes, and actually a rather plausible (lots of people have fricken short fuses), but how often would the revenge fantasy happen? And are you really threatened by some suggestion that EVERYONE be armed? The chances of that going over well in most places is pretty negligible. Allowing any guns at universities at all is really what seems to be the plausible threat from your perspective. In that case, you would have the same sort of carrying population as elsewhere now, aside from age. Overall, I don’t know why universities are a worse place than anywhere else for guns, except from a patronizing perspective you could say something about young people being more impulsive. Which wouldn’t be untrue, but wouldn’t be a viable reason for legislation. So I don’t know why this is a special issue above and beyond gun control everywhere else, except that it’s in the public eye for the moment due to VT.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:34 am
“someone wanting to make an impact would be deterred from shooting at a group of well-armed people, because getting shot before doing very much damage does not satisfy his/her need to go on a power trip, or make a statement, by massacring others.”
This is why mass shootings never occur at army bases, police stations, firing ranges, gun stores, etc.
Schools and malls are the chosen setting for these psychos precisely because their victims are guaranteed to be unarmed.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Sean Santos:
Your statement: “Re: Ads, I’ve seen McCain-related ads, Ann Coulter-related ads, gun-related ads… I’d give 19 to 1 it’s intentional as a joke or to make a point, and people here are falling for it. If not, it’s just how some random ad generator at Google picks through the words here, I suppose.”
I respectfully disagree. The writers of this drivel are not intelligent enough to do such a thing intentionally. The are putting all the neat bells and whistles in their blog that they see everyone else using - monkey see, monkey do.
Google is suing the content of the article to put in the appropriate ads, and these goons aren’t paying attention. I find it ironic, and wildly hilarious that their rants are causing them to display things that they are obviously against.
Sort of like an Obama ad being on the same page as an ad for a gun store.
Priceless.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“I respectfully disagree. The writers of this drivel are not intelligent enough to do such a thing intentionally.”
If I thought that this blog was that absurd, I would not have bothered to read and respond. It’s certainly not particularly high impact. And I think that there is too much dogmatic stupidity in the world for it to even be entertaining any more. Rather, I think that the writing on this blog very much shows intelligence on most topics, but I disagree with it for a few reasons. I also should note that this particular post is worse than the others, overall.
First, the attitude is very antagonistic, as exemplified by the title. As a challenge, and a way to get people thinking, antagonistic writing can be good, but in the end you don’t convince anyone who wasn’t predisposed to agree with you. Polemic is a great way to muck up issues. It also makes the author seem very certain and arrogant. Why would you want to listen to such a person?
Second, I think that the author is working with assumptions about human psychology that I’m not 100% sure of. Cynical thinking can be a good way to play it safe, but it’s frequently wrong. Sometimes people are as good as we hope they are, even if we shouldn’t always rely on such.
Third, I think we have slightly different end goals. The society that I think I would be happiest living in is different from the one he thinks he would be happiest living in. Never mind that neither of them could probably ever exist, in a “pure” form. Even if we could make human nature perfectly how we want it to be we would come to different conclusions.
My overall point is that I think the usual author is good at what he’s trying to be good at: no-bull logical evaluations of statements he thinks are stupid. If there’s a problem it’s generally with his starting assumptions about what is and what is good.
I might add that I also think that I’m smarter than the author, and have moderately good reasons for thinking so apart from the usual cognitive bias. I think, however, that how correct someone is is only tangentially related to actual intelligence.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“…how correct someone is is only tangentially related to actual intelligence.”
And that was the smartest thing posted on the blog so far.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Thanks for all the great feedback on this. I don’t have a lot more to add to the discussion, but thought I’d take a moment to respond to a few things.
First of all, Jack, let’s address your accusations that this is posted by someone with no experience at all shooting a gun. I was born and raised in Louisiana. I don’t know if you’ve ever been here, but I’m not even sure it’s possible to grow up in Louisiana without learning to shoot. The fact is, I’m pretty damn handy with a rifle, and I could hold my own with a pistol, though my aim isn’t as great with one. So your claim that I posted this with no experience… BZZZT.
You are correct that there are no laws being pushed to arm EVERYONE , but to me, one person without a badge on a college campus with a gun is too many. I don’t understand how you cannot see that more deadly weapons will not make people safer. That doesn’t even make logical sense. Though, considering our government’s tactic is to have more bombs than everyone else, I can see where you’d get that bogus idea.
As to Trin, I haven’t seen that Supreme Court ruling, and I am about to go dig around for some info on it. Thanks for the heads up. However, I’d argue that stopping someone from shooting up a school falls under enforcing laws.
And to Sean: well put, though we disagree on many points. I was antagonistic in my style - the fact is, blogs are entertainment, and I’m ranting here to offer something a little different from Kavan’s posts. I probably would be more respectful in a true debate. However, one thing you seem to allude to that I think is very true is that what the argument has now boiled down to is a fundamental difference in perspective. I think less guns = safer world, while Jack, you, and some of the other posters seem to have a problem with that assumption, probably due to different life experiences and backgrounds.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I’m a bit sneaky about words actually. I agree that less guns = safer world, but I also think that increased gun control is not a particularly /efficient/ way of accomplishing this. On the emotional side I sympathize with both libertarians and pacifists, so it is kind of a wash in my mind.
My problem with the antagonism isn’t so much the issue of respect. People are irritated or offended or they aren’t, whatever. It’s the fact that a lot of people like reading things that boggle and offend them and then responding to them, because righteous indignation is a fundamentally rewarding and ego-boosting emotion. People also like reading things they agree with, again because it boosts one’s ego to be agreed with. My experience with ego and politics is that it prevents people from thinking about what’s really going on, because the more hesitation and doubt is involved the less effective the boost. Now, it is true that politics often requires a lot more dealing in manipulation than in thought, and that said manipulation can cause good things as well as bad, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“First of all, Jack, let’s address your accusations that this is posted by someone with no experience at all shooting a gun. I was born and raised in Louisiana. I don’t know if you’ve ever been here, but I’m not even sure it’s possible to grow up in Louisiana without learning to shoot. The fact is, I’m pretty damn handy with a rifle, and I could hold my own with a pistol, though my aim isn’t as great with one. So your claim that I posted this with no experience… BZZZT.”
I posted that you have no experience either with carrying one around on a regular basis or in defensive training with one. Lots of squirrel hunters out there who don’t carry and don’t understand the responsibility and mindset of doing so.
“You are correct that there are no laws being pushed to arm EVERYONE , but to me, one person without a badge on a college campus with a gun is too many. ”
If I am “correct” then why did you post otherwise in the first place? Knowingly creating a strawman argument is not conducive to respectful dialouge and opens one up to the charge of being a lightweight. — not provocative.
And ~what~ makes a “badge” so special. Are people with badges given special powers with one? Do they have better aim, better discernment, better judgement than anyone else? Not really.
“I don’t understand how you cannot see that more deadly weapons will not make people safer.”
Hmmmmm…. so there is a guy on campus shooting people with his gun. And the police are called in. What do ~they~ bring to the campus to “make people safer”? Oh… THEY bring MORE GUNS.
Unless, of course, they are told in the phone call to please leave their guns back at the station house. Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, if I was a student in that classroom I would probably prefer to not have to wait ten minutes… or even two minutes… to find out if the cops show up with or without guns when it is a very simple thing for me to have my own gun to defend myself with.
The police are truly the “second” responders. Don’t ever let anyone fool you. YOU are responsible for you own safty. It is something you can never delegate to anyone else.
” That doesn’t even make logical sense. Though, considering our government’s tactic is to have more bombs than everyone else, I can see where you’d get that bogus idea.”
Let’s take a simple test based upon the reality of the situation…
You are in class with twenty students, one of which might be me. For whatever reason going on in his head a person with a gun walks in and opens fire randomly shooting at students.
Making the assumption that your primary concern is about surviving the next 30 second whom would you would rather have sitting in the seat next to you….
1) A student just like me, late 20s, military veteran with extensive training in firearms and small weapons tactics, and legally carrying a concealed handgun
or
2) A student just like you, who at best, is going to attempt to use YOU as cover.
[You can go ahead and pick (2) if you want to be consistent, but you’ll give a whole new meaning to the word “bogus” if you do.]
And you’ve STILL made no attempt to defend your position in light of the decades of actual, real-world, in-front-of-everyone evidence that CCW holders are NOT shooting up places where we happen to be.
Holding an opinion is one thing. Holding the same opinion in the face of massive amounts of compelling evidenct that shows the opinion is totally wrong is something else entirely different.
I bet you make fun of the folk who believe in Creationism, but what you are doing is much worse.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:52 am
@Jack
You ask what makes someone with a badge different from anyone else. I would ask the same about a CCW holder. They are just as likely as anyone else to go on a rampage - and quite a few of the CCW holders I personally know are paranoid rednecks ready to fly off the handle.
I don’t see your massive amount of compelling evidence. Basic logic tells me, however, that more guns will make campuses less safe. Guns are a tool designed to KILL people, not DEFEND people. If these bills were proposing we give all college kids a bullet-proof vest it might make sense - that is a tool designed to defend oneself.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:41 am
@Jack Burton
Riley is a lost cause. You will never get through to his closed mind. He’s one of those people who will have to learn the hard way, in a situation similar to what you described in your last post. Just forget it. You are wasting your time. Bloggers will never change their positions. Ever. They will never admit that a lowly anonymous commenter is right and that they are wrong. That would ruin their ego. I’ve known that for years now.
On the bright side, Riley does give the rest of us logical thinkers someone to laugh at.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“You ask what makes someone with a badge different from anyone else. I would ask the same about a CCW holder.”
Hows many strangers standing next to you, or even your friends if you want to count them, do you KNOW have been thru an extensive background check of both local and national databases and have been officially declared a “good guy” by the powers invested in the state?
Every single CCW holder has.
It’s elementary statistics. If you select a group of 100 people on the basis that they are 6 ft and over, you are going to have a group of people that are much taller on average than the average person selected at random.
If you select a group of 100 people on the basis that they are 300 pounds and over, you are going to have a group of people that are much heavier on average than the average person selected at random.
And if you select a group of 10,000,000 people on the basis that they are, and always have been, exceptionally law abiding citizens you are going to have a group of people that are much more law abiding on average than the average group selected at random.
They are just as likely as anyone else to go on a rampage’
You have ~any~ cites for that? No…. of course not. It is pure emotional response with not an ounce of intellect behind it.
I hope you don’t spend much time in Las Vegas if you’re willing to bet such a poor hand.
Florida, the first state to pass the new wave of CCW laws about 30 years ago keeps a very close view on those same people. Their experience over the past years: Crime rates involving CCW holders has held steady at about 0.02 percent.
Now, that’s any kind of crime including cheating on income taxes, which has nothing to do with a gun.
And 0.02 percent translates out to 2 people out of ten thousand. Not exactly the crime wave you are concerned about, eh?
Actually, out of the half million or so that Florida has issued they have cancelled 109. Virgina has issued about 50,000 and have cancelled none. Arizona has issued about 63,000 and has cancelled none. Of course, since those reports came out they may have cancelled a few, but everyone gets the picture.
In Oregon only 4 people out of 14,000 (0.03 percent) have been convicted of a crime with a gun. In Texas out of a quarter million CCW holders only 100 have been found guilty of a felony (not even necessarily with a gun). Again, that is only 1 people out of every 2500 CCW holders.
And in a column by Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune he wrote:
Indiana, which has about 350,000 permit holders, canceled 921 last year, or about one-fourth of 1 percent of the total. Maj. Karen Butts, commander of the records division of the state police, says, “I can’t think of any that were revoked for a firearms homicide.” Among Utah’s 40,000 licensees, only five have lost their privileges because of a conviction for murder or attempted murder.
BTW… all this can be found in the free download Gun Facts at http://www.gunfacts.info.
If you’re truely interested in getting the facts instead of hysterical info this is the place to go.
“and quite a few of the CCW holders I personally know are paranoid rednecks ready to fly off the handle.”
Oh, really? And just how many people have they ~actually~ killed? Or do you just ~think~ they are going to “fly off the handle” — the very same way you ~think~ CCW holders in general are going to start shooting up pizza parlors over girls?
“I don’t see your massive amount of compelling evidence. ”
You don’t “see” it in the sense that you have tightly shut your eyes, your fingers are in your ears, and you’re yelling ‘neener, neener” as loudly as you can in the hopes of drowning out the voices of experience and reality.
If YOU’RE right… we should have dead bodies laying everywhere from being shot by CCW holders every single day. Where are they?
“Basic logic tells me, however, that more guns will make campuses less safe. ”
You have not made a “logical” statement yet. All emotion. All feelings.
If YOU’RE right… we should have dead bodies laying everywhere from being shot by CCW holders every single day. Where are they?
“Guns are a tool designed to KILL people, not DEFEND people.”
And I can tell you’re going to have real deep trouble with this website that has thousands of stories of everyday people successfully DEFENDING themselves with a gun…
http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
And please tell us just why you think cops carry guns?
” If these bills were proposing we give all college kids a bullet-proof vest it might make sense - that is a tool designed to defend oneself.”
Nothing stopping YOU from buying a wearing a bullet resistant (not “proof”) vest… but why do you think you should assume God like powers and make the best choice for EVERYONE?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“Riley is a lost cause. ”
Mostly… but I post for the readers. When they actually get a chance to see the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of a gun-bigot up close it is amazing how often they realize that they really don’t want to stand with a loser.