I wrote a gun control Op/Ed for my student newspaper.

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Absent such evidence, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to point out that there are many instances where the possible presence of other armed persons clearly doesn’t deter would-be murderers at all.
[/QUOTE]
Whereas in most logical systems of evaluation, absent evidence no conclusion is indicated, and making a conclusion based on matters not related is what people do when they have a conclusion they like, and want to sound as if they have proven something.

I withdraw the assessment of dumb, and substitute one of deliberately misleading.

Tris

42

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
In my opinion, the presence of greater numbers of people carrying weapons would dramatically decrease the total number of people killed in any single instance of mass shooting, and dramatically increase the number of people killed in shootings involving “only” one or two victims.

Which number might be greater than the other? I would guess the latter, but that’s just my opinion.
[/QUOTE]

This is a great point. If the metric is deaths of innocent people via guns, both scenarios need to be weighed. I don’t know what the answer is as to which would result in the greater number of deaths, but given that metric, that is the crux of it.

Granted, that is not the only metric one need take into consideration.

Oops. On edit,** Airman**, I thought your article was very good.

43

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Whereas in most logical systems of evaluation, absent evidence no conclusion is indicated, and making a conclusion based on matters not related is what people do when they have a conclusion they like, and want to sound as if they have proven something.

I withdraw the assessment of dumb, and substitute one of deliberately misleading.

Tris
[/QUOTE]

Where is Kimstu trying to mislead us to a particular conclusion, Tris? At the most, she’s used some poorly suited examples as counterevidence to Thrasymachus’ theory of deterrence. As it happens, I think the fact that each of Kim’s examples involves non-random selection of victims and seemingly unplanned violence practically eliminates the relevance those examples may have to a discussion regarding possible deterrents to planned murderous rampages.

On the other hand, I would say that denying any relationship between murders committed in one type of institutional setting and murders committed in a different type simply based on quantity of victims could be called misleading in its own right. But I think neither of you is being deliberately misleading.

44

Strong Second Amendment advocate, and lifetime NRA member here.

I think monstro is right about college dorms. A gun owner who lives alone is in different circumstances than one who has an assigned roommate. I would not forbid carrying on campus, but I would forbid gun storage in dorms.

45

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I would not forbid carrying on campus, but I would forbid gun storage in dorms.
[/QUOTE]

Why?

It is entirely possible to store a firearm in a manner that makes it virtually impossible for someone else to possess your gun (at least possess it in a manner in which it could be used).

46

[QUOTE=xenophon41]
Where is Kimstu trying to mislead us to a particular conclusion, Tris?. . . [Sipped] . . .
On the other hand, I would say that denying any relationship between murders committed in one type of institutional setting and murders committed in a different type simply based on quantity of victims could be called misleading in its own right. But I think neither of you is being deliberately misleading.
[/QUOTE]
I did not deny any relationship, I simply deny that it is logical to make claims that such assertions are supported by cited evidence when the evidence does not deal with the same behavior.

Murderers often use guns. Some gun owners commit murder. Is it therefore logical to say that owning a gun causes one to murder? I think it falls short of logical discourse to simply imply that it does. The syllogism is illogical, as was Kimstu’s. It may be that some people do decide to own guns because the wish to commit murders. Let’s look for some evidence of that! It may be that publicly armed populations are less likely to be victims of mass murder. We really have no evidence of that either. Shall we look for some, or just use whatever evidence we think we can slide by the audience and claim it is relevant?

To be completely candid, I don’t think that arming college students is a really nifty idea, for lots of reasons having little to do with mass murder. My opinion on that was not altered by the events at VPI. But I don’t need false and misleading arguments to make that judgment. The average age of college students, the nature of the social environment of a large university are extraordinarily stressful, and very much unsupervised. Given 'em guns? Naaa. Bad plan.

Special Operations Military units have in them many men who are steeped in a cult of dominance by violence. Shit, dominance by violence is their fuckin’ job! Out of the many thousands of such men, we are told that five committed murder. So, because of that, we should make policy on dealing with spree killings of strangers by unstable young people? I think the answers are likely to be as different as the situations. (Unless you want to disarm the Eighth Special Forces, and the 82[sup]nd[/sup] Airborne. Hmmm, good idea? Maybe not.)

It is not a simple problem. I don’t like Constitutional solutions for social problems. We really lucked out in 1789, and I don’t want to push our luck with another constitutional convention, and sweeping changes to the right to bear arms won’t happen without it. People need to be responsible for their guns, and with their guns. No doubt about it. People need to be responsible for their kids, too.

But haranguing accomplishes nothing.

Tris

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.” ~ Patrick Henry ~

47

“Eliminates the relevance”? Sorry, but I don’t get why either you or Tris would conclude that because some circumstances of one kind of murder are different from some circumstances of another kind of murder, therefore the first kind has no relevance (or even “practically eliminated” relevance) to the second.

In particular, I don’t get why you would assume that deterrence effects affecting one kind of murderer would necessarily be significantly different from those affecting another kind of murderer. As I said, I can see why some people would want to believe that, but I can’t see so far that there’s any evidence to support it.

48

[QUOTE=pkbites]
Why?

It is entirely possible to store a firearm in a manner that makes it virtually impossible for someone else to possess your gun (at least possess it in a manner in which it could be used).
[/QUOTE]

Who is going to be responsible for making sure that gun-toting dorm residents have their weapons stored and secured? It’s nice and dandy to leave it up to the gun owner, but a dormitory is a high-density, high-turnover communal setting. Will RAs be required to check for weapons violations when they do their hot-plate searches?

The OP mentions the age of majority. At most college campuses, particularly the more residential ones, most of the student body is not over the age of majority. Again, while the gun-owning student may be mature and responsible, his underage roomate, just fresh out of high school and hopped up on freedom, Jolt cola, and Grand Theft Auto, may not be the type you’d want to living in close proximity to a gun. A gun that may or may not be properly secured.

It just doesn’t seem worth it, given the low probability of a mass shooting.

49

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
As I said, I can see why some people would want to believe that, but I can’t see so far that there’s any evidence to support it.
[/QUOTE]

So you do think that disarming the soldiers at Ft. Bragg is a good idea?

Tris

50

[QUOTE=monstro]
Who is going to be responsible for making sure that gun-toting dorm residents have their weapons stored and secured?
[/QUOTE]

The person responsible for making sure a weapon is stored properly (and not accesible to unauthorized persons) is the owner of the firearm. This is the same be it a home owner, an appartment renter, a dorm dweller, or a bum living in a cardboard box.

[QUOTE=monstro]
a dormitory is a high-density, high-turnover communal setting.
[/QUOTE]

As are many rental appartment buildings. So what?

51

What “assertions”? If you reread what I actually wrote in my first post, you’ll see that I was simply questioning the assertion of another poster that he “believed” that lifting gun bans in places like schools and workplaces would provide a “solid deterrent” to would-be mass murderers.

I did not attempt to claim that any of the military-base incidents I cites was an instance of mass murder—in fact, I stated quite explicitly that one was a case of an armed guard opening fire on his colleague, and the others were spousal murders. So I repudiate (with contempt) your accusation that I was being “deliberately misleading” in citing those incidents.

In the absence of any actual evidence, I don’t see why we should believe that would-be mass murderers are more likely to be deterred from gun violence by the absence of gun bans than other types of murderers are. Show me some evidence to that effect, and then I’ll agree with you that talking about what deters or fails to deter other types of murderers is irrelevant. Up to now, though, you got nothin’.

No; why would I? Remember, I haven’t made any claims here that the absence of a gun ban automatically increases the likelihood of gun violence. I merely pointed out evidence that the absence of a gun ban doesn’t necessarily deter a would-be murderer from gun violence.

Furthermore, even if we did know for sure that imposing a gun ban would decrease the likelihood of gun violence in any and all situations—which we don’t—there are still valid reasons against imposing gun bans on military bases, which would probably far outweigh whatever positive benefits might result from the ban.

52

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
So you do think that disarming the soldiers at Ft. Bragg is a good idea?

Tris
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, when you pry it from my cold dead hands. Good piece Airman Doors. You clearly put a lot of thought into it and I agree with your premise.

SSG Schwartz

53

[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz]
Yeah, when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
[/QUOTE]
Or when you’re ordered to give it up, right?

54

[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Or when you’re ordered to give it up, right?
[/QUOTE]

If there was a legitimate reason for the order. There are times and places where I cannot carry a Privately Owned Weapon (POW), and I respect that. If I were to be ordered to surrender my weapon, I would want to know the reason behind the order. I don’t believe in violating laws, but I don’t believe that someone should be able to violate my Second Amendment rights on a whim.

SSG Schwartz

55

I don’t think the possible presence of (legally)armed students would have deterred the VT shooter one damn bit. I DO think that the presence of (legally)armed students would probably have ended the rampage a lot sooner. Cho was a terrible shot, on the average he needed 3 shots for each kill he made. For those of you who are not knowledgeable about guns, that means stopping and reloading several times. Competent armed students would likely (not certainly) have been able to return fire and bring Cho down before he was able to kill more than a couple students. If my child was a student in that situation, I would much rather have an Airman Doors drawing and returning fire when a gunman storms the class then to have him be part of an unarmed, terrified class, herded into a corner and gunned down like a pig.

56

[QUOTE=pkbites]
Why?

It is entirely possible to store a firearm in a manner that makes it virtually impossible for someone else to possess your gun (at least possess it in a manner in which it could be used).
[/QUOTE]
It should also be virtually impossible to break down and rebuild someone’s car in their dormroom too. I wouldn’t count out the ingenuity of college roommates to fuck with one another.

The key question is, if my roommate uses my permitted firearm to kill himself, do I get automatic A’s for the semester?

57

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
If my child was a student in that situation, I would much rather have an Airman Doors drawing and returning fire when a gunman storms the class then to have him be part of an unarmed, terrified class, herded into a corner and gunned down like a pig.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the fantasy, isn’t it?

58

Kimstu,

You give cites to refute a claim you say has no evidence supporting it. Your cites have no bearing on the claim, and in fact, nothing in your web reference about the Ft. Bragg cases indicates that the actual murders occurred on base, and certainly not in publicly observable areas. A platoon of armed men actively searching for potential mass murderers would not have been able to intervene in a spousal murder. The existence of arms on the base, even if they were for some reason freely available to soldiers there, could not have changed the events. Counseling, and psychological support to the military might have, but that really wasn’t part of your handy refutation, now was it?

It was a totally inaplicable set of anecdotes you claimed were in some way relevant to refuting the argument (which I do not support, by the way) that armed populations are less likely to suffer the attacks of mass murderers. If you want to refute the argument, fine, go for it. But don’t act as if your post contained any sort of factual, relevant information about the prior claim. It doesn’t. You just waved a sad thing, or six in peoples faces, and claimed to have made a point.

Perhaps you were not being intentionally misleading, if so, I withdraw the correction to my first criticism, and reinstate the first. It’s dumb.

Bad arguments make other bad arguments look acceptable. I don’t think we have the information yet to support the claim you object to. But we have been shown that one particular refutation is entirely spurious. It makes the claim look better.

Tris

59

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
I’m somewhat skeptical that this belief of yours is actually true. Certainly, there are plenty of instances of gun violence in locations such as military bases, where the shooter must have been aware that there would be other armed people around.

(cites follow)

[/QUOTE]

Kimstu, your skepticism is fine - that’s why we’re all on this site after all.

I would consider it common knowledge that criminals (especially of the premeditated sort) tend to prey upon people they perceive as weaker, whether through size, distraction/surprise, use of weapons, etc… This is a basic principle of natural predation as well.

Most of the citable articles that cover this kind of criminal psychology online require subscriptions - one of them is the rather provocatively titled “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott, but there are other better ones such as this about criminal psychology couched in terms of evolution:

A GENERAL PARADIGM FOR UNDERSTANDING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: EXTENDING EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGICAL THEORY

Certainly the notion that victims may be able to fight back effectively is not a panacea for preventing killing sprees, only a deterrent. Thus such counterexamples as the ones you provided will always exist - there presumably will, given enough time, always be someone crazy or enraged enough to commit them. A few others have pointed out that your cites are closer to straight out murders, but that’s not important.

What is central is the idea that the semi-rational killers dominate over the the ones completely enraged to the point of madness, or deluded into thinking themselves invulnerable. For the latter category, the victims can still fight back of course, but it’s better that the shootings not occur at all.

This aspect isn’t really citable, the number of shooting sprees that could have occured, but did not, can not be known. I think the asymmetric choices of places for them bears out the principle - the number of shootings in schools can be partially attributed to youngsters and the stresses of schools, but there are significant examples like Dunblane, and the Amish schoolhouse where the killer is a adult - well above school age. Why pick the school vs other places?

Given the notion that criminals will generally go after weaker victims, it seems highly likely that the fact that no one there can fight back is a basic consideration for the murdering loons. I grant that this is speculative and unknowable without a mind reading ray, but good old Occam and basic criminal psychology seem to dovetail pretty well together.

I suspect the CCW aspect is more important than is usually realized here - cops with guns on their hips walking around are fine, but are very conspicuous and can be planned for by a nogoodnik bent on a rampage. The possibility of random armed citizens is a more difficult unknown, and so the bad guy picks a place where the risk is minimizable, if possible.

I agree with Hentor - a death is a death for the most part and so for matters of policy discussion the balance between presumably fewer killing sprees vs presumably more “accidents/settling of scores” should be addressed.

This is why I mentioned some more practical methods of resolving the problem of violence in schools in my earlier post, all this stuff seems to come from weak social skills and chemical imbalances first and foremost. At best relaxed CCW in schools and other places would be a weak solution that doesn’t address the fundamental problem of violence and dangerously unstable individuals. But similarly as for society-at-large, it would appear to be a net positive over the converse.

60

Another crimp in the fantasy that just occurred to me. Would I feel any better if my child was not killed by Cho, but was accidentally killed by Airman Doors as he fired off a few shots at Cho?

Or was caught in the crossfire of Airman Doors, Triskadecamus and Weirddave, all shooting at Cho from different positions?

What if my son was an innocent permitted gun carrier, who was actually trying to shoot Cho, but was shot by Airman Doors because AD thought he was another student shooting at students?

How would you like to be the first cop on the scene at a building in which 15 students are firing off shots?

I think the fantasy is pretty much a fantasy. The reality is that it wouldn’t make any difference to me if my child were killed by Cho as an unarmed student trying to escape or as an unarmed student walking through the union when a permitted weapons carrier who has just been dumped by his girlfriend and failed his final gets hit by a flying air hockey puck and loses it.