I gotcha. Interesting parallel I’ve set up there, isn’t it? That one is always hard to reconcile even under the best of circumstances.
Funny you should say that. That IS my own voice. I write like that. My professors had a particularly hard time trying to force me to write stupid. I haven’t written that way in 20 years.
Except it’s not legal everywhere, it’s being targeted by some states for banishment, it’s extraordinarily cumbersome (I have to wear it on combat missions), it’s not capable of being concealed which makes you look like a crank, and in any case it does not protect the head.
You can keep harping on that all you want, but there are logical reasons why your argument is ridiculous. There are also logical reasons why my argument is ridiculous, and I am more than willing to hash them out with you provided you cease this weird misdirection. We’re not talking about body armor, we’re talking about legal carry on campuses. One is not at all related to the other.
Ah well. Thanks a load, University Police… Stealth Potato’s advice about relying on cops for legal info proves stunningly prescient. Now if I can only score some Lotto numbers…
I just thought you may have kept it around for convenience, to use for target practice or whatever… from your remarks, you didn’t sound like the sort who feels the need to carry because of fear of a Psycho Killer rampage on campus.
I’m a little confused myself. If you felt safe enough to go out drinking without the gun, then why did you feel like you needed it at other times? Where around campus did you go while sober that was more dangerous than being out unarmed with an elevated blood alcohol level?
After almost 24 hours, my responses here may be moot, but I don’t want to be rude to Triskadecamus or Kimstu. Any uninterested parties are encouraged to skip this post.
Tris, I don’t know exactly how to parse that sentence, but I do apologize if I understood your objection in a more limited way than it was offered.
Because my opinion is that deterrence depends on frame of reference and state of mind of the person(s) being deterred. Both of which are so substantially different between the two types of murders that a discussion of the deterring (or non-deterring) factors in one case have no practical bearing to the other.
If you want to talk about prevention, I think your examples have bearing. But that is a more general topic which can be considered independently of the psychology of potential perpetrators. (And for that reason would probably be a much more pragmatic and meaningful discussion than deterrence. And, I think, the discussion you’d prefer to be having.)
A responsible person will understand his/her limitations. It is a bad idea to have a firearm available when under the influence of alcohol. You take your chances. I hope I never have to draw my weapon. If I do, I will be of right mind in order to use it. Seems kind of contradictory for someone who does not carry to criticize when someone who does choose to carry should.
Same would apply to someone behind the wheel of a car.
So if every American had a a Government-issued firearm, most gun-related crimes would either disappear or become a minor statistic? Allow me. :rolleyes: And this comes from someone that owned a handgun many moons ago and yet put it down and broke his knuckles on the guy’s head…along with his head I might add for honesties sake And you know what? I still feel much better than if I would have shot him – thief and bad guy that he obviously was.
Yet we find that the US, has, by far highest murder rate in the world amongst first-world nations.
Why is that? Shades of the WWW? You guys can’t feel safe walking down the street unless you’re “packing.”
How absurd. This is all about power and money. Had you had REAL controls in place how the hell would a demented son-of-a-bitch like Cho get a gun basically over the counter?
I go back to Paul in Saudi’s excellent first posts in this thread. The problem is not guns per-se, but the climate of fear you’ve been raised in. That’s what needs to be stressed as opposed to overplayed – the whole “if it bleeds it leads” needs an overhauling. Because of it, your whole society appears to live in constant fear.
[quote]
[ul]
[li]America’s overall crime rates are similar to comparable nations. For the crime of assault, 2.2% of Americans are victimized each year, compared to 2.3% of Canadians and 2.8% of Australians. For car theft, the U.S. rate is 2.3%, Australia is at 2.7% and England is at 2.8%.[/li]
[li]America is extraordinary only in its rate of homicide with guns - lethal violence. American gun homicide rates run twenty times the rate in comparable nations- causing Americans to live in fear that their counterparts in England and France do not share.[/li][/quote]
[/ul]
Wow, that almost sounds like an argument. Nice to have you drop by! You’re too late, though. Turns out that your words did make your argument for you, and they were pretty much crap. Keep trying, though. Maybe you could include some more bogus statistics to shore up your position. Here’s a useful one that you may find inspirational: “91% of Americans are licenced to drive! Think about that for a moment. 91 out of every 100 people you encounter is statistically likely to be driving!” Of course, you’ll want to round that up to “approximately 10 out of 10 people you speak to.” It would make your argument much more persuasive.
Well, I guess you have the topic for your next Op/Ed crusade then, don’t you? It is terrifying how the government wants to take away our only remaining legal protection against the Dreaded Psycho Killer on campus. I notice that you didn’t say it’s illegal where YOU are, though.
Oh dear, that is inconvenient. Well, I can understand why you might not want to wear it then, if you’re in a situation where you’re in no danger of being shot at. But sadly, campus is not such a place, is it?
Yeah, funny about that, innit? How strange that taking sound, reasonable measures to protect yourself against the Psycho Killer could give people that impression.
Oh shit! That’s true! Goddamn, military scientists need to invent some kind of bulletproof head covering! Of course, such a hypothetical head-armoring device would probably make you look even more like a crank. But surely that’s a small price to pay for added protection against the Psycho Killer.
Really? Then you should have shot me down with them right away, instead of “It’s bulky and makes me look like a nut.”
Ah, you realize this? Grand.
Actually I don’t see the need now, since you’ve conceded that your argument is ridiculous. That was easy, wasn’t it? I guess my “inane comments” were on topic after all.
Funny, I thought we were talking about the Virginia Tech massacre. I must have gotten confused while you were waving the victims’ corpses around to distract from your logically ridiculous argument. It is strange how your concern for students’ safety evaporates when a safe, legal method of protection is suggested-- a method that you personally benefit from! But on campus it’s just too cumbersome, and makes you look like a crank. That pretty much says it all about your real beliefs regarding the validity of the Psycho Killer justification.
Hell yeah I’d feel safer with a pistol. But it’s always been my philosophy that guns and booze don’t mix. If I was going out I left the pistol behind and put a can of mace in my pocket.
I deleted everything in your post because I want to clear up the original point, and my objections to Kimstu’s “cites” in rebuttal of an argument that the presence of higher numbers of armed bystanders would have the effect of deterring mass murders.
Two armed soldiers began a gunfight at a military base.
Five people who were closely associated to Ft. Bragg killed their spouses.
No mass murders occurred in any of the incidents cited. The report of murders by people associated with Ft. Bragg were not reported to have happened at Ft. Bragg, merely by Soldiers, and their wives.
These “cites” were offered as evidence that the presence of armed people are not deterrents for mass murder. That requires ignoring all the elements of the cites that are not related to mass murder, or large percentages of the people in the area being armed. The fact is that no mass murders were cited, no populations with elevated numbers of armed bystanders were cited, and no murders which would be influenced by bystanders, armed or otherwise were cited.
So, what possible relevance to the cites have to the assertion that armed bystanders would deter mass murders? Well, of course people died. There is a connection there. And people dying is a bad thing. And soldiers are strongly associated with guns, which were used in at least one of these murders. So, basically, the argument was, “Look, sad things happened, and all those guns didn’t matter!”
I happen to think the original contention was unproven, and is in my gut level estimation unlikely. Mass murderers tend to be pretty vague in their understanding of consequences, and often seek death anyway. That is not why I responded. I responded because I found it unlikely that anyone was quite dumb enough to have gathered those particular sites as reasonable evidence that armed people are less likely to be victims of mass murders. It’s a stupid argument.
Stupid arguments get in the way of actual reasoned consideration of something that is a fairly important social issue. On a board that is dedicated to fighting ignorance, pointing out spurious rhetoric, and stupid arguments is pretty much a duty.
Now, please, everyone who has been reading this, without regard to how you feel about the idea of armed citizens being less likely to be victims of mass murders, answer this: Were the murders cited by Kimstu in some way relevant to that argument? What relevance? What sort of logic? Perhaps I am just not perceptive enough to follow the level of rational discourse that it takes to follow the point.
Oh I wasn’t criticizing, I just didn’t understand the situation. I certainly have no objection to someone leaving their gun at home when drinking. That seems very prudent.
I hypothesize that mass murders are less likely to be deterred by a citizenry that packs heat than… an ordinary murderer would be.
I see Kimstu has shown examples of ordinary murderers firing their weapons in a military base. Since ordinary murderers were not deterred by the presence of many armed men and women, I hypothesize that mass murderers wouldn’t be either.
Airman Doors, USAF: I apologize for my earlier post. My tone was way out of line for any sort of productive debate. It was not my intention to hijack your thread or derail others’ criticism of your Op/Ed letter. I also apologize to the other participants of this thread for my disruptive presence. I honestly thought I was making sense at the time, but I have no excuse for my confrontational attitude. Again, I’m sorry for the inappropriate remarks and sarcasm. I think I’ve got nothing more to contribute to this thread.
This is the second time in a month that I’ve had to do this, in two different forums. I begin to suspect that posting to the SDMB may not be good for me.
P.S. I also apologize if versions of this post appear more than once, as my computer suddenly can’t seem to decide if it wants to submit messages or not. I am a goddamn wheel of chaos.
It’s a matter of weighing risk and reward, costs and benefits. If I were to wear body armor to class, there would be a decent chance I would survive being shot by a nutcase, something that is very, very unlikely to happen to begin with. However, there is a 90% chance I will be sweating my balls off and a full 100% chance I will look like a dipshit.
A near certainty of discomfort and being judged a dipshit is too high of cost (for me at least) in exchange for the benefit of survival in a scenario with a vanishingly small likelihood of occurrence.
Carrying a gun, on the other hand, has none of these costs. It does have other costs (a gun is heavy etc.) I never gave it much thought in my college days, but I personally would not carry a gun to class due to the pain in the ass factor being greater than the benefit of increased personal safety.
Others may weigh costs and benefits differently, however.
The argument Kimstu made might make sense, but it doesn’t given the actual context of the crimes. Spousal murders perpetrated by the individuals in question were simply committed by soldiers stationed at a military installation, we do not know if they were committed in an environment in which the murderers had any worry whatsoever of armed soldiers being present.
If you read the article about the spousal murders, you would note several key facts:
The article does not state whether each individual murder occurred on base or off base
The article states that 45,000 soldiers are stationed at Ft. Brag. About 5,000 families live on base and about 21,000 families live in nearby communities.
I think Kimstu has the misconception that Fort Bragg is one big barracks with armed guards patrolling the corridors at all times. This is not the case, there are individual housing units which house families. To any family within said housing unit, they have no greater protection from the armed members of the military who work at Ft. Bragg than say, an individual in a private, non-military residence has from a police officer working in their neighborhood.
Sure, the Fort’s police do provide protection, but not necessarily any more protection to a spouse within a home than the police walking around the streets provide to spouses within homes in any normal American city. Police, be they military police working at a Fort or regular police walking or cruising a city’s streets, can only protect people from crimes that they see. If someone strangles their wife to death in one of the houses within Fort Bragg, all those armed people will have no means of seeing or preventing the crime.
One may remember the case of Jeffrey R. MacDonald who is convicted of murdering his entire family in a housing unit within Fort Bragg. Read about that case and you should find pictures of the house in question which will give you an idea about the sort of homes we are talking about. Transport this home almost anywhere else and it is a non-descript American home, and armed soldiers aren’t going to be patrolling through it.
If these murders had taken place within one of the buildings in which many armed soldiers were present, then Kimstu’s argument might make sense. It does not appear that this is the case, although it is impossible to say because Kimstu’s article makes no information known about where these murders occurred and under what circumstances.
I can understand your not wanting to wear clothing that makes you hot or otherwise uncomfortable, but why do you fear that wearing body armor would make you look like a dipshit? Is the cut unflattering, or the color gauche? These issues could be addressed through better tailoring or design choices on the part of the manufacturer.
If the scenario in which you would benefit from body armor has a “vanishingly small likelihood of occurrence”, then does the scenario in which you would benefit from carrying a firearm have a “vanishingly small likelihood of occurrence” as well?
If one were to walk into class wearing visable body armor, many people would think they were kind of “off”. Decreasing my already meager chances of getting laid is not a tradeoff I would take, but YMMV.
Well enough written for a campus newspaper - though I too noticed the “rounding up” in your statistics regarding concealed carry. It diminishes the arguement.
You might also want to cite recent campus shootings that were stopped by armed locals, or statistics regarding no increase in crime when concealed carry was passed, etc. A little data goes a long way.
For those wondering about carrying weapons on campus, it IS a felony out here in California:
What is interesting about this is that this law extends to ALL UC property. Faculty housing neighborhoods are covered by this particular code, for example.
Fair warnings: the numbers I mention I just made up, 'cause the source is hard to relocate (FBI report or newspaper or something). The spirit is true as I remember it.
And “Bleeding Heart Liberal” is tattooed on my forehead…
Non-quote:
Last year, 30 on-duty police officers were killed with firearms. Of these, 12 were killed with their own weapons.
I assume that an on-duty cop has far more experience with, and awareness of, his/her firearm than almost anybody, and they still get nailed with their own equipment. I don’t doubt for a second that Airman and Tris are competent and responsible, but my gut feeling says that more guns present- from any source- is unlikely to promote greater general safety.
When I lived on campus, at UC Boulder, the rules were clear: you can store and have access to your guns 24/7 at the campus armory and nowhere else. Which made sense to me. One of my RAs went hunting on the weekends, and that’s where he kept his gear.
