News reports say that at least 29 people have been killed in a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, which - like George Mason - is a Virginia state university. Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") has a roundup with numerous links. As Glenn points out, Virginia Tech is, legally, a "gun free" zone. Defenders of gun rights will likely argue that the tragedy could have been prevented or at least reduced in scale if Tech students and faculty had been allowed to have their guns on campus and therefore been able to use them to stop the shooter. On the other hand, gun control advocates will probably claim that the shooter would hever have gotten his hands on a weapon in the first place if Virginia had tougher restrictions on gun ownership. No doubt, experts will weigh in on these issues in the coming days, including perhaps the VC's own gun experts David Kopel, Eugene Volokh, and Randy Barnett.
At this time, however, I just want to express our condolences to the students and faculty at Virginia Tech, who will have to live with the impact of these events for a long time to come. I also urge people not to try to derive any broader lessons from these events until we know a lot more about exactly what happened and why than we do now.
UPDATE: It is fairly obvious that most commenters have not heeded my admonition to avoid drawing policy conlusions until we know more about what happened. I'm not going to "punish" anyone by deleting their comments. But I will note that it's rarely a good idea to derive sweeping policy implications from very limited facts. For example, we don't yet know why the shooter did what he did, or how he acquired his gun. Furthermore, even if we did know more, it would be unwise to base gun control policy on a single case, even a highly publicized and tragic one. The case may be (and given the record death toll, probably is) highly unrepresentative. It is certainly not representative of general conditions on college campuses, which usually have quite low crime rates relative to other areas. As this Department of Education Report notes, in most years the total number of murders on all college campuses combined is about 10 to 20. The Virginia Tech incident represents more murders in a single day than typically happen on all college campuses combined over an entire year.
Seems fine to me. Just answering.
2. Most professors and staff would qualify, and at least some that I know, in states that allow this, do carry.
3. If carry permit holders were allowed to carry on campus, how many deaths do you think would result each year in the entire U.S.? One? Two? From the experience of carry permit holders in the larger society, I doubt that it would be even that high. But today we are seeing the costs of not allowing it--32 dead, at last count.
Thanks for your sentiments. It's too soon to make any decisions. Let's just pray for those at the hospital and for the community. There will be plenty of time to debate policy later.
-VT '04, '06
And this is pretty flawed reasoning, I think:
"If carry permit holders were allowed to carry on campus, how many deaths do you think would result each year in the entire U.S.? One? Two? From the experience of carry permit holders in the larger society, I doubt that it would be even that high. But today we are seeing the costs of not allowing it--32 dead, at last count."
Given the kind of binge drinking and the like that goes on on campus, I'm betting at least two gun deaths on campus each year, as the commenter concedes, probably more. If we look at the period from 1966 (the last time there was such an event on campus) to the present, that's at least 80 students or others killed. Weigh that against the mere possibility, not certainty, of reducing, not entirely eliminating, the 30 or so deaths here. Can you count???? Which is the most dangerous?
You are assuming that the binge drinkers are the students who might have carry permits. I am a bit skeptical of that. Just the legal requirements for getting a carry permit mean that at least half the undergrads won't qualify. I am actually thinking of the staff and faculty as the more likely to be armed.
Also, some universities do allow students to have guns on campus. University of Alaska used to require students to store their hunting guns in lockers when not out hunting. This is a place that had a rule about not hanging moose meat out the windows of the dorms.
You do make a good case for doing something about binge drinking--because students who are prepared to go on a binge also drive cars (with deadly results), don't accept "No" from their date, and in general, commit lots of felonies.
How can one person with a handgun walk through at least two buildings and multiple rooms and calmly murder one cowering student / professor / staff after another without any of them attempting to physically stop him?
A single person who cannot see behind him should not be able to kill over 30 and wound dozens more without being stopped by someone.
It is bad enough that we have disarmed ourselves. Is no one willing to even make a token effort to defend themselves anymore?
"It is bad enough that we have disarmed ourselves. Is no one willing to even make a token effort to defend themselves anymore?"
I've had it. Blame the victims, go ahead. You ought to be ashamed.
I think that if a gun man where shooting at people, most people would react to protect themselves, which means to cower behind desks or doors. Running up to try to disarm him is what happens in the movies, not real life, and one shouldn't criticize these people for failing to do what a Hollywood stunt double does under controlled circumstances.
A whole generation is being taught that all violence is bad. This is the end result where kids are arrested for posession of a nail file or expelled from school for bringing a toy soldier with a toy gun to school. We are creating a nation of sheep where kids are taught that defending yourself is morally wrong.
Owen said: "That assumes that someone with a weapon would have been in a position to do something about it, and didn't become another victim themselves."
A few years ago some deranged person started shooting people at Appalachian Law School not too far from Virginia Tech. Two Virginia concealed handgun permit holders went to their vehicles, retrieved their hand guns and subdued the attacher. So the assumption is very reasonable.
I am not in the least bit worried about a student getting upset at me in the middle of a class and drawing a gun. (I treat my students with the respect that they deserve, and so far, they treat me the same way. Ditto for my wife.) The only scenario that would worry me might be a student who lost his temper about a grade and came looking for me later. Under those circumstances, he isn't going to be worried about the university banning guns; he's going to be worried about the state arresting him for murder.
Beyond the whole "defending yourself" argument, I think that Americans should be much more aware of how hard it is to shoot people fatally if they're moving. I remember when I worked as a part-time secretary I got an e-mail from some "self-defense" seminar a bunch of the permanent staff had participated in discussing what to do if someone points a gun at you and tells you to get into a car or something.
The answer is to run like hell. Even people with extensive gun training have a hard time fatally hitting a moving target and a nervous, first-time gunman, has an even worse chance. Before we get into all this opportunistic bs about putting on kevlar and packing Desert Eagles to lectures, knowing that running is the best option (short of some great opportunity to ambush or disable the gunman) is something that everyone should know.
But that's mine opinion. Others no doubt would prefer a gun battle, because they are convinced that would win it.
I agree, not only for the reasons of basic decency but also because while we’ve all become used to 24-7 news coverage, experience leads me to believe that it may takes about 72 hours of misinformation and rumors being reported before the actual facts are established. More than enough time to not only allow the families to be notified but for people make sure that the opinions they entrench themselves in are informed ones.
Moving targets are harder to hit. But if the target is shooting back, it tends to spoil the shooter's aim.
Most of his dorm mates are under 21 and too young to legally possess a hand gun. I would be opposed to their having 9s in their rooms. On the other hand, if the guy in his dorm who is a Navy veteran had a pistol in his room, I would not be concerned.
However, if my son were at a student at VT and had been in that dorm today, I would have felt much better if he had had this 20 ga. with him in his room.
I don't know anyone that thinks that, because...
There aren't a lot of them, but there are people prepared to kill others for little or no reason at all. And unfortunately, they are the hardest to disarm. The people that are easiest to disarm are the ones that aren't a threat.
I don't think many people would disagree. But when you have people who aren't prepared to live by that rule, what's your alternative strategy? British schoolkids are starting to buy and wear knifeproof vests because of the number of stabbings that happen all the time.
Yep, and given this was in an engineering building, if the classes were anything like my undergrad at Case, there are going to be very few with the athleticism and strength (or roundhousekickability) of Chuck Norris, and much more likely to be of the athleticism of, say, Chuck Klosterman. I'm not puny, and I really doubt that I'd be running AT a guy with a gun.
Very true. Shortly after Patrick Purdy went on his murder spree in a Stockton schoolyard in 1989, elementary schools where I lived in California started teaching students what to do: lie on the ground flat. What? What Bart talked about--the tendency in some circles to assume that all you can be is a victim--certainly was showing in those instructions.
But these are examples of what J.F. Thomas is talking about where it is better to wait for the body count to rise while the police respond.
Amen
It's also worth noting the following from a Bush spokesperson today at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266381,00.html :
At this point in time there are no facts available to have any coherent discussion about the pros and cons of gun rights with regard to this tragedy. There's a time and a place for everything. Can't we just mourn a tragedy and save the legal wrangling for a more appropriate time and place when more facts have emerged and the dead are buried?
While they don't deal with this ordinary problem, they do hypothesize truly unrealistic behavior in the extremely rare situation such as this -- faced with someone yielding a 9 mm (automatic, no?), the student would happen to have the gun on him or her, would be trained well enough to use it, would, in a class or dorm room, shoot the aggressor, not a fellow student, and so on. This isn't likely; the need isn't going to arise but once every 40 years or so; and an armed body of students won't help much. Remember, in New Jersey just the other day, trained FBI agents facing no fire, but imagining it, managed to kill a fellow agent; how much better will the kids do?
How is this hypothetical brave soul supposed to determine, prior to charging, that the gunman is acting alone?
Badger &Clayton Cramer - Defensive techniques are not that simple. Studies of gang-bang shootings have shown that running away is more likely to get you shot than throwing yourelf flat and crawling to cover. Inexperienced gunmen have trouble aiming low.
But this applies to situations where the gunmen intend to get away. If the shooter intends to stay, running is the better option.
"This is your real-life final exam. In three seconds a man will come in the door with a gun and start shooting at people in the room. If he stays, running away fast will be safer. If he just sprays a few rounds and leaves, going flat is safer. You have 0.92 seconds from the moment he enters the room to decide which is the better option. The wrong choice means you die."
Perhaps you should not be so critical of either choice.
David in NY - I agree. Given known maturity, self-control, sexual assault, alcohol &drug abuse abuse problems on college campuses, allowing close to unrestricted firearms possession (concealed carry issues aside) will result in a non-trivial number of firearms use incidents yearly nationwide plus probably several otherwise avoidable fatalities.
The question is whether the human cost of a number of firearms-related injuries, and a trickle of fatalities, each year from allowing campus firearms possession will be outweighed by mass shooting incidents of this sort. All we can say at the moment is that the number of mass shooting incidents is going up. A reasonable argument can be made for letting faculty carry concealed firearms.
As I have repeateldy pointed out, the people most likely to be armed on campus, because of the age requirement for carry permits, are staff and faculty.
Not when they are standing over you, they don't.
Bart: "It is bad enough that we have disarmed ourselves. Is no one willing to even make a token effort to defend themselves anymore?"
alkali: Shorter Cramer/Bart: The stupid cows had it coming.
David: I've had it. Blame the victims, go ahead. You ought to be ashamed.
That is not what I posted at all and you know it.
No one has murder "coming." However, one does have a choice in whether to act to avoid becoming a victim.
This predator is surrounded by able bodied young adults who surround him. Even if he had perfect aim, this predator would have had to reload his pistol several times to kill and wound so many during which times he would have been defenseless.
Acting in self defense does not require you to be a Rambo. It takes an act of will.
How is the intervening hero supposed to determine that as he charges "Gunman A", there is not a "Gunman B" coming up form behind?
Given the number of fights that break out on a regular basis as colleges after students have a few too many drinks, adding guns to the mix would cause many more deaths.
To decide if allowing students and faculty to carry weapons on campus is a good idea you need to compare the expected rate of lives saved in situations such as these to random deaths due to gun violence. It is incredibly rare for incidents like this to occur and the expected annual death toll is very low. Additionally they happen more often on K-12 campuses than on college campuses (just going by media reporting). Since students aren't old enough to carry guns on K-12 campuses, expanding concealed carry laws won't help there at all. (It would not be hard for a assailant to either pick a class room where the teacher does not have a gun or shoot the teacher first before barricading himself in the room). I think a reasonable estimate of gun deaths due to random violence to be in the range of 6-12 per year across all college campuses. This means the expected benefit of possibly preventing 30 something deaths on very rare occasions is much less than the expected number of deaths due to random violence. Even if only 1-2 people per year were killed by random violence as a result of the expanded concealed carry laws the positive benefits still wouldn't outweigh the negative ones.
2. You missed my point: if you expect to be shot and killed by Gunman A if you don't take SOME sort of action, worrying about the possibility of Gunman B is silly.
My guess is the answer lies somewhere in between. Clearly, you can stop the guy at the source by making sure he can't easily buy a gun. But, lets face it - there are a lot of illegal guns in America. If someone wants to get a gun they will eventually be able to do so.
On the flip side, the gun man clearly didn't care that the campus was a "gun free" zone. In fact, it pretty much gauranteed him a lot of unarmed victims. Would it have been such a horrible thing to have had responsible citizen that have passed background checks wielding firearms in class? If some students or faculty were armed it could have dissauded the guy from going on the shooting spree or ended it earlier through either the deterance of shootout or a lethal response from a lawful citizen.
Interestingly, Larry Hincker (VT Spokesman) said this when the CCW Bill allowing CCW'ers to carry on campus was defeated in committee:"Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Link didn't come through....
There is a big difference (pun intended) between classrooms for liberal arts seminars and lecture halls. Perhaps you should be more specific. I'm in California where gang-bang and drive-by shootings are a non-trivial hazard.
Last year one of my wife's high school students murdered a student at another high school. And, at his retirement dinner last June, a speaker told this story about her school's principal: A student walking home was stopped by the police and told not to go home because there was "trouble", i.e., gang-bangers were looking for him to kill him. So he had them take him back to school and stayed in the principal's office until 5 pm, then Vince (the principal) took him to Vince's home to stay for a few days until it was safe, bringing him to school each day. This was a retirement story explaining what Vince considered normal behavior (and what his students knew without asking what they count on him for) to show his character.
But it also shows real-life security issues out here.
Ah. The biggest lecture hall that I sat in at Sonoma State University was just barely big enough that running might have been an option. But because that was a night class--and I walked to class from home--I was usually armed. (I think California law may have become more restrictive on CCWs on campuses than it was back then.)
And unfortunately, gun control laws tend to be most effective at disarming the people who are least worrisome.
On her way home from a night class one day, she was attacked by three masked men who apparently had decided to gang rape her. She managed to produce her revolver from her purse as one man was riping off her clothes. She fired several shots into him and he later died. The other two prompty ran away.
Back in the 1970's campus culture was a bit different and most student disciplinary matters were kept quiet and dealt with on campus. The DA informed the college president that he would not seek charges and the local paper kept the incident quiet. Still, about a month later the woman recieved notice that she had been expelled for violating campus policy.
I later heard that a local reporter threatened to take the situation public if the school didn't readmit her and finally the president buckled because he wanted to avoid the bad press.
Before this incident, I used to believe that the public generally didn't need to be armed in this day and age. After this, I changed my mind.
It may well be that some grown-ups on campus should have access to guns -- we call them police.
I mean look at how the 9/11 incident caused us to make extremely poor safety choices. Despite the fact that knowledge of 9/11 and hardened cockpits made another 9/11 style attack extremely improbable we spend our money screening airplane passengers and demanding cars don't park outside the airport (as if the airport was the only crowded place to bomb) instead of protecting out chemical plants and other real dangers.
The relative probabilities of gun laws adverting violence or enabling it haven't been significantly changed by this one incident so our opinion on them shouldn't either. No one is more dead nor no grieving family more upset because their kid died at the same time as 30 others than they are if he gets shot in a random dispute or gun accident. Good policy on guns is best made while calm and sober with long boring lists of statistics. Thinking about major tragedies just leads to irrational conclusions.
--
Also as an aside just because you allow people to have guns doesn't mean that their is likely to be someone with a gun in that class. I suspect even schools that allowed guns to be carried would have few students who brought them to class.
I would be very interested in seeing these studies. Cover is the best in general unless you are unarmed and you just trapped yourself. Throwing yourself flat may make you harder to hit, but you just limited options to a single time-horizon.
When you post about studies, let's please see the evidence. I do have advanced training in weapons and tactics primarily with handguns. And in all the formal training hours I've had, I've never heard this be taught or used as good tactical doctrine. I have also been on the receiving end of gang-related violence. Running away works.
Noops
An armed citizen does not have to rely on a third party to protect them and their property. They are capable of mounting a reasonable defence without summoning any outside help.
If a citizen becomes unable to protect their own property and must rely on a third party, the police, then we will need a lot more police and other security devices (CCT cameras, gun shot detectors, alarms, etc.)
More law enforcement officers means more laws will be enforced. When there are no felonies or misdemeonors taking place, the police will start enforcing minor laws such a littering and traffic laws. This means a more petty offenses which are generally overlooked will now result in more citizens getting fined or even jailed.
I don't know about everyone else, but I enjoy not being constantly watched by police and also like the fact that police tend to be too busy to pull you over every time you go through a yellow light, park 10 minutes to long, or go 10 mph over the speed limit. I'm not willing to sacrifice my liberty in exchange for being disarmed.
You must have missed the memo. We're supposed to infantilize the troops now too. Everyone under 30 is "a child" and is incapable of self-control. We, their elites, must enact laws to prevent these children from hurting themselves. No drinking, no guns, no smoking (unless it's pot or crack, then it's perfectly fine). You bring up a good point about the troops. We need to prevent troops under 21 from carrying weapons, because they might hurt themselves.
[/sarc]
Look, I've been totally plastered and in a fight. I also had a gun a few steps away. However, because of my education and training, I never thought - even in my terribly intoxicated state - to bring my gun into the fight. According to some posters here, I am supposed to believe that "the unwashed masses" are so inferior to me that I should not trust them to have the same gun rights as me.
I'm sorry, but the students at V Tech are not morons. They are educated ADULTS who deserve a right to self defense. The elitist scum in the Va legislature who condemned these students to executions are disgusting.
Whereas the lecture halls at UC Santa Cruz 1967-71 were huge - cafeteria size and with stadium-style sloped seating. Hand-gun accuracy from one side to the other, let alone front to back, would be an issue in those sizes.
It also makes a difference when the gunman is standing in front of the only door of a small classroom. Then the only options are to rush the shooter en masse or drop flat and play dead.
Elliot123,
Why don't you join the Marine Corps and learn first hand about the differences between military and civilian behavior? The Corps is a great place to learn discipline. Note - recruits are not allowed to have weapons in barracks. There may be a reason for that.
I agree with those who think the long term effects of having lots of guns on campus will be more dangerous than the chance of forestalling or limiting a rare event like this, as awful as it may be. Furthermore, I think allowing guns, whose primary purpose is to shoot a person, is entirely inconsistent with the mission of an educational instution (military academies possibly excepted, but I don't think cadets or midshipmen get to carry guns around).
These are kids, even the 21-year-olds, they drink, they have romantic disputes, and so on.
I drink, and have had romantic disputes. I also have a license to carry a concealed firearm. Police officers also drink, and have romantic disputes. Many police officers are college aged. Do you think they are special somehow? We're not talking about kids here. These are adults, and as a society we ought to be treating them as such, and expecting them to behave as such. If a person has attained the age of 21 and goes through the licensing requirements, I don't see any reason to prohibit that person from carrying on a university or college campus, and frankly, I don't really give a damn what their professors think about it.
- so Clayton, how many times did this happen when you were in college?
More law enforcement officers means more laws will be enforced. When there are no felonies or misdemeonors taking place, the police will start enforcing minor laws such a littering and traffic laws. This means a more petty offenses which are generally overlooked will now result in more citizens getting fined or even jailed.
I don't know about everyone else, but I enjoy not being constantly watched by police and also like the fact that police tend to be too busy to pull you over every time you go through a yellow light, park 10 minutes to long, or go 10 mph over the speed limit. I'm not willing to sacrifice my liberty in exchange for being disarmed.
This has to be the most petty, stupid and immature argument i have ever heard! What sort of retarded answer is that? I live in Scotland, where we have no guns and are dependent upon the police for our protectin...gun crime is almost non-existant and we have more police than we have ever had, however, sadly to tell you...this does not mean they get bored of fighting real crime and like to charge people for stupid offences!
You would rather have guns roaming your streets, in your schools and next to your children rather than pay a menial fine (even if your pathetic theory did come true) that is idiotic if you ask me! I have all the liberty ill ever need, and i face no barrel of a gun anyday of my life, neither do my freinds, colleagues etc. I don't feel like i have no power because i cant blow someone head off if i needed too.
If the banning of firearms can work SUCCESSFULLY in the UK, why is it not possible for it to work within "the greatest nation in the world". Our streets are safer, and we have zero tolerance on guns. Id take my chances with a parking fine rather than a gun, wouldn't you?
From what I recall, running away vs. dropping &crawling in gang-bang &drive-by shootings also depended on proximity to the shooters - the farther away you are, the safer running is.
Gangers rarely do more than spray &leave the scene rapidly, so getting out of their sight in the first few seconds is more critical than you suspect. Sure your options are more limited if you drop and crawl, but the shooters aren't going to stick around, and aren't going after specific individuals.
Lots of things which are routine on college campuses are likewise inconsistent with their educational missions. Fornication, intoxication and drug abuse come to mind. Consider rephrasing this statement:
Your advice to join the USMC is excellent, but I am now over the age cutoff. But When I was in the Marine Corps during Viet Nam I did learn about various behaviors.
When I was in boot camp, each recruit got an initial issue of uniforms and gear on the first day. That issue included an eight inch bayonet. I'd say that was a weapon, and when not being worn, it hung on the recruit's web belt which hung on his bed. There were about fifteen guys in our quonset hut, so each recruit had access to fifteen bayonets.
However, the troops I wrote about are the ones in Iraq. Just like in Viet Nam, they have loaded weapons ready and available. So, how come college students and academics are more prone to mindless violence than the troops?
(Did you have a different experience in the Marine Corps?)
I don't have any objection to gun ownership, of appropriate guns in appropriate circumstances -- but I think that people who advocate promiscuous gun possession are doing the country a disservice. Even the First Amendment has a "time, place, and manner" exception, and I think the Second does as well. College campuses are no place for guns.
Everything I've read seems to indicate crime in the UK has sharply increased since the gun ban, including crimes involving guns.
I'd like to see these figures because crime is actually falling according to government figures and independent figures. Burglary, rape, robberies are all down...the only crime which is up is knife crime. As for gun crime, id hardly call it exceptionally high levels in comparison to the US. There have been but a handful of gun-crime related murders in fact:
"In 2002, Police operation Trident investigated 24 murders. This year there have been 12 deaths - and in eight cases detectives have charged suspects.
Since the beginning of this year, Trident has seized 94 firearms, 1,906 rounds of ammunition and just over 5kg of Class A drugs." BBC
For a population of 60million id say this was rather good personally. Gun related incidents have increased a lot but killings have not, as you can see.
Fair enough. In drive-by's this DOES make good tactical doctrine. Although I'm skeptical that a gunman in a moving vehicle can hit a target well, dropping and giving minimum profile is probably best given the time/space issues of the scenario.
However, this is hardly appropriate for the VT scenario where it's face-to-face type engagement. Dropping flat gives the gunman all possible advantage, and takes away what terribly little the victims already had. You've limited your ability to be aware of your surroundings, your ability to move, and respond. You've given the gunman the ability to walk up and shoot you.
In training, I've worked extensively with moving targets (both to hit and avoid). Targets on wires, targets that swing/bounce left and right, and force-on-force (training with real people as aggressors) using with rubber pellets or simunition. When I'm at peak training level, shooting anywhere from 1000-4000 rounds a month, I might be able to hit someone running flat out towards or away from me. Add a zig and zag, or some angles, and it just isn't that easy with a hand gun. There's been plenty of evidence cited by the FBI, Justice Statistics, and other criminologists that have multiple bullets missing at point blank range with the assailants in fairly static, open positions in a typical gunfight. So, while you're right in a very limited sense, I think it does not apply well here. I don't mean to be harsh, but I think it is a little remiss to imply that, based on gang-bang activity, that this might be a good response for someone getting shot at like in VT. I think it might result in more terrible death.
N
Although obviously being murdered is incomparably worse than suffering lesser forms of crime, because of the comparatively remote chances of any individual (especially someone who is not involved in drugs or crime) being murdered, the types of criminality that are likely to affect the common man/woman are the "lesser" ones, such as assault, rape and burglary. England has a problem with this sort of crime, although the Scots do better than the English on this count. From the Economist, Feb 22 2001 (I realize it's out of date, but still):
Read the rest. Here is the link (subscription required: but come on, everyone ought to subscribe to the Economist).
My limited experience is that streets in major American cities feel safer than in British ones. There is far, far less public drunkenness and hooliganism in the US than Britain, and there is no "happy slapping" phenomenon in the US (as far as I am aware).
Not that I am defending gun ownership (I am rather skeptical of 2nd Amendment extremism), but banning guns doesn't turn a country into a crime free Nirvana (note that Australia is another country with a comprehensive). I feel that wider societal factors and values are more likely to determine crime rates than gun policy.
I don't know, you tell me how rare they are. If you don't know if the U of W's gun policy would have had any effect why even bring up this example? Did she have or attempt to use a taser or mace? Those might have had an effect too.
Clayton, the amount of bias shown in your posts is incredibly. you disregard the fact that people while get into arguments and shoot each other. The likelihood of this is increased when one or both parties are intoxicated. I've even pointed you to an article which soles the only effect of MN's change to concealed carry law has been to cause one excess death while have a negligible effect on public safety. You and others argue that the reason why permit holders aren't going to run out and shoot each other is because of training. That is patently ridiculous. In MN for example one of the courses you can take to meet the training requirement consists of 4-6 hours of classroom instruction and 1 hour on the shooting range. If 40 or so hours of drivers ed plus 4-12 hours of traffic school per ticket (varies depending on state) is not enough to get people to drive safely, why would a measly 4 hours of gun safety training drastically alter people's behavior?
Yet you trot out examples like the one above where you imply that had the victim been carrying a gun, she might still be alive and use that to conclude that everyone should be arming themselves for personal safety. This claim too is ridiculous. In the example above, had the person really wanted to kill the victim he would have been able to do so even if she had a gun. How you ask? he could have shot her from behind with her knowing it or he could have snuck up on her with his gun already drawn...she would not have had enough time to draw her weapon. I don't bring these examples to show that they are more likely to be right but only to show your bias...you automatically jump to the conclusion that supports your argument without any evidence to go on. (I should note that none of the 4 articles I read on the case even hinted that the woman had any opportunities to defend herself.)
Police officers have much more rigorous and extensive training than your average concealed carry permit holder. That's the difference right there.
I suppose i am in a lesser vantage point to judge such things, as living in Scotland things may be much different. Happy slapping is a craze in this country (UK) but to my knoweldge and experience, not so much in Scotland. I suppose i should really stick to the Scottish view realisitcally in order to keep myself correct!
From my personal view i am much happier walking down a scottish street than american, but then i suppose im much happier walking on a scottsih street than say, London (which can be a very scary experience let me tell you)
Binge drinking is a problem in Scotland, but i suppose thats what were famous for :p my experience of drunkeness is actually quite pleasent, most people want a dance or to tell you about there life in my experiences! can be quite a laugh.
I suppose my main point that i sort of came off of was the fact that i really can't see why anyone would want to legalise guns. I kno, of course there will always be gun crime (ban or no ban) but id gives me a much greater piece of mind knowing that there are none on my streets (well extremely rarely at least). I suppose most of my opinion is drawn from tv, not the best i know. police, camera action and other cop programmes depict america in such a bad way that i suppose this sticks in my minds. In comparison to what i see on the british news, we have it good.
A little google searching shows this to be largely untrue:
From the Times of London:
You can find quite a bit more of their stats here: Times Online
I have no military experience whatever, although my mother was a Marine and my father was an airborne unarmed combat instructor. Note, however, how I differentiated between recruits and trained troops in the field. The former are not allowed to have firearms in barracks. A recruit barracks scene from Full Metal Jacket comes to mind.
You compared college students to trained troops. This is not appropriate. They are more akin to recruits.
Noops,
I don't recall where I read this on-line - my vague recollection is that it might have been City Journal, and that one of the things mentioned was that (a) running away from a close-in gunman attracts his eye and, (b) gang-bangers tend to lift their barrels when firing multiple rounds quickly such that presenting a vertical target is more dangerous than diving to the ground.
My wife told me about hearing similar advice in a lecture by local law enforcement to her class on how to survive gang shootings, so you might get a response from the California Department of Education to a query on the subject.
Keep two things in mind. Safety training of students here must be kept simple and directed at the greatest threat probability, which in California comes from gang shootings on the street, particularly the drive-by variety.
Second, classroom shootings almost always involve the gunman entering a rather small room by the only door and standing in it to block escape while shooting people.
You simply cannot compare combat training for law enforcement to safety training for high school and junior high students.
Dont get me wrong, i know Britain has major crime problems as do most major countries in this day and age. All i am trying to put forward is the idea that a ban on guns significantly reduces the overall gun use. Youmust agree that had Britain not banned guns, this figure would be Much, much, much higher and perhaps we would have had another Dunblane.
America seems to have major shootings on this scale, in schools, universities, malls etc on a far greater scale than any other comparitive civilised nation. When Britain last experienced this, we took the step to outlaw guns completely and since then we have experienced no such major shootings. Surely you have to agree, this can be seen to have effected gun crime. Its much more of a shcok for gun crime to happen in a non-legalised country, i dont mean that in america people will be less shocked of course, that would be absurd. i mean as we dont have guns its more difficult for us to comprehend. I just think that perhaps banning guns could help America to at least make these murders much less "common" for want of a better word.
Hence, I have little reason to believe that any study showing that students would be safer if they carried guns would make a difference. Liberals who favor gun control favor it not because of safety, but because they do not trust people to defend themselves. Period.
Agreed, agreed. I'm no expert on this type of engagement. I just meant to say sitting still may NOT be best. Even simple training doctrine for teachers and students shouldn't be based on a different scenario. Mobility and alertness save lives more often than not.
So how do we create mobility and alertness for students and teachers? Maybe there are basic doctrines though that CAN and should be developed from this. For example, new schools should have at least two entrances into and out of rooms. Schools may have good ways for students to bar themselves in of the gunman is out of the room. Tie in some web-based alert system now that most classrooms are web-enabled. There are lots of things that I hope we (we the culture) can enact to make this better if, God forbid, it happens again.
Noops
I hear you, although I'm not sure we must agree. I think that guns are the symptom, not the cause. You can point to some places where there is strict gun control with low crime and others with high. And you can find places like Israel and Switzerland that have open and even required gun ownership that have low crime. I think other factors weigh in like culture (America does have, I think too much violence in its culture), employment, poverty, and other issues. While I'm certainly not a sociologist, anthropologist, or criminologist, I can say that we've seen some strong evidence that here in the states, states with gun control see higher crime rates while states without it often see lower (Bureau of Justice Statistics and FBI show a 22-23% drop in violent crime rates in Right to Carry States). I don't know that this will translate to this type of act though. Maybe this kind of thing happens no matter what. I sure hope not though.
Noops
From Dave Kopel:
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
War on knives 'may boost gun crime'
California has stricter gun laws than many states. In any case, hardly any of the gang members you are mention could legally carry guns in any jurisdiction. Most of them are underage, the older ones have nearly all been convicted of felonies, and most of them are on probation or parole. Any one of those conditions makes even touching a gun illegal, in any state. So, was the purpose of your anecdotes to illustrate the fruitlessness of banning guns?
Not to publicise the attoricities and conjure up any bad feeling but im watching BBC News on teletext here at about midnight now and it reads:
"The history of gun violence in US schools over the last decade:
October 1997: A teenager stabs mother, then kills two students in Mississippi
December 1997: Fourteen-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky
March 1998: Two boys, 11 and 13, kill four girls and a teacher in Arkansas
April 1998: A teacher is killed and two students wounded in Pennsylvania
May 1998: 15 year-old shoots dead two students in school cafeteria in Oregon
June 1998: Two adults hurt in shooting by teenager at high school in Virginia
April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themsleves in Columbine School in Colarado
May 1999: Student injures six pupils in a shoot-out in Georgia
November 1999: Thirteen-year-old girl shot dead by classmate in New Mexico
February 2000: Six-year-old girl shot dead by a classmate in Michigan
March 2001: Pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students
April 2003: Teenager shoots dead head teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself
May 2004: Four people injured in shooting at a school in Maryland
March 2005: Minnesota schoolboy kills nine, tehn shoots himself
Novemeber 2005: Student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators
September 2006: Funman in Colorado kills a schoolgirl, then kills himself. Two days later a tennager kills the head teacher of a school in Wisconsin
October 2006: A 32-year-old gunman kills five girls at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, before killing himself
April 2007: A gunman shoots dead 33 people at the campus of Virginia Tech University in Virginia
I just think how a sorry state of affairs it is. All these innocent children could have survived. Its not the people carrying guns that scares me. Perhaps the banning of guns wouldn't stop the gangs etc but at least the kids in these towns and cities would be less likely to be able to get their hands on a gun dont you agree?
Anyway shall check back tomorrow, must go to bed now...getting late for me!
I've come up with a few links about how 'crime free' Scotland is. One thing I've noticed is gun control groups only talk about reducing 'gun crime', not crime in general. The number or rate of homicides &violent assaults may stay the same, but as long as they are not committed with guns, a victory is proclaimed. Note that there are currently efforts on knife &sword control underway in Scotland.
Please, please don't get me wrong here. I am under no fantasy that i live in a crime free state as you seem to have made out. I think you seem to be taking this a bit personally! Your completely right, Scotland has terrible knife crime...perhaps that is how we have taken to defending ourselves nowadays.
I think it should be procliamed if we reduce gun crime. Guns scourge so many places that it IS a victory to rid them off our streets. I feel much safer knowing that there are less guns, even if the rates of homicide and mrder may stay the same. I fair my chances better against a person or knife than a gun.
I would rather fancy my chances either running or fighting with someone threatening me with a knife rather than a gun.
As i have just painstakingly typed the account of the past decade, that sort of thing just doesnt happen here! Im just putting the oint of view that without guns, these poor kids would NEVER get there hands on a gun...can you imagine if your daughter/son/nephew/niece as a teenager or younger, got your(or some other family members) gun and killed not only themselves but another person!
I will state it now, am no way am i saying Scotland is crime free....far from it.I am just saying on the gun issue, life is much better without guns!
NIGHT ALL
NIGHT AGAIN!
This is just common sense. The opposite position is akin to arguing that the response to the danger of nuclear war should be to arm MORE nations with nuclear weapons. That, to be polite, is insane.
There are plenty of police who are competent gunman, but most of them take the time to learn and train on their own time. The ones who just do the minimal are typically pretty poor shooters.
Don't automatically think concealed carry holders are less trained than police. In my experience that's not the case. It's hard for me to understand how folks can't see that someone having a firearm in this type of situation wouldn't find it useful. Whether it would create more accidents is another issue, I doubt it would, but it's an arguable point. But in this situation, in particular, any armed person in the vicinity could have suddenly found himself very needed.
Once he starts to act, the only thing that can stop a single, psychotic killer who is willing to die is the rapid delivery of counter fire by whoever is near. Cop, civilian, it doesn't matter who or their job status. The more people who are nearby and capable of delivering return fire, the fewer and less serious the injuries (there's criminological data on this).
Virginia Tech. is a "gun free" zone guaranteeing that the psychotic killer had the only gun. He came prepared. He waited until there were no police in sight and then commenced his murderous acts certain that he would encounter no effective resistance. And , he didn't.
Twenty-one innocent dead because there was no one capable of fighting back. All they could do was cower or run.
April 16, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2007/04/16/eveningnews/
main2691644.shtml<a>
"Ironically, [Virginia Tech] specifically banned the possession of firearms in dormitories or classrooms — the exact locations of today's unthinkable violence."
Part of the problem is that we have some quarter of a billion guns in this country. Of course, we have more than that in people. Nevertheless, it works out to almost one gun per American.
Another part of the problem is that guns are a high value item as far as smuggling goes. Much better than, say, pot. Simple economics will suggest that as long as that is true, criminals will continue to acquire guns.
Finally, your list of school shootings is a bit misleading, since almost all of them involved a disarmed populace. As with today, you had a lot of instances where the only people with guns were the shooters. This was esp. true for all the cases of mass murder. And, thus, I would suggest that if you are using your list to support a public policy argument, that they would support the pro-gun argument better.
That’s right, my daughter’s Krav Maga instructor told her the LA cops in particular have poor marksmanship skills. I suspect they just don’t practice enough. But let’s skip the gun issue for the moment and concentrate on something more immediate.
Why don’t we know the identity of the gunman? If the police really can’t identify him from fingerprints, then why not publish photographs of the gunman so the public can help. Perhaps he mutilated his face, but so what? Someone might be still able to identify him. A lot of people are going to think that the police don’t want us to know his race.
And how many would actually exercise their right to acquire such a permit and carry on campus? Probably no more than the number that already have permits but do not carry on campus because their school is a "gun free" zone. I doubt that many students would rush out to get a permit just because their school suddenly allows people to carry.
These students who already do have a permit/own a hand gun are likely to come from homes that own firearms and are probably already competent in using them. Most of the recreational shooters that I know are probably just as competent as someone who has formal training, maybe even moreso. Might some of the students be unexperienced? Sure, though these unexperienced people would still be able to carry concealed under the status quo anyway--just not on campus. So, it's a risk that we already take in society.
I think the question comes down to whether the college atmosphere somehow makes people who have carry permits more dangerous than would be if not on campus. I am not convinced that the answer is "yes," as some people here seem to believe. Sure, college students have stress from class, romantic troubles, and consume alcohol which may increase the potential for firearm accidents. However, everyone else in society already has the potential to do this. I would argue that the stress faced by the average college student in these areas is probably less (and certainly no more) than that faced by people in the "real world" when we remember that college students tend to be unmarried, not have "real" jobs, etc.
Then again, I am writing from the perspective of a college student who attends a fairly well-regarded college that has a reputation for attracting nerds, so I do have my biases. And although I am very experienced in shooting handguns, I do not have own one/have a permit and would not bother getting one if the law were suddenly changed.
1) Some police are fantastic, and get great training. They even pay to get training that their agency refuses to pay for, spending thousands of their already meager salaries at places like Thunder Ranch and Oregon Firearms Academy. These are the ones that make it their jobs to know their tools.
2) Some are middle of the road. They will go above the minimum requirement to stay proficient. But don't make it their job to know the tools. Example: what happens if you are injured and have to handle your firearm left handed? A lot of police don't get advanced handling and tactical.
3) The dangerous ones. They see gun handling and tactical skills as just part of the job, like students see a textbook. Almost a necessary evil. I've seen police who shoot maybe once a year to qualify and that's it. I've seen them do some astonishingly dangerous things.
So it's really all over the map (just like regular people probably). Some readers may remember the DEA cop who said, "I'm the only one in the room professional enough to handle this gun" who then shot himself in the foot. Wow.
Noops
You are a fool. You live in Scotland, hardly a free nation. You live under a quasi-communist government with oppresive regulations, high taxes, speech restrictions, no privacy protections, and no other true civil liberties. You have no idea about true freedom.
Gun control has been a disaster all around Europe. Most EU nations have extraordinary high violent crime rates.
And to answer your question - no I would not trade my liberty for an end to the occasional school shooting. In fact, if we all would believe more in the 2nd amendment I don't think there would be any more school shootings.
Respectfully, you keep assuming that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and I just don't think that assumption is at all warranted.
" ...at least the kids in these towns and cities would be less likely to be able to get their hands on a gun dont you agree?" Honestly, no.
Has the total ban on marijuana, say, made it difficult to get marijuana? I believe that anyone who wants marijuana will get it, pretty easily, legal or not. Anyone who wants a gun will get it, pretty easily, legal or not.
I'm not the slogan type, but there is much truth to "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
Rumour has it he's Asian?
And he apparently shot himself through the face, so your "publishing photographs" tip isn't going to be too helpful.
you are safer today than you were back in the 80s. The rate of rape and sexual offenses has gone down as well as the overall rate of violent crime.
There is a problem with violence in the US, not a problem with firearms. These types of violent events were almost unheard of when guns were even less regulated in the pre GCA (1968) days. Something is wrong with the culture here &I don't know what it is. I do know the problem isn't with the tools (guns).
As a female of about 40 years, I have never seen, held or come anywhere near a gun and I don't ever want to. And I live in a pro-gun state.
I would hate every 18-year-old packing heat to 'protect' themselves. What kind of society would that be? A hella scary one? One drunk teenager or college-age kid could kill many.
The thing is, most states allow people to carry concealed weapons already, and in most states, it's fairly easy for anyone who is 21+ with a clean background to get one. Simply letting more young people carry concealed weapons doesn't mean that they necessarily will take advantage of that right and get a permit. And, the people who are most prone to killing many people--like the sicko from VA Tech--are not going to pay attention to the laws either way.
A very small number of newspapers carried the account that described what happened; in addition, the students described it this way on NBC the following day. CNN, along with many other news organizations, "left out" the use of the gun. Why not? It isn't like truth much matters to them.
Yup. And at the same time, the number of states where most law-abiding adults can obtain a concealed weapon permit has gone from 1 to 38. The states don't required a permit has gone from 1 (Vermont) to 2 (Vermont and Alaska).
This suggests that if making permits easier to get wasn't a benefit, it at least wasn't much of a negative.
i've only seen two people who do this, in my many years of WA state law enforcement. but, in WA state - any person who is not otherwise disqualified (convicted felons, etc.) may carry a firearm openly - without a permit.
also, in regards to the UW incident. yes, UW does have a no gun policy. i routinely ignore it when i am on campus, but i'm exempt. :)
The pertinent factors are called "attention span" and "impulse control". Teachers and instructors are familiar with both. Think of them as handy screening mechanisms in firearms training. They aren't much good at that, and useless concerning alcohol abuse save for those persons who wake up with a 0.20% BAC (I had a client like that), but are better than nothing.
It already exists. When I was in college in the 1980s and grad school in the 1990s, I knew plenty of guys who carried for protection. Not sure if that was against campus rules or not, but whatever the case, they did it.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. what they meant was "if you want to be law abiding, you must disarm yourself. otherwise, feel free to enter our campus and shoot some people, cause they are gonna be unarmed"
and below the "gun free zone" sign, they actually had a sign that said "criminal activity PROHIBITED"
i am sure that sign prevents criminals from committing crimes about as well as the gun free zone sign would prevent a person intent on murder, from using a gun on campus
this is absolute rubbish :
"As a female of about 40 years, I have never seen, held or come anywhere near a gun and I don't ever want to. And I live in a pro-gun state."
if you live in a pro-gun state, unless you isolate yourself inside your residence, you HAVE come near a gun. people with concealed permits are EVERYWHERE!!!
oh, the horror!
i often carry a gun (concealed) in downtown seattle and elsewhere. as a cop, i don't even need a permit fwiw, but lots of permit holders do the same
you are wallowing in ignorance.
because you have never seen a person DRAW their concealed weapon, you live on with the myth that you are "protected" from them. in fact, it is more likely you are protected by them. if you ever need us - concealed weapons people - we'll be there for you.
Alas, you are (or should be) less happy sitting in your own home in England or Scotland than you would be in an American home. The burglary rate is far higher in England than it is here, and it is hard to believe that the low rate here is unrelated to the fear of meeting an armed homeowner...
Ducking and covering saved most of this class:
Running was not an option given that the gunman stayed in the classroom's only door blocking it.
So these students and their teacher had only two choices, the "duck and cover" and then barricade the door one which saved most of them, but not any of an adjacent class, and the Flight 93 "In Death Ground, Fight" choice.
I don't disregard it. A number of states prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated--and some while drinking. People that get into fights tend to have convictions for those fights. Any felony conviction disqualifies you for a carry permit; in most states, misdemeanor violence convictions in the last five years also disqualify you.
The article is wrong. See here for the first use of a concealed handgun by a licensee under the new law. Isn't it amazing that journalists "researching" the effects of the new law couldn't find this?
well, at least you admit yours is an argument from emotion, not logic. i quote: "I FEEL (emphasis mine) much safer, EVEN IF (emphasis mine) the rates of homicide and murder may stay the same"
that is so grossly illogical as to make me suspect you are a plant by the gun lobby to bolster the case for guns. :)
fwiw, i have seen MANY MANY knife and bullet wounds. trust me. they are both very ugly.
the idea that knife (or bat or whatever) homicides are somehow better than gun homicides is just silly.
are you any less dead?
the comments about cops and firearm proficiency (more correctly - lack thereof) are spot on
i am a police firearms instructor. there are a heck of a lot of people in my agency and others, who are mediocre AT BEST with their firearms
fwiw, even with all the school shootings, school is among the safest places for children (young adults). one is FAR FAR more likely to die traveling back and forth TO school vs. on campus.
i also read a stat once (not verified) that claimed that more kids die from school sports, than die from school shootings.
You are a fool. You live in Scotland, hardly a free nation. You live under a quasi-communist government with oppresive regulations, high taxes, speech restrictions, no privacy protections, and no other true civil liberties. You have no idea about true freedom.
Gun control has been a disaster all around Europe. Most EU nations have extraordinary high violent crime rates.
And to answer your question - no I would not trade my liberty for an end to the occasional school shooting. In fact, if we all would believe more in the 2nd amendment I don't think there would be any more school shootings.
I am the fool? i would like you to explain your theory of a communist government and limits on freedom of speech, oppresive regulations and the rest of the crap you said.
I am studying law in Scotland and i can assure you, you must be looking up the "retarded book of facts on Scotland". Our civil rights are more protected than ever with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights courts in Strasbourg. We are not limited on freedom of speech, in fact quite the oppoiste. Did you know there has been one lone man protesting outside the British Parliament for the last 5years over the Iraq war, he was challenged as he was so close to the Parliament but Human Rights prevailed.
Yeh i have no idea about true freedom. I think if you perhaps stayed in the country a while you might change your mind on that on.e You make it sound like i live in North Korea llf, its just a really idiotic view and youv'e undoubtably made a few people laugh with your strange views.
"hadly a free nation" explain please? We have free elections, a semi-independant Scottish Parliament that decides on the most important matters....roads, health service, police etc and also the British Houses of Parliament that scrutinise decisions of the Scottish Parliament, then we have the European courts that scrutinise the British Parliament so you see, our government is much more democratic than yours in my opinion.
A number of political scientists argue that the proliferation of nuclear weapons accounts for the reduced incidence of major war since 1945.
"hadly a free nation" explain please
Liberty is quite obviously under assault in Britain.
It is simply laughable that you cite the number of government bodies that "scrutinize" each other as evidence of "freedom" and "democracy".
You are indeed a fool. No country in Europe has any idea what is true freedom.
Sure you have roads, police, and a parliament, but your country is bankrupt, your nationalized health service is failing, your public schools are broke, your violent crime rates are through the roof, your homeownership rates are plummeting, you will soon be entering hyperinflation, people are prosecuted for defend themselves against violent thugs, and your so called "hate speech" ban is routinely used against minorities and those with unpopular opinions. Sounds like a free nation to me.
The only difference between North Korea and England is that at least the North Koreans know they are they are ruled by tyrannts.
- this is not true at all. the majority of domestic violence disputes do not result in convictions and, if the police are even called at all, the charges are usually dropped. Drunken bar fights also very frequently don't end up in convictions...no one bothers to press charges once they've been thrown out of the bar/club/restaurant, especially if there was no associated property damage. At UCLA I witnessed around a dozen of fairly serious fights that did not results in convictions. If either party to these fights had a weapon I have no doubt they would have used it.
No, the article is right...or at least your counterexample does nothing to disprove the article. From your commentary: "The driver starts to pull his gun, warns the attacker, and drives over the bike." The attack was not ended by the presence of the gun, the attack was ended because the victim drove away. The presence and use (as in showing, not in shooting) of a gun was entirely superfluous. This goes to the bias that I was talking about...you've chosen to interpret this incident in a less plausible way because it supports your argument. (FYI, both of your links appear to broken. the link to the summary does not open to the summary. and the link to the police report only opens to a single page police report that does not even mention the presence of a gun.)
Then why are we worried that Iran may be able to make an atomic bomb? If your logic is correct, shouldn't we be encouraging them to have it as a way of increasing stability in the region?
I should have qualified this as, "in places where violent crime is regarded as a serious matter." That exclude California, where I lived for many year.
You seem to have a reading problem. Here's what you read, and couldn't seem to understand:
"Important points: the attacker (as even the attacker admits to police) is a bicyclist who loses his temper when a driver honks his horn. The driver asserts that he was honking the horn to let the bicyclist know of his presence. The bicyclist catches up at the next light, throws the bike down in front of the vehicle, and grabs the driver by the throat. The driver starts to pull his gun, warns the attacker, and drives over the bike."
The attacker has the victim by the throat; drawing the gun emphasizes that the attacker is at risk of being killed if he continues the attack; the attacker releases; the driver drives away. The gun turns what might have been a far worse situation (the driver drives away with this irrational idiot still holding onto him) into one that lets the bicyclist avoid being dragged by the car.
Is it that you identify with the drunk bar fight/deranged bicyclist sorts? I can see why it bothers you to think that such behavior might have bad consequences for the attacker.
No thank you sir. I would feel far more in danger from YOU than I would anyone else.
Guns would not make me feel safe, regardless who holds them.
I also found your post incredibly condescending. I half expected you to pat my head like a little girl and call me a 'little lady'.
Secondly according to the USA's CIA Factbook:
"The UK, a leading trading power and financial center, is one of the quintet of trillion dollar economies of Western Europe. Over the past two decades, the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare program
The economy is one of the strongest in Europe; inflation, interest rates, and unemployment remain low.GDP (purchasing power parity) is ranked 8th in the world
cia website
It has mcuh mcuh lower rates of unemployment than many other countries, particularly that of the US. The UK has an unemployment rate of 2.9% (2006 est.) which is the 27th lowest in the world. The USA is ranked 56th at 4.8% so that you are also wrong on this.
Our inflation rate is higher than the USA at 3% (2006 est.)compared to American 2.5% but is still one of the lowest
Inflation rate. Where you get hyperinfaltion from is beyond me but id really like to know if the "poeple in your head" know that they aren't real!
Looking at the account balance of both countries the UK fairs much better at $ -57,680,000,000 with the United States $ -862,300,000,000. Clearly as USA has double the population this is to bee expected to be larger as the USA has 50% more people, but this is at least 67% higher so not comparitive.
Therefore on analysis of the USA's own figures, you are talking crap and are completely wrong. Have a look for yourself and compare friend: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook
BUT please in future, before you state things that you have completely NO knowledge of....look things up!
the reality is this. if you are in a pro-gun state, then you ARE surrounded by people with guns in all sorts of public settings.
and you refuse to recognize that. just cause they are concealed doesn't mean they don't exist
you may FEEL more in danger from me, but that's contrary to all evidence and rationality.
i have carried concealed for 20 years. i have used my gun once in those 20 yrs (off duty) and like most defensive uses of guns, no shots were fired. the mere presence/display was enough
my post may have been condescending, but i think it was also a rational reply to an illogical post
So you want the police disarmed?
What is it about wearing a uniform that suddenly makes you think the person wearing is going to be responsible and competent, but anyone who isn't is irresponsible and incompetent?
The reason that liberals trust police with guns is that police officers usually have to pass a background check for mental illness and criminal history...just like a civilian who gets a concealed carry permit.
regardless... in my experience, based on 20 yrs of law enforcement, as well as studies, civilians carry guns RESPONSIBLY (those who are permitted etc.) overwhelmingly.
elais' error (among many) was her claim that she has not been around guns, and then claims to live in a progun state. she just hasn't seen them- they are there.
people like me carry guns and people like her don't SEE them, so they don't exist. and they can FEEL comfortable in their misconceptions
All through middle and high school I carried a knife or two with me. I got into fights regularly. I never once got into a knife fight. The guys I fought with knew that there was a chance that I had a knife and I knew the same about them. I carried a knife in case someone ever drew one. I want to be able to defend my self. If someone takes an argument to the next level I want to be able to meet them on equal terms. If you can't meet your aggressors then you or someone else might get killed. For this same reason I kept a loaded 12 ga. in my dorm room even though it was illegal to do so. The police cannot protect you from harm. It is everyones responsibility to take steps to protect themselves. There's a saying that goes like this, "God made all men. Samuel Colt made all me equal." As much as any of you would like to disagree with that, its true. A frail, weak man, or a small woman, has no hope of protecting themselves from physical violence by themselves. With a gun in their hands they could put down their aggressors. Commercial tasers and pepper spray do not work. I have been hit with both. They slowed me down a little, but not too much. The only effective means of self defense is a firearm.
When in fact, if a person may legally possess a firearm off campus, then they may also legally possess a firearm on the campuses of public Virginia colleges. However, the college may take disciplinary action against students, staff, and facility if the firearm violates the school's policy.
Please refer to the Virginia Attorney General's Opinion #05-078:
http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2006opns/Jan06opnndx.htm
That's a dodge if I've ever heard one. What criteria are you using to say that CA doesn't consider violence a serious matter? Because they don't allow guns on campus? or have a broad concealed carry law? I've witnessed the same behavior in arizona, illinois and new york and know second hand that it happens in ohio, nebraska and texas.
that's like the pot calling the kettle black.
- the driver could have just as easily rolled up his window or forcefully threw open his door. either act would have removed the attacker's hands from the victim's throat. (it is not easy to break a car window so I'm assuming the window was already rolled down. if the attacker had broken the window then the driver had plenty of time to drive away before the attacker got his hands around his throat.) and no, nowhere in your description do you say that the attacker let go because of the gun. (I also can't verify your facts because your links are broken so I'm stuck taking your word which is not very trustworthy to begin with).
HAHAHAHA...that's some excellent reading comprehension on your part. (I am being sarcastic here...if you don't know what that means i suggest using dictionary.com) when have I ever said I cared about the attacker?
That violent crimes aren't punished seriously in California. A friend of mine sat on a jury that convicted a guy of beating his wife to death in front of the elementary school age kids while high on cocaine. The judge sentenced him to probation for fear that the kids wouldn't have their father around.
When I was living in the Bay Area, two guys stomped to death a young man who had car trouble leaving Candlestick Park. They wanted his car. They received 3 1/2 and 4 1/2 years respectively for manslaughter--and didn't even serve that much.
A friend was raped by her father. His sentence? He had to move out of the house for three years. No jail.
A babysitter was 13; a 41 year old talked her into sex. He got two years of weekend jail time.
This crap was going on all the time when I lived there, because liberals don't see any of these as serious crimes.
Your credibility is now completely shot. You demonstrate that you know NOTHING about the real world of being attacked, with someone's hands around your throat.
I will no longer bother with someone as ignorant as you.
Really? You sure about that? Are you willing to wager money on that? I wouldn't, because you'd lose. I have in fact had "someone's hands around [my] throat". I got out of it without needing to use a gun. How you ask? I kneed him in the abdomen several times while pushing him away. After the second or third hit to the abdomen his grip loosened enough for me to get out.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that anecdotal evidence given by an ideologue is true? Or that 4 stories generalize to an entire state of 33 million? Or that similar perversions of justice never happen in other states? I've noticed that is your general tactic. When statistics either don't support your side or when you don't have the relevant statistics you resort to blaming everything on the "Liberals". Is it any wonder why i don't find your retarded arguments believable?
You are still a tiny minority in this country and it isn't going to change. You may get away with banning tobacco smoking in bars, or having metal detectors everywhere, but nothing is ever going to change the fact that law - abiding citizens have the right to own a gun.
What happened was terrible, but that doesn't mean you Socialists should come out of the woodwork. You socialists should be concentrating on the beloved social programs of your original and seems-today discarded movement, not looking to the state as the fatherland, the good protector of all the people - National Socialism anyone??
Try something else, stay out of the gun/defense debates until you have a fundamental knowledge about what America is, and why our founding fathers thought it was important for the average citizen to own a gun, ok? Thanks.
This isn't a citizen problem - this is a gov't problem and seems most in CA have their heads up their asses (We're too BUUUUSSSSSSYYYY) and when crimes don't come to them, they don't give a crap about the law. If bad things happened in the suburbs and in Richie Rich Land it'd be a different story.
In that particular state, the non-caring elite-minded and lazy "I worked 9 hours, I don't have time to do anything else but go shopping, take a little walk and then watch TV" glutton rules supreme over all others.