Source? Locations ? Anyway to verify what's posted? "Hand cannon" made me laugh.
locations updated in a sec. google is your friend. I'm glad an eyewitness describing a gun shot made you laugh.
They read like an NRA propaganda compilation where the intern got all comic booky writing the synopsis from the stale news report. Maybe embellished it a little for dramatic effect? Google is my friend but I'm lazy tonight. 10 examples spanning 17 years. I'm convinced more guns is the answer to gun violence and preventing mass shootings. Any stats by a reputable agency or is it yet another stat the NRA fights to keep from being compiled?
So look it up and disprove it. Why do the pro second amendment people have to cite and triple cite their sources but since the majority of the pj message boards are for gun control they can say whatever they want without fact control? Start with the July 2014 philly hospital incident mr lazy guy. And yes ten examples with three seconds of research. It s not the majority of concealed carry permits that stop mass shootings rather the vast minority. Kind of like the the vast minorty commit mass shootings but the overall majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding.
No need to get in a huff mcgruff. Typically in my experience on the boards, a cut and paste followed by the link avoids the questioning that surely might come up. If it was so easy for you to Google, it should have been easy enough to link to your source. Now I'll go a googling so you won't get more cranky.
This is why I asked for your sources. The incident below was probably pulled from a pro-gun or second amendment blog, website or NRA provided link about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.
April 24, 1998 Parker Middle School: Edinboro, Pennsylvania A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a .25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer. Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for additional weapons.
Here's how it was reported by the NYT. Note the quoted police spokesperson on how it went down:
The guy with the shotgun didn't stop shit, except for maybe preventing him from getting away. The perp walked out of the building and the shotgun guy caught up to him in the field and held him until police arrived. Your source makes it sound as if he stopped more carnage inside the banquet hall by getting his shotgun and holding it on him until the cops arrived. Again, the rampage didn't end when the guy grabbed his shotgun, it ended when the perp walked out of the dance hall. Pesky things, those facts.
Here's another example where perhaps what you posted may not be what happened and why the pro gun source embellished the narrative to suite their agenda:
Jan. 16, 2002: Appalachian School of Law: Grundy, Virginia A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman was then apprehended by other students.
Now, here's how it was reported by the NYTs, note the description of how the suspect was already being tackled when the student/law officer that went to their car to retrieve their gun arrived on scene, not held the perp at gunpoint until the perp was tackled by fellow students as your source described it:
Here's how your pro gun source portrayed this incident:
Dec. 9, 2007: New Life Church: Colorado Springs, Colorado 2 parishioners were killed and 3 wounded when a gunman toting a Bushmaster AR-15 opened fire at New Hope Church. Hearing the rifle fire, Jeanne Assam grabbed her personal concealed carry firearm and confronted the gunman from a distance of 20 yards. According to 5280 Magazine:
She fires five quick shots. Murray falls backward. Assam moves to the middle of the corridor and rushes forward. She’s a few dozen feet from Murray now, exposed in the middle of the hallway. “Drop your weapon, or I will kill you!” she yells. Murray sits up to face her. He’s still holding the rifle. Boom-boom-boom. Bullets rip past her and pepper a wall. While Murray shoots, Assam fires three times.
Through the haze of gun smoke, Assam sees the man struggling on the floor. He props his head against a wall. Her weapon is up, trained on the man. She sees his hands moving near his shoulder. He’s trying to pull the pin on a grenade. He’s going to kill everyone around here, Assam thinks. She instinctively steps back and fires two more shots.
Notice some salient facts: Jeanne Assam is an armed security guard and former police officer. No mention of a grenade. A back pack with 1,000 rounds is mentioned as well as other news sources saying suspicious packages were being investigated. Where's the source that says her shots killed him? Not doubt she saved lives but she wasn't an everyday, ordinary citizen with a CCW permit as you'd like us to believe.
Why does the pro-gun crowd feel the need to embellish their narrative?
Here's how your pro-gun source reported this incident:
May 27, 2010 A 79-year-old man entered an AT&T store in New York Mills, New York carrying a .357 magnum revolver in his hand and a list of employees he planned to kill in his pocket. Hearing the hand cannon go off, Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and killed the gunman before he could complete his plan. One employee was wounded in the shooting.
Dec. 11, 2012 Two people were killed and a third was seriously wounded at Clackamas Town Center near Portland, Oregon when a rifle-toting gunman opened fire in in the busy food court. Nick Meli, a shopper in the mall, drew a personally owned firearm on the gunman, who immediately retreated to a service corridor and killed himself. Meli did not fire his weapon for fear of striking bystanders yet authorities say his actions caused the gunman to cease his attack and end his own life.
And here's some folks who did a little fact checking:
A recent analysis of FBI data by the Washington Post found that for every lethal justified shooting – what could be called “good guy with a gun” incidents – guns are responsible for 34 murders, 78 suicides, and 2 accidental deaths. The vast majority of these 114 “bad guy” deaths for each “good guy” death could be prevented with gun control, so acting like “good guys with guns” are the main group to be protected is dangerously disingenuous. Moreover, as a recent case in Houston in which an armed passerby attempted to stop a carjacking and instead shot the victim shows, even in the few instances in which armed citizens could actually do something, the chaos, confusion, and fear of the situation makes it near-impossible.
Oh, and the woman security guard former police officer in Colorado Springs who stopped further carnage? The church fired her after they found out she was gay. 'Murica.
Gun debates is like the climate change debate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the US has a gun problem people don't care. They like their guns too much and their SUV's.
More guns are the answer though. Incredibly idiotic
You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a shit about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door..going 'fuckin yeah!' Jim Jefferies
There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.
Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.
hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their car key's laying around, fail to lock up their liquor cabinet when they leave, fail to hide their spoons and forks from over weight family members, smoke weed because most growers own and use guns to protect their harvest, T.V promotes violence, fish feel pain too ! and ........it's all Obama's fault, I think I got it now.
There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.
Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.
Oh yeah. Campus carry is being sought in Florida, too. It passed the first measure in the House last week.
Sorry about your loss dudeman.
I am generally against carry. Period. As a Canadian, I think the fewer people walking around with guns the better.
As someone who works at a university, and therefore as someone who has a somewhat realistic concern about a mass shooting happening where I work, I am also against arming school security for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we just don't need that kind of atmosphere at an institution for higher learning. It would just be harmful to the culture of the campus. Secondly, I wouldn't want to arm the people who work security at universities specifically. I know who these people are, what they're like. While they do their best, I definitely cannot say I'd be comfortable knowing that they have been given the power to shoot people. They are NOT cops, and they aren't paid to carry that level of responsibility. Training them to the extent that I think they'd need (not just some intro courses - I think they'd need extensive training for gun use and for gun use during various crises and non-crises (i.e. we don't want this people shooting a student because they read a situation wrong or went all Rambo on pub night). Basically the kind of training actual police officers get) and then paying them for the expectations that we'd consequently have for them would completely break the university's security budget. Yes, the alternative would be to train them THAT well and pay them much more.... but do you think schools would actually do that?? I absolutely do not. They'd provide the minimum level of training they thought they could get away with and keep paying shitty wages for their security guards, and you're left with a school with a damaged culture of learning and a bunch of armed incompetents who are rendered a danger in and of themselves.
From where I sit, the current situation for campus safety sucks. The campus police, administrators and unarmed security guards have so far, failed to keep their students safe. I can't imagine why anyone would want to willingly deny the right of self preservation from others.
If arming and training security guards wouldn't work because of the caliber of people who become guards and because of funding concerns, we have failed more spectacularly than I thought.
In order to have a healthy "culture of learning" I think the students need to be alive.
First and foremost, I'm sorry for your losses. No one should experience those and I'm sorry you did. Now I have a better understanding if where you're coming from and why you have the opinions that you do.
Your post that I have quoted is a false narrative. Colleges around the country, day in and day out, teach and protect their students without incident. Mass shootings while rare, particularly for college campuses are on the rise, the number of incidences, as a percentage, are infinitesimal when taken as a % of the whole, say by number of teaching hours or students taught times number of days without incident. Still, horrific and tragic but not one where allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution, IMHO.
Most mass shootings, defined as 4 or more victims, are domestic in nature or where the victims knew the shooter. Your previous post to this one posits that there is nothing that can be done by others to enhance gun safety and if all just spoke to those around us, killings would stop. That's another false narrative that denies the true nature of the problem and suggests there are no reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. First and foremost, that article starts out by claiming you can't ban guns. True, no one wants to ban guns. It's a scare tactic that diverts attention away from what can be done: universal federal mandatory stringent background checks for all gun purchases, private and gun show included; mandatory federal 30 day cooling off period for all gun purchases; federal training, licensing and insurance requirements for all gun purchases (I'd grandfather current gun ownership); increased federal and state funding for ATF and local law enforcement to reduce straw purchases and arms trafficking as well as auditing of gun dealers records of sale and stiff fines and punishment for violaters. We have to start somewhere and if we start now, it won't change overnight but it might be different 20 years from now, much like drunk driving deaths and motor vehicle accidents have been reduced.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but it shouldn't allow you to be irresponsible with said arms. Minimum punishments, hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their guns laying around so a toddler can shoot someone. Sorry your kid shot your other kid, now go spend some time in jail, idiot.
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.
Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.
This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?
It seems this has turned into another "should American's be allowed to keep/carry their guns" thread. No, it's a thread about one school that wants to adopt a carry-on-campus policy and about a group of people who believe (rightfully so, in my opinion) that this idea is both dangerous and insane.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.
Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.
This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?
It seems this has turned into another "should American's be allowed to keep/carry their guns" thread. No, it's a thread about one school that wants to adopt a carry-on-campus policy and about a group of people who believe (rightfully so, in my opinion) that this idea is both dangerous and insane.
Without trying to be the thread police, I think we should try to keep this one on topic out of respect for the OP.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Gun debates is like the climate change debate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the US has a gun problem people don't care. They like their guns too much and their SUV's.
More guns are the answer though. Incredibly idiotic
You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a shit about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door..going 'fuckin yeah!' Jim Jefferies
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
Dudeman,
Before I'd agree to your offer, I would need to understand the criteria for obtaining a CCW permit in Texas and I'd like there to be a minimum federal standard with states being able to be more stringent. In exchange for a robust federal standard, I'd consider allowing CCW permits to be applicable across state lines. Is the process of obtaining a CCW permit solely based on passing a background check? Is there a minimum level of proficiency in how one handles a firearm? Ability to shoot straight, knowledge of safety protocols, how to conduct oneself when confronting an armed bad guy, re-licensing standards, minimum classroom/gun range hours, , limits on who is awarded a CCW permit, etc.? However, the evidence continues to mount that more guns do not reduce the incidents of gun related deaths:
In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.
Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.
In a recent TED talk, Webster prepared a list of such reforms that stopped well short of gun confiscation and suggested the evidence shows that they offer a path to reducing gun murders in the United States by 30 to 50 percent and to dramatically curtail gun suicides.
But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than 33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.
I don't have a problem with "law abiding" citizens owning firearms. However, they're typically law abiding until they're not, for a whole host of reasons, more often than not, due to domestic (abuse or work place) issues.
Oh yeah. Campus carry is being sought in Florida, too. It passed the first measure in the House last week.
Sorry about your loss dudeman.
I am generally against carry. Period. As a Canadian, I think the fewer people walking around with guns the better.
As someone who works at a university, and therefore as someone who has a somewhat realistic concern about a mass shooting happening where I work, I am also against arming school security for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we just don't need that kind of atmosphere at an institution for higher learning. It would just be harmful to the culture of the campus. Secondly, I wouldn't want to arm the people who work security at universities specifically. I know who these people are, what they're like. While they do their best, I definitely cannot say I'd be comfortable knowing that they have been given the power to shoot people. They are NOT cops, and they aren't paid to carry that level of responsibility. Training them to the extent that I think they'd need (not just some intro courses - I think they'd need extensive training for gun use and for gun use during various crises and non-crises (i.e. we don't want this people shooting a student because they read a situation wrong or went all Rambo on pub night). Basically the kind of training actual police officers get) and then paying them for the expectations that we'd consequently have for them would completely break the university's security budget. Yes, the alternative would be to train them THAT well and pay them much more.... but do you think schools would actually do that?? I absolutely do not. They'd provide the minimum level of training they thought they could get away with and keep paying shitty wages for their security guards, and you're left with a school with a damaged culture of learning and a bunch of armed incompetents who are rendered a danger in and of themselves.
From where I sit, the current situation for campus safety sucks. The campus police, administrators and unarmed security guards have so far, failed to keep their students safe. I can't imagine why anyone would want to willingly deny the right of self preservation from others.
If arming and training security guards wouldn't work because of the caliber of people who become guards and because of funding concerns, we have failed more spectacularly than I thought.
In order to have a healthy "culture of learning" I think the students need to be alive.
First and foremost, I'm sorry for your losses. No one should experience those and I'm sorry you did. Now I have a better understanding if where you're coming from and why you have the opinions that you do.
Your post that I have quoted is a false narrative. Colleges around the country, day in and day out, teach and protect their students without incident. Mass shootings while rare, particularly for college campuses are on the rise, the number of incidences, as a percentage, are infinitesimal when taken as a % of the whole, say by number of teaching hours or students taught times number of days without incident. Still, horrific and tragic but not one where allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution, IMHO.
Most mass shootings, defined as 4 or more victims, are domestic in nature or where the victims knew the shooter. Your previous post to this one posits that there is nothing that can be done by others to enhance gun safety and if all just spoke to those around us, killings would stop. That's another false narrative that denies the true nature of the problem and suggests there are no reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. First and foremost, that article starts out by claiming you can't ban guns. True, no one wants to ban guns. It's a scare tactic that diverts attention away from what can be done: universal federal mandatory stringent background checks for all gun purchases, private and gun show included; mandatory federal 30 day cooling off period for all gun purchases; federal training, licensing and insurance requirements for all gun purchases (I'd grandfather current gun ownership); increased federal and state funding for ATF and local law enforcement to reduce straw purchases and arms trafficking as well as auditing of gun dealers records of sale and stiff fines and punishment for violaters. We have to start somewhere and if we start now, it won't change overnight but it might be different 20 years from now, much like drunk driving deaths and motor vehicle accidents have been reduced.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but it shouldn't allow you to be irresponsible with said arms. Minimum punishments, hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their guns laying around so a toddler can shoot someone. Sorry your kid shot your other kid, now go spend some time in jail, idiot.
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
Would that include state houses and the halls of Congress? Airports? Stadiums? Convention centers, particularly NRA conventions and headquarters? Hospitals? Military bases? CIA headquarters? NSA facilities? If not, why not?
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
Dudeman,
Before I'd agree to your offer, I would need to understand the criteria for obtaining a CCW permit in Texas and I'd like there to be a minimum federal standard with states being able to be more stringent. In exchange for a robust federal standard, I'd consider allowing CCW permits to be applicable across state lines. Is the process of obtaining a CCW permit solely based on passing a background check? Is there a minimum level of proficiency in how one handles a firearm? Ability to shoot straight, knowledge of safety protocols, how to conduct oneself when confronting an armed bad guy, re-licensing standards, minimum classroom/gun range hours, , limits on who is awarded a CCW permit, etc.? However, the evidence continues to mount that more guns do not reduce the incidents of gun related deaths:
The requirements vary from state to state. Actually in Maine, I believe no permit is necessary to carry a concealed handgun if you're a resident of Maine. There may be a couple other states where this is the case, too. As for most that require a permit, yes, you need to pass a firearms safety course both in a classroom and on the range. Background check, fingerprinting......the works.
Also, I'm sure you're aware but you just openly admitted to entering into a discussion in which you don't fully understand what you're arguing against. Tsk tsk. LOL!
In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.
Permit to purchase is entirely different than CCW. PTP laws apply to everyone who is interested in legally obtaining a gun, not so much for the criminals who mostly get their weapons from friends, family members and criminal, black-market activity. (The last part of that statement came from interviews with incarcerated criminals in Illinois. Google it if you want actual numbers.)
Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.
Yes, a lot of states have their own guidelines and the federal form 4473 specifies that felons, people committed for mental issues, illegal aliens, people who have restraining orders against them, domestic abusers, drug addicts (including Marijuana), people dishonorably discharged from military service and those who have renounced their US citizenship are barred from legally owning firearms. I don't have any issue with this because all of the people in those categories have made choices that ended in a loss of rights. (With the exception of the mental illness group, of course.) Most proposed additional gun control legislation will impact those who have done nothing wrong and it is akin to being punished for crimes committed by others. I would much rather see more enforcement of the laws we already have. Every year thousands of people fail the NICS background check imposed at FFL dealers. Do you know how often there is an inquiry as to why they were denied or there is an investigation into why they were attempting to buy a gun? Somewhere between 20 and 70 times.......out of thousands. (You can Google that one, too.)
In a recent TED talk, Webster prepared a list of such reforms that stopped well short of gun confiscation and suggested the evidence shows that they offer a path to reducing gun murders in the United States by 30 to 50 percent and to dramatically curtail gun suicides.
But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than 33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.
You know that those gun death figures contain suicides and justifiable self defense shootings by civilians and police. Accidents are in there, too. While I agree that the total number is way too high, do you really think that insurance requirements on firearms is going to have any influence on the over 20,000 people that commit suicide with guns annually? No. Are any of those regulations going to miraculously disappear the black market for guns? No. Trafficking guns is already highly illegal, do you think making it more illegal is going to reduce that practice? No. Is the guy buying black market Glocks out of the back of a van going to be subject to your mandatory 30-day cooling off period?
It comes down to this: People have to want to stop killing themselves and each other.
I don't have a problem with "law abiding" citizens owning firearms. However, they're typically law abiding until they're not, for a whole host of reasons, more often than not, due to domestic (abuse or work place) issues.
So, as a gun owner, are you saying that I'm domestic violence waiting to happen? Typically? This is why I grow wary of these discussions. Many of you see fit to apply the label of "criminal in waiting" to people who have done nothing to deserve that label. How about I just be responsible for my own actions and not be judged for the criminal and negligent acts of others?
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Oh yeah. Campus carry is being sought in Florida, too. It passed the first measure in the House last week.
Sorry about your loss dudeman.
I am generally against carry. Period. As a Canadian, I think the fewer people walking around with guns the better.
As someone who works at a university, and therefore as someone who has a somewhat realistic concern about a mass shooting happening where I work, I am also against arming school security for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we just don't need that kind of atmosphere at an institution for higher learning. It would just be harmful to the culture of the campus. Secondly, I wouldn't want to arm the people who work security at universities specifically. I know who these people are, what they're like. While they do their best, I definitely cannot say I'd be comfortable knowing that they have been given the power to shoot people. They are NOT cops, and they aren't paid to carry that level of responsibility. Training them to the extent that I think they'd need (not just some intro courses - I think they'd need extensive training for gun use and for gun use during various crises and non-crises (i.e. we don't want this people shooting a student because they read a situation wrong or went all Rambo on pub night). Basically the kind of training actual police officers get) and then paying them for the expectations that we'd consequently have for them would completely break the university's security budget. Yes, the alternative would be to train them THAT well and pay them much more.... but do you think schools would actually do that?? I absolutely do not. They'd provide the minimum level of training they thought they could get away with and keep paying shitty wages for their security guards, and you're left with a school with a damaged culture of learning and a bunch of armed incompetents who are rendered a danger in and of themselves.
From where I sit, the current situation for campus safety sucks. The campus police, administrators and unarmed security guards have so far, failed to keep their students safe. I can't imagine why anyone would want to willingly deny the right of self preservation from others.
If arming and training security guards wouldn't work because of the caliber of people who become guards and because of funding concerns, we have failed more spectacularly than I thought.
In order to have a healthy "culture of learning" I think the students need to be alive.
First and foremost, I'm sorry for your losses. No one should experience those and I'm sorry you did. Now I have a better understanding if where you're coming from and why you have the opinions that you do.
Your post that I have quoted is a false narrative. Colleges around the country, day in and day out, teach and protect their students without incident. Mass shootings while rare, particularly for college campuses are on the rise, the number of incidences, as a percentage, are infinitesimal when taken as a % of the whole, say by number of teaching hours or students taught times number of days without incident. Still, horrific and tragic but not one where allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution, IMHO.
Most mass shootings, defined as 4 or more victims, are domestic in nature or where the victims knew the shooter. Your previous post to this one posits that there is nothing that can be done by others to enhance gun safety and if all just spoke to those around us, killings would stop. That's another false narrative that denies the true nature of the problem and suggests there are no reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. First and foremost, that article starts out by claiming you can't ban guns. True, no one wants to ban guns. It's a scare tactic that diverts attention away from what can be done: universal federal mandatory stringent background checks for all gun purchases, private and gun show included; mandatory federal 30 day cooling off period for all gun purchases; federal training, licensing and insurance requirements for all gun purchases (I'd grandfather current gun ownership); increased federal and state funding for ATF and local law enforcement to reduce straw purchases and arms trafficking as well as auditing of gun dealers records of sale and stiff fines and punishment for violaters. We have to start somewhere and if we start now, it won't change overnight but it might be different 20 years from now, much like drunk driving deaths and motor vehicle accidents have been reduced.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but it shouldn't allow you to be irresponsible with said arms. Minimum punishments, hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their guns laying around so a toddler can shoot someone. Sorry your kid shot your other kid, now go spend some time in jail, idiot.
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
Would that include state houses and the halls of Congress? Airports? Stadiums? Convention centers, particularly NRA conventions and headquarters? Hospitals? Military bases? CIA headquarters? NSA facilities? If not, why not?
Sure, unless they already have armed security personnel on premises so civilian CCW is less necessary.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?
It seems this has turned into another "should American's be allowed to keep/carry their guns" thread. No, it's a thread about one school that wants to adopt a carry-on-campus policy and about a group of people who believe (rightfully so, in my opinion) that this idea is both dangerous and insane.
To be fair, the "Carry on Campus" policy is a state law in Texas. However, they are only allowing those with Concealed Handgun Licenses to carry, not just anyone who feels like it. Those with CHL's are over 21 years old, don't have a criminal background and are statistically among the most law-abiding and responsible members of society.
I understand the opposition to the law, I really do. More guns = more gun deaths. That said, with such a high percentage of students, faculty and administrators against campus carry, we are really talking about a very small number of people that would be likely to carry a concealed handgun on campus.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Here in FL no range tests are associated with a CCP permit.You have to fire into a bucket.1 shot.then background and fingerprinting is done .The course takes 4 hrs.ATF checks you out and the 4weeks later your permit arrives. I've been a CCP holder for years.I rarely carry on me but I do keep a firearm locked in my vehicle.Andwhen not on plane usually travel with it. I heard a great start to this problem the other day.Let me see if I can find and post a link.As A gun owner,I want change,We need reform.Something has to be done.And it starts with hitting the gun lobby. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/defy-gun-lobby/?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iref=obinsite
There have been times when I have gotten myself into 'dust ups'. These times are marked by intense emotion and adrenaline: fight versus flight and survival instincts at their peak.
During these times... I was never thinking about consequences. I was thinking about... well... beating the crap out of my opponent before he beats the crap out of me.
If I or my opponent had a gun under our hoodies... would one have resorted to it? As it stands, me and my opponents both emerged from our disputes relatively fine; but I can imagine alternate scenarios where a simple 'dust up' turns into tragedy because one participant has a gun and opts to use it when they really didn't need to.
Having a gun increases the chances of a death by a gun. Why people think more guns is cool numbs the mind. It truly does. But, as has been demonstrated, people believe all sorts of shit- it really makes one pessimistic.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
April 24, 1998 Parker Middle School: Edinboro, Pennsylvania
A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a .25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer. Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for additional weapons.
Here's how it was reported by the NYT. Note the quoted police spokesperson on how it went down:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/student-guns-down-science-teacher-chaperoning-school-dance.html
The guy with the shotgun didn't stop shit, except for maybe preventing him from getting away. The perp walked out of the building and the shotgun guy caught up to him in the field and held him until police arrived. Your source makes it sound as if he stopped more carnage inside the banquet hall by getting his shotgun and holding it on him until the cops arrived. Again, the rampage didn't end when the guy grabbed his shotgun, it ended when the perp walked out of the dance hall. Pesky things, those facts.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Jan. 16, 2002: Appalachian School of Law: Grundy, Virginia
A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman was then apprehended by other students.
Now, here's how it was reported by the NYTs, note the description of how the suspect was already being tackled when the student/law officer that went to their car to retrieve their gun arrived on scene, not held the perp at gunpoint until the perp was tackled by fellow students as your source described it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/us/3-slain-at-law-school-student-is-held.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Dec. 9, 2007: New Life Church: Colorado Springs, Colorado
2 parishioners were killed and 3 wounded when a gunman toting a Bushmaster AR-15 opened fire at New Hope Church. Hearing the rifle fire, Jeanne Assam grabbed her personal concealed carry firearm and confronted the gunman from a distance of 20 yards. According to 5280 Magazine:
She fires five quick shots. Murray falls backward. Assam moves to the middle of the corridor and rushes forward. She’s a few dozen feet from Murray now, exposed in the middle of the hallway. “Drop your weapon, or I will kill you!” she yells. Murray sits up to face her. He’s still holding the rifle. Boom-boom-boom. Bullets rip past her and pepper a wall. While Murray shoots, Assam fires three times.
Through the haze of gun smoke, Assam sees the man struggling on the floor. He props his head against a wall. Her weapon is up, trained on the man. She sees his hands moving near his shoulder. He’s trying to pull the pin on a grenade. He’s going to kill everyone around here, Assam thinks. She instinctively steps back and fires two more shots.
Here's how it was reported in the LA Times:
Magazine:http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11
Notice some salient facts: Jeanne Assam is an armed security guard and former police officer. No mention of a grenade. A back pack with 1,000 rounds is mentioned as well as other news sources saying suspicious packages were being investigated. Where's the source that says her shots killed him? Not doubt she saved lives but she wasn't an everyday, ordinary citizen with a CCW permit as you'd like us to believe.
Why does the pro-gun crowd feel the need to embellish their narrative?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
May 27, 2010
A 79-year-old man entered an AT&T store in New York Mills, New York carrying a .357 magnum revolver in his hand and a list of employees he planned to kill in his pocket. Hearing the hand cannon go off, Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and killed the gunman before he could complete his plan. One employee was wounded in the shooting.
Here's how news sources reported it:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/customer_suspect_reported_shot.html
Salient facts: Off duty police officer shot him dead after he killed one and injured another, not "before he could complete his plan."
http://nypost.com/2010/05/27/customer-gunman-killed-in-central-ny-att-store/
Again, not your everyday run of the mill CCW permit holder as you would like us to believe.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Dec. 11, 2012
Two people were killed and a third was seriously wounded at Clackamas Town Center near Portland, Oregon when a rifle-toting gunman opened fire in in the busy food court. Nick Meli, a shopper in the mall, drew a personally owned firearm on the gunman, who immediately retreated to a service corridor and killed himself. Meli did not fire his weapon for fear of striking bystanders yet authorities say his actions caused the gunman to cease his attack and end his own life.
And here's some folks who did a little fact checking:
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2014/feb/12/oregon-citizens-lobby/were-kip-kinkel-and-clackamas-town-center-shooting/
They were quick to tweet but also quick with a denial after they were questioned about the veracity of their tweet. Again, nice job.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/combat-veterans-nras-good-guy-with-a-gun-nonsense-is-a-dangerous-fantasy/
See? I didn't make you go Google it. Attack the source if you'd like but I'm sure you can Google the statistics they site.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
More guns are the answer though. Incredibly idiotic
You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a shit about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door..going 'fuckin yeah!' Jim Jefferies
Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.
Godfather.
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
www.headstonesband.com
You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.
And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.
We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.
As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.
In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.
Deal?
Dudeman,
Before I'd agree to your offer, I would need to understand the criteria for obtaining a CCW permit in Texas and I'd like there to be a minimum federal standard with states being able to be more stringent. In exchange for a robust federal standard, I'd consider allowing CCW permits to be applicable across state lines. Is the process of obtaining a CCW permit solely based on passing a background check? Is there a minimum level of proficiency in how one handles a firearm? Ability to shoot straight, knowledge of safety protocols, how to conduct oneself when confronting an armed bad guy, re-licensing standards, minimum classroom/gun range hours, , limits on who is awarded a CCW permit, etc.? However, the evidence continues to mount that more guns do not reduce the incidents of gun related deaths:
In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.
Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.
In a recent TED talk, Webster prepared a list of such reforms that stopped well short of gun confiscation and suggested the evidence shows that they offer a path to reducing gun murders in the United States by 30 to 50 percent and to dramatically curtail gun suicides.
But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than 33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-common-sense-gun-policies-that-would-save-lives/2015/10/15/3fd8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
I don't have a problem with "law abiding" citizens owning firearms. However, they're typically law abiding until they're not, for a whole host of reasons, more often than not, due to domestic (abuse or work place) issues.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I understand the opposition to the law, I really do. More guns = more gun deaths. That said, with such a high percentage of students, faculty and administrators against campus carry, we are really talking about a very small number of people that would be likely to carry a concealed handgun on campus.
I've been a CCP holder for years.I rarely carry on me but I do keep a firearm locked in my vehicle.Andwhen not on plane usually travel with it.
I heard a great start to this problem the other day.Let me see if I can find and post a link.As A gun owner,I want change,We need reform.Something has to be done.And it starts with hitting the gun lobby.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/defy-gun-lobby/?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iref=obinsite
There have been times when I have gotten myself into 'dust ups'. These times are marked by intense emotion and adrenaline: fight versus flight and survival instincts at their peak.
During these times... I was never thinking about consequences. I was thinking about... well... beating the crap out of my opponent before he beats the crap out of me.
If I or my opponent had a gun under our hoodies... would one have resorted to it? As it stands, me and my opponents both emerged from our disputes relatively fine; but I can imagine alternate scenarios where a simple 'dust up' turns into tragedy because one participant has a gun and opts to use it when they really didn't need to.
Having a gun increases the chances of a death by a gun. Why people think more guns is cool numbs the mind. It truly does. But, as has been demonstrated, people believe all sorts of shit- it really makes one pessimistic.