I walk into the house an hour ago – make a cup of tea – click on the TV and sit down to check out the day’s news. And this is what I see:
A person who shot 13 people Thursday at Northern Illinois University’s DeKalb campus outside Chicago has died, local reports said.
Most of the 13 wounded were shot in the head, said Theresa Comitas, spokeswoman for Kishwaukee Community Hospital, located about 10 minutes from the school…
A woman named Corrine described the scene to CLTV, saying she was “carried out” of Cole Hall by a “wave” of students running for their lives.
“When one of the kids said, ‘This guy is shooting!’ I just ran to the next building as fast as I could and hid in an empty classroom.”
You’ll get to see all the details, the final body count, on TV, tonight. All the “analysis” over the next week.
Ah Yea–how much alzheimer is in play here?
I said pleasure, you said pressure and I think it is revenge only that is better on waiting. Don’t we all want maximum pleasure asap? I’ll think about pressure, or do you mean “harder baby?”
Alright – I think it’s time for you guys to get a room…
#63
RE: VT and Police Officers
I agree that the exact scenario is untestable however we can certainly consider similar scenarios where off duty police officers were part of a group of victims and reach a reasonable conclusion that they would have made a difference. To claim that the body count would have been higher had the victims been trained and armed is simply ridiculous.
> There were “licensed individuals” (POLICE)..
#64 said it nicely. Whether the police are armed is not the same as the victims being armed. You agreed that there are simply not enough police officers to protect everyone all the time. Since victims were unarmed primarily due to the campus-wide ban on carrying firearms they had no means to protect themselves even if they had the means and training.
> Again there is not one piece of
> evidence either way that the ban
> would have changed anything.
If there is no proof that the ban would have mitigated nor stopped the killing, then why have the ban in the first place?
RE: Police
If we agree that the police cannot possibly protect everyone, then how do the people protect themselves? The remainder of your paragraph talked about ways of lowering the odds that such a killing will occur. Ok. That does nothing to protect the people when it does it occur.
> Do you even realize that you are
> attacking your
> own argument with that logic? What
> are you going
> to do with a gun? Shoot people before
> they commit
> a crime? Yeah, I thought so.
Do I really have to spell it out for you in simpleton terms? An armed, off-duty police officer is different than a uniformed police officer. If the victims had the equivalent training of a police officer and were armed, reasonable people would agree that the killing would have been reduced. So, no I did not contradict myself.
> What are you going
> to do with a gun? Shoot people
> before they commit
> a crime? Yeah, I thought so.
That is the general idea, yes. Why is that a problem?
A gun is not the *only* way to protect yourself. However, when confronted with someone that is substantially superior in strength and ability, a gun can even the odds.
J, back before 1968, anyone at all could buy a machine gun and have it delivered by the USPS. People could, and did, buy milsurp fighter planes, complete with machine guns. Tanks, complete with machine guns and cannons. Warships, likewise. Ammo for all of them was easily obtained, as were bombs.
Where were all the murders? Where were all the massacres?
“I was talking about deterrence effect of everyone carrying a weapon. It won’t stop this type of killer. Isn’t this the type of killer everyone gets into a tissy about and wants less or more laws for guns because this wouldn’t happen if……?”
Getting killed would stop this type of killer, and how much of an accident is it that so few attempted killings of this sort are attempted where people who are armed hang out?
“Crime rates go up and down”? By how much? Don’t you even read the NRA magazines you get with your membership?
“Member of the NRA”? BFD. Most gun owners do not belong to the NRA, and about half of those that don’t regard the NRA as pro-gun control. If even half of the gun owners belonged to the ILA (the political part of the NRA), it would be the most powerful political organization in the US.
You show too much ingnorance for me to believe your claim that you are a member.
#83 Thomas
“I agree that the exact scenario is un-testable however we can certainly consider similar scenarios where off duty police officers were part of a group of victims and reach a reasonable conclusion that they would have made a difference. ”
That depends on the deference but for the sake of argument I will assume you mean things would have ended up with less dead. No. It is not a reasonable conclusion. It is speculation and wishful thinking. Nothing more. Have you ever noticed that when an event like this occurs they tend to call in the specialist like swat or a tactical group with marksmen not the “average” police officer. So if the police themselves realize that a “special” person is need in “special events” what makes you think that the average citizen is or ever would be trained to handle such a scenario and act accordingly.
“If there is no proof that the ban would have mitigated nor stopped the killing, then why have the ban in the first place?”
I never said I supported the ban but I don’t think more people with guns is inevitably a better or less deadly situation. It depends on way too many variables to make any absolute conclusions. Each event is different and each event could have an unknowable number of outcomes.
“If we agree that the police cannot possibly protect everyone, then how do the people protect themselves? ”
It is called life. Shit happens.
“Ok. That does nothing to protect the people when it does it occur.”
Guns are no guarantee either!!!!!!!! You want guarantees go buy a car. Life doesn’t offer them. There are no statistics to back up that more people with guns would make you safer when a loon decides to shoot up the place. All it would do is put more bullets in the air and increase the potential for someone else to die!
“If the victims had the equivalent training of a police officer and were armed, reasonable people would agree that the killing would have been reduced. So, no I did not contradict myself.”
First yes you did and second do you really think all gun owners have or will ever have the experience that a trained law enforcement officer has? Even the police rely on specialist in situations like that! So even they think it require extra training above and beyond.
“That is the general idea, yes. Why is that a problem?”
Now I think you are joking. but just in case you are not. You would end up in jail because that would be murder.
#84 Phillep
“Where were all the murders? Where were all the massacres? ”
First there were plenty of murders before 1968. Second the number of tanks, machine guns and fighter planes owned by the general public was relatively small and more difficult to store. Unlike handguns today.
Phillep. It is clear to me you have missed my point. IT ISN”T ABOUT THE GUNS!!!!!!! BUT MORE GUNS WON”T FIX THE PROBLEM EITHER!!!!!!!
“Getting killed would stop this type of killer, and how much of an accident is it that so few attempted killings of this sort are attempted where people who are armed hang out?”
How much of an accident is it that they tend to happen where larges groups gather? Don’t ask dumb questions that have no foundation in fact. They happen based on a reasoning of a mental patient. Do you really think a loon with a death wish evaluates such things when they plan to carryout their crime? Oh Please!!!! Read from me their manifesto that states such and I will concede.
“Don’t you even read the NRA magazines you get with your membership? ”
Sure do and it is mostly propaganda. I belong to the NRA not because I think every nutjob should have a gun but because I believe in the bill of rights.
“Most gun owners do not belong to the NRA, and about half of those that don’t regard the NRA as pro-gun control.”
The NRA believes in reasonable gun control and responsible gun ownership that doesn’t intrude on the 2nd amendment. If you own a gun and don’t, you probably shouldn’t own a gun.
“You show too much ignorance for me to believe your claim that you are a member.”
I don’t care what you believe. I bet you don’t believe Michael Moore is a member either. Oh and BTW ignorance of what? Gun laws? Proper weapon usage? Propaganda? What?
I have said many time to other members (my whole family). The NRA has been taken over by a political movement and has lost site of what it really stands for. They do themselves a dis service with some of the nonsense they get behind.
#84 – You show too much ingnorance for me to believe your claim that you are a member.
It isn’t like the bar is set too high for membership…
J, I know ardent gun grabbers who are members of the NRA, it’s called “keeping track of the enemy”. You call it all propaganda? Hah. You and Fat Mike.
Anyone who confuses sexuality with firearm ownership has problems. You conflate the two constantly.
Here’s yet another piece of bonehead Logic-Free Reasoning®™:
“…what makes you think that the average citizen is or ever would be trained to handle such a scenario and act accordingly.”
The word ‘what’ makes that a question, which is closed with, not a period (.) but an interrobang, otherwise known as a ‘question mark (?). You know as little about using English as you do about using reasoning.
In answer, no one thinks the average citizen IS trained. By definition, a citizen with a CC permit is NOT an “average citizen.” A licensed carrier is specifically trained, not to balance a ball on the end of his or her nose, but to deal with the SPECIFIC ISSUES INVOLVED WITH CARRYING AND USING A LOADED PISTOL.
Despite your idiotic implied caricature, they are not handed a gun, told “hide it” and pushed out the door. They are instructed to remain calm, to not draw attention, to supress their startle reflex, to be absolutely certain that a threat necessitating a potentially lethal response is present, to be alert for opportunities to nullify the threat without precipitating a firefight, to quickly relinquish their weapon and identify themselves upon the arrival of law enforcement on the scene.
They are also instructed in how to calmly and without presenting a danger to others present, use their weapon to conclusively nullify the threat presented by the bad actor.
And you may be shocked to note that on the thankfully rare occasions that concealed-carriers actually use their weapons, they are never gunned down by law enforcement mistaking them for the perp, they do not accidentally shoot innocent bystanders, they do not mistakenly shoot innocent persons mistaken for the perp.
“All it would do is put more bullets in the air and increase the potential for someone else to die!”
No it wouldn’t, you colossal imbecile. We know that it would not, since it has PLAYED OUT IN THE REAL WORLD, and the absurd scenario you paint HAS NOT COME TO PASS. Or does real-world experience now take a back seat to your technically-possible-but-astronomically-unlikely scenarios?
“First there were plenty of murders before 1968.”
No, there were not, Bozo.
But you are right about how the NRA backs ridiculous causes that have little to do with their alleged purpose. I know people who WON’T join because they don’t want to even be associated with such crap.
OK. Broken watch = correct twice a day. To paraphrase James Bond, “That’s a Smith & Wesson; you’ve had your two.”
RE: SWAT
If the victims been SWAT team members would the death toll would have been less? If so, then again we are talking about degrees of training.
More people that are better trained with guns would have resulted in a lower death toll than the situation that did occur where everyone was unarmed. Yes, I think that more people should be permitted to carry guns but I also think that the training required to maintain ownership and authority to carry those weapons should be substantially increased.
>> “If we agree that the police cannot
>> possibly protect everyone, then
>> how do the people protect themselves? ”
>
> It is called life. Shit happens.
Wow. Hard to know what to say in the face of such bold ignorance. I could of course bring up the thousands of woman that are raped every year or the number of aggravated assaults that occur but in the face of that kind of ignorance I doubt it will help. Basically, you want everyone to be defenseless except for the State. That’s the “kumbaya” mentality to life. “Everyone will just sit around the campfire and get along.” Life doesn’t work that way.
> Guns are no guarantee either…
Never said they were. However, the do provide another means by which a person can defend themselves or prevent a violent crime without the assistance of the police.
From #90
Should read:
“If the victims had been SWAT team members would the death toll have been less?”
Dang. I just caught myself being unfair – and inaccurate. Allow me to make amends.
• • • • • • • • •
My Right Honorable Friend delivered himself of an utterance which upon first reading, appeared to be an untrue-to-fact categorical assertion, to wit:
“First there were plenty of murders before 1968.”
I preëmptively dismissed this innocent statement, offered as it was in good faith by My RHF, in an unwholesome and unseemly spirit of derision and mockery, viz,
“No, there were not, Bozo.”
Rather than present the spectacle of castigating myself over this unfortunate incident, I would pray leave to proffer my most abject apologies for engaging in such counterproductive and alienating raillery, and to take the opportunity to bring my comment into line, acknowledging my opponent’s lack of error and clarifying any remaining point(s) of contention, which I hereupon proceed to do:
• • • • • • • • • •
You are correct. There were, in point of actual fact, very, very many homicides antecedent to the Year of Our Lord 1968. Tens, indeed, hundreds of millions of murders, all over the world, from prehistoric times onward. Mea culpa. I should not have dismissed your statement is such a demeaning manner.
THIS is how I should’ve dismissed your statement in such a demeaning manner:
The per capita first-degree murder rate in the United States, post-WWII, was at it’s lowest in history, and stayed low until the mid-’60s, where it took off. And the rise in murders overall from ’64 on disguises the fact that second- and third-degree murder was actually declining; the number of deliberate, premeditated murders, first-degree, climbed precipitously from that point onward.
First-degree murder, prior to the second half of the ’60s, was NOT common, despite, as Phillep noted, virtually nonexistent restrictions on purchase and ownership of powerful military weapons and ordinance. And that is to totally ignore the almost exclusively recent phenomenon of mass murder in peacetime America.
Bozo.
#88 Phillep
“J, I know ardent gun grabbers who are members of the NRA, it’s called “keeping track of the enemy”.”
Yeah and????? I am not one of them. I think people should have the right to own and posses guns even concealed. As long as they follow the laws and meat the requirements.
“You call it all propaganda? Hah. You and Fat Mike”
Why yes I do. A lot of the stuff they get behind has more to do with political agendas and less to do with protecting the first amendment.
“Anyone who confuses sexuality with firearm ownership has problems. ”
I’m not the one confused. There are a lot of people who own guns because they feel it makes them more manly. Not all mind you but a lot. You can usually spot them because they like to talk about their guns all the time and shooting them gets them excited. I am sure you know the type.
#89 three headed kitty
“Here’s yet another piece of bonehead Logic-Free Reasoning®™:”
I would be careful and have DU remove that unless you really do have the registration to the phrase. It is illegal to use the ® symbol unless the mark is federally registered for the products or services it is used on.
“The word ‘what’ makes that a question………”
When you have lost a debate attack grammar and spelling. Well you got me I have terrible grammar and terrible spelling when typing on a blog.
“In answer, no one thinks the average citizen IS trained. By definition, a citizen with a CC permit is NOT an “average citizen.””
Semantics. You know I meant the average citizen that has a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
“A licensed carrier is specifically trained, not to balance a ball on the end of his or her nose, but to deal with the SPECIFIC ISSUES INVOLVED WITH CARRYING AND USING A LOADED PISTOL.”
Yes! EVERYDAY situations or situations that they have a high probability to encounter. But it isn’t an everyday situation when someone decides to shoot up a school. Even if it seems that way lately.
“Despite your idiotic implied caricature, they are not handed a gun, told “hide it” and pushed out the door. ”
I never implied any such thing. There you go reading with those special glasses of yours.
“They are instructed to remain calm, to not draw attention, to suppress their startle reflex, to be absolutely certain that a threat necessitating a potentially lethal response is present, to be alert for opportunities to nullify the threat without precipitating a firefight, to quickly relinquish their weapon and identify themselves upon the arrival of law enforcement on the scene.”
Well the instruction varies from state to state where it is legal. They still don’t receive the special training that most police department think is necessary for their own S.W.A.T. units in the event of a killing spree type of environment.
Besides you are either being dishonest or are completely uninformed. In your own state of TEXAS it only requires 10 hours? You think 10 hours is enough training for someone to participate in a killing spree shoot out?
“They are also instructed in how to calmly and without presenting a danger to others present, use their weapon to conclusively nullify the threat presented by the bad actor.”
Have you ever taken one of those courses? LOL you are such a DOLT! Yeah it’s 10 hours of intense urban combat training. LOL That’s what we need more people with 10 hours of CC training thinking they are the next RAMBO
“And you may be shocked to note that on the thankfully rare occasions that concealed-carriers actually use their weapons, they are never gunned down by law enforcement mistaking them for the perp, they do not accidentally shoot innocent bystanders, they do not mistakenly shoot innocent persons mistaken for the perp.”
I want to give you a chance to retract some of that before I pull out a can of whoop-ass and embarrass you.
“No it wouldn’t, you colossal imbecile. We know that it would not, since it has PLAYED OUT IN THE REAL WORLD”
What once maybe twice in a situation like the ones at VT or Northern? Name them please.
“and the absurd scenario you paint HAS NOT COME TO PASS. ”
That’s because school shooting sprees don’t happen all but once every couple of years and when they do no one is armed but the perps.
#90 Thomas
“If the victims been SWAT team members would the death toll would have been less?”
Maybe but not for certain. It could be less if it were regular people with sling shots too. That isn’t the point! God when will you people understand this? The issue isn’t guns. More guns or less guns. It doesn’t matter! Nether taking guns away or adding more guns to the mix will solve situations like this. That is because the problem ISN”T guns. It is our culture!!!!!!!!!!!
“More people that are better trained with guns would have resulted in a lower death toll than the situation that did occur where everyone was unarmed.”
Not necessarily. Maybe. Depends on too many variables to say for certain. If I had my choice I would say yes give me a group of S.W.A.T. members and I think the situation would LIKELY be better contained. But shit happens. People make mistakes. Sometime they are just very unlucky.
“Yes, I think that more people should be permitted to carry guns but I also think that the training required to maintain ownership and authority to carry those weapons should be substantially increased. ”
Well I agree with the second part. Don’t get me wrong I think it is fine that people carry concealed guns as long as they are tested regularly for mental defect and proper usage and handling Also, if they don’t have a criminal record.
How is that not fair? Or better yet how is that a violation of the 2nd amendment?
“Wow. Hard to know what to say in the face of such bold ignorance. I could of course bring up the thousands of woman that are raped every year or the number of aggravated assaults that occur but in the face of that kind of ignorance I doubt it will help. Basically, you want everyone to be defenseless except for the State.”
Whoa hang on a minute!!!! I don’t want people to give up their guns. All I meant by shit happens is…..You can only stop so much and at a certain point things are just going to happen or not. Not that we shouldn’t try to make things safer I just don’t think adding more guns to a system that is already shaky is the answer. Solving the problems that lead to crime would be a much better place to start and in my opinion more effective than pouring fuel into the inferno.
“However, the do provide another means by which a person can defend themselves or prevent a violent crime without the assistance of the police.”
So can many other methods of protection.
#92 the three headed kitty
“The per capita first-degree murder rate in the United States, post-WWII, was at it’s lowest in history, and stayed low until the mid-’60s, where it took off. And the rise in murders overall from ‘64 on disguises the fact that second- and third-degree murder was actually declining; the number of deliberate, premeditated murders, first-degree, climbed precipitously from that point onward.”
Thank you for adding proof to my point. The issue ISN’T guns. It is our culture of fear. If you had bothered to read my posts without your special glasses you would have seen that.
“The per capita first-degree murder rate in the United States, post-WWII, was at it’s lowest in history…….BLA BLA BLA”
Not that I need to defend my statement. but here is what Phillep said
“J, back before 1968, anyone at all could buy a machine gun and have it delivered by the USPS. People could, and did, buy milsurp fighter planes, complete with machine guns. Tanks, complete with machine guns and cannons. Warships, likewise. Ammo for all of them was easily obtained, as were bombs.
Where were all the murders? Where were all the massacres? ”
As if the inability to purchase a tank was the reason for the increase in homicide. How crazy are you? There were people murder all the time with handguns before 1968. 4.6 per 100,000 in 1950. I live in Chicago. I can tell you of several mass killings that took place here with guns before 1968 and before WW II back in grandpa days.
So did you have a point with all that unrelated nonsense our were you just trying to look like you know something?
Once again GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM NOR ARE THEY THE SOLUTION. Fixing the problems in society is the most important step. Many other things too but starting with the causes of the problem in the first place is where we should focus
Why do you have such an objection to that thinking? Is it that you just want to own a gun so you feel like a man? Well go ahead! I think if you need that then great go out and buy one as but be responsible. I would hope that you yourself would get a psychological exam first but if it isn’t required you go out and get that six shooter TEX!!! yahoo!
I support the 2nd amendment fully but just like the 1st amendment there are limits.
“Is our society falling apart altogether?”
Actually no just the reporting is better than 100~200 years ago.
Imagine living 100~200 years ago – how many shootings and violent crimes just went unreported? In addition, if they were reported did the entire nation know about it? Not likely
Cheers
#96 TIHZ_HO
Very good point. Although, I do think there is are societal issues that are leading to these killing sprees.
I am not a gun advocate. Removing guns from society only treats the symptom and not the cause of the violence.
The violence inherit in society does not come from guns – look at the Swiss.
Treat the reasons why people are moved to such acts of violence.
If the US does wish to remove guns from society then change the constitution as it and the US founding fathers were very clear on the subject.
So lock and load or change the constitution – it is what it is.
Cheers
#98 TIHZ_HO
I don’t think you and I could agree more on this topic.
#97 Perhaps. Psychotropic Drugs & Gun Free Zones Again The Cocktail For A Killer
http://tinyurl.com/2bsnk7
Perhaps NOT!!!
#98 – Don’t mess with the Bill of Rights.