I heard this guy on NPR at lunchtime. Interesting argument. As he put it, a mother legally can carry a handgun for protection all day long, but when she comes to campus for a night class, she can’t. After Virginia Tech, you have to wonder what would have happened there if students had been armed.
Va. Tech Killings Underscore Guns-on-Campus Campaign
Some college students are pushing for their schools to allow them to carry guns on campus.
They say they should have the right to protect themselves in the event of a shooting like the one that left 33 people dead at Virginia Tech.
Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University senior, has organized a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
The group hopes to convince legislators to overturn a Virginia law that allows universities to prohibit students, faculty and staff members with gun permits from carrying their weapons on campus.
Dysart says that the students at Tech should have had a chance to defend themselves.
Virginia law allows schools to decide whether to allow students with concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns on campus.
One state school, Blue Ridge Community College, does allow it. Schools cannot prohibit non-students or other outsiders from carrying weapons onto campuses if they have legal permits.
Why should we have to conceal our weapons?
Any reason to start round 3? I can see I was getting sleepy, losing my edge. Always become friendlier when tired.
Clearly, you good folks are NOT up to the mark. You continue to look for the less occuring exceptions to control the more common statistic. I’ll grant, the issue of gun violence is a bit more complex than other issues because it does have a mix of causation==hence, only a positive and not an absolute correlation.
You all do understand that anything less than a 1.0 correlation means there will be anomalies or exceptions? Good.
So “in general” countries with more guns have higher murder rates than countries with less guns. ((and yes, that murder rate is higher because of gun deaths, so that factoid has been often confused above)) The fact that Vermont may have a low rate is interesting and whatever causes that should be understood, but it doesn’t change the statistic.
Likewise if YOU don’t want to die from a gun, statistically, you have a better chance in a country with fewer guns. Now, if YOU constantly put yourself in situations that having a gun helps you out, that fine and dandy but again does not negate the truth of the statistic. But this is a bit tricky in that YOU personally may gain a level of protection, but you as a member of the general public have not. Such is the nature of statistics.
Could universal gun ownership and training reduce the number of deaths in GOUSA per year? We’ll never know, and it would take “a leap of faith” to think one way or the other.
87–Hmeyers–I can tell you are a nice thoughtful person. WRONG in everything you post, but a gentleman at all times. GOUSA dramatically demonstrates the truth of the OPPOSITE of what you post. Its criminals and armed citizens that have turned our police force into SWAT teams. The armed idiots at WACO and Ruby Ridge got a paramilitary response and a lot of “not as guilty” people killed. – – – NO- – an armed citizenry has little chance against a paramilitary force, much less an actual military force. What protects the US citizen is not his guns, but the broad identification of those in the military with their brothers. Now, with a mercenary foreign born and prison based service that our military is evolving into, this little bit of protection we have is being lost thanks to Bushco.
89–ECA==thanks for proving that gun control is affected by many issues. Lets draw an artificial line==a cause has to be within the top ten causations of an effect to be relevant. OK?
90–Thiz–right on the money, as usual.
91—raised in a movie theater and never left for a GED?
92–Silly rabbit.
Well, time to re-load.
> 91—raised in a movie theater and never left for a GED?
So stereotypical. You think it’s just rednecks with guns?
Every single one of us are college educated and make over $100,000 a year now, way more than our parents ever thought of making. They gave us the ability to think for ourselves, fend for ourselves, and defend ourselves.
I love it when people start preaching the virtues of taking the guns away. The Brits did it and now they are turning to knives. Scotland’s knife crime has risen over 160% since the sixties — and homicide rates are on the rise again in the UK overall after a small reduction after the guns were taken away. And gun crime against cops has not been reduced at all!
People are going to kill other people — it’s the first thing we learned to do when we crawled out of the cave. If they have a gun, they’ll use it. If they have a knife they’ll use it. If they have a baseball bat, they’re going to use it.
Give up your gun if you want. Try and take mine and neither one of us is going to enjoy the encounter.
Whe the so-called assualt weapons ban was expiring, we were told it would lead to higher crime rates and more deadly killings. Well, the ban expired, where are the killings?
BooBo, Do a little research on how the word regulated was used around the time the Bill of Rights was written.
Hah, Hah,= = =love it. Total straw man irrelevancies.
95–I never said red necks. The referenced post was full of iimmature Ramboesque Hollywood images hence the movie theater characterization. Quit projecting your own imaginary circumstances into unrelated arguments.
96–Even if true, who were you listening to? I will assume the general correlation will hold even if whatever unidentified place you refer to rises slightly?
97–I made no reference to what it meant. I responded to why it was enacted. I would also point out that “original intent” if that is what you are stumbling towards is only the starting point of analysis and not the ending point, there having been 200 plus years of Supreme Court interpretation.
All off point, vague, non specific===good job boys.
> 95–I never said red necks. The referenced post was full of
> iimmature Ramboesque Hollywood images hence the movie
> theater characterization. Quit projecting your own imaginary
> circumstances into unrelated arguments.
You can always tell when a person feels they’ve lost the argument.
They start slinging mud.
99–by slinging mud you mean accurately characterizing the opponents argument? or do you mean attacking the poster by saying they are slinging mud rather than address the active issues? Good boy. Now clean the mud off your gogles and try again.
96–Sorry, read your post too fast, gave it more credence than it deserved. So, assuming you mean the assault gun ban lifted in the GOUSA about a month or two ago? Yes, I’m surprised that statistics that are kept on a yearly basis haven’t reported any uptick as yet. Now, what were those weapons used at Virginia tech??????? Whatever they were–close enough. And its a great Rovian point to crow about a presumed lack of reporting as good news when talking about the country with the worlds 5th or 6th highest murder rate? Yes, lots to take comfort from there that it hasn’t gotten worse. Kinda like that good month of exports we had last year==not as big a deficit as we thought it was going to be.
You guys are allowed to have guns huh???? Keep posting please.
>99–by slinging mud you mean accurately characterizing the
> opponents argument? or do you mean attacking the poster by
> saying they are slinging mud rather than address the active issues?
> Good boy. Now clean the mud off your gogles and try again.
No. I mean by using terms such as
“iimmature”, “Ramboesque Hollywood”, “imaginary circumstances”
instead of addressing the active issues.
And what makes you think my post from 95 was imaginary? You got a crystal ball in your purse?
101–Well Miles, when attempting to discuss an issue like the effect of gun policy on society, you might ponder how you come off looking by supporting any position by what actions your sisters were capable of at age 17? You can feel insulted by my response, or you can learn from it.
Your choice.
Wow… Gun fetishists and phobics alike are both good for pushing the limits of a thread… The great theist vs. atheist debates can yield nothing like the mindless prattle and misinformed rhetoric of the people who fear guns vs the people who masturbate with guns.
Well, this would sound like a great idea, except that I’m in college, and a few years back a bunch of fratboys got wasted and decided it was a good idea to fire off a civil war cannon. How they actually managed to arm and fire the cannon without blowing themselves up is beyond me. How they managed to blast a gaping hole in the apartment complex next door is not.
OFTLO—you are mixing up the parallel construction of your jibe, but have you ever masturbated with a gun? Mixed emotions, I’m sure.
> Well Miles, when attempting to discuss an issue like the effect of
> gun policy on society, you might ponder how you come off looking by
> supporting any position by what actions your sisters were capable
> of at age 17? You can feel insulted by my response, or you can
> learn from it.
> Your choice.
Actually, I thought I came off quite lucid in showing a real-world example. I thought others had also explained quite succinctly the effects so didn’t bother. You’re the one that called me a liar by claiming it was imaginary. But let me be the first to apologize for letting it get out of hand 🙂
Here is my attempt at the issues you wish to discuss:
Gun control doesn’t work. Gun elimination will stop gun deaths. But neither method solves the root cause (the excuse for it in the first place) — Homicide. We tend to get so wrapped up in the fact “Gun Deaths Are So Horrible,” that we lose sight of the real issue.
To put it bluntly:
You can take away the guns but people are still going to find ways to kill people. Always have. Always will.
In the meantime, you are more likely to be a victim of a crime from a much stronger opponent. As someone mentioned in an earlier post, a gun makes a weaker person stronger. Reared properly with good home training, this weaker person will have no reason to prove he is stronger.
The only reason for gun control/elimination is so the state can keep tighter control of the populace. Period. It’s all about power. If the state can convince you that you need it to protect you, you’ll do most anything it wants to ensure you keep that security. And there are people who _want_ you to want it. Their position depends on it. It’s really hard to tell the state to stand down when they have guns pointing at you. There is a reason why the US Military went door to door in Japan and Germany after WWII to collect the guns. It was easier to control the population if all they had were pitchforks.
There are many of us who don’t feel it’s the state’s job to protect us. The only way they can protect you all the time is to keep cameras on you all the time with someone monitoring the cameras all the time.
And we all know where that leads . . .
106–Congrats, still very wrong, but closer to the mark. I think your comments were all made and answered within the last 35 posts or so.
Yes, there are many variables but address the main issue==more guns mean more killing – by the strong and by the weak, by the distant and by the near, by complete strangers and the closest initimates.
How many would have died at Virginia Tech had everyone been armed? Who knows? Probably less? How many would have died at Virgina Tech had there been no guns at all? Who knows? Probably less?
So, each society and each period of time has many variables but there is a positive correlation between number of guns and number of murders.
What you gun nuts have to come up with is the justification for all the killing. Stopping the government from taking our liberties is often troted out. Doesn’t work. See post #94 in response to #87. Very few people not raised in GOUSA share the gun nut fascination. Travel. See some other cultures. What you know is not all there is. or, is it just a different values system. Having walked big city streets in Europe at 200AM, I prefer something less gun toting. Live by the gun, die by the gun, but what a cooped up miserable inbetween time.
#4 – Me,
There must be some use for some common sense somewhere, sometime in this world.
I stand corrected.
>>the main issue==more guns mean more killing –
Not really, bobbo. The main issue here is that under no circumstances are guns GOING TO BE ELIMINATED. That’s a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle.
And as a consequence of that, the REAL main issue becomes “should we restrict gun ownership to violent criminals, law enforcement, and military, or should law-abiding, safety-trained citizens also retain the right to keep and bear arms as per that “goddamned piece of paper”, the Constitution?”.
I ask, you answer. Kind of a variation on the Faux Noise theme.
Hell, after VT, if you are qualified to carry a concealed deadly weapon, you should carry it. I plan on getting my license before I leave for my second half of college.
> […]gun nuts […]
There you go again with the mud slinging.
Meanwhile, off in my own world…
Lessee…
I say the pix is a belt of 7.62 mm NATO rounds meant for a 30 cal Browning machine gun.
RBG
108–Cinaedh === way to easy to sit on the sidelines and poo poo the active participants. Demonstrate your own common sense for us please?
109–Mustard==actually a nice and almost valid distraction. Different aspects of an issue can all be identified, discussed and dealt with. The presence of guns in GOUSA and their future greater or declining influence will be greatly affected by applying either the more guns versus less guns philosophy? Whatever you view the situation today as, tomorrow can be better or worse dependent on what decisions we make today. So, I disagree about what the main issue is and still maintain that “facts” matter and the facts we have today are that the number of guns in a society positively correlate to the murder rate. I’d like to see that murder rate decline.
110–Good plan.
111–on a scale of 1 to 10==so what?
>>way to easy to sit on the sidelines and poo poo
>>the active participants.
I can’t believe you actually said that, bobbo. I guess you’re already good friends with Kettle, eh Pot?
>>actually a nice and almost valid distraction.
Not a “distraction”, bobbo; rather THE ONLY REAL ISSUE HERE. As even you will admit (if you have a whit of sense), we’re not going to eradicate guns, ever. Not going to happen, ever. So some people will have guns. Whether there are 5,000,000 worldwide, or 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 makes no difference, there will be guns. And who will have them? Criminals and The Authorities only, or everyone? And if (as you seem to support), gun ownership is restricted to criminals and The Authorities, where does that leave the law-abiding citizen when The Authorities are racing to Dunkin’ Donuts for the latest batch of jelly-filleds, while the law-abiding citizen is at gunpoint after he’s just taken $400 out of the local ATM? Or when some shady character starts rattling his windows and trying his doorknobs? Hmmmm? And what do you imagine will happen to the Boldness Factor of the armed criminal, knowing beyond reasonable doubt that HE is the only one with the gun, and his victim is unarmed? Hmmmm?
#109 The main issue here is that under no circumstances are guns GOING TO BE ELIMINATED. That’s a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle.
For many reasons no doubt:
The first being the God given right to arm ones self.
Second – damn big gun industry…wow
Third – too many people just don’t want to.
Well to rephrase these are only excuses and none are reasons.
At least why not registrar the damn things with a record the ballistics fingerprint. Should we invoke excuse number three? Ok got it.
China had a shit load of guns at one time. WWII was fought on Chinese soil, there was a civil war before and after WWII. So what the hell happened to all of the guns?
Well the commie Chinese government didn’t want the people to be armed, that’s it. This is so the people can’t toss out the government if they like what the government is doing which is one of the freedoms that Americans enjoy. Yeah right, pull the other one, like that is really going to happen in America!! LOL! Well off we got to Montana!
Cheers
114—MM==just too often, you are inane. The pot calling the kettle black has unhinged your funny bone. Use it sparingly, as in, when it fits?
Your post continues to ignore the positive correlation—something I can’t be positive about. When you argue against the only facts there are, you are only flapping your jaws, and not engaged. Must be a faith driven thing, as I think, our good friend OFTLO chortled on about.
It would be “fun” to run a psychological profile on the gun nuts vs the phobics. Wonder what it would reveal?
> 113: I disagree about what the main issue is
And that’s why you won’t ever “get it.”
> number
> of guns in a society positively correlate to the murder rate.
And as someone pointed out, the number of cars on the road correlate positively with the murder rate. Perhaps all these murderers are using their cars to drive to the crime scene!
> I’d like to see that murder rate decline.
And as someone else said, making the guns go away isn’t going to happen. Perhaps we should try something else:
Take away everybody’s car so they can’t drive to the crime scene. It would be easy . . . just stop selling gas. 😛
#113 – bobbo
way to easy to sit on the sidelines and poo poo the active participants. Demonstrate your own common sense for us please?
I really hate to piss everybody off at the same time but I propose, since common sense says no-one wants crazy people to be carrying and using guns, everybody should have to prove they’re sane before they’re allowed to purchase and/or carry.
That would include me, you, the cops and literally everyone else – except the military.
We should all have to prove we’re sane at least once a year or they take our guns away from us until we prove we’re sane once again.
That should cut down on the number of crazy people gunning people down either randomly or because they’re criminals or because they happen to be pissed off – but not entirely eliminate the problem. Call it a compromise.
#117 . . . just stop selling gas.
Isn’t that in a way happening already with the price?
Cheers
>>Use it sparingly, as in, when it fits?
Oh it fits, bobbo. It fits so snugly you’re uncomfortable in it. In fact, it fits so well, it’s painful. If there is ANYBODY on this site who “sits on the sidelines” lampooning other peoples’ opinions without providing any of his own, it’s you, my pizza-bread friend.
As to my arguments being “inane”, pfffft. You have never successfully rebutted the other poster’s argument that as birth rate increases, so, inevitably will the death rate increase. A very strong positive correlation, in fact, it’s a perfect 1.00000 correlation. So we should sterilize everyone, to cut down on the death rate?
That makes every bit as much sense as your contention (although it’s always hard to try and decipher what exactly you’re contending, as you usually work both sides of the street) that making guns illegal for law-abiding citizens to own will reduce the “death rate”. Whose death rate? Five will get you ten that the death rate (as well as the victimization rate) of law-abiding citizens will skyrocket.
If you can come up with a common-sense argument to the contrary, please present it. And keep Plato in his little box.
>>That would include me, you, the cops and literally
>>everyone else – except the military.
Why not the military? Is it OK for insane soldiers to be aiming their Gatling guns at anything with a heartbeat? Including those who are fighting on their side?
Except for your exclusion of the military from sanity testing, your compromise otherwise seems reasonable.
117—mwinsown == I love it. Perhaps a teachable moment? Yes, of course a correlation only raises the possibility of causation and is not proof thereof. Is that the point you are making? Now lets see what other facts might go to causation? How about 70% of murders are committed with guns, mostly handguns? Fingerprints. Powder burns. Confessions, Videotape. Proof all right there. Kinda a special kind of stupid to make this an issue?
Now as to cars or the price of hot dogs==another positive correlation. Not as strong though and no supporting other direct causual evidence. I wonder why that is? Do these arguments work at the local NRA? Sad if they do. The argument re cars I think would quickly move to their other worthwhile functions that offset their role in murders? Lets apply that to guns—yes, the ability to kill defenseless animals ala Vic the football guy is a strong balancing theme as is the ability and skill to put holes in pieces of paper. All worth the 30,000 killed per year. Amen, and pass the gas.
118–Cinaedh==exellent. Now, sane as in general sanity, or only sane as to the operation/safety of walking around with a weapon? Either would do for me, but there are some sticklers around here. You know for instance that “not everyone” thats crazy shoots someone, therefore all crazy people should have weapons. Sorry to steal any ones thunder there. Just too too obvious.