John Cole: "I live and work on a college campus. I simply can not express how bad of an idea it is to permit a population of undeveloped and aggressive young males going through tumultuous times in their lives to run around armed to the teeth. In fact, we kind of already saw what happened yesterday, didn’t we? I do not think more gun control would have stopped this yesterday. I really don’t. But only someone with an agenda could look at the massacre yesterday and state that the solution to the problem was "more guns." "
I disagree with John on the gun control, but the message remains the same.
I think Cole misrepresents the “more guns” argument here. The majority of conservatives don’t want students armed to the teeth. (Good heavens, just think what the 60s would have been like!)
No, just the teachers should be armed to the teeth so they can mete out justice to shooters and mouthy dissidents.
But wait.
Teachers and college professors are all a bunch of liberal, America-bashing, elitists. We can’t trust them with guns either.
I know! We’ll form armed posses of conservative citizens to “protect” all our campuses. And while they’re at it, maybe they can make sure nobody is teaching, you know, science and stuff.
But Quaker, we can’t leave those conservative militias out there in the open like that. Maybe they can police the liberals in secret. A sort of “secret” “police.” The American people would be happy to be protected by such a group, I think.
You’re a good American, SpiderJ.
I actaully do agree with John on the gun control stuff. Less guns won’t stop crazy people from being crazy. More guns wouldn’t have stopped it before it started.
One way you can stop something like this is by an oppressive police state. I’d rather get killed by a crazy person with a gun than live like that.
The other way is to abandon the idea that groups of people should get together in a building for any instruction, because it’s just not safe to do that. Those unarmed students are sitting ducks!
Again, I think I’d rather be dead.
Either solution is a conservative’s wet dream.
I like how Dr. Squid keeps trying to push this “Violence comes from the right” mantra.
Give it up, Squidmeister.
Just face facts: Guns, per se have nothing to do with the mentality of mass murderers; and this is not ideological.
You have hit on it: “One way you can stop something like this is by an oppressive police state. I’d rather get killed by a crazy person with a gun than live like that.”
Thus ends the gun control argument — not with a bang, but a whimper.
Say “Good night”, Gracie.
You guys do realize that when Charles Whitman was in that tower at UT, it was some students and other citizens that helped lay down fire on the tower, keeping Whitman from doing far more damage that he did, right?
Actually, Frank, the point is more like, “Conservatives are for a police state.” Which if you look at today’s conservatives in power, is the damn truth.
Jay,
Isn’t it just as likely that in the chaos of a mass shooting the “well-meaning” students with guns would be shooting at each other in the halls as at the actual killer? Why is there an assumption that the good people with guns will instantly recognize one another and organize themselves into an effective policing force? Why is there an assumption that the actual, real police will recognize the “good” shooters from the “bad” in such a situation?
Seems to me that there’s liable to be as much collateral damage caused by giving everyone guns as there might be lives saved.
I’ll just note that in the Wikipedia article on Whitman it says this:
That would suggest to me that the civilians came out after the police had arrived and were probably organized by overwhelmed authorities. That’s an entirely different situation than exists today, Jay, as most urban police forces are likely equipped to handle much larger levels of force than the Austin cops of 1966. At the same time, an armed citizenry, no matter how well organized, would have been cannon fodder for gumen of the heavily armed and armored type that robbed a bank in North Hollywood in 1997.
It just boggles the mind that anyone would suggest putting guns in more people’s hands is the best response to one-off tragedies like this.
Frame, to be clear, I am not advocating that every student be armed, but to sit there and mock the very notion of a professor or another student carrying a firearm is kind of silly when looking at historical context.
And you offered the Whitman shootings as historical context? There’s simply no comparison between that event and this.
And how does the “historical context” prove that it’s a good thing to have SOME armed teachers and students, if not all?
Whitman was a lone gunman at he top of a tower, not a lone gunman freely wandering the halls of a dorm dressed like every other student.
Let’s say you had one armed teacher in one classroom and an armed student in another. They both hear shots coming from the hall. How would the teacher know not to shoot the student or the student not to shoot the teacher? How would the cops know not to shoot either of them?
What, if anything, does the “historical context” have to say about this dillema?
Cops accidentally shoot innocent people all the time in the confusion and chaos of confrontations. How does it make their job any easier in a situation like this to have multiple armed “heroes” roaming the halls of a dorm all looking for who’s shooting who?
Do you want a society like the wild west where a bad hand of poker leads to a quickie shoot-out? No, we’re trying to have a society here.
And you offered the Whitman shootings as historical context? There’s simply no comparison between that event and this.
Sure there is. Both events took place on a college campus. Both shootings were done by a student. And in that one, students and other citizens used their own weapons to help.
And how does the “historical context” prove that it’s a good thing to have SOME armed teachers and students, if not all?
It’s really fucking pointless discussing anything with you because you pull shit like this out of your ass. My point was that MOCKING the idea of somebody other than the perp having a gun is ASININE considering what happened at UT with Whitman. Good goddamn grief.
Whitman was a lone gunman at he top of a tower, not a lone gunman freely wandering the halls of a dorm dressed like every other student.
Right. Every other student was walking around with a vest covered in loaded gun clips. I’m sure he blended right in.
Do you want a society like the wild west where a bad hand of poker leads to a quickie shoot-out? No, we’re trying to have a society here.
The same ‘wild west’ nonsense was floated after Florida passed its concealed carry law and guess what? Since 1987, with a growing population, violent crime has fallen to its lowest levels in over 30 years. Homicides and even firearm homicides declined as well. So much for the ‘wild west.’
In reality, in the Wild West, a gunman hid in wait for his target, and tried to ambush him.
There were very few “High Noon” style confrontations, and even fewer “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral” shootouts.
And I would venture that the cause of a decline in crime is not the absurd idea that everyone should be packing heat. It’s simply not civilized.
What a silly fantasy. Those who went home to get their guns made it more dangerous when police went up the tower.
Violent crime fell everywhere and it had nothing with gun laws or lawlessness in any one state
Jesus, Jay.
Students, college campus, gunman. Check.
The big difference being that Whitman was alone at the top of a tall fucking tower where he wasn’t likely to be mistaken by the cops or armed civilians for, you know, a siteseer just admiring the view.
You also leave out the fact that the citizens with guns showed up AFTER the police responded and were probably organized by the cops, an easy thing to do because, again, Whitman was in a FUCKING TALL TOWER and now WANDERING AROUND THE CAMPUS!!! But you do more than ignore this salient difference. You right:
As if Whitman was indeed walking around among the general campus population. He obviously wasn’t.
So in order for your “historical context” to have any bearing at all you have to ignore all the specifics of both Whitman and VT events.
If there were other students wandering the halls of VT with guns yesterday, how can you be sure that we wouldn’t be reading stories about cops killing innocent students out of mistaken identity? The fact is, you couldn’t as there would be a high probability of deadly cases of mistaken identity given the chaos of the situation.
So anyone suggesting that giving some students and/or teachers guns would have de facto helped the situation deserves to be fucking mocked. The idea is ludicrous unless you want to tell me how the cops are supposed to react to a shoot out between two students in a dorm hall. Ask them which one is the crazy person? Then trust the answer?
Ya, you don’t deserve to be mocked.
>>The idea is ludicrous unless you want to tell me how the cops are supposed to react to a shoot out between two students in a dorm hall. Ask them which one is the crazy person? Then trust the answer
Brilliant.
I just read that this kid got the gun legally. It took one minute.
Perhaps we need to re-think Brady and the backgroud check. He had a Professor who had REPORTED, and expressed concern about his writings.
The likelihood of a red flag popping up in a week is far greater than in one minute. And NOBODY needs a gun in one minute.
When we start talking about more guns=less crime…I tend to dismiss the righties. They consider any inconvience in purchasing/acquiring a firearm, legally, an infringement on the 2nd ammendment, regardless of the magnitude. I simply have lost my patience with them, in this regard.
Having said all of that, the truth is that there are more guns, illegal and legal combined, than people, probably in the U.S. So, passing more, and stricter gun laws is only part of the solution.
JK
Violent crime fell everywhere and it had nothing with gun laws or lawlessness in any one state
The point is Mike is that these horrible predictions about ‘wild west’ scenarios and the supposed likelihood of an increase in violence with guns failed to materialize. As such, the fear mongers have little credibility.
So anyone suggesting that giving some students and/or teachers guns would have de facto helped the situation deserves to be fucking mocked.
Yes because we know that school employees could never possibly help to thwart such a situation. Right?
Do you get some kind of weird pleasure out of being wrong so much and making a complete ass out of yourself?
And frankly Frame, I’m going to back to ignoring you. My blood pressure stays more level and I lose brain cells attempting to discuss things intelligently with morons such as yourself.
There’s no solution to spree killers, Jay, whether with more or less guns. But there is a solution to our abominable homicide rate: ban guns. Now I don’t think anyone will, and I’d rather the Democrats focused on other issues, and I’ll compromise on that in order to preserve the other, more important amendments; but the second amendment is clearly terrible policy which results in thousands of dead Americans.
Jay,
Maybe you’d have less health probelms if your thinking wasn’t so inherently contradictory. On one side you decry those imagining “Wild West” scenarios as a means for pushing gun control and on the other, you explicitly advocate armed citizens taking the law into their own hands and shooting people in the street.
For every person who successfully stops a crime or shooting with a gun, how many others end up shot or killed?
How many of those incidents made it into that fair and balanced Reason article?
On second thought, if I were dictator for a day, and wanted the “magic bullet” (sorry) for our disgraceful homicide rate, I suppose I would legalize heroin, cocaine, and pot. That would also fix our shocking incarceration rate, too.
insane korean + gun = deadly massacre!
Agreed, Frame, Jay’s arguments from anecdote really aren’t all that persuasive…
but the second amendment is clearly terrible policy which results in thousands of dead Americans.
It is not a policy — it is a right!
Jeebus, AGH, if wishes were horses, tinkers would ride…
Enough already!
If I were “Dictator for a Day”, I would the “threat of harm to one’s self or another” to the list of mandated reporting.
Then I’d make all teachers learn the “red flags” and make them all mandated reporters.
That would take care of school bullies, suicides, homicides, and fire starters.
AGH, get a grip!
That would also fix our shocking incarceration rate, too.
And put all those substance abusers into the street?
How humane!
Did you ever hear of “deinstitutionalization”?
In November, 1963 signed an unfunded mandate law called the Deinstitutionalization Act.
It provided for the release of Psychiatric Hospital patients to outpatient teatment.
Now, 16% of the occupants of our state prisons have been diagnosed with mental illness.
Over 280,000 prisoners are mentally ill.
That’s what you get when you bounce people out of institutions precipitously.
Stop slapping Band – Aids on belly wounds!
In November, 1963 [Pres. Kennedy] signed…
Wait a minute.
1963 was so long ago, I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count it.
How could President Kennedy’s “precipitous” release of the institutionalized affect the prison population today?
…it was some students and other citizens that helped lay down fire …Jay
It was Texas, Jay. If that’s our model for civil society, I’ll start shopping for someplace a little more traquil.
Like Belfast.
Quaker: It was an unfunded mandate. Many states took a whole decade to even get started.
The States balked at closing hospitals, holding out for funds from the Gummint for the outpatient treatment.
Finally, when the plans started going into effect, the Consumer (of mental health services) movement had kicked in, and lobbied for more voluntary treatment,and less forced commitments.
As a result, thousands of mentally ill fell through the cracks. Subsequently, in the fullness of time, these patients committed crimes of all kinds. Once incarcerated, they were first treated as discipline problems.
An astounding increase in the rate of prison suicide called attention to the need for psychiatric care for these hapless individuals.
In the meantime, a subclass of mentally ill individuals occupy every medium to large community in the United States. They spend their lives living on SSI and SSD, and “commuting” back and forth to outpatient facilities. They are as institutionalized as ever, they’re just not behind a black wrought iron fence in the country somewhere.
Those that aren’t in prison. I once was a case manager for a guy who did four years who killed his mother, because, he said, “She looked like Hitler [he was Jewish]“.
He was a crack head and a hustler. I never believed his story, but I did help get him off crack.
FYI, Gerald N. Grob is THE MAN when it comes to describing the effects of deinstitutionalization on mental health care
On one side you decry those imagining “Wild West” scenarios as a means for pushing gun control and on the other, you explicitly advocate armed citizens taking the law into their own hands and shooting people in the street.
There’s a big difference, meat. The ‘wild west’ scenario is one in which people are having shootouts over issues as trivial as being accused of cheating at cards or some other stupid nonsense. Two years ago, the Florida legislature passed a law where people were allowed to respond with deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. Here is what some guy from the Florida Coalition To Stop Gun Violence had to say:
Well, I’d like to make it clear that I’m here to represent the innocent victims of this bill. And there will be many more innocent victims of this bill than there will be dead criminals. This bill is literally a jihad against public safety.
Two years later and all is well contrary to their predictions of doom and gloom.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with citizens helping to apprehend criminals or even killing another who is seeking to do harm to other people through violent means. And it is not “taking the law into their own hands.” They are acting within the boundaries of the law.
Agreed, Frame, Jay’s arguments from anecdote really aren’t all that persuasive…
I gave a real life example that Frame conveniently ignored. You want more examples? Go and read this book. Go ahead Doc. Tell the people in that book they shouldn’t have guns to protect themselves.
It just astounds me how people would be so willing to just hand their rights over in that way. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin
Owning a weapon for the sake of owning a weapon isn’t a right, no matter that you managed to sticky tape it to the constitution.
Why don’t they just make murder illegal? Then everyone would know that you aren’t allowed to murder people. Problem solved…
thanks nimrod, as I recall we rather forcefully asked the Brits to stop sticking their rather prominent probosci into our constitution as we were kicking their asses back across the pond….I think ol’e king george wanted to take our guns too.
And the fact that cities that ban guns have higher crime rates really negates the whole argument of he anti-gun folks….check out crime rates in Chicago and washington dc before and after gun bans
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life”.
Robert A. Heinlein
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with citizens helping to apprehend criminals or even killing another who is seeking to do harm to other people through violent means.”
Of course there isn’t, Jay. But advocating that more people should carry guns in response to the VT incident is just ridiculous. The reason why you and other gun nut idiots deserve ridicule is you hold out idea that more guns on the street will always prevent scenarios like VT without ever considering that it could create a bigger nightmare, not only for other citizens but for the cops.
You have yet to explain to anyone what would have prevented students and teachers with guns from shooting each other, or being shot by the cops as they searched for the killer. How is it that citizens with guns are also always the best shots in these scenarios and always kill the right person?
For crying out loud Jay, how hard would it be for someone to write a book called, Oops, I wish I’d Called the Cops: True Stories of People Killed While Trying to Defend Themselves With a Firearm?
For fucksakes, COPS get killed in the line of duty. Why do you think that some citizen owning a gun always automatically leads to the outcome glorified by gun nuts in books like that?
I mean since were arguing by anecdote here, how about this
one:
Here’s some of what the cops are told in the new program:
Okay so here you have two tragic examples of an armed, off duty cop killed while trying to stop crimes and another shot. And you have a police training instructor suggesting that the best thing an armed cop can do during a robbery is nothing: except to be the best witness they can possibly be.
But if I’m supposed to believe you and your anecdotal sources Jay, armed civilians who confront armed criminals always come away alive and well NRA poster children.
Please.
The reason why you and other gun nut idiots deserve ridicule is you hold out idea that more guns on the street will always prevent scenarios like VT without ever considering that it could create a bigger nightmare, not only for other citizens but for the cops.
That’s just a flat out lie. Not a single one of these so-called ‘gun nuts’ you talk about said these scenarios would be prevented. In fact, I challenge you to present a person who did say, “This would have been prevented if there were simply more guns on the streets.” It isn’t that simple. But guess what? There is the chance that if one of these students was armed or a professor, that less people could have been killed. Writing laws that create ‘gun-free zones’ is asinine when one considers that such laws aren’t going to stop somebody hellbent on killing many people as possible.
You have yet to explain to anyone what would have prevented students and teachers with guns from shooting each other, or being shot by the cops as they searched for the killer.
Contrary to what you think Frame, it’s not Mexican standoff time in situations like this. It would not be difficult to ascertain who the murderer was because he’d be the one calmly shooting other unarmed people. The cops cannot be there within seconds, but other people on the scene can act within seconds.
Why do you think that some citizen owning a gun always automatically leads to the outcome glorified by gun nuts in books like that?
I never said it did so stop lying. You people are the ones arguing that it can’t and will not end good and that it will just cause more chaos. Don’t turn this on me. I can sit here all freaking day and list scenarios where private citizens defended themselves and others with the use of firearms. Is it always going to end happily? Of course not, so stop trying to make it seem like people are advocating that it will because that’s just stupid. Stop. Being. Stupid.
But if I’m supposed to believe you and your anecdotal sources Jay, armed civilians who confront armed criminals always come away alive and well NRA poster children.
There you go. Being stupid again.
Again, show me where anybody says it ‘always’ works out. Don’t bother. You won’t. So STFU with that nonsense already.
You on the other hand, are convinced it will end badly and the evidence which you continue to snicker at as ‘anecdotal’ proves otherwise.
And since you’ll undoubtedly try to say it again, I’ll repeat:
Nobody is saying that these scenarios would have been prevented were others armed. Nobody is saying situations wherein citizens attempt to foil violence by using their own firearms ends happily.
NOBODY IS SAYING THAT.
Everybody understand now? Sorry that I needed to repeat it, but Frame was off on another one of his bullshit narratives, arguing against a claim not a single person has made.
But Jay if aren’t making that argument, what fucking argument are you making? Are you arguing that it is MORE likely that lives would be saved if citizens were armed? Where is your evidence for that? You have given none except anecdotes. There’s obviously examples of trained professionals, such as off duty cops, being shot and or killed trying to stop crimes in progress. Isn’t it then obvious that an average citizen with a gun is just as likely if not more so to similarly fuck up?
I have no doubt that you could go on all day cherry picking anecdotes that “prove” your point. It’s how the right wing operates. You may as well say that you could on all day ignoring those anecdotes that suggest the exact opposite.
If there’s a chance that “if one of these students was armed or a professor, that less people could have been killed” isn’t there also an equally likely chance that MORE innocent people could have been killed?
Now if you accept that the exact opposite of what you want to happen, is just as likely to happen, what grounds is there to argue conceal and carry as a matter public policy? And if you aren’t advocating for conceal and carry as a matter of public policy then again, just WTF is it that you arguing for?
And just we’re both clear, I;ve never argued that no one should be allowed to carry guns or anything so radical via gun control that would require resort to Benjamin Franklin.
I mean geezus, jay, try not to be so blatantly hypocritical.
Jay, Whitman wasn’t going anywhere. He was on station and staying there.
Oliver, you’re right. For so many on the right, more guns are always the answer. No matter what the question.
The Va Tech Student Gun Club was on either ABC or CBS this morning, saying the schools “no carry” policy made the situation worse, which Cole alluded to. Soon, the mandatory carry crowd will be out.
But Jay if aren’t making that argument, what fucking argument are you making?
If you want to play dumb, be my guest, but I am not going to repeat myself.
You and your ilk (Brady, Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence, VPC, etc) argue that making it easier for citizens to protect themselves is going to make for these wild west scenarios and that more innocent people will be killed as a result.
The problem is however, is that these horrible predictions have not come true. Florida was going to be turned into free-for-all handgun shooting mecca after the concealed carry law went into effect in 1987.
Hasn’t happened.
Florida was going to see more carnage when the state allowed people to use deadly force outside their homes instead of having to retreat first.
Hasn’t happened.
The nation would see more bloodshed and shooting deaths if the assault weapons ban of 1994 wasn’t reinstated in 2004.
Hasn’t happened.
Just about every dire forecast regarding gun violence that was to emerge as a result of new laws, or expiring old ones has never come to fruition.
So tell me: Why should anybody listen to you anymore?
And clearly Ben Franklin was talking about a Glock.
Um, Jay, your’re original point I thought was that we shouldn’t be mocking “the very notion of a professor or another student carrying a firearm.” Well, who actually did that?
It is totally mockable, on the other hand, to suggest that professors or students with guns could have done a dman thing to stop what happened or even lessened the horror of it. For all you know, they could have made a horrible situation worse. That’s my point. But if you acknowledge that there’s an equal chance that citizens with guns could make things worse as better, why advocate conceal and carry laws at all?
At the same time, isn’t also disingenuous to suggest that student and teachers should be allowed to carry guns to defend themselves but then deny that you are suggesting they could do any good? Especially when you clearly are suggesting that citizens with guns could have lessened the horror of the VT incident. Afterall you wrote: “The cops cannot be there within seconds, but other people on the scene can act within seconds.”
Act within seconds to do what? Start shooting at a gunman? And what if that carries on for the duration of the time it takes for the cops to get there? Then you have a situation exactly like the one you deny could happen. You wrote:
It would not be difficult? How the fuck do you know? How do you know how a scenario like this would play out?
Let’s look realistically at your hypothetical. Up against a well armed, determined psychopath who has pre-planned his killing spree, including bringing lots of extra ammo, you have a civilian acting on the spur of the moment in the middle of intense confusion who probably only has the ammo in his gun. In your hypothetical, the student always wins and wins decisively in seconds. Why is this? Not because it fits reality — afterall we have anecdotes of trained cops being killed by assailants –
but because it suits your ideological agenda.
You criticize gun control advocates for “every dire forecast” but you yourself are relying entirely on a fantasy scenario supported entirely by cherry picked anecdotes. It’s, like, brilliant.
there’s a very simple solution, ban all/only handguns capable of firing more than 6 rounds before reloading. ordinary citizens can still defend themselves and it’s a lot more difficult/less likely for a nut job to go on this type of spree.
Um, Jay, your’re original point I thought was that we shouldn’t be mocking “the very notion of a professor or another student carrying a firearm.” Well, who actually did that?
Scroll up and read.
It is totally mockable, on the other hand, to suggest that professors or students with guns could have done a dman thing to stop what happened or even lessened the horror of it.
Why? How can you say that when there is already evidence of it happening before?
But if you acknowledge that there’s an equal chance that citizens with guns could make things worse as better, why advocate conceal and carry laws at all?
Because the evidence proves that in the overall, things haven’t been made worse. Crime has been going down despite more and more states passing concealed carry laws. Now, people suggest that crime has not decreased because of concealed carry laws and that may be true. But we certainly haven’t seen the doomsday scenario the critics have suggested would take place.
Act within seconds to do what? Start shooting at a gunman? And what if that carries on for the duration of the time it takes for the cops to get there? Then you have a situation exactly like the one you deny could happen.
And what if and what if and what if…..
Face it man. You’ll what if until the cows come home looking to prove you’re right. It’s lame.
It would not be difficult? How the fuck do you know? How do you know how a scenario like this would play out?
What if what if what if what if??
In your hypothetical, the student always wins and wins decisively in seconds.
Once again, you’re up to your same old bullshit which is debating points nobody made. I won’t bother with that crap anymore.
You criticize gun control advocates for “every dire forecast” but you yourself are relying entirely on a fantasy scenario supported entirely by cherry picked anecdotes. It’s, like, brilliant.
The fact that crime has gone down, combined with the increase in concealed carry laws, combined also with the fact that these dire forecasts have not come true, combined with the real life examples (of which there are many) that I provided gives more weight to my side of the argument.
You’re left with nothing but “What ifs” which anybody can use ad nauseum in a discussion and it eventually leads nowhere.
And clearly Ben Franklin was talking about a Glock.
Yeah and I am sure the founders when discussing free speech were talking about being able to access “Barely Legal” porn on the Internet, but I will still defend Frame’s right for him watch it.
“…gives more weight to my side of the argument.”
What? No it doesn’t. Your initial argument was that the Charles Whitman tragedy somehow confirmed that citizens with guns can actually help minimize the loss of such a tragedy. That’s a total fantasy on your part.
But rather than actually defend your initial argument, and later suggestions that armed students and professors could have mitigated the death at VT, you shift to talking about a decrease in crime rates which may have nothing at all to do with conceal and carry laws, especially because crime rates have also dropped in states that don’t have such laws. In your brain, a broad natonal trend in crime rates is evidence in favor of legislation passed in only a few states. Brilliant.
Then you accuse me using “What ifs” but, Jay, it was easy enough for me to find an real-life example of off duty cops being killed and shot while attempting to stop crimes. Why are you ignoring this anecdote? I’ll venture to guess that it’s because your entire argument in favor of arming the citizenry for self-defense depends entirely on ignoring such anecdotal evidence -inother words, reality — in favor of anecdotes that support your claims.
Let’s also not forget that your assertation that “it’s not Mexican standoff time[s] in situations like this” is itself a total, “What if..” fantasy. Just look at your Whitman example. Could you find a better example of a “Mexican standoff” scenario? Indeed, Whitman was even able to pick off a few more people even after the cops and your much championed armed citizens showed up.
Look at the guys who robbed the bank in West Hollywood. They created a Mexican standoff with a fucking army of cops because they were so heavily armored and armed themselves. You want to tell me how your armed citizenry would have handled those two fucking guys before the cops showed up? Of course you won’t because to acknowledge the fact that sometimes citiznes who try to stop crimes with guns get killed or shot themselves brings down your whole argument.
Oh wait, I forgot, you aren’t actually making any argument at all, at least not one your willing to stand behind for more than two posts at a time …
“How can you say that when there is already evidence of it happening before?”
This is just awesome.
But Jay there’s also evidence that armed people who try to stop armed criminals get shot and killed themselves. So how can you say what the fuck would have happened had teachers and students had guns? Either they kill the guy or got shot and killed themselves.
You got any real numbers to show that one happens more than the other? Or just more cherry picked anecdotes?
Your initial argument was that the Charles Whitman tragedy somehow confirmed that citizens with guns can actually help minimize the loss of such a tragedy. That’s a total fantasy on your part.
No, I didn’t make an argument. I stated a fact.
But rather than actually defend your initial argument
Once again, I didn’t make an argument. I stated a fact. I also stated a fact with regard to Joel Myrick.
you shift to talking about a decrease in crime rates which may have nothing at all to do with conceal and carry laws, especially because crime rates have also dropped in states that don’t have such laws. In your brain, a broad natonal trend in crime rates is evidence in favor of legislation passed in only a few states. Brilliant.
Wrong again idiot (you must have some sort of mental condition that makes you present an argument or statement not a single person has made). The drop in crime rates and the reduction in gun violence in states where there are concealed carry laws is evidence that the Brady Org’s of the country, their supporters and those who argue their positions (like you) crystal ball predictions of a return to the days of Billy The Kid and Jesse James is wrong.
Then you accuse me using “What ifs” but, Jay, it was easy enough for me to find an real-life example of off duty cops being killed and shot while attempting to stop crimes. Why are you ignoring this anecdote?
I’m not ignoring them. You’re presenting them in the light that I argued that an armed teachers and students at VA Tech would have prevented it from happening or that it would always have a happy ending in other situations and I never made or even implied any such claim.
Indeed, Whitman was even able to pick off a few more people even after the cops and your much championed armed citizens showed up.
Yes, but he obviously did not have the same field of vision he did before that happened. WHAT IF he did? There might have been 30 dead instead of 15 (See? I can do it too.)
Once again, stop trying to turn this on me and getting me to acknowledge something I have never denied! Jeebus H Christ, put away the huge boner that you have for me and try to think rationally sometimes.
So how can you say what the fuck would have happened had teachers and students had guns?
I didn’t say what the fuck would have happened. YOU DID.
And here is where you said it:
It is totally mockable, on the other hand, to suggest that professors or students with guns could have done a dman thing to stop what happened or even lessened the horror of it.
What this is saying unequivocally is that if a professor or student had a gun, it wouldn’t have stopped what happened or lessened it.
YOU are making the absolutist claims here. Not me.
“…keeping Whitman from doing far more damage that he did, right?”
Um, dipshit, Whitman did cause more damage after your citizen heroes showed up, so even your “fact” was fantasy. Of course, in order to keep it relevant you have to pull yet more bullshit out of your ass: “WHAT IF he did? There might have been 30 dead instead of 15 (See? I can do it too.)”
Yes, dude, you can do it too, it’s all you’ve been fucking doing. You give me anecdotes, I give you anecdotes back and then you accuse me not responding to your argument.
You wrote: “Yes because we know that school employees could never possibly help to thwart such a situation.” And linked to a story about a principal that shot some crazy kid. Great. I suppose you weren’t putting that out there in advance of some argument that citizens can stop crimes or limit their damage. Because if you were, what the fuck does one story or a thousand prove? I presented you with cases where off duty cops with guns were killed trying to stop crimes. For every story of a guy with a gun who becomes a hero, I’ll guarantee to you there’s one in which a guy trying to play hero ended up dead or wounded.
The point is that citizens with guns can stop crimes, but some times they also end up crime victims. Unless you have actual real numbers — and not just anecdotes selectively compiled by pro-gun idiots — to show which happens more often you’re totally full of shit.
Jay,
As I just said, you gave an example of a principal who shot a student on a rampage. Why did you give that example? To suggest that if a teacher at VT had a gun they could have stopped or minimized the horror. I didn’t see you qualify your statement to suggest that, well, this guy was lucky, or that this kind of thing is rare. Indeed, you could go on all day with anecdotes proving that citzens with guns stop and/or minimize violent crimes. And you do this without qualification or acknowledgement that, you know what, it doesn’t always go down like that.
In ever instance you cite it’s just as likely that the citizen might have ended up a victim themselves or shot an innocent person or been shot by the late arriving cops.
Does the NRA keep files on all those stories? I bet it doesn’t. Do you bother to research for those incidents when arguing for conceal carry laws? I bet you don’t.
Ya, Jay, you’re just Mr Intellectual honesty. Try to imply one thing then weasel out of it when you get called on your bullshit.
Um, dipshit, Whitman did cause more damage after your citizen heroes showed up, so even your “fact” was fantasy.
Yes and I also pointed out that when people started shooting back he was forced to shoot through waterspouts which didn’t give him the field of view he had prior to that. Crikey you’re such a pedantic wuss.
And linked to a story about a principal that shot some crazy kid.
Goes to show you didn’t read the story. He didn’t shoot the kid, but he did keep him from killing others until the police arrived.
The point is that citizens with guns can stop crimes, but some times they also end up crime victims. Unless you have actual real numbers — and not just anecdotes selectively compiled by pro-gun idiots — to show which happens more often you’re totally full of shit.
Sorry dipshit, but the onus is on you to come up with numbers. Again, you’re the absolutist here saying that people who suggested that an armed professor or student at VA Tech might have prevented it or lessened it, deserves to be mocked. Therefore, you’re the one saying it doesn’t happen. So you come up with the real numbers tough guy.
Or shut the fuck up already.
Hilarious. Jay, the right wingt noise machine has been in overdrive not only suggesting that armed teachers could have prevented or diminished the number of deaths, some of you asshats have actually been blaming the victims for not fighting back enough.
All you’ve done to make your case is point to anecdotes. So I give you anecdotes back and you go off that I’m distorting your argument. But you really don’t have an argument do you? You just suggested that civilians with guns can prevent or lessen crimes. They can also get shot and killed themselves. Is that worth mentioning? Not to you. I wonder why that is.
“…I also pointed out that when people started shooting back…”
Allow me to be more of a pedantic wuss. Jay, the “people” you refer to would be the cops who first arrived on the scene. As I understand what happened that day, the civilians with guns didn’t show up until after the cops got there — then some of those late arriving civilians ended up getting shot themselves. Brilliant example, my friend. Brilliant.
Maybe because you’re so dumb you need me to repeat this:
Again, you’re the absolutist here saying that people who suggested that an armed professor or student at VA Tech might have prevented it or lessened it, deserves to be mocked. Therefore, you’re the one saying it doesn’t happen. So you come up with the real numbers tough guy.
Again. Ante up or shut the fuck up.
The really good point you’re avoiding, Jay, is that anecdotes don’t make a political argument.
anecdotes don’t make a political argument.
Neither do critiques of others’ comments.
If anyone was in one of those classrooms..Im sure they would have wished that someone else had a gun.Lets face it folks.Its everyman for himself
As an expression of shared sorrow, and support, I’d like to share these two songs of support I wrote and recorded for families and friends of Virginia Tech massacre victims:
Today, In Virginia
Dr BLT’s One Man “Banned”
Words and music by Bruce L. Thiessen, aka Dr. BLT Dr BLT ©2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/TinV.mp3
Virginia’s Tears
Dr BLT’s One Man “Banned”
Words and music by Dr BLT ©2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/VT.mp3
Bruce L. Thiessen, Ph.D, aka Dr BLT
University Instructor
As far as high schools go, I say that a select number of teachers who volunteer should go to police academy and become a part of law enforcement. Require them to recertify and take the same training as any other cop that is in their school with a gun. Only then will the shooters not have the upper hand.