The carnage continues.
The man who killed five people and wounded 16 others at Northern Illinois University in a suicidal rampage had recently become erratic after halting his medication, police said Friday.
The man, identified as 27-year-old former NIU student Stephen Kazmierczak, carried a shotgun to campus inside a guitar case and also wielded three handguns during Thursday’s ambush inside a lecture hall, they said.
Law enforcement officials said Kazmierczak started buying his guns last August, all legally and all from the same gun dealer in Champaign, where he was enrolled at the University of Illinois.
He bought a Sig Sauer 9mm on Aug. 6 and a Highpoint .380 on Dec. 30. Two of the weapons — the pump-action Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun — were purchased less than a week ago, on Saturday, authorities said.
He had a valid permit required for all Illinois residents who buy or possess firearms, authorities said.
I wanted flying cars, btw. Just as well, though, having those...
Oh, if only all the students in that lecture hall had also been packing heat!
(Something that occurred to me recently. What’s the overlap between people who will fight tooth-and-nail for concealed-carry laws but who also vocally despise the thug and gangsta culture in rap music?)
But… but… but… the school was a gun-free zone! All student-owned guns were REQUIRED to be locked up in the Campus Security office, and only a small percentage of the Security officers were armed! How the HELL did this happen? Don’t these crazed psycho killers realize that when a place declares itself a gun-free zone, they will simply have to obey the rules and go on their killing sprees somewhere else?
J.
Here’s an idea dimwit – perhaps if we don’t have a society where every goober can go in and arm himself like he’s fighting WWII while the NRA goes ballistic over any sort of check on the person’s criminal history and sanity we won’t have so many of these.
But no, the right-wing dumbass position of every nook and cranny of America emulating Tombstone is clearly the more rational option.
It would be nirvana, wouldn’t it? Except we both know that fairy-tale land that also includes everybody loving and respecting one another, their religion, and their race simply doesn’t exist, nor will it ever exist. Nor are guns to blame.
Are they magical devices that turn a rational human being into a crazed killer?
BTW, from the very same story you excerpted, Oliver.
So aside from carrying the guns into a gun-free zone, Kazmierczak went through all the hoops required of him to purchase these firearms, including going through the required background checks…
…and he was still able to pull this off. Primarily, of course, because NIU being the gun-free zone that it was, basically turned the students into sitting ducks.
And yes, Spider. If only the students had been allowed to carry into the classroom. I trust a well-trained gun owner to either prevent or limit the damage an insane shooter that’s gone off his meds can do more than a stupid gun law.
So the only people who support the rights of gun-ownership are on the right? It’s good to know there are at least a few sane people over on the left when it comes to the issue of gun control and gun owner’s rights.
And to counter this ridiculous point, no, we don’t want to necessarily emulate Tombstone. But we do believe that shooting is a hobby and sometimes a means towards self-preservation.
BTW, from the very same story you excerpted, Oliver.
This man was on medication, yet he was legally allowed to buy guys. That’s a serious fucking problem.
(The story doesn’t say so exactly, but I would assume it was psychological medication.)
“So the only people who support the rights of gun-ownership are on the right? ”
You realize the NRA fought to allow people who are on terrorist watch lists to legally buy guns. There’s a difference between supporting gun-ownership and fighting against any regulation no matter how practical it is.
while the NRA goes ballistic over any sort of check on the person’s criminal history and sanity we won’t have so many of these.
The NRA fully supports background checks for both criminal history and for mental background checks as well. The guy who committed this crime had:
A. No criminal history
B. No history of mental illness
Therefore, what brilliant laws are out there that would have prevented this crime Oliver? I’m so sick and tired of people like you that simply DO NOT THINK when it comes to this issue. You throw rationality to the wind, and get on the emotion horse and ride it as long as you can.
You realize the NRA fought to allow people who are on terrorist watch lists to legally buy guns
It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to violate constitutional rights just so long as it conforms to their own agenda. You have no problem tossing the 2nd amendment aside because somebody is a ’suspect.’ Well why not toss aside their 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights as well?
There’s a difference between supporting gun-ownership and fighting against any regulation no matter how practical it is.
And there’s a difference between something being practical and being constitutional.
Speaking from a faraway land, I can only hope that things get better for America. It’s not from altruism but a vested interest. There’s been so much collateral damage done to my country by your manical gun controls.
Mr Willis, I am your good friend and know that you have a big heart and absolute devotion to making your country the best it can be.
It was only today that I, being a great fan of Hillary, came to realize that Mr. Obama has won this hands down. He is a very smart man. He beat Hillary.
She’s clever, efficient and, quite frankly one of my heartfelt idols. Regardless, Mr. Obama is going to win. Deservedly.
I just managed, after reading you blog for many months, to navigate the commenting section so at last I get to ask a meaningful question.
When you encounter a commenter such as J Tea who has long since established that he has no morals and no intellegence and….well…. nothing at all, you feel so compelled to reply to him. I suspect it’s an overdeveloped sense of give and take for which I would admire you because my only impulse would be to squash the little worm and by that I mean give the man his due by politely ignoring him.
If I’m jumped on a bit, have at me.
Me: “You realize the NRA fought to allow people who are on terrorist watch lists to legally buy guns”
Jay: “It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to violate constitutional rights just so long as it conforms to their own agenda.”
Wow. That black hole of hypocrisy you just created suck what little humanity you had. You truly are less than human.
“You have no problem tossing the 2nd amendment aside…”
Read the fucking amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The people have the right to keep and bare arms. Not every individual. You can ban individuals from having guns, or else you wouldn’t be able to prevent violent rapists from owning guns. Being suspected of being a terrorist should prevent you from buying weapons. It is important to note that Al Quada instructs there members to buy guns legally.
Of course, since the Republicans are in charge, there are 755,000 people on the Terrorist Watch List, which just goes to show you that the Republicans are useless at practically everything.
“It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to violate constitutional rights just so long as it conforms to their own agenda.”
Wow. After seven years of bedwetting conservatives pushing for torture and wiretapping you step up to defend what? Guns being sold to mentally ill people and terrorist suspects. It’s just amazing.
Somewhere along the line the desperate conservative need to appear tough as cover for their cravenness just short circuited a lot of brains.
C.S. Strowbridge:
wow, does “the people” in the First and Fourth amendments not apply to individuals as well? Maybe we only have the right to peaceably assemble as “the people” in government-sanctioned assemblies a la the mass demonstrations in China or Saddam’s Iraq. Maybe being secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects only applies to “the people’s” (i.e., the government’s) property as well.
And as for 700,000-plus people on the terrorist watch list, gee, does the size of that number give you an indication that, just maybe, its a bit of an over-broad list? That maybe not every person on that list is actually a terrorist? Do you really think that if there actually were 700,000 terrorists in this country, we wouldn’t have a major act of terrorism here in six years? I’d just as soon not start stripping people of rights because they are “suspected” of something or are added to some arbitrary blacklist. Unless maybe you’d like to submit your name to the FBI for consideration as an addition.
And, regarding your previous post, you imply that anyone on any sort of medication (as opposed to being adjudicated as dangerous or mentally defective by a court, the current standard) ought to be registered with the federal government. Yeah, I see that working out real well too, for protecting privacy and for encouraging people to seek out help if they need it. I’d really like every employer, ex-spouse, insurance company, and creditor I have to know my complete medical history.
I just have a question for you, Mr. Strowbridge, does that swastika armband ever chafe?
Were Strowbridge constitutionally capable of civil discourse, I would point out that the 2nd Amendment is the worst-written part of the Constitution. Is is equally arguable that the “well-regulated militia” clause is purely exhortatory, and the phrasing “right of the people” in every other reference in the Bill Of Rights is to an individual right, not a “collective” one.
But he’s not, so I won’t.
If people were truly serious about making a gun-free America, then the 2nd Amendment will have be repealed — or, at least, significantly amended. And if the American people were overwhelmingly in favor of doing so, then it would have happened already — or there would be a serious “repeal the 2nd Amendment” movement.
But there isn’t, and quite frankly there are far, far too many guns in America for for it to work anyway. And a half-assed attempt would be worse than no attempt at all — look what happens when one nut gets a gun into a place where no guns are supposed to be at all.
All gun control laws do is affect those who are already inclined to obey the laws. Those who are already intent on breaking other laws are not swayed in the least by the thought that they will also be breaking gun laws. Look at Washington, DC — the toughest gun-control laws in the nation, and the highest murder rate in the nation. (At least, some years. They’re always near the top, anyway.) Because people who want guns and don’t care about laws will get them.
Here’s a radical thought: why not skip the collective punishment? Why not just raise the penalties for using a gun illegally very, very stiff, and leave those who own their guns and don’t break any laws alone? Why punish the vast majority of legal gun owners who have never had any brushes with the law by depriving them of their property and their constitutional rights?
Sorry, forgot the nature of the audience here. Appeals to reason and common sense are most often greeted with rankest hostility.
My apologies for appealing to nonexistent better natures.
J.
Jay Tea,
I understand some of the concern about gun crime and the difficulty in dealing with it. You’re right about both the Constitutional issues and the impracticality of disarmament.
The issue that I have, and that I think many share, is that it doesn’t seem that the criminal justice system is a sufficient deterrent. In California, for example, they have had the “10-20-life” law on the books for some years now. They have an analogue of it in Florida as well, and I think possibly other states as well. Basically, it amounts to 10 years added on to a sentence for using a gun in the commission of a violent felony, 20 for firing it, and 25 to life for actually shooting someone (on top of murder or attempted murder charges). You can’t get much tougher than that.
Some of the public concern with crime in this country is, I think, overblown or completely distorted. The media blows a lot of it out of proportion for sensationalism. Mass shootings are good for that. The sad fact, which anyone who looks at the FBI statistics can see, is that, year in and out, murder victims and perpetrators in this country are super-overwhelmingly poor and minority, the sad drip-drip-drip of young, mostly black and latino teenagers and young men killing each other one by one. One friend of mine once pointed out (and backed up with empirical evidence), there are fewer white people murdered in all of New York City in a year than are murdered on the three Law & Order television shows in the same year. The murder rate in this country is more an outgrowth of our troubled racial and class history and inequalities than anything else.
Wow. That black hole of hypocrisy you just created suck what little humanity you had. You truly are less than human.
And there we have it. The discussion rises above the level of second grade intelligence so CS has to resort to his usual nonsense.
Typical.
The people have the right to keep and bare arms. Not every individual.
Good Lord. The second amendment preserves and guarantees and individual right for a collective purpose. This does not transform that right into a collective right.
You can ban individuals from having guns, or else you wouldn’t be able to prevent violent rapists from owning guns.
No rights under the constitution are absolute, so you’re arguing a point nobody here has made.
Being suspected of being a terrorist should prevent you from buying weapons.
Such logic would have to apply to other constitutional protections as well. You apparently would have no problem with people being on a terrorist watch list having their homes indiscriminately searched at any time, their property seized on a whim, etc.
Geez, I thought Complete Shithead Strowbridge was on the side of those who denounced terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists and the like. I guess they’re only acceptable when put forth by someone other than Republicans.
Personal snark aside, is the theory here “it’ll all be better if we disarm everybody, and we’ll start with the honest and law-abiding people first?”
Somehow I don’t feel a whole lot safer with that notion. Could someone explain to me how that will work out?
J.
Therefore, what brilliant laws are out there that would have prevented this crime Oliver?
I dunno, I thought the Patriot Act and the Protect America Act, George Bush and Lurch Chertoff were gonna keep us all safe. I thought Republicans in office meant we’d all be just snuggly.
What happened to that?
“Such logic would have to apply to other constitutional protections as well. You apparently would have no problem with people being on a terrorist watch list having their homes indiscriminately searched at any time, their property seized on a whim, etc.”
How exactly do you square this with your previously stated support of torture, Jay?
“Somehow I don’t feel a whole lot safer with that notion. Could someone explain to me how that will work out?”
For the record, I support the second amendment and gun ownership. I am, however, put off by the argument that more guns in the classroom or in our daily lives is a solution to anything.
Appeals to “common sense and reason” are all well good, Jay Tea, but it’s hardly common sense or reason to suggest that this tragedy or many others like it could be prevented if students were armed. That kind of talk is just totally emotional empty-headed swagger, and it’s the default response of most conservatives to tragedies like this.
fafaroo, I NEVER supported torture. I opposed defining torture down into “whatever we think is bad and icky.”
And there is already a case of showing how guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can actually stop these mass shootings… or have you already forgotten Jeanne Assam and the New Life Church shootings in Colorado?
J.
Dude. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless when trying to come up with safe sound public policy.
So I take it you are oppossed to waterboarding, which has long been considered torture by the US and international law.
One reason why that particular anecdote is meaningless in this discussion is that Jeanne Assam was a trained security guard and former police officer whose job it was to protect the people in the facility.
She was not just some random attendee who pulled a gun out and started firing.
I have no problem with trained security guards being armed. Do you not know the difference?
oh and Jay Tea, the torture comment was meant for the other Jay.
fafaroo, Jeanne Assam was NOT a “trained security guard.” She was a disgraced former cop who, along with other members of the congregation, were unpaid volunteers who supplied their own weapons and operated with the church’s sanction, but NO special recognition from the state or licensing or training or permits. In fact, they were arguably a “well regulated militia” as intended by the 2nd Amendment — NOT the National Guard.
And this whole thread was about anecdotal evidence. If you don’t like the New Life Church shooting, how about the Appalachian School Of Law shooting in 2002? There the gunman was stopped by two other students (who were off-duty cops) who had their own guns.
That they were cops was irrelevant to their presence. That they were students was the key point.
J.
Well it’s not hard to see the opinion that fafaroo has of the vast majority of gun owners.
And a dreadfully incorrect opinion at that.
Of course. Naturally we should overlook that cops, off-duty, disgraced or otherwise, are specially trained to deal with violent, armed criminals.
We need to forget this because when a cop is off duty or leaves the force or takes a class, that training is magically erased from their brains and they become average, untrained citizens like the rest of us. And if we don’t overlook this fact, how in the world would lame-brained right wing arguments even be possible?
Jesus, Jay, are you really suggesting that prior police training played no role in the responses of these people? Are really suggesting there is no difference between an average 19 year old college student with maybe a gun safety course under his or belt and an off-duty cop sitting in the same classroom?
This is what passes for common sense and reason in your brain? Hell, do you realize that you just attacked Assam’s character and professionalism just one post after holding her up as some kind of citizen hero?
How does your brain not simply explode?
“Well it’s not hard to see the opinion that fafaroo has of the vast majority of gun owners.”
And what opinion is that pray tell?
Well, I just want to applaud Glenn Beck, or whoever it was after Va. Tech, for not calling the NIU students girly-men because they didn’t rush and tackle the man brandishing three firearms.
I figured that I might inject something of a realistic perspective into this debate. For the record, I served for 4 years in the Marine Corps (LCpl / 0844 FDC / 5/14), worked in a gun store in Arizona, and carried when I lived there.
In general, statistically, a trained marksman loses 85% of their shooting ability off of their best on the range in a live-fire combat situation. This applies across the board, for police, military, anybody. Police confronting an armed suspect can and do shoot innocent people unintentionally. Pistols are defensive weapons, used in response to an unexpected armed attack, and are always less effective than any long gun. Anyone entering into a gunfight with any knowledge who has access to a long gun is going to go for it. Less than 15% of police officers ever fire their weapon in the line of duty. Thus, there are no very experienced pistol gunfighters in the world and no way to gain a great deal of experience in pistol gunfighting. It’s simply too rare and unpredictably dangerous an occurrence for anyone to practically gain such knowledge.
The substitute for this is training, sustained and realistic training. Most police only qualify with their weapons maybe once a year. Such training is not that hard to come by, including for civilians who carry concealed, and, in my opinion, ought to be a responsibility of anyone who would carry. Good training builds confidence and familiarity, and makes natural and automatic the actions one needs to take in a gunfight. There’s nothing magical or special about the training that either a peace officer, servicemember, or armed security guard gets that prevents many people from getting similar specific training. (as a note, most armed security guards make something on the order of $12-$15 an hour).
My overall opinion on CCWs is that they are a good idea for people who are willing and able to take the responsibility of getting and maintaining such training and the responsibility for carrying in public, meaning that they are psychologically prepared to take a human life and to take responsibility for their own and other peoples’ safety. I’m not sure if most people have that ability, probably not, but those who do ought to be allowed.
The issue here, again, is with those areas that have been designated by law as complete “gun-free zones”, denying any opportunity for self-defense to all persons therein. That’s an extreme and blanket measure that fails to take into account that some of the people in those spaces ought to be allowed that ability. Not all college students are 19 year olds with no experience at anything other than Xbox. Some of us had real-world experience with weapons and training before we went to college.
The result, as we’ve seen, is people getting cut down like beer cans in these “active shooter” scenarios.
Yes, the solution to this problem is to turn everywhere in America into the Old West. That seems smashing.
Well, fafaroo, considering that you want to take away their guns, it seems a safe assumption that you don’t trust them to act responsibly with their weapons.
As far as Ms. Assam (who is a personal hero of mine now), she was stripped of her gun and badge for misconduct. She had been given the training and trust of a police officer, and abused it. She left the department and the whole state and went to start over somewhere far, far away — and, in my mind, more than redeemed herself.
But the rest of the volunteers weren’t all former and present cops.
We were incredibly lucky that one former cop was in the New Life Church, and two off-duty cops were taking classes at the Appalachian School of Law that day. I wonder, though, why you would gladly put a gun in the hands of a “bad cop” and not let an average citizen with no history of legal troubles do the same?
J.
Oliver, you’ve been watching too much Hollywood. The Old West was nowhere near as trigger-happy as movies and TV would have you believe.
So your argument is based on fantasy. That’s fine. I can cite several examples of cases where gun-free zones got people killed, and examples where would-be massacres were averted because would-be victims had guns to defend themselves. And I haven’t even touched on the Luby’s shooting, where at least one person had to watch her parents be gunned down without doing anything because, in accordance with the law and the restaurant policy, her gun was locked in her vehicle and not on her person.
Where is your counterexample of a Hollywood Wild West-style shootout where dozens of people got killed in the crossfire? How about Amidou Diallo?
Whoops, my bad, he was killed by the police. You know, the people you want to give an exclusive monopoly on gun possession.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the police, but — unlike you — I’m not willing to give them that kind of absolute power.
And unlike you, I have a lot of faith in my fellow citizens. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and trust them.
Also unlike you, I am willing to put a little trust in the United States Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
J.
“Well, fafaroo, considering that you want to take away their guns, it seems a safe assumption that you don’t trust them to act responsibly with their weapons.”
My parents are gun owners. They each own a handgun and I’ve fired both of them. Indeed, my girlfriend at the time and i went to the firing range with my folks. So I don’t have a problem with people owning guns. I add this bit of information although if you had been paying attention you would have read what I wrote a few posts up:
You’ll also see that I wrote this:
The rest of your post is just as confused. It also fails to address my central point: There’s a big difference between the actions of people who are trained to do something, that is, police officers, and average citizens, especially in moments of extreme duress and risk.
The police are highly trained professionals but yes, even they can sometimes overreact and kill innocent people. But when you wrote this:
What “absolute power” are you talking about? The absolute power to kill someone? They don’t have an absolute power to kill someone. Yes, they are armed and authorized to fire on other human beings, but they don’t have the power to do it indiscriminately without serious consequences. Police officers can be charged with murder just like us regular citizens. So what “absolute power” are you talking about?
At the same time, you’re faith in your fellow citizens is admirable, but are you seriously suggesting than armed populace is a counter balance to an armed police force? Are you seriously suggesting that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to any total stranger you see carrying a gun? Seriously? Right up until they open on fire on you, imagine.
As to the question of violence in the Old West, I’ll direct you to this post:
http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml
Would you care to offer some actual evidence in rebuttal?
“I wonder, though, why you would gladly put a gun in the hands of a “bad cop” and not let an average citizen with no history of legal troubles do the same?”
Oh, and Jay Tea, it’s my understanding that the guy who did the shooting at Northern Illinois University had no history of legal troubles.
“I’m not sure if most people have that ability, probably not, but those who do ought to be allowed.”
Good post. Informative. But how exactly does a society ensure that the right people get the right training to carry concealed weapons, and then ensure that they keep their training up over the years? I’m not all that familiar with conceal and carry laws. Do they require re-certification on an annual basis? Do they require the kind of training that’s going to help an average citizen make good decisions and act with confidence in the chaos of something like what happened at Northern Illinois University?
Certainly citizens have a right to defend themselves when their lives are threatened and mass shootings make for good rhetorical maneuvering on the part of CCW advocates (excepting Jay Tea’s confused ranting). But have they really risen to such a frequency that arming more of the population is the answer? Seems to me that the more average citizens there are carrying concealed weapons, the more likely it is that the wrong people, with the wrong kind of training will end up carrying concealed weapons which will increase the likelihood of tragic accidents. Maybe i simply don’t have the faith in my fellow citizens as Jay Tea. But simply owning a gun does not, in my book, de facto, mean that one is a responsible gun owner.
Shorter Jay Tea:
“World peace can only be achieved once every Tom, Dick, and Harry can carry their own personal nuclear explosive.”
The Old West was nowhere near as trigger-happy as movies and TV would have you believe.
You seem REALLY sure about that. Can I borrow your time machine for a little bit, I need to give your parents this contraceptive brochure.
So your argument is based on fantasy.
This, coming from someone who cites 24 to condone torture, is laughable.
Poor Jay Tea, why do you hate America SO much?
Zython said:
This, coming from someone who cites 24 to condone torture, is laughable.
That’d be quite the trick, considering I’ve never watched a single episode of the show.
And historical quibbles notwithstanding (it appears I may have missed the actual studies on that one, but the Old West has never been a particular interest of mine — gimme the Pacific campaign of World War II any day), I have yet to hear an example of armed would-be victims making a situation worse. I’ve seen two cases where armed would-be victims stopped the shooting sprees (Appalachian College Of Law, New Life Church) and one where one would-be victim was infuriated that she had been disarmed by the law during the shooting (Luby’s Massacre, Killeen, Texas), but not a single example of people being killed in the crossfire between civilians and nutjobs with guns, like Oliver and the rest all predict.
Care to find an example from within, say, the last 30 years in the United States?
J.
you have a really fascinating rhetorical style there, jay tea. First, make almost arrogantly confident statements then when someone presents some actual facts as a rebuttal, plead lack of interest in the subject and ignorance.
You also have a tendency to ignore that which you don’t want to hear. As you have ignored the salient point that in the two cases you’ve cited where someone used a fire arm to stop a shooting spree, the people who did it were previously trained as police officers. It’s remarkable that you think this is just an inconsequential little sidebar fact. As if average citizens with typical gun safety training would know just what to do and how to react, with precision and expediency, in the midst of violent chaos. Do you think you would be prepared and able to open fire on a human being who was firing back at you in a room full of crowded people? I know we’d all like to think we’re action heroes but what do you really think the likelihood of that is?
I’ll give you one reason why there may not be that many anecdotal stories about average citizens accidentally shooting other innocents in an attempt to stop a shooting spree. Because the percentage of average citizens who carry concealed weapons is miniscule and the chances of ever being involved in a mass shooting is so freaking rare. The lack of this kind of anecdotal evidence, does not, however, prove your point that average citizens, when armed, will perform just as well as trained professionals. It’s a case of trying to use a negative to prove a positive.
Seriously, do you ever, ever stop to think about these things before you type something?
fafaroo, I ignore the law-enforcement angle because their presence in these two incidents was incidental to their training. That was purely coincidental. And in the Colorado case, Ms. Assam was only one of many congregants who had volunteered to act as an impromptu security force. It was blind luck (or divine intervention, if you lean that way — and I don’t) that she was the second one on the scene and stopped the guy.
We, as a society, were incredibly lucky that those two cases unfolded as they did. But we can’t count on former and off-duty cops to be everywhere at all times. There were none present, as best as we know, on the campuses of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, nor in the Omaha mall.
On the flip side… you are wholeheartedly right that “the chances of ever being involved in a mass shooting is so freaking rare.” The number of mass shootings are relatively rare (with a spate of them in recent times), but we still have those “gun-free zones” in the theoretical hope of preventing them.
No, I do NOT say that amateurs will always perform as well as trained professionals. But I say why not give it a try? Why not TRUST our fellow Americans to exercise good judgment and responsibility?
Anyone who possesses a Concealed Carry permit has already undergone some hefty screening, and — in a lot of cases — has to document their training and proficiency. We already trust them in most places to behave appropriately and not go psycho.
As far as my abandoning the Old West argument… I was apparently mistaken in taking on an argument that I didn’t fully research, and hereby concede the strong likelihood that the Old West was, indeed, more violent than I implied. (To admit it wholeheartedly would be to make the same mistake that got me into this mess — accepting others’ words without doing my own research. I will, however, for the sake of this argument, accept it for the time being.) But the more fundamental error I made was in tacitly accepting its validity and applicability to the current situation. The American people and the American society have changed tremendously in the century-plus since those days, mostly for the better, and the tenets and stereotypes of that era simply don’t apply to modern-day America.
In brief: I let myself make an argument I was not prepared to defend, and got my ass rightfully handed to me. I apologize for doing so, and thank those who called me on my Old West remarks.
Now, about that accusation you made of me watching “24…”
J.
Because the percentage of average citizens who carry concealed weapons is miniscule and the chances of ever being involved in a mass shooting is so freaking rare.
That’s an interesting point. Mass shootings themselves are also rare, yet they are sensationalized to the point where people believe them to be common. Hence, the creation of “gun free” zones.
The “old west” scenario is a tired argument that has no basis in fact. It has been used as an emotional appeal whenever a state makes it easier for the average citizen to protect themselves. Florida heard all about it in 1987 when they passed their concealed carry laws. Florida heard it again when a law which allows citizens to use deadly force in their homes and cars was extended to almost anywhere. Previously, people had to attempt to flee first. In both cases, such dire predictions did not come true.
In Michigan, 6 times as many people in 2001 now have CCW permits. Yet gun related deaths have fallen in that same time frame:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS06/801060602/1008
Nobody is arguing that everybody should be walking around with a gun. But there isn’t a person that I know who has a CCW that isn’t proficient with the use of a firearm. The problem is, the law abiding citizen is not going to carry in a “gun free” zone and that just makes it a turkey shoot for the person that plans on taking out as many people as he possibly can.
“I ignore the law-enforcement angle because their presence in these two incidents was incidental to their training. That was purely coincidental.”
Um, that’s a little like saying the training of a doctor or nurse that saves a heart attack victim in a restaurant was totally irrelevant to the act they performed and that all that really mattered is that they ordered the salmon.
Secondly, i don’t think you really understand what a gun free zone is all about. The pro-gun crowd makes a lot of hay out of the tragic irony of mass shootings occurring in gun free zones but gun free zones are not put in place, as you suggest, to prevent mass shootings. If you think that’s what their principle aim is, you just aren’t thinking again. The idea of gun free zones in schools became prominent long before the recent spate of school shootings. The Gun Free School Zone act was first passed in 1990, almost a decade before Columbine. You’ll find some of the arguments for gun free school zones here:
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/gunlaw.html
That’s from a speech in 1995. From that passage you can see that gun free school zones were principally designed to discourage students from bringing guns to school through added penalties. Obviously, the problem then wasn’t mass shootings. It was straight forwarded, though especially dangerous, juvenile delinquency.
Mass shootings are rare and tragic and the gun lobby uses them every time to attack legislation it doesn’t like despite the fact that gun free zones were never intended to prevent mass shootings and it’s a really hard sell to suggest that mass shootings are an unintended consequence of gun free zone laws. Why? I work on a university campus that is a gun free zone but the campus is nevertheless patrolled by armed, trained, professional los angeles city police officers. So it isn’t like the school is some sort of zone removed from the same level of protection that the rest of the city has.
All you have to do is stop swallowing the bullshit you read in your right wing world and think a little bit, dude. Seriously.
Now, about that accusation you made of me watching “24…”
And, um, i wasn’t the one who said that.
oh and as to this: “Mass shootings themselves are also rare, yet they are sensationalized to the point where people believe them to be common. Hence, the creation of “gun free” zones.”
Like i said. Stop and do a little research first dude. please do us all a favor.
“The problem is, the law abiding citizen is not going to carry in a “gun free” zone and that just makes it a turkey shoot for the person that plans on taking out as many people as he possibly can.”
This is just a ridiculous argument. The people who carry out mass killings at schools do not chose the school because they knew it was a gun free zone. As far as i know, all of these shootings have been carried out by students. Why?
First, because the school is a familiar place to them. Second, and related, because school can be a stressful place for people who are already pre-disposed to depression and anxiety. The students who do the shooting are obviously mentally ill and in their pyschosis, they have fixated on the school as the source of their suffering. Third, i imagine, that their is a large degree of copy-cat syndrome, driven in part, by the media coverage these events get. They know that if they open fire in a school, no matter how many people they kill, their names will be all over the news within hours. Fourth, the very design of most classrooms means that they don’t have to be expert marksmen to do serious, tragic damage. Just walk in the door and aim at the front rows. Which is exactly what happened in Northern Illinois. Within seconds of the event beginning there, the shooter had already done enough violence to ensure, in his own mind, the media attention that he wanted. As I understand the events that unfolded there, the whole thing was over in a matter of minutes, ended when the shooter killed himself.
I would suggest that given the circumstances of these tragedies, the gun free zone nature of the school is the last thing on the list in the shooters choice of location. If it’s even on the list at all.
Fafaroo, gun free zones in malls and colleges were not covered by that 1990 legislation as that was more about “gun free schools” brought on by rising juvenile crime (which was struck down by the Supreme Court). Gun free zones in such places as malls, college campuses and such have been brought on by a culture of fear that would have us believe mass shootings are more common then they really are.
I would suggest that given the circumstances of these tragedies, the gun free zone nature of the school is the last thing on the list in the shooters choice of location.
You misunderstood me. I didn’t cite it as their reason for doing so. I simply stated a fact. It doesn’t matter what their reasoning is for selecting their location. The bottom line is, it is designated as a gun free zone and therefore the law abiding person is not going to violate it, thereby setting up the turkey shoot scenario.
“The bottom line is, it is designated as a gun free zone and therefore the law abiding person is not going to violate it, thereby setting up the turkey shoot scenario.”
First off, there are too many Jays here. Second, how exactly does the presence of an armed law citizen change the dynamic of the situation? What you guys all seem to imagine is a scenario in which a guy enters a classroom, starts firing and is immediately gunned down by the expert marksman who just seconds previous had a pencil in his or her hand taking notes on a lecture.
How realistic do you think that is? Is it realistic enough to change public policy?
At the same time, I thought part of the idea being argued by the right is that removing gun free zones and allowing CCW would actually act as a deterrent to school shootings. If the fact of the gun free zone doesn’t enter into or has little influence on the psychotic thinking of the killer in the first place, how exactly is this deterrent effect supposed to work?
There’s another thing at work here that should be mentioned. Gun free zones were a response to a specific, identifiable problem in public schools but also as a response to CCW laws. Most people, especially in certain regions of the country, are unfamiliar with guns. They’ve never seen one and they’ve never handled one but they know that they are dangerous, even in trained hands.
A lot of people don’t like the idea of thinking that anyone, anywhere, at anytime could be caring a gun in a public space. It doesn’t make them feel safer. It actually makes them feel less safe. I don’t know where Jay Tea acquired his unqualified faith in total strangers, but most people don’t share that view. They are unfamiliar with guns and so afraid of them and suspicious of anyone who would want to carry one around undetected. If there’s going to be guns in a public place, most people like to know where they are, preferably at the hip of a trained, professional law enforcement officer or other security professional.
I don’t think you can entirely blame the left for this. There is gun ownership and then there is gun culture. The two overlap obviously but there are distinct differences. My parents are gun owners but I wouldn’t in a million years characterize them as being a part of or even in interested in gun culture. Even for the initiated, there are certain aspects of gun culture that scare the fuck out of people.
This is a page from the website that sold both Stephen Kazmierczak and Cho Seung-Hui their weapons. This is their “Must See Video” section:
http://www.topglock.com/content.aspx?ckey=MustHaveGlockAccessories
Now im sorry, but I completely understand why some of the videos there would scare the fuck out of someone with no experience with guns, gun ownership and most importantly gun culture. I guarantee you that most people would not feel safer thinking one of these dudes was sitting in their classroom with a 9mm holstered under their arm. I don’t need to be lectured about how these guys are trained in gun safety on sanctioned firing ranges or any of that. I would wager that the average person unfamiliar with guns who watches one of these videos, especially in the wake of a school shooing , is going to come out in favor of gun free zones.
I also would wager that there’s a distinct probability that both the killers, Stephen Kazmierczak and Cho Seung-Hui, watched those videos too. Im not saying that the videos inspired them or planted the seeds for what they did. They were already visiting the website, afterall. But those videos certainly wouldn’t have done anything to dissuade them from doing what they did.
Ultimately, the point is that all the right wing braggadocio about how armed citizens could have stopped the killing, only serves to make most people more nervous about concealed weapons in public places.
Second, how exactly does the presence of an armed law citizen change the dynamic of the situation?
You were given specific examples of that and wrote it off as nothing but anecdotal and dismissed it because the people in question had more training that the average citizen.
What you guys all seem to imagine is a scenario in which a guy enters a classroom, starts firing and is immediately gunned down by the expert marksman who just seconds previous had a pencil in his or her hand taking notes on a lecture.
I don’t see anybody arguing that. At the same time however, how can you ignore the obvious, which is that if there was 1 or 2 people in that hall who were armed, there is at the very least, the possibility they could have put a stop to it before more people were killed? Without it, there’s no possibility. It’s as simple as that.
Most people, especially in certain regions of the country, are unfamiliar with guns. They’ve never seen one and they’ve never handled one but they know that they are dangerous, even in trained hands.
Ok, so? Everybody knows that.
A lot of people don’t like the idea of thinking that anyone, anywhere, at anytime could be caring a gun in a public space. It doesn’t make them feel safer. It actually makes them feel less safe.
Nearly 2/3 of all states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. There’s only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) where carrying a concealed weapon is not allowed (In 1992, it was 15 states). Granted, in many states (like New York for instance), it is very difficult to obtain that permit, but it is possible.
If there’s going to be guns in a public place, most people like to know where they are, preferably at the hip of a trained, professional law enforcement officer or other security professional.
That’s obviously not the case, given the data above.
Now im sorry, but I completely understand why some of the videos there would scare the fuck out of someone with no experience with guns, gun ownership and most importantly gun culture. I guarantee you that most people would not feel safer thinking one of these dudes was sitting in their classroom with a 9mm holstered under their arm. I don’t need to be lectured about how these guys are trained in gun safety on sanctioned firing ranges or any of that. I would wager that the average person unfamiliar with guns who watches one of these videos, especially in the wake of a school shooing , is going to come out in favor of gun free zones.
The key words here are ‘experience’ and ‘unfamiliar.’ Support for gun free zones shouldn’t be based on ignorance.
Ultimately, the point is that all the right wing braggadocio about how armed citizens could have stopped the killing, only serves to make most people more nervous about concealed weapons in public places.
Well then why have the number of states offering concealed carry licenses increased over the last 15 years? Oh and writing it off to “right wing braggadocio” is just as lame as all the “wild west” talk.
You were given specific examples of that and wrote it off as nothing but anecdotal and dismissed it because the people in question had more training that the average citizen.
I dismissed it as anecdotal because public policy is not something that should be based simply on anecdotal evidence. And as to the second part of this, are you seriously arguing, as Jay Tea has, that the professional training of the people involved didn’t play role in their actions? Seriously? You guys are talking about average citizens who take a few courses then going out into the world with concealed weapons thinking they could be heroes, if the moment presented itself. And yet the examples you cite to support this idea involve people who went through extensive professional training and whose job it was protect people from violence. I think there’s a big difference between the two. Neither of you have yet to directly address that obvious difference. Instead you choose to ignore it.
At the same time however, how can you ignore the obvious, which is that if there was 1 or 2 people in that hall who were armed, there is at the very least, the possibility they could have put a stop to it before more people were killed?
Yes it’s a possibility but if that’s a possibility, there’s also a possibility that more guns in the hands of non-professionals could lead to more deaths. True? If all you’ve got is the realm of possibility, we could imagine all kinds of possible scenarios and never get anywhere. At the same time, the tragedy at Northern Illinois was, as i understand it, over in a matter of minutes. The guy came in, pumped a shotgun started firing then killed himself. Your potential heroes would have to have been quick on the draw to do anything to limit the damage done — not to mention expert enough not to cause any of their own. Again, you’re arguing in the realm of fantasy. In a situation like Columbine, where the killers stalked the school for much longer, you might have a case, but there i would raise the question of what happens when police arrive on the scene and discover multiple, non-uniformed people wandering the halls with guns, some good and some bad. Can you see how that might actually hamper an effective professional response to an unfolding violent situation?
Nearly 2/3 of all states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. There’s only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) where carrying a concealed weapon is not allowed (In 1992, it was 15 states). Granted, in many states (like New York for instance), it is very difficult to obtain that permit, but it is possible.
First, this doesn’t actually address the point you posted it under which had to do with people feeling less safe in places where they think there are concealed weapons around them. At the same time, how many of these states also have established gun free zones or allow businesses and to restrict the presence of concealed guns on their premises? Where there are CCW laws, there are also gun free zones. Why? Because, as I clearly noted above, the existence of gun free zones came about in response to both specific public safety threats and CCW laws. Gun free zones are there because many people don’t feel safe thinking there might be concealed weapons in their vicinity.
That’s obviously not the case, given the data above.
As noted, that data alone doesn’t address at all most people’s feelings about guns as, again, where there are CCW laws, gun free zones have also been created.
The key words here are ‘experience’ and ‘unfamiliar.’ Support for gun free zones shouldn’t be based on ignorance.
Yes, and opposition to gun free zones shouldn’t be based on gun culture fantasies of armed citizens playing hero. That’s my point and that’s all you really have, is a fantasy scenario sustained by some segments of a gun culture that wants to justify its own inordinate obsession with firearms. I say that not because i am opposed to gun ownership. I am, however, opposed to a gun culture that wants to turn its own fantasies into public policy.
I dismissed it as anecdotal because public policy is not something that should be based simply on anecdotal evidence.
Oh and gun free zones were created based upon rational and well thought out policy? Puh-lease.
And as to the second part of this, are you seriously arguing, as Jay Tea has, that the professional training of the people involved didn’t play role in their actions? Seriously? You guys are talking about average citizens who take a few courses then going out into the world with concealed weapons thinking they could be heroes, if the moment presented itself.
Can you give the histrionics a rest? There isn’t a person I know who has a CCW that hopes one day to be a hero by being involved in a shoot-out with a criminal. In addition, people who go through the process of obtaining a CCW with the intention of exercising that right don’t just “take a few courses” and that’s. They are constantly honing their skills. In fact, I would venture to guess that the average CCW holder is a more accurate shot than the average cop.
And yet the examples you cite to support this idea involve people who went through extensive professional training and whose job it was protect people from violence. I think there’s a big difference between the two.
Fine. More examples where the people in question were just every day citizens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/25/school.shooting.pm/
Yes it’s a possibility but if that’s a possibility, there’s also a possibility that more guns in the hands of non-professionals could lead to more deaths. True? If all you’ve got is the realm of possibility, we could imagine all kinds of possible scenarios and never get anywhere.
Sorry dude, but thus far, those who have been on the wrong end of such ‘possibilities’ are those who have argued long and loud against concealed carry laws and less restrictive gun control laws. Once again we refer back to the dire predictions about Michigan’s relaxed CCW laws, Florida’s CCW laws — hell, ANY state relaxing CCW laws. The dire predictions have not come true. What we do know is that gun free zones have put people in the position where they are sitting ducks. The time has come to change that. If your doomsday scenario comes true, then it can be changed back.
Your potential heroes would have to have been quick on the draw to do anything to limit the damage done — not to mention expert enough not to cause any of their own. Again, you’re arguing in the realm of fantasy.
Perhaps. Perhaps they would not even have had to fire. Simply drawing their weapons could have caused the shooter to stop or more quickly turn on the gun on himself. Seung-Hui Cho turned the gun on himself when he knew the cops were closing in.
but there i would raise the question of what happens when police arrive on the scene and discover multiple, non-uniformed people wandering the halls with guns, some good and some bad. Can you see how that might actually hamper an effective professional response to an unfolding violent situation?
Let’s see. You have two individuals picking off targets at random, one by one. They’re not going to be that hard to distinguish from the citizen who is attempting to help.
Yes, and opposition to gun free zones shouldn’t be based on gun culture fantasies of armed citizens playing hero. That’s my point and that’s all you really have, is a fantasy scenario sustained by some segments of a gun culture that wants to justify its own inordinate obsession with firearms. I say that not because i am opposed to gun ownership. I am, however, opposed to a gun culture that wants to turn its own fantasies into public policy.
Once again, if your argument about citizens “playing hero” were supposedly true, you’d have a long list of examples where somebody with a CCW started waving their gun around like Dirty Harry. The opposition to gun free zones are in large part, advocates for self defense. Nothing more. Yes, these kinds of mass shootings are rare, but they do happen. And I have yet to see a rational explanation as to why such ‘gun free’ zones should remain.
Neither of the cases you link to support your claims, Jay. The scenario presented by you, jay tea, and CCW advocates is of an armed citizen standing up in a classroom or other public place and stopping the violence as it occurs. In both the stories you linked to the armed citizens intervened after the shootings were over and the suspects were leaving the scene. You spin them anyway you want but they are simply not the same thing as the argument you presented for getting rid of gun free zones. They simply aren’t.
And i never said that people with CCW permits HOPE they get a chance to play hero. What I said was that they go out in the world thinking could stop a mass shooting if they were caught up one. Again, big difference. I don’t think it’s possible to argue that they don’t think they could stop such a crime since it is the entire basis of you’re argument that they could.
That said, what happens if schools repealed their gun free zone restrictions? Would you advocate that some students should get trained and bring guns to glass just in case? I’m sorry but that seems totally reckless and a rather poor basis for public policy.
Conflating the arguments against CCW laws with arguments against repealing gun free zones is simply false. If dire predictions of increased gun violence in the wake of CCW laws didn’t come true, that has absolutely no bearing on whether it is a good idea or not to allow students and others civilians to carry concealed weapons on to schools as a solution to school shootings.
You’re argument against the Columbine scenario is just flat ridiculous. The police have no idea what they would be walking into in a situation like that and would have no way of identifying who was shooting who for what reason. They would have no way of knowing who to trust and who not. They would be forced to disarm everyone they saw with a gun to be certain that the school was secure. Why you can’t recognize that i have no idea.
As to training, since were using wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Training
i’m sorry, but to the extent that this description is accurate of CCW certification, color me unimpressed given the scenarios you keep laying down in support of ending gun free zones.
ultimately, your example of Seung-Hui Cho turning the gun on himself when when he knew the cops were closing in suggests a better solution than allowing armed civilians into classrooms. The proper response to school shootings is to increase campus security, including the presence of armed on campus police officers, training and response times. Yes, that costs money. But it’s a hell of a lot more responsible and reasonable solution than an advocating for an armed populace.
fafaroo, I dunno where you got the idea that the New Life Church shooting was winding down when Jeanne Assam took down the shooter, but it most surely was not. (Note: Assam wounded the shooter, but he took his own life once he realized his shooting spree had come to an abrupt end. Also, I do not use his name, because I believe that such fame-seeking scum should have their identities purged from our collective memories as a way of denying them their wish, and I keep bringing up Jeanne Assam’s name in hopes that her heroism will be the defining factor of the incident, not Asshole X’s rage.) Note that the initial reports were that Assam had killed him; it wasn’t until well after the incident that they determined he had killed himself.
At VT, the gunman was not “cornered” by the cops. He “cornered” himself by chaining the three entrances shut, and putting up notes warning of non-existent bombs. he locked himself in with a few hundred potential victims, and killed 30 before taking his own life. We’ll never know with absolute certainty, but it seems obvious that he never intended to leave Norris Hall alive.
Note that, fafaroo: in the very case you cited, the gunman barricaded the entrances to the building with notes warning of bombs. The police you cite were locked OUT; the victims and killer were locked IN.
Thus the killer was assured that he was the only armed person in the building. And in that building, where he deliberately chose to “corner” himself, he killed 30 people before he did what he should have done in the first place and killed himself.
The state, with its “no gun zone” policy, made sure that there were several hundred people in a building that one nut was able to seal up with three sets of chains and locks, then kill at will , in utter confidence that he would be the only person in there who was armed. And by bluffing that there were bombs on the doors, he guaranteed that the eventual arrival of armed police would be delayed to give himself more time to kill.
For the record, I don’t own a gun, never have, and have no interest in owning one. (I also would have no trouble obtaining a license, should I wish one — I have a spotless criminal record, not even any moving violations.) But I respect people’s right to defend themselves, to say that they will take responsibility for their own safety and not just sit on their asses in a crisis and wait for the government to save them.
I dunno where I first read it, but here’s an aphorism that applies here: “When seconds count, remember that the police are only minutes away.”
J.
In both the stories you linked to the armed citizens intervened after the shootings were over
How do you know they were over? They were over, because armed citizens stopped them from doing any more harm.
What I said was that they go out in the world thinking could stop a mass shooting if they were caught up one.
How can you possibly know this? First you ‘know’ that two shootings were “over” so therefore, armed citizens stopping them don’t count and now you’re a mind reader.
If dire predictions of increased gun violence in the wake of CCW laws didn’t come true, that has absolutely no bearing on whether it is a good idea or not to allow students and others civilians to carry concealed weapons on to schools as a solution to school shootings.
Sure it does, especially when you’re predicting the same kind of dire consequences for changing gun free zone policies.
The police have no idea what they would be walking into in a situation like that and would have no way of identifying who was shooting who for what reason. They would have no way of knowing who to trust and who not.
Oh really? You’ve been hailing the police as the “highly trained professionals” equipped and ready to deal with such situations and now you’re saying they’d be confused and unable to do their jobs effectively. Give me a freaking break. The innocent person attempting to help is going to put down his gun the moment he sees a law enforcement official. The psycho killer is just going to keep shooting. Now you’re just being ridiculous.
i’m sorry, but to the extent that this description is accurate of CCW certification, color me unimpressed given the scenarios you keep laying down in support of ending gun free zones.
I don’t really care if you’re unimpressed. The only evidence you have to go on is the increased number of CCW licenses issued across the country in the last 15 years without any of the carnage we were going to see according to gun control advocates. You’re reasoning (if that’s what you want to call it) is based upon the same irrational fear-mongering mindset. Let’s plant the picture of a bunch of Dirty Harry wannabes just taking their guns out and firing away causing more harm than good. Your argument for continuing with the same policy we have now is completely unconvincing.
ultimately, your example of Seung-Hui Cho turning the gun on himself when when he knew the cops were closing in suggests a better solution than allowing armed civilians into classrooms.
Translation: Let as many people be killed as possible until the cops show up.
That’s a great idea.
“I dunno where you got the idea that the New Life Church shooting was winding down when Jeanne Assam took down the shooter …”
Jay Tea, I don’t know where you got that idea either. Listen, man, either keep up with the thread, do some basic research and think a little bit, or stop wasting everyone’s time.
As for the other Jay, I would suggest you also just try to think a little bit.
You’re whole argument for doing away with gun free zones, particularly in school settings, is based on that premise that an armed citizen in a classroom would be able to stop a school shooting in progress.
If people with concealed weapons in a classroom do not think that they are trained enough or proficient enough to accomplish this, what, exactly is the basis of your argument then? Now you’re arguing that people with CCW who are not confident in their abilities would be able to act effectively in a close quarter fire fight in a crowded room full of panicked people?
If someone draws a concealed weapon in that scenario they better damn well know what they’re doing and be prepared to kill someone or else they stand a damn good chance of making a horrible situation worse by endangering more lives.
The arguments against CCW laws which anticipated increases in accidental shootings and gun violence are entirely different from the argument I am making. Those arguments were based on a fear that people would use their guns to settle non-violent situations violently, or that people would overreact to situations they did not fully understand. I’m not arguing that concealed weapons in a classroom will lead to violence. I am arguing that it is not an adequate public policy response as either a preventive measure or as a reliable means of stopping violence once it has been begun by someone else. Here’s why in a nutshell:
1. It places public safety entirely at the mercy of coincidence. That is, it’s only an effective policy if, by mere chance, a school shooting occurs in a classroom where someone is carrying a concealed weapon. I’m sorry, but relying on the mercy of chance is not a sound basis for public policy.
2. If a shooting does occur in a classroom where someone is armed, its effectiveness depends entirely on a non-professional acting efficiently and effectively in a high stress, high risk environment.
3. It creates an environment where innocent civilian may not be distinguishable from the criminal creating a potential nightmare for law enforcement when they do arrive on the scene. I did not say that in this scenario, police would be confused and unable to do their jobs. They would do their jobs exactly as they are trained to do which would be to disarm or otherwise neutralize everyone they see with a weapon at a crime scene. Police are highly trained professionals but that doesn’t change the fact that being confronted with multiple people with weapons drawn would not slow or otherwise hamper their ability to secure a crime scene as rapidly as they would need to.
In order for CCW in the classroom to be an effective method of preventing or limiting school shootings, you have to imagine a scenario in which everything goes down exactly perfect. I am not and have never argued that CCW advocates are “a bunch of Dirty Harry wannabes just taking their guns out and firing away causing more harm than good.” I am, however, trying to be realistic in their ability to respond to a high risk, high stress situation. I don’t deny the possibility that someone with a gun in a classroom could save lives. My question is and always has been how realistic do you think that is? You haven’t presented any previous case in which a non-professional has responded in the manner you imagine they would. All we still have here are hypotheticals. Mine, however, are realistic in their assessment of people’s performance, yours are not.
A far more effective and rational response is to improve campus security through increased professionals, increased response times and better emergency planning. Of course, if all you can do in response to this is denigrate professional law enforcement, whatever.
“But I respect people’s right to defend themselves, to say that they will take responsibility for their own safety and not just sit on their asses in a crisis and wait for the government to save them.”
Wow, jay tea. You take a principled stand in not naming the killer because somehow referring to him in a blog thread is a form of aggrandizement but you have no problem blaming the victims for being victims. That’s just great. What a guy.
Actually, I am the one doing the thinking.
Do I believe that allowing people to carry concealed weapons into what was a gun free zone is absolutely going to stop somebody hellbent on killing as many people he possibly can? No. I can’t predict the future and neither can you. However, the possibility is better than no possibility at all, which as it currently stands, is the way it would be.
You also operate under the assumption that the people in question with a CCW would not be be able to respond effectively were such a situation to arise. You don’t know that. You have to understand something about people who have a CCW before you can make the conclusion’s you’re making:
1. Most people who apply for a CCW don’t carry. They have the option, but most don’t. I know people that carry only when they go into certain areas, or at other particular times, but too many people think that just because somebody has a CCW, that they’re always packing heat.
2. Everybody has the instinct for self-preservation over being a hero, contrary to what you’ve alluded to. If I’m 10-15 yards away from a guy and my carry weapon is a .22 or a .40, and there’s a door or window to me, I’m getting out. However, if said gunman is right in front of me and I’m in his line of fire, I at least have a chance.
3. Many CCW holders are the types of trained professionals you speak of. You’re of course, operating under the assumption that it’s nothing but a bunch of amateurs that have taken a class. But as the landscape of the college campus has changed and we’re seeing more and more people going back to school, it increases the likelihood that somebody with a CCW has some professional experience with using a firearm, whether it was with the police or the military.
You continue to present worst-case scenarios as a way of defending your position. If we never made changes to any kind of public policy based solely on worst-case scenarios, we’d still be living in the dark ages.
I don’t disagree with your suggestions to help the situation. Text message alerts, more security, lockable doors, etc. are all fine and should be part of any security overhaul. But a person should be allowed to have a sense of recourse and not just have to sit there and pray that the shooter doesn’t spot him while waiting for the police to get there.
“Most people who apply for a CCW don’t carry.”
Doesn’t this sort of undercut your entire argument? Doesn’t it make it even less likely that some with a concealed weapon will be on hand to intervene in a school shooting? At the same time, giving someone the option to bring a concealed weapon into a classroom conflicts with the right that other people have not to be in a space where someone might have a concealed weapon. Gun free zones aren’t there to stop school shootings. They are there as a response to people’s concern about concealed weapons in their environment. Guns, no matter who’s carrying them, make people nervous. School shootings are tragic but rare. In the face of that rarity it doesn’t make sense to expect people who are naturally nervous about guns to have to live day in, day out with the anxiety of suspecting that someone, somewhere is carrying. Especially in a classroom setting.
Repealing gun free zone laws is a broad, blunt suggestion that impinges on the right of other people to be free from the anxiety that the presence of guns, or the suspected presence of guns, create.
“If I’m 10-15 yards away from a guy and my carry weapon is a .22 or a .40, and there’s a door or window to me, I’m getting out.”
Actually, if i understand most CCW liability issues, this is exactly what you would have to do in order to avoid liability for a shooting. Using one’s concealed weapon has to be an act of last resort.
“You continue to present worst-case scenarios as a way of defending your position.”
And you continue to present base case scenarios. That isn’t grounds for public policy either.
In my opinion, there are a lot more factors involved than whether or not someone with a concealed weapon could stop a school shooting. There is, as i noted above, the reasons why gun free zones were established in the first place, none of which have anything to do with school shootings. But school schootings are what CCW advocates use to argue against gun free zones without addressing the concerns those zones were actually created for. It’s dishonest exploitation of tragedy, if you ask me.
Doesn’t it make it even less likely that some with a concealed weapon will be on hand to intervene in a school shooting?
So what? Again, you’re thinking about this from the same perspective that Oliver is. That we want hoards of armed students in college classrooms. That’s not so.
At the same time, giving someone the option to bring a concealed weapon into a classroom conflicts with the right that other people have not to be in a space where someone might have a concealed weapon.
Since when does somebody have the right to not be in a space where somebody might have a gun?
They are there as a response to people’s concern about concealed weapons in their environment. Guns, no matter who’s carrying them, make people nervous.
Sorry, but there’s a wide chasm between feeling safe and being safe.
Repealing gun free zone laws is a broad, blunt suggestion that impinges on the right of other people to be free from the anxiety
Again, there is no ‘right’ to be from from anxiety.
And you continue to present base case scenarios. That isn’t grounds for public policy either.
Sorry, but there is a load of circumstantial evidence that show gun free zones have simply gotten more people killed. Your defense boils down to worst case scenarios and this fantasy ‘right’ of not having to be nervous in class.
But school schootings are what CCW advocates use to argue against gun free zones without addressing the concerns those zones were actually created for. It’s dishonest exploitation of tragedy, if you ask me.
Actually, that was merely a mistake that I made. Reading through the articles I have, most people are making the argument that gun free zones are pointless. It doesn’t matter why they were created. And the only ones exploiting tragedy are those that use such horrors as a springboard for even more gun control.
At this point, the debate is over. You’re not going to convince me. I’m not going to convince you. I will just leave with the following from Cesare Beccaria (Of Crime & Punishment):
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty… and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”
“Again, you’re thinking about this from the same perspective that Oliver is. That we want hoards of armed students in college classrooms.”
No. I’m thinking about it in terms of public policy and balancing the rights of those prefer not be around guns with those who want to carry them. If there’s little chance that there will ever be someone in a classroom with a gun to stop a school shooting, why, exactly, are you using school shootings as a reason to overturn gun free zones? Students and professors who don’t want guns in their classes have to give up that right based on the extremely unlikely possibility that someone might save them with a concealed weapon? It’s called balancing interests. Since it’s so radically unlikely that the scenario you describe will ever actually occur, i don’t think it’s enough to alter the environment that students and professors live and work in everyday.
As to whether this right to a gun free zone exists, you have it exactly backward. There is not right to carry a concealed weapon. That’s a privilege regulated by the state as it sees fit. Gun free zones are a restriction on that privilege because most people don’t like to be around guns. It makes them nervous. By using school shootings as a rhetorical bulldozer, gun interests are using tragedy to expand their privilege into a sphere where it is unwelcome. Like said, I think that’s kind of bullshit.
” … there is a load of circumstantial evidence that show gun free zones have simply gotten more people killed.”
I’m not sure how you can make a statement like this when, as you yourself have stated, removing a gun free zone doesn’t mean that there will be anyone on hand with a gun to protect people against school shootings. The idea that gun free zones have actually “gotten more people killed” then is totally specious.
“It doesn’t matter why they were created.”
Wow. what a refreshingly honest response. You don’t care why they were created, you just want what you want regardless. I think that just about sums up why this whole discussion was pointless.
And Jay, i don’t think you or anyone else in this thread has been able to articulate one, let alone “a thousand” real advantages of removing gun free zones. The operative word there being real.
Do I have this straight?
Current gun laws allowed a crazy killer to buy weapons.
If we loosen gun laws, the NEXT guy that buys guns won’t be a crazy killer, we promise.
Is that how it is, boys?
Not quite, Quaker.
Current gun-free zones have racked up a hefty body count, and tighter gun controls have repeatedly led to more and more gun crimes.
If we keep making tougher and tougher gun laws, taking more and more guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, sooner or later it’ll actually do what the gun control advocates say and decreases the number of gun crimes. Just please don’t pay attention to Washington, DC, Virginia Tech, and other places where we already ban all guns.
Have I got it right, Quaker?
J.
“Current gun-free zones have racked up a hefty body count …”
Um, would care to explain how you arrived at this construction? Abstract concepts are now actively killing people? Really? And here i thought it was flesh and blood psychopaths with guns who were racking up the body counts.
Doesn’t your stunning awkwardness ever give you pause?
If there’s little chance that there will ever be someone in a classroom with a gun to stop a school shooting, why, exactly, are you using school shootings as a reason to overturn gun free zones?
Little chance. Maybe. Right now? NO CHANCE.
Students and professors who don’t want guns in their classes have to give up that right
Gun free zones are not a right.
Gun free zones are a restriction on that privilege because most people don’t like to be around guns. It makes them nervous.
Well, people in Utah don’t seem to mind. And once again, not being nervous is not a right. If state legislatures allow people with CCW licenses to carry on college campuses and in malls, the nervous people are just going to have to deal with it. Unless of course you believe “My right not to be nervous” will hold up in court.
I’m not sure how you can make a statement like this when, as you yourself have stated, removing a gun free zone doesn’t mean that there will be anyone on hand with a gun to protect people against school shootings.
Actually, you’ve been given examples of situations where there was people on hand with a gun did protect other people. You’ve dismissed said examples for your own convenience because the people in question in two such circumstances had more training than the average person and the two other examples, you claimed with your crystal ball that the crimes in question were “over.” You can deny deny deny all you want, use all the pretzel logic you want, but at the end of the day all are examples of regular citizens using their own firearms to stop and/or apprehend shooting suspects.
You don’t care why they were created, you just want what you want regardless. I think that just about sums up why this whole discussion was pointless.
No, what’s pointless is you turning the debate into a tiring semantical exercise about why gun free zones were created as if that is completely relevant. The only question that matters is:
Are gun free zones practical or not? You’ve not made a compelling case that they are.
Once again, more slowly this time. Pay attention, Mr. Tea.
You have 100 students in a room. One student (let’s say number 58 out of 100) takes his legally purchased guns and shoots up a couple of dozen of his classmates.
Your hypothetical answer is to make it easier for another student (number 17 out of 100) to buy guns–and bring them to class.
Now will number 17 and number 58 cancel each other out? Or will they double the threat to the remaining students?
Let’s gamble with their lives, shall we?
Or will they double the threat to the remaining students?
One student firing at unarmed students, hoping to kill as many as possible. The other attempting to stop only the crazed shooter. Yet Quaker thinks the threat to the other students is doubled.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
“At this point, the debate is over.”
I guess this isn’t operational any more.
As to your final (?) points, how many more times do you need me to repeat myself?
People have a right to self-defense but they do not have a right to carry concealed weapons. That’s a privilege regulated by the state. Part of that regulation includes an allowance for businesses or public institutions to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on their property. Schools, in particular, originally declared themselves gun free zones as a means of adding additional deterrence to students who, for one reason or another, brought guns to campus. At the same time, institutions public and private declared themselves gun free zones for the additional reason of putting their patrons at ease that there weren’t concealed weapons in their midst. In this instance, gun free zones were a response to concealed carry laws that recognized the right for citizens to feel safe in their person. If you don’t think that the right to carry concealed weapons can be impinged because “guns make people nervous” just consider it a public safety issue. Free speech is regulated if the speech would threaten public safety. Gun laws, including gun free zones, are Constitutional based on the same principle. It’s as simple as that.
As to whether I “used a crystal ball” to suggest that the shooting incidents you cited were “over,” both the articles you linked to stated clearly that the criminals were stopped by armed civilians as they were leaving the scene of the shooting. That is not the same thing as an armed citizen standing up in classroom and firing at someone who is firing back. It just isn’t. Read the post above about pistol fighting. Your argument is and always has been that an average person with a concealed weapon in a classroom could stop a killer during the shooting spree itself. You have yet to find an example of this actually happening. And for the umpteenth time, it is relevant that people in other incidents had previous police training in apprehending or firing on an armed suspect. I don’t see why that’s so hard to understand.
As to the question whether gun free zones are practical or not, their initial purpose is entirely relevant to that question. How else is one supposed to gauge the effectiveness of a law, unless one knows what the laws intended purpose is? While you clearly enjoy making hay of the tragic irony that mass shootings can occur in gun free zones, gun free zones were not designed to protect against psychotic mass killers. Neither are mass killings a consequence of gun free zones. Mass killings occurred before gun free zones, and they will continue if they are ever done away with.
Quaker, I’ll go even slower:
We’ve tried it your way for a very long time — more and more restrictions on law-abiding gun-owners, in the hopes of discouraging those who often (but not exclusively) use illegal guns. And the result has been higher and higher body counts.
Why not try the other approach — make the laws tougher on those who break gun laws, and NOT punish those who have been obeying the laws all along?
In pretty much every case where concealed-carry laws are relaxed (and, in some cases, every household is required to possess a gun), the crime rate has DROPPED and there haven’t been mass outbreaks of shoot-em-ups.
I say TRUST the American people to act responsibly, and give them the CHOICE on whether they want to personally exercise their right to defend themselves, instead of requiring them to trust the same authorities that declared Virginia Tech a gun-free zone and brought us such stunning demonstrations of respect for human lives as in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I’d be surprised if any of these mass shootings had been committed by someone with legally-owned guns, possessing a valid concealed-carry permit, and in an area where guns were not specifically banned. All the ones I know of have been committed by people who’ve already broken at least one law before they started shooting.
If you are so freaked out by the thought that your fellow American might be carrying a loaded weapon, after undergoing the screening processes for first obtaining the weapon legally and then getting a concealed-carry permit, then you got bigger issues than I am prepared to deal with.
I’m willing to trust my fellow Americans, at least on a trial basis, and see how it works out. I’ll put my faith in my fellow citizens to act responsibly, if given the chance to prove it. After all, we trust them to act responsibly in a bunch of other cases, from driving multi-ton vehicles on the streets to abortion to using alcohol responsibly (just to name three areas where there are laws banning the abuse of an action, not the action itself). And none of those are specifically cited by the Constitution as rights.
Why won’t you?
“After all, we trust them to act responsibly in a bunch of other cases, from driving multi-ton vehicles on the streets to abortion to using alcohol responsibly.”
Are you kidding me? There is so much wrong with this statement i don’t even know where to start.
I’ll just take the alcohol thing. Where the fuck have you been the last thirty years? Drunk driving penalties have gotten harsher and harsher while the legal definition of impairment has gotten lower and lower. Drunk driving laws are so harsh because we DO NOT trust citizens to act responsibly when it comes to alcohol. This did not happen over night. It actually took years for M.A.D.D. and other organizations to make the case that drunk driving was a serious public safety issue requiring stiffer penalties. It took even longer for drunk driving to become the cultural stigma that it is today.
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again. Stop. Think. Then write. Jesus …
fafaroo, thank you for making my point. We have made the penalties for misusing alcohol stricter; we have NOT made access to it harder for those who do not abuse it. If we were to follow the same model on booze as we do guns, we’d have things like mandatory drinking insurance, waiting periods for buying booze, licenses to drink, and the like.
In fact, I’d love to see the alcohol model applied to guns. I’ve often suggested a sliding scale of tougher penalties for using a gun in a crime, kind of like the “aggravated DWI” laws:
Possess a gun during a crime: +1 year.
Display a gun during a crime: +2 years.
Aim a gun at someone during a crime: +3 years.
Fire a gun during a crime: +5 years.
Wound someone with a gun during a crime: +10 years.
Kill someone with a gun during a crime: Death. (Or life without parole, if you prefer.)
Thanks for helping me clarify my point, fafaroo. I doubt you intended to do so, but you did anyway.
People have a right to self-defense but they do not have a right to carry concealed weapons. That’s a privilege regulated by the state.
Why are you continuing to say this? I’ve not said otherwise.
If you don’t think that the right to carry concealed weapons can be impinged because “guns make people nervous” just consider it a public safety issue.
No, see…you’re rebutting something I never said. I didn’t say there was a right to carry concealed weapons. YOU SAID that people have a right “not to be in a space where someone might have a concealed weapon.” That’s just not true.
Gun laws, including gun free zones, are Constitutional based on the same principle. It’s as simple as that.
Yes and laws that permit CCW holders to carry in areas previously designated as gun free zones are Constitutional as well.
As to whether I “used a crystal ball” to suggest that the shooting incidents you cited were “over,” both the articles you linked to stated clearly that the criminals were stopped by armed civilians as they were leaving the scene of the shooting. That is not the same thing as an armed citizen standing up in classroom and firing at someone who is firing back. It just isn’t.
It does not matter. It is an example of an armed citizen stopping a shooter from shooting anybody else. What makes you think that somebody necessarily has to shoot in order for the scenario to be valid? A person does not have to fire their weapon to get somebody else to stop shooting. You’ve whittled the scenario down to where it has to fit this ultra-specific set of criteria in order for it to “count.”
And for the umpteenth time, it is relevant that people in other incidents had previous police training in apprehending or firing on an armed suspect.
No it is NOT relevant. The only thing that matters is that they were private citizens when these incidents occurred. Once again, you’re attempting to narrow the criteria down so that it fits the neat little scenario you want. Otherwise, you continue to disingenuously claim that “it doesn’t count.” As I said before, the landscape of college is changing. Many people, not just recent high school graduates are attending college. In the college shooting at Appalachian Law School in 2002, the guy who killed 3 and injured three others was apprehended by two students who ran to their cars to get their guns. Those students also were law enforcement officers, but they were not acting in an official capacity, just as students who had the capability to help. Yet your contention is that CCW holders are all incompetents with itchy trigger fingers who are merely going to make matters worse. You cannot provide any evidence to substantiate this claim, but you keep making it anyway.
How else is one supposed to gauge the effectiveness of a law, unless one knows what the laws intended purpose is?
Sure, but the intended purpose should have had some thought put into it. It’s painfully obvious that gun free zones were put in place through knee-jerk reactionary thinking. It was part and parcel of the “wild west” nonsense spouted by the likes of the Brady Campaign when more and more states started to allow citizens to obtain a CCW permit. A rule created not with any kind of rational thought, but of irrational fear. You said so yourself. People think guns are ’scary.’
To gauge whether or not gun free zones are good policy, one would have to look at the percentage of CCW holders that have been convicted of any violent crimes. You can look up the numbers, but the fact of the matter is, CCW holders are far less likely to commit violent crimes than non-CCW holders. Again, gun free zones may make people feel safe. But feeling safer is not the same as being safe.
While you clearly enjoy making hay of the tragic irony that mass shootings can occur in gun free zones
Oh please. First of all, Oliver is the one that posted this entry. He’s apparently the one that ‘enjoys’ making hay of the availability of guns so people can go out and commit mass killings. I’m merely stating that gun free zones make innocent, law abiding citizens sitting ducks in the case of a mass shooting.
Again, you have yet to make a compelling argument for keeping gun free zones in place.
This is pointless.
One student firing at unarmed students, hoping to kill as many as possible. The other attempting to stop only the crazed shooter. Yet Quaker thinks the threat to the other students is doubled.
That’s poor reading, even allowing the usual leeway for you, Jay.
No, Quaker thinks the second student is just as likely as the first to be a crazy. That’s why the threat is doubled, Mr. Wizard.
Why not try the other approach — make the laws tougher on those who break gun laws, and NOT punish those who have been obeying the laws all along?
And Einstein Jr. still can’t grasp it. Because, Mr. Tea, what you propose ALSO makes it more likely that we’ll have more like Mr. Kazmierczak. Every one of the crazies is “law abiding.”
Until he isn’t.
Nice to see you have such faith in your fellow Americans, Quaker.
For your own safety, stay off the streets. You never know when some law-abiding motorist might snap and run you down.
Avoid restaurants. Someone might take a steak knife and go all Freddie Krueger on the spot.
Do I have to even mention post offices? They have (shudder) POSTAL WORKERS.
Don’t go to a health club. Some bruiser might go into ‘roid rage and bludgeon you to death with a dumbbell. (That one would be especially ironic.)
Don’t go into the subway. Some whackjob could shove you in front of a train.
What a sad world you live in, Quaker, where you’re so terrified and mistrusting of your fellwo citizens. I’m so glad I live in the United States of America instead.
J.
We’ve tried it your way for a very long time — more and more restrictions on law-abiding gun-owners, in the hopes of discouraging those who often (but not exclusively) use illegal guns. And the result has been higher and higher body counts.
You mean like in New York City where the murder rate is skyrocketing?
What a sad world you live in, Quaker, where you’re so terrified and mistrusting of your fellwo citizens.
Not at all, Mr. Tea. Mostly I hang with other folks who don’t need to tote around an equalizer to make ‘em feel as signifigant as the rest of us. It’s not sad at all.
Right there with ya, Quaker. Don’t own a gun, never have, no real interest in ever having one. But I used to live in a not-so-nice neighborhood, and my next-door neighbor owned several. I actually felt safer, knowing that Bob and his guns were just across the hall.
And it’s all about feelings, isn’t it, Quaker? Never mind the actual 2nd Amendment and other inconvenient things, it’s all about how you FEEL.
J.
Mostly I hang with other folks who don’t need to tote around an equalizer to make ‘em feel as signifigant as the rest of us
Contrary to your pompous attitude, you’d be hard pressed to find a person with a CCW that carries because they want to feel ’significant.’ In fact, depending upon where you live, I would suspect that you’ve come into contact with somebody that was carrying a concealed weapon and didn’t even know it.
You know, Mr. Tea, I got to thinking about the little warnings you offered me yesterday. I realized that, once again, you have scored on your own goal.
For your own safety, stay off the streets. You never know when some law-abiding motorist might snap and run you down.
I go out on the streets quite often. No one has ever tried to run me down. So I don’t worry about that.
Avoid restaurants. Someone might take a steak knife and go all Freddie Krueger on the spot.
I like restaurants (though I don’t frequent the ones that serve steak). No one has ever gone “all Freddie Krueger” on me or anyone else. I don’t worry about that either.
Do I have to even mention post offices? They have (shudder) POSTAL WORKERS.
I go to the post office occasionally. Every time I do, I enjoy the prompt, courteous service I receive from the employees there.
Don’t go to a health club. Some bruiser might go into ‘roid rage and bludgeon you to death with a dumbbell. (That one would be especially ironic.)
Now I have to admit, I do avoid health clubs, but not because I fear being bludgeoned with a dumbell. (That would be a fratricidal attack, wouldn’t it?) No, it’s just because I prefer a nice stroll outdoors–on the streets with the polite motorists. I do often pass by a health club, though, without worry.
Don’t go into the subway. Some whackjob could shove you in front of a train.
Not really a problem where I live. We don’t have subways. I have been a bus commuter in the past. Once again, I found my fellow passengers to be friendly and accomodating.
Given all this, maybe you can figure out that I don’t feel threatened by the great majority of my fellow citizens. However, I do, from time to time, see one of them become quite angry–often over a triviality. Usually, they get over it. Until they do, though, I’d prefer they didn’t have a firearm within easy reach.
And it’s all about feelings, isn’t it, Quaker?
If you insist. You’re the one who says the proximity of someone else’s guns made you “feel” safer. I’m glad to hear that your friend (and his “little friends”) provided you a measure of comfort.