American College Shooting, rinse repeat

Manic Moran

What these countries have in common are strict gun laws

Research Canada's firearms status, and get back to us. There is more than one gun for every two Canadians, less than half of which are registered with the Government. The existance of the others is known only from import/manufacturing records.

NTM

AbusesToilets

I know that in order to get a license for a shotgun i needed to be a member of a gun club and have permission from 3 different people to be able to shoot on their land.With all that it was still up to the local Gardai to give final approval on he matter.
I'd heard recently that the laws concerning handgun and rifle ownership had been relaxed so that it was now possible to legally own them.I know that it's possible to get licenses for deer hunting rifles but i had heard that the change meant you could own more high end rifles.Contingent upon you being a member of a gun club and that you are only authorised to shoot on the clubs premises.Anyone have any knowledge of this?

Manic Moran

Generally speaking, yes. Full-calibre handguns and rifles may not be purchased, subject to various restrictions on storage and such.

Check out the shooting forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=466

As an academic aside, a chap named Richard Speck managed to kill 8 people in one incident with a knife in 1966. I don't know if that's the 'one-incident-record' with a knife though.

NTM

Manic Moran

One minute youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Got to love it when politicians have absolutely no clue what they're legislating about. Rep McCarthy is one of the most dedicated anti-gun legislators there is, her husband was killed by a chap on a shooting spree on a train.

NTM

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote:

As an academic aside, a chap named Richard Speck managed to kill 8 people in one incident with a knife in 1966. I don't know if that's the 'one-incident-record' with a knife though.

8<32.......:D

transylman

I think some of the posters on this thread have a point. The way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to have more guns, not less. To quote the great Bill HIcks, "There is no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone." I for one would feel a lot safer if more students and lecturers carried handguns. I don't understand how a society can function without there being one gun for every person.

So Glad

http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=7191

Every link on that is actually a link to what different newspapers are placing the blame on, ridiculous. There's nothing to blame but everything, it's a perfectly insane reaction to an insane society, no surprises.

</mediapiggingout>

newby.204

transylman wrote:

I think some of the posters on this thread have a point. The way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to have more guns, not less. To quote the great Bill HIcks, "There is no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone." I for one would feel a lot safer if more students and lecturers carried handguns. I don't understand how a society can function without there being one gun for every person.

Are you actually serious or is this some sort of insider joke that the rest of us dont get???

Lemming

transylman wrote:

I think some of the posters on this thread have a point. The way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to have more guns, not less. To quote the great Bill HIcks, "There is no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone." I for one would feel a lot safer if more students and lecturers carried handguns. I don't understand how a society can function without there being one gun for every person.

erm ... I think you've gotten Mr Hicks wayyyyyyyyy out of context and he's probably turning in his grave. He was actually pointing out that the higher ownership of guns in the US equates to a disproportionate number of gun-related deaths a year, unlike the UK which had (during that particular rant), 14 gun-related deaths the previous year.

Please don't rape Bill Hicks' comments again.

And combating guns with more guns is an insane idea. You essentially create an arms-race between nut-case, joe soap, and paranoid joe soap. And that's on top of someone deciding to "be the hero" in a situation that hasn't escalated and kicks the whole thing off.

oscarBravo

Lemming wrote:

And that's on top of someone deciding to "be the hero" in a situation that hasn't escalated and kicks the whole thing off.

"You know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed."

Frederico

If they completely and utterly banned guns in South Africa, I very firmly believe the number of murders there would drop dramatically.

To me the gun situation in America is more unique, much more a part of their psyche.

I think if you back guns in society then I believe you should have to shoulder the burden.. of family members accidentally killing family members, kids accidentally shooting themselves or their friends, fathers shooting their sons coming home late at night, postal workers going crazy and shooting their colleagues, and students going into colleges and taking the lives of so many people.

THIS is the trade-off to feeling safe, to protecting yourself, to standing up to your right to bear arms. You wanna bear arms in that type of society, with that type of media, then these are the consequences.

If Ireland totally legalised guns tomorrow, then gradually there would be more murders, people would become scared, buy guns themselves, more people would be killed, there would be more misery.

It is plainly wrong to have guns in society and if Iraq had somehow been a success I think many even very right wing Americans would be thinking deep-down that Iraq would be a better new society with a gun ban, rather that a right to bear arms in its constitution.

As I said, I think the situation in America is unique and banning guns would not solve the problem there, there will always be disgruntled students/workers/schoolkids ready and willing to make their name, but it would at least decrease the sheer volume of deaths every year.

Lemming

Frederico wrote:

THIS is the trade-off to feeling safe, to protecting yourself, to standing up to your right to bear arms. You wanna bear arms in that type of society, with that type of media, then these are the consequences.

To be honest - I think the whole "I have a gun therefore I'm safe" argument is a fallacy. As the US media (not to single them out) report more and more violence, people feel less and less safe. So people go out to get guns to make themselves feel "safe". And unfortunately, they simply become more afraid, more paranoid. So people go out to get guns to make themselves feel "safe". And unfortunately they simply become ... etc.

And so the cycle continues. Media outlets and government agencies are constantly telling people to be afraid of their own shadows.

At what point do you address the root rather than just throw a few more guns and some handwringing into the mix?

newby.204

Frederico wrote:

If they completely and utterly banned guns in South Africa, I very firmly believe the number of murders there would drop dramatically.

To me the gun situation in America is more unique, much more a part of their psyche.

I think if you back guns in society then I believe you should have to shoulder the burden.. of family members accidentally killing family members, kids accidentally shooting themselves or their friends, fathers shooting their sons coming home late at night, postal workers going crazy and shooting their colleagues, and students going into colleges and taking the lives of so many people.

THIS is the trade-off to feeling safe, to protecting yourself, to standing up to your right to bear arms. You wanna bear arms in that type of society, with that type of media, then these are the consequences.

If Ireland totally legalised guns tomorrow, then gradually there would be more murders, people would become scared, buy guns themselves, more people would be killed, there would be more misery.

It is plainly wrong to have guns in society and if Iraq had somehow been a success I think many even very right wing Americans would be thinking deep-down that Iraq would be a better new society with a gun ban, rather that a right to bear arms in its constitution.

As I said, I think the situation in America is unique and banning guns would not solve the problem there, there will always be disgruntled students/workers/schoolkids ready and willing to make their name, but it would at least decrease the sheer volume of deaths every year.

If i may draw your attention to the emboldened portion of text, "What are you talking about willis??" Firearms are perfectly legal in Ireland , as are the shooting sports they are intended to be used in. Firearms deaths in Ireland are almost always criminal related and they dont jump through the hoops we have to to get their firearms. They simply order a couple of hundred kilos of cocaine, and receive a couple of firearms as a "bonus". Legal firearms are almost never used in "hits" as its more hassle and they have a healthy supply of illegal firearms!!

Frederico

newby.204 wrote:

If i may draw your attention to the emboldened portion of text, "What are you talking about willis??" Firearms are perfectly legal in Ireland , as are the shooting sports they are intended to be used in. Firearms deaths in Ireland are almost always criminal related and they dont jump through the hoops we have to to get their firearms. They simply order a couple of hundred kilos of cocaine, and receive a couple of firearms as a "bonus". Legal firearms are almost never used in "hits" as its more hassle and they have a healthy supply of illegal firearms!!

You are right, I phrased it wrong, what I meant was the American situation, where they are so readily available, gunstores, handguns, automatic weapons.

Manic Moran

Frederico wrote:

You are right, I phrased it wrong, what I meant was the American situation, where they are so readily available, gunstores, handguns, automatic weapons.

I really wish people would get off whatever kick they're on that anyone can buy an automatic weapon over the counter in the US. They're highly restricted, and unless you've got a Class III (NFA) permit, is a minimum of ten years in jail.

On CCW boards, they're reporting that some of the victims have been identified as CCW holders. (A VA newspaper printed the names of all CCW holders a month or so ago). I'm waiting for the number to settle down, but it seems to have been one, two or three. The discrepancy comes with trying to narrow down cases where multiple people in the same town have the same name. I wonder if it's a basis for a civil lawsuit?

NTM

karen3212

I would definately blame the society.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but wasn't society always responsible for the weakest in it's midst. If we think about the clans in Ireland or extended families taking care of relatives, and the Brehon laws that provided for kids and disabled, whereby if the person that inherited didn't look after them then everything could be taken from inheritee and someone else appointed to look after that family.
Of course that changed when Christianity came along, but we still have a high degree of kinship.
I think a lot of people in the US crying out for low taxes think that people with little money and struggling are scum or immigrants and don't feel any connection with them.
I would imagine the fear of loosing your job and paying for very expensive healthcare for your family(companies get discounted blocks for employees) stresses out the whole community.
I think I'd be one angry person if I was scraping by in a community of such wealth. If they don't care about you, why should you care about them.

Frederico

Manic Moran wrote:

I really wish people would get off whatever kick they're on that anyone can buy an automatic weapon over the counter in the US. They're highly restricted, and unless you've got a Class III (NFA) permit, is a minimum of ten years in jail.

On CCW boards, they're reporting that some of the victims have been identified as CCW holders. (A VA newspaper printed the names of all CCW holders a month or so ago). I'm waiting for the number to settle down, but it seems to have been one, two or three. The discrepancy comes with trying to narrow down cases where multiple people in the same town have the same name. I wonder if it's a basis for a civil lawsuit?

NTM

That is correct but I've lived with enough Americans to know how easy it is get almost any type of weapon you want, gunstore, dealer, blackmarket or otherwise.

redspider

Its well known that having easy access to deadly weapons such as guns in a society is likely to have devastating consequences such as the recent Virginia Tech case. The Cho situation, if in another country, may have led instead to him just committing suicide quietly, or a murder or two with a knife, as such a person would not likely acquire an illegal weapon and carry out this atrocity.

The background to the Cho case also warrants debate, and understanding, as this person clearly felt ostracised within his life, a loner, etc, and was also clearly not 100% deranged. There are issues concerning 'popularity' and 'mental bullying' and this person had deteriorated to a position where they found themselves trapped with no way out and so were willing to take their own lives, and those of who they believed to be participants. Clearly what he did was wrong, but perhaps the system failed him as well.

Note that its reported that there are 3,000 accidental deaths in the US each year due to gun accidents and are a ditrect result of having the right to bear arms. People should note that this is MORE than the number of deaths on 9/11, and its happening each year.

Only the US can solve its own internal problems, but so far collectively, they have not been able to remove the gun from their own society.

Redspider

ps: In terms of the disaffacted Nasa employee, I've heard of 360 performance appraisal reviews but this was taking it to the next level!

Clare gunner

Note that its reported that there are 3,000 accidental deaths in the US each year due to gun accidents and are a ditrect result of having the right to bear arms. People should note that this is MORE than the number of deaths on 9/11, and its happening each year.

And there were 9000 alcohol and drug related deaths on US campuses in the last year.No one seems to be too upset about that.:( 14,000 car accidents as well involving college students as well in VA.

redspider

Clare gunner wrote:

And there were 9000 alcohol and drug related deaths on US campuses in the last year.No one seems to be too upset about that.:( 14,000 car accidents as well involving college students as well in VA.

True, alcohol and drug related deaths of course are an issue too. Drugs are illegal, although the systems in place to prevent people from abusing them are failing.

Couldn't guns be made illegal as well? It wont stop all killings, but it may prevent some.

And alcohol is officially illegal in many states whilst you are U-21. It just seems ludicrous that an 18 year old can buy a handgun yet cant buy a budweiser.

Education, education, education .... not only the youth but also society at large.

There is an awaful lot of work to do ....

Redspider

Judt

Alcohol kills far more people than guns, and you don't even need a background check to buy alcohol. Let's ban alcohol before we ban guns. At the end of the day, criminals can always get their hands on guns - and it's usually more convenient to get them on the black market even in the US. Guns don't automatically bring with them a US gun culture.

tallus

Judt: At least you can stop drinking, a bullet doesn't stop until it hits something and there's no turning back.

Judt

tallus wrote:

Judt: At least you can stop drinking, a bullet doesn't stop until it hits something and there's no turning back.

You're assuming that drink only harms you. How many beaten wives can I trump out, I wonder, versus victims of legal guns?

Manic Moran

redspider wrote:

The Cho situation, if in another country, may have led instead to him just committing suicide quietly, or a murder or two with a knife, as such a person would not likely acquire an illegal weapon and carry out this atrocity.

About six months ago, we had a chap here in the Bay Area who snapped, and went on a bit of a spree. His weapon of choice: A Honda Pilot. (Think Land Rover Discovery, if it's a model not on sale in Europe). Killed one in Hayward, then drove across to San Francisco (about a half-hour drive), and went around the city centre running over anyone he could get to on the footpath. Hit sixteen people in total, if I recall, before being stopped. The good news is that most survived, being mainly glancing blows, though given the geometry and traffic patterns of San Francisco streets that isn't surprising. I can't imagine the fun he'd have had had he been in Dublin. "I'll just point this down Grafton Street, and hit the accelerator..."

NTM

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

About six months ago, we had a chap here in the Bay Area who snapped, and went on a bit of a spree. His weapon of choice: A Honda Pilot. (Think Land Rover Discovery, if it's a model not on sale in Europe). Killed one in Hayward, then drove across to San Francisco (about a half-hour drive), and went around the city centre running over anyone he could get to on the footpath. Hit sixteen people in total, if I recall, before being stopped. The good news is that most survived, being mainly glancing blows, though given the geometry and traffic patterns of San Francisco streets that isn't surprising. I can't imagine the fun he'd have had had he been in Dublin. "I'll just point this down Grafton Street, and hit the accelerator..."

NTM

yes cars they weigh over ton and can travel up to a 150 miles an hour but they don't fit in classrooms... figure the rest out yourself

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote:

yes cars they weigh over ton and can travel up to a 150 miles an hour but they don't fit in classrooms... figure the rest out yourself

And the point is?

If you want to run over schoolchildren specifically, just hit them as they're coming out the front door on the way home. If you don't care about who you kill, the example retains its validity by default.

NTM

Jimboo_Jones

Manic Moran wrote:

And the point is?

If you want to run over schoolchildren specifically, just hit them as they're coming out the front door on the way home. If you don't care about who you kill, the example retains its validity by default.

NTM

I think you made the point for him - its harder to kill a mass of people with a car than a gun. Just think if your fella had decided to buy a couple of hand guns rather than use his car, I think its safe to say that he would have killed more than one.

Judt

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I think you made the point for him - its harder to kill a mass of people with a car than a gun. Just think if your fella had decided to buy a couple of hand guns rather than use his car, I think its safe to say that he would have killed more than one.

99% of gun crime is committed with illegal guns. That's why these crimes get reported so much - they're irregular. Listen to the US news and you'll hear of shootings every day, the same way that the RTE morning news start off with stuff like "A man has been found dead at his home in..."

Like I say, you want to ban things that are harmful? Ban alcohol first. There's a lot more beaten and abused schoolchildren in this world than shot ones.

HIEROPHANT

I'll share just my point of view:

1) about gun control:

More guns = more crimes
It's actually easier to kill someone with a gun, and even if one can go on killing spree with knife-cars-or his own hands (If you know for example Kung Fu you can kill someone in 2 seconds), a gun can kill even for accident-for been reached by a child and so one.
Also, I think a gun has a "charm" and it is more than a medium.

But, having more and more restricting law will not stop people from getting guns.
It will be even worse: "normal" people that might want a gun to protect their family will be stopped by the law. Criminals, psycho, or people determinate to do a murder, will not care about what the law is.
So the effect can be arming criminals and leaving people unprotected.



Government should be focused not only in emanate laws, but also in effectively tring to take the guns away from the hands of the criminals.
Instead of losing resources in fighting the drug, why they don't look for weapon? If my neighbour has an 8 ball of cocaine I really don't care, if he has a gun, I do.
For example, first idea that comes in my head: illegal guns are usually in the hands of tough and scum (and they can be even more dangerous then the gang/mafia, as the firsts can kill you just for the money in your pocket). These fellas, to live with their gun will have to either use it in some robbery, or sell it on the black market (and in this case it will not go in good hands).
Well, why the state can't buy that gun, to take it off the streets?
For example, if you bring an illegal gun to a police station, they don't charge you for the possession (but they take your name to get you back in case you were tring to get rid of the weapon of a crime), they give you 100 €/$, and at least a gun less in the streets.
I'm think this idea could work in some areas (most of all in the USA) where you can buy a gun for few bucks.


In the end, even if we agree that one thing is bad for the society, that does not necessary mean it must be banned by law.

LostinBlanch

Manic Moran wrote:

I really wish people would get off whatever kick they're on that anyone can buy an automatic weapon over the counter in the US. They're highly restricted, and unless you've got a Class III (NFA) permit, is a minimum of ten years in jail.

But what about gunshows? Depending on the state you're in they have very different laws. Take Washington State for example, when I was there ten years ago you could go to a gunshow and buy whatever was on sale without the need for a licence.

HIEROPHANT

2) about the mass-murder itself.

I really hate all those people that are just blaming something or someone.
Can be the guns, the music, the videogames. But most, I can't take all those people that are just labelling and taggin him as a "mad" a "psycho" and other synonymous.
Cho Seung-Hui did what he did because there was something in his head. And the despite, and the not-will to understand him, it refects the reasons of why this happened:
There was a guy with a problem, and nobody cared about it. Nobody has given a **** about him, and he did not give a **** about society.
You can say, and I agree, that you are not entitled to receive support and help if you don't even want it - so the rejection from the society does not give the right to hit it.

But, for some people life is not as good as you see it. Some people are lonely, some people are just thinking that the whole world is at war against them, and they fear they are the only ones to fell this way.
People -all the people - are really cruel. Lot's of them are always looking for someone to mob. And they don't know, or they don't care, about how it can really hurts.
Ah, if you don't think people are cruel, please explain the war(s) going on in the exactly same time about every school massacre. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were killing schoolmates, USA was killing civilians in Serbia. But americans don't care about Serbian, but they feels the tragedy when victims can be themselves. Don't care about who is different from you.
Another example: just to point out how much society cares about individual, look at the heath-system: in USA you don't have money society let you die (yes I know about the free-insurance for who is really poor, but that's a small exception that does not bring a welfare system).
Another point that can give people the feeling of being rejected by their fellow man.

Ah, in Canada and in some european countries there is a welfare state about the heath, and -surprise- less mass murders.

Society is becoming more and more cruel, no wonder somebody feel he's at war with it. Large of this people commit suicide. But don't be surprise if someone goes mad and make somebody pay.

You don't know what it feels like.

Manic Moran

LostinBlanch wrote:

Take Washington State for example, I was there ten years ago you could go to a gunshow and buy whatever was on sale without the need for a licence.

How many items on sale were automatic weapons? (Clue, if there were any, which were weren't, see Washington state law below, they'd have had five-digit price tags, so they're actually pretty rare at shows: An AK-47 goes for $16,500 right now) Again, even if you can afford the humongous price tag, you cannot have an automatic weapon without the Federal say-so required by the NFA of 1934. This is a federal law which has been in effect for decades.

See, for example:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?cat=8

NFA firearms are highly restricted and you can’t just go into a gun shop and buy one. The regulations vary depending on the type of NFA firearm you’re looking to be in possession of. Needless to say, machineguns and destructive devices are the most heavily restricted. They require an extensive FBI background check*, fingerprinting, registration, payment of a 200 dollar transfer tax, sign off from your local police chief, all to be submitted to the ATF on Form 4. If everything checks out, in a few months you will be issued a stamp, much like the one that caused the colonists to revolt against the crown, that proves you are in legal possession. You have to inform ATF in order to move the firearm between states or to another residence

Washington State is one of those which bans automatic weapons at the state level anyway, even if the ATF likes you.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.220
I don't know anyone personally who owns an automatic firearm.

*Background check in this case means agents going around and asking questions of people about you, not just looking up a criminal record

NTM

Clare gunner

where all the anti gunners quote as the paradise on Earth.The Mayor of Nagasaki was shot dead .:rolleyes: .
Listen,if people want to get guns they will,simple as that.Going on about banning guns in America or anywhere else is a total and utter anti gunners wet dream.Starting with just the sheer numbers out there it is an impossibility,plus you would have to collect every piece of water pipe,every privately owned lathe and CNC machine,file and hacksaw.Because the US and oppressed citizens everywhere have HAND MADE their own guns when they have had to.From the Nazi controlled Ghettos of Warsaw to the Vietnam war,to Northern Ireland ,to the backstreets of major cities people have made very effective sub machine guns or shotguns to fight back,or protect themselves.Even in maximum security jails like San Quienten there is a black museum of improvised firearms made in the jail.So if you want to belive that once the world is rid of nasty guns and we will all live in a llala happyclappy paradise,you are all much mistaken.

Amongst the many evils being disarmed brings you.It causes you to be despised
Machivelli

Clare gunner

lostexpectation wrote:

yes cars they weigh over ton and can travel up to a 150 miles an hour but they don't fit in classrooms... figure the rest out yourself

But they can be used to demolish classrooms pretty well,especially some of the crap prefab models over here,are more easily available here and in the US than guns.[Ever been asked for awaiting period to buy a car???] Are generally left in a criminnally neglient state of unsafe conditions by their owners.IE leaving car keys lying around where your teen son/daughter might find them and go off joyriding:eek:
And they take some stopping as well, guns are pretty ineffective against them,if you armour them slightly.[Forget all the Hollywood crap of shooting out tyres ,etc.]Not only that they are given out more freely to irresponsible morons than guns are,and here in Ireland at least,more "troubled teenagers"kill themselves with a car and usually a few innocents as well every week than do do guns in a DECADE .Go figure yourself.

SteveS

redspider wrote:

Its well known that having easy access to deadly weapons such as guns in a society is likely to have devastating consequences such as the recent Virginia Tech case. The Cho situation, if in another country, may have led instead to him just committing suicide quietly, or a murder or two with a knife, as such a person would not likely acquire an illegal weapon and carry out this atrocity.


Note that its reported that there are 3,000 accidental deaths in the US each year due to gun accidents and are a ditrect result of having the right to bear arms. People should note that this is MORE than the number of deaths on 9/11, and its happening each year.

It is well known? Prior to 1934, in the US, a child could purchase a belt-fed, .50 M2 through the mail. Machine guns were not regulated at all. The rise in gun related crime had more to with Prohibition that with availability of guns. I can't find it now, but I recall a research review of gun control laws that stated that gun control laws had no measurable effect on crime. The problem of violence in America will have to find another cure besides gun control.

Where did you get the 3000 death rate. According to the CDC, the accidental gun death rate has gone from around 1800/year in 1981 to around 800 a year in 2001.

irishproduce

I'm surprised no one has jumped on this one yet.

It just gets better. I am not gonna contribute to this debate about what is causing this crazy surge in gun violence in America.

From today:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/kansas.html

Manic Moran

That's not entirely the same issue as the college rampage, what started this guy off was that he was pulled over by the cops believing he may have been involved in an earlier murder, shot the cop, then took off.

Some sources are reporting that he was shot by an off-duty cop who happened to be armed as he was shopping, same as the Utah shopping mall incident. If that's the case, score another for concealed firearms.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I think you made the point for him - its harder to kill a mass of people with a car than a gun. Just think if your fella had decided to buy a couple of hand guns rather than use his car, I think its safe to say that he would have killed more than one.

I've thought about both sides of this discussion; if a car is used legally, there's usually no problem; if someone speeds and crashes and thereby hurts or kills someone, we don't ban cars.

That's the argument made by the gun lobby; it's not the object, it's how it's used.

So is it the same relating to guns ? If they're used legally, they're OK, but if they're in the hands of idiots or criminals, they kill.

Almost a "bulletproof" argument [excuse the pun].

The difference is that there are plenty of reasons to own a car without any intent or chance of hurting or killing someone. Likewise, to include the other main analogy raised in the thread, there are plenty of reasons and ways to have a few drinks without abusing yourself or others.

What's the equivalent reason to own a gun ?

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote:

If that's the case, score another for concealed firearms.

Not really MM. Assuming of course the reports are accurate about the carrier being an off-duty cop, the key word to note here is "cop". Not joe bloggs who spent an hour at a gun safety induction after getting a pistol for Christmas.

I'd rather that if you are going to have people carrying, that they have actually had formal, credible training in some sort of state defense force, be it police or military. The thought of making a case that *anybody* carrying a concealed firearm as being a good thing strikes me as pure insanity. As on Virginia Tech student was quoted as saying on a BBC article:

"You don't answer guns with more guns".

And they were right. Where does it end? You create an arms race. With beaucoup paranoia mixed in as well. And that is just b.e.g.g.i.n.g. for extremely tragic consequences. Nut job packs a hand gun. So paranoid joe-soap packs a hand gun. Nut job packs a bigger gun, so double-plus paranoid joe-soap packs body armour. Nut job packs armour-piercing rounds, so triple-plus paranoid scared sh*tless joe-soap walks down the street pointing guns at every passer by who stops them to ask the time. Nut job steals a tank. Clinically insane joe-soap becomes nut job and shoots girl guides calling door-to-door to sell cookiees for fund-raising trip.

Granted, extremely dramatic, but I trust the point is made. Where does it stop if you answer guns with guns?

Manic Moran

The difference is that there are plenty of reasons to own a car without any intent or chance of hurting or killing someone. Likewise, to include the other main analogy raised in the thread, there are plenty of reasons and ways to have a few drinks without abusing yourself or others.

What's the equivalent reason to own a gun ?

Not counting defense against criminals, which is a very legitimate function even if it does involve hurting someone, sport, hunting, and defense against animals which may take a dislike to you. Go into the woods in Alaska or Montana without a rifle or very large calibre handgun, and be sure you've left a will behind.

Lemming wrote:

Not really MM. Assuming of course the reports are accurate about the carrier being an off-duty cop, the key word to note here is "cop". Not joe bloggs who spent an hour at a gun safety induction after getting a pistol for Christmas.

Yet cases where a CCW carrier has screwed up on the street are rare. Indeed, so rare, I actually can't think of one. I'm sure they probably happen, but evidently not enough to make national news.
Consider it analagous to someone who routinely takes their car on a track day: The people who are likely to do it are the people who already start off with an interest, who are motivated to better themselves and who routinely practise and improve. On the other hand, most cops, unless personally interested in firearms, do an annual range qualification and never shoot again for the rest of the year. I have an annual range qualification with the Army (It just happens that my qualification weapon is a pistol, most troops don't touch one). I know I go to the range with my personal sidearms a lot more frequently. Although obviously I have no empirical data to prove it, I'll wager most persons with CCW can out-shoot the average cop. For cop, the sidearm is a mandatory tool which is an ancillary to the job. (Anyone who becomes a cop just to carry a gun has an issue with the job, IMO) A CCW holder will view his sidearm as an option which he is actively undertaking to take, and is going beyond what another private citizen does.

Where does it stop if you answer guns with guns?

It doesn't. It's not a panacea, but it does have two merits to it. One merit is that it's a practical solution: Simply banning weapons in the US isn't going to work on a practical level, even if the political will were there, which there isn't. The other merit is the fact that wherever right-to-carry laws are passed, these arms races and other fearmongering predictions of doom have not happened.
Politicians aren't that stupid. If the results really were as bad as your hypothesis, this wouldn't be happening.



Surely by 1995 or even 2000 enough figures would be available that the legislatures of states such as Michigan, Colorado or Ohio could have said "Look, Florida went to a Right-to-carry model almost 15 years ago, look at what the result was!" Yet the result was obviously not so disastrous that these legislatures chose not to follow suit.

NTM

SteveS

Lemming wrote:

Not really MM. Assuming of course the reports are accurate about the carrier being an off-duty cop, the key word to note here is "cop". Not joe bloggs who spent an hour at a gun safety induction after getting a pistol for Christmas.

I'd rather that if you are going to have people carrying, that they have actually had formal, credible training in some sort of state defense force, be it police or military. The thought of making a case that *anybody* carrying a concealed firearm as being a good thing strikes me as pure insanity.

I can't speak for all states, but here in MI, there is a training requirement. I am a part-time instructor for the course and it is approximately 8 hours, with 3 hours of range time. It is fairly basic, but when I follow up with students, I find that many have gone on for more advanced training or practice very frequently.

Contrast this with police. I don't mean to bash them, but unless they have an outside interest in guns, they may not have as much training as you think. The requirements vary greatly, depending on where they are from and what their job is. I know some SWAT guys that train all the time. I also know some other patrolmen that only shoot their guns a few times a year. Many police agencies also send their cops to 'civilian' schools and academies.

Lemming wrote:

And they were right. Where does it end? You create an arms race. With beaucoup paranoia mixed in as well. And that is just b.e.g.g.i.n.g. for extremely tragic consequences. Nut job packs a hand gun. So paranoid joe-soap packs a hand gun. Nut job packs a bigger gun, so double-plus paranoid joe-soap packs body armour. Nut job packs armour-piercing rounds, so triple-plus paranoid scared sh*tless joe-soap walks down the street pointing guns at every passer by who stops them to ask the time. Nut job steals a tank. Clinically insane joe-soap becomes nut job and shoots girl guides calling door-to-door to sell cookiees for fund-raising trip.

Granted, extremely dramatic, but I trust the point is made. Where does it stop if you answer guns with guns?

I just don't see this happening. Criminals and 'nut-jobs' don't appear to be all that cutting edge. Most gun murders are done with cheap, older guns. .22's are responsible for more deaths than any other caliber, so the bigger gun argument does not appear to be valid. AP rounds are already illegal and I can't find any instance where they were used by criminals.