ANOTHER American College Shooting...

Black Swan

Does anyone see the irony of advocating the use of more guns to solve the college shooting problem? (e.g., Manic Moran above?)

As wyk has pointed out above, America's college shooting problem is complex, not simple. Are American gun advocates offering a simple solution to to complex problem?

Easy access to guns in America, be it legal or illegal, certainly contributes to the problem of college and school shootings, no matter how gun advocates use circular arguments to often state it's not the gun, but the person using it?

Scholarly studies of gun use in America, and use by its youth are troubling indeed, and should serve as an early warning system for those of us who are Irish citizens interested in prevention of school and college shootings.

• Linking Gun Availability to Youth Gun Violence (Blumstein, A. and Cork, D., Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 1: 5-24, Winter 1996): "We find that, while there has been a significant decline in homicide rates committed by older offenders, homicides committed by younger offenders grew dramatically beginning in 1985. An important factor in that growth has been a significant increase in the availability of guns to young people."
• Correlates of Gun Involvement and Aggressiveness among Adolescents (Ding, C., Nelsen, E., and Lassonde, C., Youth & Society, 34, 2: 195-213, 2002): "This study examined adolescents' aggressiveness in relation to their experiences, beliefs, and attitudes concerning gun use... Correlation coefficients and regression analysis revealed that males who had more experience with guns reported reacting more violently to frustration and also admitted to having participated in greater numbers of violent incidents."
• Patterns and Correlates of Gun Ownership Among Nonmetropolitan and Rural Middle School Students (Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 3: 432-442, 2000): "Reasons for gun ownership were strongly associated with rates of antisocial behavior."

What American gun advocates (and the gun lobby) don't want brought to the public attention are the number of gun-related deaths reported. The American Center for Disease Control (CDC) compiles and issues reports on the leading causes of death in the United States. In year 2000, the 8th leading cause of death was gun-related. Specifically, "Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 -- average of 79 per day -- 16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides..."

Would you have guessed that there were anyplace near that many American firearms-related deaths in one year? 28,663! Yikes! American deaths per year in the Iraq War are considerably less? But of course, American gun advocates proclaim that guns are not a problem in America, only gun users who pull a trigger on themselves or another human being?

coffeepot

So Blue_Lagoon, what is your solution? What would you suggest?

Are you saying that the only people that should have guns are the criminals and the police?

Who in your opinion should have access to firearms?

I hear that in the UK gun crime has increased 5 fold since they effectively banned hand guns.

Black Swan

coffeepot wrote: »

So Blue_Lagoon, what is your solution? What would you suggest?

I don't have THE ANSWER, as I doubt anyone on this thread does. It's a very complex problem that needs rigourous study before leaping to conclusions (such as the overly simplistic "Rambo solution" of arming students and faculty, and counting on capricious civilian vigilante action, as proposed elsewhere in this thread).

In a recent discussion I had with the head of an administration of justice program at a nearby university, he said that the solution lies in a "bundle" of well funded, long-term comprehensive and integrated programmes that involve not only the college campus, but also the surrounding community in which it resides. There would be no popular American quick fixes, or 10 easy ways to solve the problem.

From a preventative of school or college shooting standpoint (as well as reducing crime risk in general), he suggested that the surrounding communities need to return to "community policing strategies," namely getting the cops out of their squad cars and walking the beats, and integrating them better with their communities, to where they get to know their citizens on a first name basis (especially the troubled youth). Now there seems to be largely an adversarial "us" and "them" mentality that separates the police from their communities. He mentioned that in many instances, such as the school shooting in Colorado, in retrospective, the troubled kids where "shouting for help," but no one was listening at the school or community levels.

He noted that early research on past school tragedies suggested that there was a lack of comprehensive integration and cooperation between campus governance groups, campus police, surrounding community police, community social services, religious groups, juvenile courts, probation, and correctional systems. In many cases these troubled youth and young adults were from dysfunctional homes, suffering in silence, and left to their own resources or those of deviant peer groups. As a preventative measure, community cooperation and integration would have to occur, but once again, evaluative and action research would have to be conducted during a continuing cycle of implementation and improvement over protracted periods of time. There are apparently many community-based pilot programmes running in various cities around the nation, one of which holds promise based upon early results: identification and mentorship of troubled youth, including youth-at-risk from dysfunctional homes.

There were several other strategies that were to be a part of the bundled solution to school and college shooting problem, but we did not have time to delve into them.

coffeepot

I don't have THE ANSWER, as I doubt anyone on this thread does.

I would agree with you that nobody has the perfect answer. Manic_Moran's answer is not 100%, but it does seem to be the best option at present.

the solution lies in a "bundle" of well funded, long-term comprehensive and integrated programmes

I agree, but in the mean time you have no solution. This does seem to keep happening. Perhaps due to the lack of any viable alternitive Manic_Moran's option is the best that you have.

communities need to return to "community policing strategies," namely getting the cops out of their squad cars and walking the beats

Sounds right. But again takes a long time for this to make a difference.

There are just far too many guns out there and you are never going to get control of them.

We do not have a CCP (thank God!) in Ireland and IMHO we dont need it. I think it would be counter productive here. However in the US I think you do need it.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

As wyk has pointed out above, America's college shooting problem is complex, not simple. Are American gun advocates offering a simple solution to to complex problem?

We do not submit that it is a solution to society's problems. We do submit that it is a remedy for whoever the poor unfortunates are who happen to be in the classroom at the time, in much the same manner as it is a remedy for anyone caught in an unfortunate situation outside of the classroom, whilst the sociologists and politicians actually figure out what the proper solution is and carry it out. Currently nine State legislatures are looking at removing the prohibition on carrying firearms in universities. Or, you could take the policy announced by the Governor of Washington two months ago.

"One thing parents shouldn’t have to worry about is the safety of their children while they attend college,” said Gregoire. “But in the past year, we have been reminded that our campuses are not immune from violence.”

The governor’s supplemental budget proposal includes:

- $8 million for instant warning systems.

- $2.85 million for community notification. For improvements in systems at the UW, The Evergreen State College, Western Washington University, and the community and technical colleges so students and staff can get warnings via e-mail, text messaging and web alerts.

- $2.2 million for facility mapping and security cameras for first responders. Community and technical colleges, and The Evergreen State College, will complete full facilities mapping, giving responders detailed maps of each floor in each building on campus. In addition, Eastern Washington University will purchase security cameras that transmit pictures wireless to monitors in campus police vehicles.

- $395,000 for redundant communications. The UW and WSU will be able to install outdoor alarms and speakers to direct students to safety and allow for the orderly movement of people off campus or back to the classroom.

- $829,000 for access control and shutdown. The Evergreen State College will upgrade its network to allow for the centralized, classroom-by-classroom lockdown on campus. WSU will install key-card access control at each door in selected buildings. The UW will enable emergency ventilation shut-off for each building.

That's over $14 million dollars, which, unless I'm missing something, does absolutely nothing to stop a shooting from happening, and does no good at all to anyone who happens to be in the unfortunate situation of being in proximity to the shooting. This is typical of some of the solutions being proposed. Forgive me for not being overwhelmed by the feeling of security this would impart.

Easy access to guns in America, be it legal or illegal, certainly contributes to the problem of college and school shootings, no matter how gun advocates use circular arguments to often state it's not the gun, but the person using it?

I will accept that. But you must also accept that firearms have a use for purposes other than unlawful slaughter. Further, you must also note that easy access to firearms for children is not a new concept in the US. Mass shootings like this are: The issue is with society, not the weapon.

What American gun advocates (and the gun lobby) don't want brought to the public attention are the number of gun-related deaths reported. The American Center for Disease Control (CDC) compiles and issues reports on the leading causes of death in the United States. In year 2000, the 8th leading cause of death was gun-related. Specifically, "Of 28,663 firearms-related deaths in 2000 -- average of 79 per day -- 16,586 (57.9%) were suicides, 10,801 (37.7%) were homicides..."

What anti-gun advocates don't want brought to public attention are the number of times firearms are put to good use. From the brief of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons:

But the benefits of guns are undeniable:
one physician surveyed published studies
and estimated that the defensive use of guns saves 25
to 75 lives for every one lost to a gun. Miguel Faria,
M.D., “Public Health and Gun Control – A Review
(Part I: The Benefits of Firearms),” 6 Medical Sentinel
11 (2001).

Fourteen studies have been conducted to try to figure out how many times a firearm is lawfully used against crime. Figures vary from 700,000 at the low end, to 2.5million at the high end. Per year. The figure estimated by the DOJ in 1994 is 1.5million.

Suicide rates are not linked to firearms in themselves. From the same brief.

Japan, Hungary, and Scandinavia all have far more
restrictive gun control than the United States, and
yet they have suicide rates 2 to 3 times higher than
the U.S. For example, the suicide rate in Hungary is
35.38 per 100,000, compared to only 12.06 per
100,000 in the United States. See “International Violent
Death Rates” (May 17, 2003).9

Would you have guessed that there were anyplace near that many American firearms-related deaths in one year? 28,663! Yikes! American deaths per year in the Iraq War are considerably less? But of course, American gun advocates proclaim that guns are not a problem in America, only gun users who pull a trigger on themselves or another human being?

Is this an incorrect assessment? As you point out yourself, the underlying causes are extremely complex. Yet you wish to focus on an inanimate tool as the root of all evil. And further, the solution of simply getting rid of them isn't feasible.

Now, if you want to really be shocked, look up the numbers of deaths due to medical malpractise in the US.
http://www.personal-injury-information.com/index.html

In the United States, over 200,000 people die annually due to mistakes by healthcare professionals, surgeons and pharmacists. In fact, medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the United States, with 3 per cent of all hospital patients becoming victims of medical mistakes. The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) breaks down the annual figure further: 100,000 deaths from adverse effects from medication, 80,000 deaths from infections contracted in hospitals, 12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery and 7,000 deaths from medication and prescription error. However, one area that does not receive much press is the fact that more than 10,000 doctors in the US have been disciplined for incompetence, misconduct and negligence

45,000 a year on car accidents... Two days ago in Maryland a poorly driven car killed eight people standing at the side of the road. Hell, this guy did better than the NIU Shooter, and he wasn't even trying.

Why not ban doctors and cars? Obviously because they provide an overall benefit to society far greater than their detremental effect. What people fail to realise is that firearms have a far greater benefit to society (especially for the law-abiding) than their negative effect. The difference is that the latter is publicised in international news, and the former is almost never mentioned, thus creating a skewed perspective.

By the more extreme example, you note that you teach sword-fighting. What possible benefit to society does a sword have? Obviously some people can consider them to be a threat to sociey, the UK has just announced a new ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7138735.stm. Even a smaller blade can be used to stab a number of people. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-22-grocery-store-stabbing_x.htm (Oh, and look who stopped him: A man carrying a gun)

Elartrice Ingram, 21, was charged with nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, police said. The attack Friday apparently stemmed from a work dispute, investigators said <snip>

Ingram, chasing one victim into the store's parking lot, was subdued by Chris Cope, manager of a financial services office in the same small shopping center, Memphis Police Sgt. Vince Higgins said.

Cope said he grabbed a 9mm semiautomatic pistol from his pickup when he saw the attacker chasing the victim "like something in a serial killer movie."

"When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope told The Associated Press. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."

I'm sure your sword has never hurt anyone you didn't mean to hurt. At least my firearms can be argued to have a greater practical use in the real world. In the meantime, however, I suggest that I leave your form of self defense alone, and you leave me to mine.

NTM

Overheal

For civilian defensive application, what is the use in supplying lethal ammunition types? Surely rubber rounds have enough stopping power in them for an assailant. I dont see the use of letting loose thousands of lethal Full Metal Jacket rounds into society.

Manic Moran

Surely rubber rounds have enough stopping power in them for an assailant

In a word, they don't. You're just going to piss him off. Look at the size of the rubber bullets fired for crowd control, and imagine how effective they are against a guy with a real gun. Even when shooting live rounds, you keep pulling the trigger until the threat stops, it's not a one-shot-stop deal.

I dont see the use of letting loose thousands of lethal Full Metal Jacket rounds into society.

I use jacketed hollow points as my round of choice, as do most people but there is some option in favour of using rounds like Glaser. Hollowpoints are less likely to overpenetrate (either people or walls etc), and do a far better job of transferring energy into the target. FMJ is generally military issue only, where immediacy of effect is not an issue (and deforming rounds are forbidden by treaty anyway). If there's a gun battle going on in the street, you want the round to stop the target immediately. Not necessarily kill him, but incapacitate him. (Survival rates for JHP are actually higher than for FMJ)

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's over $14 million dollars, which, unless I'm missing something, does absolutely nothing to stop a shooting from happening,

Neither does the overly simplistic "Rambo solution" of capricious citizen vigilante action?

• Citizen vigilantes do not prevent the shootings from happening in all the anecdotal cases you cited thus far. The shooting starts first. In the recent classroom shooting incident at Northern Illinois University the deranged person began shooting with a shotgun before a potential citizen vigilante would be able to act, so your solution is not preventative.
• Unlike the Rambo sterotype that assumes years of training, your citizen vigilante would require little (according to you in two of your earlier posts). Although there will be exceptions like yourself (US Military?), those will be exceptions, with citizen vigilantes carrying guns into the classroom generally with less training than campus police, local law enforcement, or SWAT in most cases? I worry about increasing the numbers of untrained or poorly trained vigilantes and the likelihood of increasing what military types call death or injuries due to "friendly fire," or what the news media calls "collateral damage?"
• Your solution assumes that students and faculty will arm themselves to such an extent that there will be an armed presence in most or all classrooms at any given moment of time? At USC during a normal semester session, that would mean that hundreds of guns would have to be present on campus.
• Your concealed gun permit requires that the citizen vigilante be at least 21 years old. That greatly reduces the number of university students that would be eligible to carry guns, as the vast majority of students enrolled are undergraduates, and would either be 4th year (seniors) or have already graduated by age 21? Further, 4th year students don't normally take 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year classes, having already completed them, therefore the chances are greatly reduced of a 21 year old traditional 4th year (or older than 21 nontraditional student) gun carrying student will be present in the vast majority of classes? Graduate students are generally older and generally attend graduate and not undergraduate classes, so they would not be present in the vast number of classrooms as students.
• The shooters, according to all the reports and studies I have read, are emotionally disturbed people, not your criminal types that may consider risk as a factor before committing a crime, so there is no rigorous scientific support based upon these exceptionally few and anecdotal shooting cases that would suggest that knowledge of classroom vigilantes would have a deterrent effect (i.e., be preventative), only unqualified heresay.
• Faculty carrying guns into classrooms I doubt is a plausible part of your solution. I called my USC academic advisor and they had already discussed some of the solutions to campus shootings in prior meetings. When faculty were asked if they would carry a gun into a classroom, not one said they would do so; to the contrary, the notion of a gun in the classroom was thought to be more of a risk and counterproductive to a learning environment.
• I know several at USC in student government, and have been asking around about their position on changing the USC policy about carrying guns into the classroom. All said they would oppose guns in the classroom, and would protest such action if the USC administration considered it. (As you might have guessed, I've told them that I would be willing to serve on the committee to protest guns on campus should it be necessary)
• Citing a study that predicts that so many lives would have been saved in classrooms if students or faculty were armed I find problematic indeed from a scientific research standpoint, given that the college shootings are case studies that are retrospective, occurring at one moment in time, lack controls or quasi-controls, unique and anecdotal at best, and are too few in number to be statistically significant, representative, or generalizable, hence predicting is spurious (i.e., unscientific armchair nonsense).

In referring to other fatalities associated with guns in my prior posts, one thing was common about all the references, namely guns, not vehicle accidents, medical errors, or other non-gun sources of death mentioned, whether accidental or criminal, often used by gun advocates to distract from a gun-related problem. The high availability of guns in the United States has to be considered a serious part of the problem, to where it is easier for criminals, gangs, mentally disturbed, and persons without minimal firearms safety training to acquire them.

Manic Moran mentioned in an earlier post how little training would be needed, based upon his US military experience, for a person to pick up a gun and defend themselves, as opposed to other forms of typically non-lethal self defense that might take years to master? The same can be said about how easy it is for a mentally disturbed college shooter to pick up a gun, if they are highly available in the United States.

I was disappointed that only $14 million dollars was allocated to the college shooter problem by the Governor mentioned in an earlier post. Perhaps more of the monies that are allocated to Bush's Iraq War (estimated at one billion dollars a day in his proposed budget to Congress), could be used to make college campuses a safer place to learn, than seeking an oversimplistic "Rambo solution" using citizen vigilantes? Typically vigilante action occurs when law enforcement fails to do its job, so maybe more monies to research and discover how to reduce, if not eliminate the college shooter problem? A billion dollars a day of war money could help solve not only this problem, but also other domestic problems?

The irony of proposing a gun solution to the campus shooting problem does not escape me, but is obviously unappreciated by those advocating guns? Where is Jonathan Swift when you need him?

Manic Moran

Hopefully a quick one: The new Knight Rider is on in a few minutes. (I don't know if I like KITT as a Ford Mustang, but anyway)

[*]Citizen vigilantes do not prevent the shootings from happening in all the anecdotal cases you cited thus far. The shooting starts first.

It is true, the shooting does. Our difference lies in what happens afterwards.

In the recent classroom shooting incident at Northern Illinois University the deranged person began shooting with a shotgun before a potential citizen vigilante would be able to act, so your solution is not preventative.

It is very preventative if you happen to be in the room but not victim to the first shot or two. Assume, for the sake of argument, that someone starts shooting in your USC lecture hall. It'll take a shot or two to realise just what's happening. Nothing to be done about that. Assuming that you are one of the majority not actually injured, what are your options from that point on? (1) Join the mad rush of people trying to get out the door, assuming that the shooter isn't blocking it, and hope that you don't get hit should the shooter decide to aim at the mass of people. (2) Cower in the hopes that someone with a gun (i.e. police) gets to the shooter before he gets to you. Neither of these are particularly pro-active solutions, and in both cases you are reliant on two factors: The amount of time it takes for the police to show up, and just how long it takes for the shooter to hit you. Neither of which are under your control.

This is a process of damage limitation. The difference between four people being killed in the Colorado church shootings, and maybe a dozen. (He had nearly a thousand rounds of ammunition, apparently). Now, I don't know about you, but assuming total prevention isn't going to happen, I think lower death tolls are preferable to higher ones.

Unlike the Rambo sterotype that assumes years of training, your citizen vigilante would require little (according to you in two of your earlier posts).

I make no Rambo stereotypes. The simple fact of the matter is that aiming a pistol at a target and pulling the trigger is a fairly simple process, which has been managed by anyone from gangbangers to psycho students to private citizens under stress. The woman in the 911 call I linked to earlier didn't even own the gun she used to kill her attacker, it had been loaned to her by a friend the day before. Now, when you start getting into one-on-one scenarios such as quick-draws, or tactical fire and movement (Particularly in teams) then yes, much more training is required. Putting steel on target is much simpler.

Although there will be exceptions like yourself (US Military?), those will be exceptions, with citizen vigilantes carrying guns into the classroom generally with less training than campus police, local law enforcement, or SWAT in most cases?

Again, I point out that those who undertake CCWs are often better shots than the police for whom their sidearm is merely a mandatory annual qualification. You teach martial arts, police and military are given unarmed combat training. Do you really think the average cop will best you in unarmed combat? I know that the standard I received in the Army wasn't to the level that I would like to take on someone for whom it's an interest.

I worry about increasing the numbers of untrained or poorly trained vigilantes and the likelihood of increasing what military types call death or injuries due to "friendly fire," or what the news media calls "collateral damage?"

Apparently 10% of shootings involving police hit bystanders. I need to look up the cite, but I'll get back to it, I just saw it today. The figure for private citizens is 2%, though this figure is skewed heavily because most private citizen shootings tend to be in places like the home where there are no bystanders to hit. And frankly, if the shooter is going around firing at will, I don't see what benefit there is to not taking the shot.

Your solution assumes that students and faculty will arm themselves to such an extent that there will be an armed presence in most or all classrooms at any given moment of time? At USC during a normal semester session, that would mean that hundreds of guns would have to be present on campus.

Well, despite the fact that the hundreds of guns known to be on campus at UU don't seem to be a problem, if other people wish to be defenseless, that's their problem. I see no reason why someone else's fears should prevent someone who wishes to be armed from doing so.

Your concealed gun permit requires that the citizen vigilante be at least 21 years old. That greatly reduces the number of university students that would be eligible to carry guns,

Correct. But it also increases the amount of chance that someone with a firearm will be in a position to take action. Again, note the 32-year-old veteran killed in NIU, for example. There is no reason to believe that this person would have chosen to be armed, but even the option was not available. Having increased chances of stopping a rampaging shooter earlier, even if not 100%, cannot be a bad thing. By the way, I object to your repeated use of the term vigilante. That implies someone who takes the law into their own hands. I'm talking about people who act within the law.

The shooters, according to all the reports and studies I have read, are emotionally disturbed people, not your criminal types that may consider risk as a factor before committing a crime

Again, it's the difference in numbers. Mass shootings stopped by someone carrying a gun aren't mass shootings, because they were stopped before they got to that point.

When faculty were asked if they would carry a gun into a classroom, not one said they would do so;

That's their choice. I choose otherwise.

the notion of a gun in the classroom was thought to be more of a risk and counterproductive to a learning environment

If you don't know about it, I'm not sure how that can be a problem. Perhaps given the stigma in urban California regarding firearms, just no faculty member chooses to openly admit that they carry a firearm for fear of unwarranted ostracisation. After all, if it's a concealed weapon, it's counterproductive to tell someone you have it.

I know several at USC in student government, and have been asking around about their position on changing the USC policy about carrying guns into the classroom.

Have you asked them what their preferred course of action would be if they found themselves in the same lecture hall as someone with perhaps less respect for human life than most people? Mr Kazmierczak appears not to have been too concerned about anyone else's positions on carrying guns into the classroom.

hence predicting is spurious (i.e., unscientific armchair nonsense).

The number of school shootings is indeed a small sample size. The number of private citizens using firearms to prevent crime or violence is a much greater number, and far less deniable. Since we are only suggesting that the same people who carry outside of class carry inside of class, I see no reason to believe that the statistics for the one cannot extrapolate to the other.

The high availability of guns in the United States has to be considered a serious part of the problem, to where it is easier for criminals, gangs, mentally disturbed, and persons without minimal firearms safety training to acquire them.

Yes. But access to firearms is not new. The root problem is something other than the firearm. This argument also happily ignores the benefits to firearms ownership.

The same can be said about how easy it is for a mentally disturbed college shooter to pick up a gun, if they are highly available in the United States.

As has, I believe, now been demonstrated. Given, however, that there will be no reduction in the amount of firearms sales in the US, you need a solution which takes into account the fact that there are 200million firearms in the country, and that normal citizens will always be able to buy them, at least until the Constitution is changed.

so maybe more monies to research and discover how to reduce, if not eliminate the college shooter problem?

I have no quarrel with this concept. I, too, think the money would be better spent that way than on warning systems. In the meantime, however, I see no reason this can exclude the legal carrying of firearms in addition.

As you might have guessed, I've told them that I would be willing to serve on the committee to protest guns on campus should it be necessary

The implication here is that there is a movement in USC's population to permit it? (I don't know if there is or not).

The shortest question though is 'who is responsible for the safety of any individual student?' I think any solution must take that question into account. Please note that the question of "Do the police have any duty towards a private individual" has already been answered by the Supreme Court.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran...
Fair enough. Your perspectives on guns, self-defense, and a college environment conducive to learning are obviously different from mine, and during our exchange we have both made a few points from our different perspectives. We can agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Manic Moran

Right, so.

Peace has been declared. So it was written, so it shall be done!

NTM

Black Swan

No dual? If so, I chose Boston cream pies at 10 paces. The Rig will be my second.

Manic Moran

I don't know about a dual, but I only accept duels when challenged by use of a gauntlet. And frankly, I've not seen many of those around these parts. Seem to be out of style in California. I guess they don't go well with bikinis.

NTM