Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 17, 2007 14:19:22 GMT -4
Or it may have gone even more pear-shaped and escalated in a chain reaction to something more akin to a small war...It very well may. The "Wild West" scenario is the common objection to Jason's argument, which represents a common line of reasoning among arms-bearing advocates. The rejoinder is typically that while it may escalate, there's also a chance it may not; a gunman who cannot know how many of his potential targets are lawfully armed may think twice about provoking an incident. If a gunman instead knows that none of his potential victims will be armed because it's too difficult or even impossible for them legally to arm themselves, then it will embolden him if his intend is to harm as many people as possible. The right to bear arms is intended also to deter crimes, not merely respond to them. I understand that, and indeed I believe there is evidence that minor crime can be appreciably reduced in areas where carrying firearms is legal and common. Against that, what crime does get committed in those circumstances, tends to be more serious and more likely to result in death and/or injury. As Lunar Orbit notes, where the police must assume that anyone they encounter is armed and dangerous, they too may find themselves applying lethal force in situations that might not otherwise warrant it. There's also a level of fatality that will result just from having lethal weapons widely distributed: there are some would-be murderers and suicides who would find themselves unable to do with knife, blunt instrument or bare hand what they would find relatively easy with a gun, although how many is not easy to say. There are also accidents; possibly the largest single category of firearms-related death. Probably something of a catch-all category, as it will include tragedies where young children tested their parents safety precautions beyond the limit, some suicides where officials spared the family further grief (or at least tried to), the odd cunningly-concealed or poorly investigated murder, as well as prima facie evidence that some people really shouldn't be let loose with dangerous devices...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 17, 2007 14:48:47 GMT -4
I googled up some statistics fairly quickly:
In the U.S. in 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 were killed by firearms. This breaks down into 214 unintentional 1,078 suicides 1,990 homicides 83 for which the intent could not be determined 20 due to legal intervention (police shootings)
As you can see, accidental shootings are not insignificant, but are no where near the primary cause of firearm deaths.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 17, 2007 14:58:48 GMT -4
When the news broke I had a hunch that in spite of this the US government will take absolutely no action to disarm private citizens. The U.S. government cannot legally disarm it's citizens. It's written into the Constitution. Firearms ownership is restricted in the U.S., however - you have to undergo a federal background check before you can legally purchase a firearm, and if you've committed past felonies then you don't get to buy.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Apr 17, 2007 15:01:50 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit So are you (predictable). I do need an investigation. Perhaps I should have said "strongly suspect."
gillianren
It takes time to determine whether or not there was a conspiracy. It may take days or even weeks for pertinent information to surface. I'd like to know a lot more about the shooter and what he's been doing for the past several years. That's key. If there's no indication that he was a mind control slave (Manchurian candidate), then my conspiracy theory may be all washed up. The issue of private firearms ownership is already being discussed everywhere--as if the Constitution didn't exist. What will I do about it? Dunno. Vote third party for sure. Alert others? Yes. Write/call my representatives? Yes. Do you have suggestions?
wingerii How is it political? Do I have to have a political agenda to think murder is wrong? Why is it unconscionable? How would you have expressed "this"?
Jason Paranoid, yes. Unhealthy? I don't think so. A good starter book for you might be The Franklin Coverup. I agree that students should be able to pack heat on campus.
Jay Utah The verdict's not in on this theory yet. What are you doing in order to achieve change in our government? I am genuinely interested.
Lunar Orbit
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 15:09:45 GMT -4
Concealed carry permit holders are required to undergo safety training in order to be issued the permit. That helps to combat the "wild west" possibility. (No I don't have a permit myself)
I have attended the concealed-carry permit safety training because I am the only one of my friends who does not hold a concealed-carry permit. The training consists of a two-hour class for which you pay a fee of $100. The training does not require you to demonstrate that you can operate your firearm safely, or at all -- you are presumed to have learned that prior to the training. Utah's concealed-carry permit training is mostly about complying with Utah gun law, which in turn is mostly about where and how you are allowed to carry it and use it. An ironic twist to that law is that once you have removed your weapon from concealment, you must use it, otherwise to do so is to "brandish" it, which is a violation of Utah gun law.
The remainder of the training is essentially advice how to protect yourself from civil liability arising from the use of your weapon. It's more about protecting the gun owner than about protecting those around him. And yes, the classicly ironic advice was given that one defending oneself with a concealed weapon should aim to kill the attacker, otherwise he can sue you if you merely wound him. I always thought that was a joke.
The only bit of the training that seems to apply in these situations is the reminder that the bullet is likely to go through the target, so be sure there are no innocent bystanders behind the attacker. That's about it for Utah safety training.
And even treating it charitably, it is by no means combat training. There is absolutely nothing in the training that teaches you how to engage, suppress, and repel an attacker effectively using your firearm. The holder of a concealed-carry permit is no more qualified to engage an armed attacker than one who has only played a lot of first-person-shooter video games.
I understood that the off-duty officer at Trolley Square was worried that he might be mis-identified but wasn't...
The information I have is that the responding officers did not have that information; the off-duty officer was recognized as such through his own shouted identification. For this reason the police in Utah (and elsewhere) are not generally big fans of freely-borne arms.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Apr 17, 2007 15:12:02 GMT -4
Why is "I strongly suspect the government is behind it" your knee-jerk reaction to such an event? If it is not a reflexive reaction, please outline the thought process that has lead you to this "strong suspicion". Do you have any evidence beyond "the government does bad things"? ETA: Sorry, I was responding to DH. Jay posted as I was typing
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 15:28:24 GMT -4
What are you doing in order to achieve change in our government? I am genuinely interested.
Since the only reason you've ever been interested in me has been to judge me maliciously deceptive no matter what I say, you'll kindly forgive me if I don't really care to discuss anything at all with you.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 17, 2007 15:30:48 GMT -4
True, it's not by any means combat training, but requiring everyone to undergo a course that takes firearms very seriously can show someone that they are taking a serious responsibility in owning and carrying a firearm. That's what I meant about quelling the "Wild West" atmosphere.
Jay, do you feel less safe knowing that all your friends are carrying guns? Or more worried that they might shoot you one day if an argument gets out of hand?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 17, 2007 15:32:26 GMT -4
It takes time to determine whether or not there was a conspiracy. It may take days or even weeks for pertinent information to surface. I'd like to know a lot more about the shooter and what he's been doing for the past several years. That's key. If there's no indication that he was a mind control slave (Manchurian candidate), then my conspiracy theory may be all washed up. "Mind control slave"? I stand by my original judgement that your paranoia is unhealthy.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 17, 2007 16:18:10 GMT -4
Perhaps I should have said "strongly suspect." I see no reason to even "mildly suspect" the government in this case, never mind "strongly suspect". Get back to me when you have some kind of evidence. You're not just saying you think murder is wrong though, you're accusing the government of being behind it. How is that not a political statement? Maybe the police are so "trigger happy" because they have experienced too many gun attacks from "innocent" civilians. How is this is supposed to convince me that arming civilians is a good idea? Maybe if the police knew that the vast majority of drivers were unarmed they wouldn't need to be so cautious when approaching a car on the side of the road. All of which is much easier to defend against than some nut with a gun who can shoot me from half a mile away without me even hearing the shot. A man with a knife has to be able to get within an arms reach of me in order to stab me, and even the fastest stabber isn't going to outperform a fully automatic gun. My best defense is to not make enemies in the first place. Plus I have this really crazy cat who will rip to shreds any uninvited guests (and sometimes even the invited ones).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 16:52:02 GMT -4
...but requiring everyone to undergo a course that takes firearms very seriously can show someone that they are taking a serious responsibility in owning and carrying a firearm.
If the course had been less about how to protect the gun owner from liability, litigation, and inadvertent violation of gun laws (e.g., don't take your gun into the Post Office) and more about teaching and testing one's ability to employ a firearm safely in a civic or personal defense role, I would agree more with you. I just think that you really ought to understand the nature of the training before you cite it as evidence that concealed-carry permit holders can be presumed conscientious and level-headed by virtue of it.
That's what I meant about quelling the "Wild West" atmosphere.
Yes, I see your point. But I wasn't talking so much about a Wild West atmosphere as I was a Wild West scenario that might actually have played out at Trolley Square, at Virginia Tech, at Columbine, or at the Temple Square geneology library had things gone differently: the potentially rampant and indiscriminate engagement of targets or presumed targets on the part of well-meaning but poorly-trained and poorly-inexperienced gun owners.
I don't think a Wild West atmosphere prevails in Utah as far as firearms are concerned. It might elsewhere, but I don't have much personal experience from which to speak on that.
The potential for a rapidly-escalating shootout scenario is what some people fear, and that's what I was saying was not addressed in anything having to do with licensing carriers of concealed weapons in Utah.
Jay, do you feel less safe knowing that all your friends are carrying guns?
No, I feel less safe knowing that people whom I don't know are carrying guns. I trust my friends, and I know how they approach owning firearms. I don't trust the people I don't know, and the state's mandated firearm safety class does not give me reason to trust its graduates to operate a firearm safely and in a manner that respects my safety should I happen to be in attendance.
I mention my friends only because I have to establish by what authority I can speak on firearms safety instruction in Utah, and it is through them that I was able to see the training.
I'm not in favor of additional gun control.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 17, 2007 17:12:31 GMT -4
Maybe the police are so "trigger happy" because they have experienced too many gun attacks from "innocent" civilians.
Certainly from ill-intentioned ones. But another popular line of reasoning notes that not all policement are innocent either -- that is, the right to bear arms is supposed to enable the citizenry to fight back against oppressive government. That said, the honest policemen generally prefer tighter gun control not necessarily because they're afraid themselves of getting shot, but because it makes enforcement more difficult. If they happen upon a scene where one person is defending himself against an armed attacker, and both have guns, what should they do? How do they know who's the attacker and who's the defender?
Plus I have this really crazy cat who will rip to shreds any uninvited guests (and sometimes even the invited ones).
I have two such cats. Thus begins the arms race. I can see the bumper sticker now: JayUtah's cats have killed more people than my gun.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 17, 2007 17:38:57 GMT -4
Concealed carry permit holders are required to undergo safety training in order to be issued the permit. That helps to combat the "wild west" possibility. (No I don't have a permit myself) My former roommate didn't have to when he got his concealed carry permit back ten years ago. I know, because he wouldn't've been able to afford the course, he never took the time, and I saw the permit after he got it. There would be no point in my having a gun. In fact, it would be a very, very bad idea indeed. I promise you, Jason, you don't want me to go around armed, at least not until I get on the right meds. DH, have you considered running for office? D'you write to your elected officials? Do you write letters to your paper? Or do you just write paranoid conspiracy theories here?
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 17, 2007 17:57:58 GMT -4
Most of the time a shooting that looks like the work of a single disturbed individual really is the work of a single disturbed individual, not a government conspiracy. Well said. Yes this incident will probably be used by politicians as ammo for more calls for gun control. Oh, the irony... (my bold) As no one has mentioned it yet, the shooter was apparently a 23-year-old student, a loner whose English compositions were so disturbing that his prof referred him to counseling. Manchurian candidate? Ha. If anybody thinks there will be any significant change in gun laws as a result of this incident, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in. One requisite for any credible conspiracy theory is that it has to have a chance to actually work.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 17, 2007 18:34:15 GMT -4
My former roommate didn't have to when he got his concealed carry permit back ten years ago. I know, because he wouldn't've been able to afford the course, he never took the time, and I saw the permit after he got it. Well it's state by state as to what the exact requirements are, and I'm not sure what they were 10 years ago anywhere. In Utah it is required currently. In my experience gun owners in Utah are usually very conscious of the fact that they are dealing with dangerous weapons, and those who apply for concealed carry permits even more so. I therefore don't get too worried about guns in the hands of civilians, and especially those with permits to carry them. Technically I am a gun owner myself, but what I own is a .22 semi-automatic rifle that I used to use occasionally for target practice on cans and the like at the family farm - not really a home defense weapon, and not something I could carry concealed without a really long coat. Even though it's "only a .22" I treat it with respect. I keep it unloaded with the bolt locked open and the safety on, with the ammo stored in a different place. If there were any kids living at my place I would lock it up somewhere where they couldn't get at it too. When I take it anywhere I never point it at anybody, even if I know it's unloaded. I learned all those lessons in gun safety from watching and talking with other Utah gun owners. I won't argue that someone who doesn't feel comfortable with a gun and the attendent responsibilty should own one, or that there are some people who probably shouldn't own a gun. I just hapen to think that there are civilians out there who can make good use of guns in personal defense, and incidents like these might have ended differently if there had been some around. Virginia law prohibits carrying guns on a public campus. Last year there was an attempt to remove that law but it failed in committee. The Virginia Tech spokesman at the time, Larry Hincker, said "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
|
|