First thoughts on the Virginia Tech shootings: burning the spindles
I don’t want to ignore the terrible news of the day, the shootings at Virginia Tech. But I’ll be brief until I know more.
Details are extremely spotty, except to say that now the death toll has risen to thirty-two, and that there were at least two venues—a dorm and a classroom—for the killings.
It goes almost without saying that this is a horrific event, and that the grief and shock are immense. It also is clear to me that we’ve grown somewhat accustomed to such news these days.
Predictions can be made. The 24-hour cable news cycle will thrive on the event. That’s not to say the press is especially hard-hearted or unmoved; it’s just that it’s a Big Story, and must be covered. Rumors will abound until things are sorted out, which will take days if not weeks. Those on different sides of the gun control issue will solidify their positions: too many guns, too few guns, that was the reason. There will be revelations about the life of the shooter, who will most likely have been a loner or misfit of some sort or other. Europe will wag on about how terribly violent the entire US is. And parents in this country will hug their children a little tighter.
I spent time this morning writing today’s previous post, one I’d half completed before I heard the news about the shooting. On the surface, the two posts seem unrelated. But one commonality they share is that, much as one would sometimes like to turn back the clock on certain societal trends, it’s difficult if not impossible.
I’m talking in this instance about the futility and impotence of most forms of gun control. There is no way to draft a law that will be truly effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
Guns cannot and should not be banned; the population needs to be able to bear arms for the very reasons implied (although not explicitly spelled out) in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And, if criminals and psychotics can easily obtain weapons on the black market (which they most assuredly can, just as anyone who wanted to drink could easily obtain liquor during Prohibition), then there’s no reason to keep law-abiding citizens from having them too, for self-defense as well as sport.
Yes, a gun was involved here, and would that the shooter had never had access to it. But he did, either legally or illegally. And, given that, it stands to reason it would have been a good thing had someone in that crowd of students been armed and trained, as well.
I am often reminded, of all things, of the story of Sleeping Beauty. Whatever am I talking about? Just this: you can burn all the spindles in the land, but you can never get them all. And rest assured, the ones that remain will fall into the hands of those eager to do evil.
As usual Neo you seem to be voicing my thoughts before I can frame them. Without a doubt the anti-gun lobby/supporters will take this as total proof of the correctness of their stand. I can not help but stand on the other side of the issue. As you said, ‘criminals’ will ever be able to get a gun if they want one, as apparently this young man did. From my point of view however this incident further proves the necessity for law abiding citizens to be able to legally arm themselves, both for their own defense and that of the society around them. I can’t help but think that the death toll in this horrible day might well have been significantly less had there been someone armed and able to defend against this man. As it was, there was at hand NO ONE able to stop him, no one to slow the massacre, to distract and probably stop him. My own daughter is among those almost violently opposed to guns in anyone’s hands and we’ve had many a bitter discussion on this, so believe me I am fully aware of the polarization this issue can entail. Again, there are those who will see this as justification for a total ban on guns but I think I will not be alone in feeling this simply further proves my point. God bless those involved in this. What a truly horrid thing.
I wonder if we will find there was the usual degree of passivity in the classrooms the gunman attacked. That is a class of 20-30 people hiding under desks. I intend to take the opportunity to tell my 15 year old daughter who is going away to a summer session at University, that she is responsible for her own safety and that if there is no option to flee then she must defend herself and others by whatever means possible. It is not only the best chance to survive, but the only honorable one.
Long, long ago, at a very different time–1991, to be exact (any pre-9/11 date nowadays makes me picture the scenes in black and white), a man named Phil Zimmermann created privacy software intended for common use, called Pretty Good Privacy. In 1993, the US government tried to ban PGP using anti-export laws dating from the Cold War. Eventually, those laws were repealed, but before that, as part of his campaign to lift the ban, Zimmermann said:
“When privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.”
This should be engraved in stone and hung high for all to see. It’s exactly the issue here: banning guns from the public means only the outlaws will get hold of them. And that’s why outlaw states, like the nanny-states of the European Union, are so eager to take that step early.
“I’m talking in this instance about the futility and impotence of most forms of gun control. There is no way to draft a law that will be truly effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.”
“Yes, a gun was involved here…and, given that, it stands to reason it would have been a good thing had someone in that crowd of students been armed and trained, as well.”
So it sounds like your position is that to reduce gun violence in the US, we need fewer gun laws and more people carrying guns. Is that accurate?
Is that accurate?
For me, I believe more killing needs to be done. More killing of criminals and evil folks always bring law and order back to the fold, and makes human progress possible.
If more killing of murderers is done because more guns are used, that’s okay. If more killing of murderers and criminals and seditionists are done because more people are taking Kendo and slicing folks with a katana, that’s okay too.
All weapons such as guns, knives, swords, and police powers are ephemeral compared to the human mind. That is where it starts and that is where it ends.
As a psychologist, albeit a family therapist, Neo understands not only the practicalities of attempts to solve human problems but also their limitations. Knowing one’s limitations are important, important to success and important to exceeding those limits.
What matters after all, is promoting good behavior amongst humans and preventing bad behavior. That is a uniquely psychological and sociological perspective.
The inability to understand humanity, to understand human actions, and manipulate them, is the cause of many bad policies.
Already heard the “we have too many guns” and “there are more guns in this country than people” mantras today.
It’s that second one that has me thinking. On a campus of 25,000+ people, apparently the ONLY one there with a gun was the killer. Perhaps a “redistribution of guns” policy is what we need.
How about *wiser* gun laws? For a start, laws that stress the *responsibilities* of firearms ownership, rather than making it shameful? If you make it shameful, you will attract those who have no shame.
So it sounds like your position is that to reduce gun violence in the US, we need fewer gun laws and more people carrying guns. Is that accurate?
No. What I am asking for is less fear of guns. Fear of guns means fewer responsible people are willing to take the training to properly handle a gun. Fear of guns means that, if you let it be known that you know how to handle a weapon, a significant portion of the population looks upon you with mistrust. Fear of guns means that a person in a reasonable position of authority (a teacher for example) is not trusted to carry.
Everyone doesn’t have to carry, if just one or two do, the deterrent is there and the immediate response could be there. You personally can still be a “free rider” in these situations. If fact if you don’t know what you are doing, I would prefer that you remain a free rider. Just don’t prevent me or some one equally responsible from being able to step up if the time ever comes. Don’t treat me as an outcast because I may be able to save you. Don’t force me into a position of helplessness because of your fear.
Note — I do not carry but my home has access. In different situations, I would carry.
“Thanks for defending the cash and your fellow employees. You’re fired.”
This is not about more gun control, it is about the effects of gun control
How about *wiser* gun laws? For a start, laws that stress the *responsibilities* of firearms ownership
Obviously the people who misuse guns in this way have no respect. They are also often under great duress. Even a seemingly decent person with no criminal record can go off like this. The answer is to be found in the lines above. I believe that people who are raised to respect guns will misuse them far less often. For this reason I think the public schools should be encouraged to have the NRA share its excellent gun safety and responsible use programs with all young people. Take away the criminal romance of guns that makes them so attractive.
Gun-banning is not a liberal policy. Education is. Look at liberal positions on sex and drugs.
I beg to differ about the 2nd. Guns were for self-defence, not just war and hunting. That right was embodied, and well-established, in English Common Law long before the US Constitution.
Before it was guns, it was swords.
Anyone who promotes abolition of guns needs to explain how all the existing guns are going to be found and how illicit importation will be prevented. A gunless America is a fantasy; trying to force the fantasy on reality is delusional.
I live in a country where the average citizen has very little access to guns legally. Guess who has the automatic weapons? The criminal punks! We had nearly 60 murders last weekend. That is what gun control does for society. It is about PEOPLE killing PEOPLE. It is a moral problem, not a gun problem.
Dave Moelling:
“I wonder if we will find there was the usual degree of passivity in the classrooms the gunman attacked.”
I wondered the same thing all day. 31 killed in the space of two hours? There had to have been reloading or a change in weapons, a lull in the violence. Just enough of a chance at one point. I heard many victims were just lined up. They were shot as if just waiting for their turn. As if self preservation was not an option.
I know I wasnt there and dont have any details, just from the little I do hear, this doesnt sound right.
OldManRick: Everyone doesn’t have to carry, if just one or two do, the deterrent is there and the immediate response could be there. You personally can still be a “free rider” in these situations. If fact if you don’t know what you are doing, I would prefer that you remain a free rider.
What I wonder is whether this deterrent would still hold up if you extend this from a single community or even a region of the country to the entire nation.
Criminals prefer easy targets over hard targets. If they find the going getting tough in a particular town because too many people are carrying, they can always move to some less well-armed locale to ply their trade. But it’s one thing to move to a new town or even a new state, and another thing entirely to move to a new country if there’s no place left in the USA for a criminal to “safely” operate. What happens then?
I sense that not many of those who favor gun rights as a crime deterrent have thought this through much. They probably assume that once criminals run out of unarmed locales to exploit, they’ll just be forced to give up crime and get a real job. I’m not so sure about that. I doubt many of them could win, much less hold down a real job even if they wanted to. It seems more likely to me that many, if not most, criminals faced with a better-armed America across the board would merely be forced to adapt to that new reality, just as criminals have adapted to any manner of crime prevention measures throughout the history of mankind, and develop new tactics and other countermeasures against our guns.
Taking hostages as human shields prior to committing the main crime is one such counter-tactic that comes to mind, but I’m sure the criminals themselves will think of even more devious ones. After all, they are the ones with a vested interest in doing so. And we will be forced to adapt in turn, and come up with counter-countermeasures. And on and on and on.
While I generally favor gun rights in principle, I harbor no illusion that a well-armed populace would have anything more than a fleeting and transient effect on crime deterrence. Once the bad guys inevitably figure out how to overcome the advantage our arms give us, we’ll be back to square one.
But it’s one thing to move to a new town or even a new state, and another thing entirely to move to a new country if there’s no place left in the USA for a criminal to “safely” operate. What happens then?
I have thought it through. You are assuming that the pool of criminals is fixed. There are two reasons why this is a bad assumption.
Micro economics teaches us that there are some at the margin’s operating edge who make (semi) rationale decisions that effect the total situation. (Without these people the supply and demand curve is not a curve.) The hard-core criminal and, in this case, the psychopath will change little. The criminals at the margin will make a cost-benefit trade off (probably unconsciously) and possibly find another line of work. The less hard core will modify their approach, but, probably not in the way you suspect – they will look for lower risk targets, not higher risk escalation. They will do a better job of casing to find a weak target (thus requiring more time investment for the same results) or change their trade to less confrontational crimes. The true marginal criminal may give up crime altogether. When the cost (risk) of crime goes up, the number of “buyers” – those willing pay the risk to do crimes – would go down. This would be facilitated by more news stories that highlight the risks of crime. More “robber shot by citizen” reports would increase the perceived risk among the criminal class.
The other reason is the good old wild west scenario, that you are worried about. When each repeated crime includes more risk that the criminal’s career will be terminated, on the average, they will commit fewer total crimes. It will also catch more criminals on the lower end of the learning curve, so they will not be as efficient overall. Like any profession, they get better with experience. In the case of the psychopath, it will again increase the odds that there will be someone there to stop the killing earlier in the spree.
I sense that not many of those who favor gun rights as a crime deterrent have thought this through much.
No, I have thought it through. There is good rationale why an increase in legal responsible gun ownership would lead to a lower crime rate. Your concern about escalation actually goes against both economic theory and the practical effects seen when gun control is relaxed.
“I sense that not many of those who favor gun rights as a crime deterrent have thought this through much. They probably assume that once criminals run out of unarmed locales to exploit, they’ll just be forced to give up crime and get a real job.”
Joshua
Huh?
I instead sense you just don’t like self-defense – you know, such as in the case where you or your children are about to be killed. I personally know two women who have saved themselves by “carrying”. Would you even defend your children with a club?
“And we will be forced to adapt in turn, and come up with counter-countermeasures. And on and on and on.”
I also sense you just don’t like life very much or having to defend it and evolve/adapt to the threats from those who are evil.
Bend over and get used to it, Joshua, while the rest of us will confront reality, and will not surrender to threats as a self-fullfilling, defeatist world-view, hopelessly in fear that somehow these threats will magically disappear – and/or that we are somehow causing them by responding to them.
It is you who has not thought your own life and self through. You certainly don’t seem to give it much value.
I have thought it out.
In the real world, it *does* have a real effect on violent crime. Criminals do not like to die any more than you do and other than psychopaths their intent isn’t to harm (and those people will not be deterred by anything other than death or immobility – more on that later).
What happens in areas where criminals know people are armed is that they generally seek out crimes not involving those people. They either go to places where they know they will not be armed or seek out crime where people are not home. Burglary rates rarely change, however burglary while people are home (and the harm that tends to occur in those instances) does.
Things like rape, school shootings, people who torture, serial killers, and other things where self preservation or ease of making a living are not the motivating factors change little. What *does* change is the scope that happens.
A few years ago a local private college had a “school shooting” – fellow brandished the gun, said he was going to kill everyone (had already killed a person or two off campus), and then was shot to death by the students. Unlike this story it didn’t make the national news, in fact barely made the local news (it was a few counties over in another news district).
Not only that, but we have had several great experiments where countries tried the whole getting rid of arms (and note, I include WAY more than guns) and they didn’t work out too well. In fact, tended to increase crime pretty much across the board.
Of course, you are welcome to your ideas – it is why I like states rights. I live in an area that likes out rights and our govt not repressing them – obviously you do not. You are free to go live in a place known for not having guns and being safe – I’ll stay here. Please do not force me to live the way I do not want too, I will not force you to do the same. If you really want to put a sign (or law) in front of your house/area that says “people inside are not armed and can not defend them selfs” then go ahead if it makes you feel better.
If Virginia Tech didn’t have rules against people with gun permits actually carrying, this situation might have been mitigated.
Part of Texas monthly article I’ve had for awhile.
“IT SEEMED LIKE EVERY OTHER GUY HAD A RIFLE.”
Students waited and waited for the police to arrive. The shootings would spur the creation of SWAT teams across the country, but at that time, the Austin Police Department had no tactical unit to deploy. Its officers had only service revolvers and shotguns, which were useless against a sniper whose perch was hundreds of yards away. Communication with headquarters was difficult, with few handheld radios, and the phone system was jammed across the city. Some officers went home to get their rifles; others directed traffic away from campus. In the absence of any visible police presence, students decided to defend themselves.
JAMES DAMON was a graduate student in comparative literature. A retired real estate investor, he lives in Austin.
My wife was six months pregnant, and she was stuck on the fourth floor of the Tower, in the stacks. I looked around and didn’t see any police, so I went home and got my gun. It was an M1 carbine, which I’d bought for $15 when I was discharged from the Army. I went to the top of the new Academic Center and tried to keep out of sight. That was the closest I could get. I only saw him once, long enough to take aim, but from time to time I would shoot over the ledge of the observation deck and try to hit him.
CLIF DRUMMOND was a senior and the student body president. He is a high-tech executive in Austin.
Students with deer rifles were leaning up against telephone poles, using the pole, which is rather narrow, as their shield. And they were firing like crazy back at the Tower.
FORREST PREECE was a junior. A retired advertising executive, he lives in Austin.
I saw two guys in white shirts and slacks running across the lawn of the Pi Phi house, hustling up to its porch with rifles at the ready. Someone was yelling, “Keep down, man. Keep down!”
BRENDA BELL: I don’t know where these vigilantes came from, but they took over Parlin Hall and were crashing around, firing guns. There was massive testosterone.
J. M. COETZEE was a Ph.D. candidate in English literature and linguistics. A novelist who won the 2003 Nobel Prize for literature, he lives in Adelaide, Australia.
I hadn’t fully comprehended that lots of people around me in Austin not only owned guns but had them close at hand and regarded themselves as free to use them.
BILL HELMER: I remember thinking, “All we need is a bunch of idiots running around with rifles.” But what they did turned out to be brilliant. Once he could no longer lean over the edge and fire, he was much more limited in what he could do. He had to shoot through those drain spouts, or he had to pop up real fast and then dive down again. That’s why he did most of his damage in the first twenty minutes.
JOHN PIPKIN: I’d left Scholz’s and was sitting across the street from the Chi Omega house when this Texas Ranger walked up carrying a pair of binoculars and a rifle with a scope on it. For some reason, he picked me out of the group of kids sitting on the curb. He said, “Son, you ever done any hunting?” And I said, “Yes, sir, I’ve been hunting all my life.” He said, “Well, take these binoculars. I need for you to calibrate me.” And I said, “Okay.” Whitman would stick his rifle out through one of these drainpipes on the observation deck every once in a while and shoot at someone. The ranger would shoot back, and I’d say, “You’re an inch too high,” or “Bring it over to the left a couple inches.”
BILL HELMER: A friend of mine was glued to the TV at the San Jacinto Cafe, near campus, when a guy with a deer rifle ran in, grabbed a six-pack of beer, and ran back out.
ANN MAJOR: It seemed like every other guy had a rifle. There was a sort of cowboy atmosphere, this “Let’s get him” spirit.
JOHN PIPKIN: I was looking through the binoculars when all of a sudden I thought to myself, “Gosh, he’s pointing that rifle at me.” It was like I could see up inside the barrel of the rifle, from four hundred yards away. The next thing I knew, I could feel bullets grazing the top of the hair on my head. The ranger said, “Boy, we got his attention now.” I was absolutely terrified. I dropped the binoculars and scrambled around behind a tree, and then a car. I sat there and panted, thinking how close I’d come to being shot. The ranger said, “You okay, son?” I said, “I guess. I’m alive.” He said, “Yeah, that was pretty close.” And I said, “Yes, sir, it was too close. I think I’m done with my spotting.”
neo: … much as one would sometimes like to turn back the clock on certain societal trends, it’s difficult if not impossible.
I’m talking in this instance about the futility and impotence of most forms of gun control.
This is one of those rare themes on which you seem sadly confused, neo. Again, no one is talking about inventing a political time machine that would return us all to some imaginary golden age in the past — all the more ridiculous if the fantasy involves some nonexistent era of “gun control”.
On the other hand, you may well be right that the themes of what used to be called “sexual permissiveness” and the rise of random violence in society are linked, even if not in the way you state. There may be, as social conservatives have long been saying, consequences to the erosion of moral prohibitions within a culture — the increased display both sex and violence, for example — that result in a gradual loss of social order, and at the margins, a steady increase in the quantity and extremity of crime. I’m not such a conservative myself, and I find such conclusions disturbing – I’m not sure such a breakdown of social order is actually happening, in any case. But I do share a revulsion at some of the coarseness and casual brutality of contemporary media, and I wouldn’t be nearly so quick to caricature such concerns as vainly trying to “turn back the clock”. We can learn from the past even if we can’t repeat it.
A little more of the article
RAMIRO MARTINEZ was a patrolman for the Austin Police Department. A retired Texas Ranger, he lives in New Braunfels.
When I reached the South Mall, I could see people hiding behind trees and hedges. There were wounded people, dead people, people whose conditions I did not know lying on the sidewalk. There was a pregnant woman who was twisting, wilting, in the hot sun. I ran as fast as I could, zigzagging toward the Tower, and somehow made it without getting shot.
A security guard was sitting inside, and I asked if I could borrow his handheld radio. I tried all the channels, but I couldn’t make contact with the department. I tried the phone, but the lines were jammed; all I got was a busy signal. At that point, I decided that I needed to get upstairs. My training in the Army had taught me that when you encounter a situation like this, you establish a command post right away. Then you organize an assault team. I figured I just needed to get upstairs and find out what the game plan was.
I got on the elevator and pressed the button for the twenty-seventh floor. By that time I was starting to feel pretty uneasy, because I wasn’t seeing any other officers. As a Catholic, I was taught to ask the good Lord for forgiveness if I thought my life might be in danger. And so as I was going up in the elevator, watching those little numbers light up, I decided to say an Act of Contrition. Then I pulled out my .38 and pointed it at the elevator doors. I didn’t know what I was going to find when I got to the top of the Tower.
When the elevator doors opened, police officer Jerry Day and a civilian named Allen Crum were facing me holding a pistol and a rifle. We all let out huge sighs of relief the moment we saw each other. An officer with the Department of Public Safety’s intelligence section was sitting at a desk, dialing, trying to establish communications. The man next to him was drawing a map of the observation deck–and that was it. I couldn’t believe it. There was no game plan. We were the whole enchilada.
I decided to secure the floor, and I had started opening doors when I saw a very distraught middle-aged man holding a pair of white women’s shoes with blood on them. I didn’t know this at the time, but he was M. J. Gabour [Michael’s father]. He said, “The son of a bitch killed my family up there. Let me have your gun and I’ll go kill him.” He tried to grab my gun away from me, so Jerry Day and I had to restrain him. We wrestled him into the elevator, and Day took him downstairs. We couldn’t afford to have any distractions.
Finally, I opened the door that led up to the observation deck. There were bloody footprints on the stairs. Knowing I had to walk up those steps was a lonely feeling. Allen Crum said, “Where are you going?” I said, “Up.” He said, “Well, I’m coming with you.” I didn’t realize until a little while later, when he asked me to deputize him, that he wasn’t a police officer, but as far as I was concerned, he had more than passed the test, and I was glad to have him with me. To say I wasn’t scared would make me either a liar or a fool.
When we reached the first landing, I could see the face of a young boy. His eyes were open, looking at me, and he was dead. I advanced toward him, hugging the wall. It seemed like an eternity to get to him. I quickly looked around the corner and saw a dead woman lying at his feet. Another woman was lying there, and we turned her on her side to keep her from drowning in her own blood. There was a wounded young man who was slumped against a wall, still conscious. He said, “He’s outside,” and pointed upstairs.
The shooting outside sounded just like rolling thunder, and the reports of the guns down below were echoing back and forth off of the buildings. I couldn’t see the sniper, so I slowly opened the glass door, a little at a time, and stepped outside. There were shell casings everywhere. Crum kept me covered while I looked around the southeast corner, but the sniper was not in sight. I told Crum to remain in his position while I went to the northeast corner. I kept down, because the bullets that civilians were firing from down below kept hitting the limestone and showering dust and little pieces of rock.
Before I reached the northeast corner, I turned and saw an officer I knew, Houston McCoy, standing behind me with a shotgun. All I had was my .38, so that shotgun looked pretty beautiful at that moment. I advanced to the northeast corner, looked around it, and that’s when I saw the sniper. He was sitting about forty feet away with an M1 carbine, and he looked like he had a target in his sights. I immediately fired a round at him and hit him somewhere on his left side. He leapt to his feet and started to turn around, trying to bring his rifle down to return fire. I emptied my gun. I hollered at McCoy to fire, which he did, hitting him. The sniper started going down, and that’s when I reached up–my gun was empty–and grabbed the shotgun from McCoy. I blasted him one more time as he was falling. And then it was over. He was flat on his back, and I knew he was dead.
I don’t have time to go find a link this morning but with a little googling it won’t be hard. There have been numerous studies done that show a rather dramatic DECREASE in the amount of voilent crime in counties/cities that have passed CC laws. Criminals have been shown to be more than a little hesitant to pull out a gun or knife when they have no way of knowing who around them might just pull out a bigger one. I say again, due to their strict regulations there was NO ONE yesterday able to stop and/or defend against this shooter. The lack of legally armed citizens did not do one thing to help ‘protect’ them, and doubtless contributed to the terribly high death toll.
J. Peden: I instead sense you just don’t like self-defense – you know, such as in the case where you or your children are about to be killed. I personally know two women who have saved themselves by “carrying”. Would you even defend your children with a club?
Wow, talk about swinging and completely missing my point. Strike one. OldManRick and strcpy are at least trying to actually respond to my argument instead of making some ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the particulars of my argument.
Regarding OldManRick’s response, he is looking at crime in terms of economics. I’m looking at it as something akin to an endless game of insurgency and counter-insurgency. Crime is nothing if not an act of micro-war.
As for strcpy, he is still proceeding from the assumption that there are still easily distinguishable “easy” and “hard” targets out there. That’s still true today, when not enough Americans are armed to change that perception. I am specifically interested in what happens when everyone becomes a “hard” target.
J. Peden (again): I also sense you just don’t like life very much or having to defend it and evolve/adapt to the threats from those who are evil.
What good is living if you are in a siege mentality 24/7/365? Maybe my problem is that I like life too much to adopt that mindset. In either case, strike two.
J. Peden (again): Bend over and get used to it, Joshua, while the rest of us will confront reality, and will not surrender to threats as a self-fullfilling, defeatist world-view, hopelessly in fear that somehow these threats will magically disappear – and/or that we are somehow causing them by responding to them.
As I alluded to above, the parallels with the “war on terror” and Iraq are not lost on me. My problem is that too many people think of a well-armed populace as a panacea against crime, as though that’s the end of the story. You’re at least acknowledging that that’s not the case, though you’re overstating your point a bit. Foul ball.
J. Peden (again): It is you who has not thought your own life and self through. You certainly don’t seem to give it much value.
Ad hominem again… another swing and a miss. Strike three, J. Peden. Back to the bench.
As I alluded to above, the parallels with the “war on terror” and Iraq are not lost on me. My problem is that too many people think of a well-armed populace as a panacea against crime, as though that’s the end of the story. You’re at least acknowledging that that’s not the case, though you’re overstating your point a bit. Foul ball.
The well armed tribes of Al Anbar sure seem to be decreasing crime by killing boatloads of terrorists.
It strikes me that if 30 people had died in Va. in a terrorist bombing, there would be a lot more respectful talk in this group about the victims, rather than blaming the survivors for not going all Chuck Norris on the guy.
And I’m sure there would be no end to the Constitutional rights you would be willing to suspend in order to help the government “end” terrorism.
Yet because it was a nut with a firearm the reaction is basically, “Eh. 2nd Amendment, whaddaya gonna do? Blame the liberal’s and their restrictive gun laws.”
Thanks, Neo.
We can now effectively reveal that you never were a liberal in the first place.
“Guns shouldn’t be banned” How telling the second thing of your mouth(or typed by your fingers) is a arch-typical rightwing commandment.
What a fraud…
“Thanks, Neo.
We can now effectively reveal that you never were a liberal in the first place.
“Guns shouldn’t be banned” How telling the second thing of your mouth(or typed by your fingers) is a arch-typical rightwing commandment.
What a fraud…”
TC:
Really, you should alter your style.
The ellipsis gives you away….
I’m not trying to alter my style – hence the “Fomerly”.
For some strange reason I’ve been unable to post as of late under my regular handle…
I’ve not heard anything from Neo whether I”ve been banned so…
That could change after the above, however….
joshua – I’m looking at it as something akin to an endless game of insurgency and counter-insurgency. Crime is nothing if not an act of micro-war.
Then, I respectfully submit that you are using the wrong model.
The goal of insurgency is political control. To achieve this goal, they use the classical means of “kill people and break things”. Because of this, they adapt in the direction of more violent and more deadly attacks. Their adaptations focus on what gets them “better” press towards their goals. Iraq, as you allude to, is a perfect example of this. With bigger and “better” the attacks, they get more press, they intimidate the population more, and they see themselves closer to their goal. To go with this, an insurgency has organized training, members willing to die for the cause, and a hierarchy of position from leaders who hope to take over after the war to foot soldiers who fight because of their belief in the cause. For an insurgency, the goal makes them commit or all or nothing. There is no reward in de-escalation.
The goal of the average criminal is to get some personal reward for some minimal effort. Their means are focused on minimal risk to self and maximum profit. They will adapt, but as we have already seen from areas where concealed carry is allowed, the adaptations are more passive. They look for softer targets. They take longer to plan a crime. When the risk goes up everywhere, the marginal criminals will follow the supply and demand curve and quit the business. Criminals are not that ready to die for the cause of crime. Their goal is personal reward and the escalation of force is counter productive to their goal.
I will grant that gang activity may look more like an insurgency but even gang activity will follow the criminal model. Escalation of gang activity leads to escalation of counter measures. The usual gang response is to lay low and try to reduce their profile not to go all out and try to defeat the police. The gang goal is niche control, not total control, escalation threatens their niche.
My problem is that too many people think of a well-armed populace as a panacea against crime, as though that’s the end of the story.
Nothing is a total panacea against crime. An armed population is not the end of the story. There are no single point solutions for all situations. But, the sweet spot on the supply and demand curve for crime is not where we totally disarm responsible individuals. When the criminal perception is that every body is a possible hard target, their individual risk reward trade changes and some —not all – modify their behavior. We see the modification of behavior in wrong direction for burglaries when areas are made gun free. When those, who don’t modify their behavior, encounter a trained armed citizen, the chance that their criminal career ends is higher. When the serial rapist or spree shooter is involved, there is a distinct potential for saving innocent lives.
“Dave Moelling Said:
…I intend to take the opportunity to tell my 15 year old daughter who is going away to a summer session at University, that she is responsible for her own safety and that if there is no option to flee then she must defend herself and others by whatever means possible. It is not only the best chance to survive, but the only honorable one…”
Then Dave it is your responsibility to provide those skills and tools to perform that self defense. Not just grant permission.
Check out local martial art and self defense classes, check out Kimber for pepperspray self defense items. Teach how to not be paranoid but to be aware of whats going on around her. Teach her to occasionally envision a “strategy” especially when her environment “doesnt feel right” even in the slightest. A womans instincts are phenomenal when they are used with control.
Because of these things my daughters live and play with confidence and I sleep better at night.
That is your responsiblity as a Father…My congrats If you have already done so.
MBeamer, totally agree with you on the self defense angle. My 7 year old grand daughter now has her first Black Belt in Karate. She began when she was 4. And had a whale of an excellent ‘master’. The first thing they taught the little ones was how to break out of a wrist hold. And subdued but strong emphasis on stranger danger and awareness. Last year he pulled me aside at the start of a lesson and told me to pretend to go to the bathroom at a certain point, out of her line of sight, which I did. A man she had never seen suddenly ran into the room, stepped onto the mat and grabbed her and started to the door. That child began screaming, kicking, throwing eye jabs and aiming for the crotch like a young tiger. Any fears I had nursed about this not being a ‘correct’ activity for her flew right out the window. Very young children can be taught to be aware, to not be victims, to defend themselves if you will. It doesn’t take a weapon per se to raise one’s level of self confidence and feelings of security. But it is something which must be taught. I now urge all my friends to give their kids and grand kids some sort of self defensive training….oh, and like you, I too sleep better at night.
guncite.comFor your consideration:
“Gun control in Japan is the most stringent in the democratic world.” –http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
…and this…
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070417/D8OIHNT80.html
VT was “gun-free” too. Just sayin….
The only people that play the blame game, are folks like you, Unk. You really need to stop projecting your personal flaws on other people.
From your first link:
“Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.
Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.
The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.”
And from your second:
“The shooting was rare in a country where handguns are strictly banned and only four politicians are known to have been killed since World War II.”
“Organized crime groups are behind most shootings in Japan, with two-thirds of the country’s 53 known shootings last year being gang-related, according to the National Police Agency.”
Yes, UB, you’re right…but Mayor Ito is still dead. And all the gun control in the world wouldn’t have stopped it or the tragedy at Virginia Tech.
The problem is people, not guns.
I think the problem is really a little of both – people with guns, perhaps? 🙂
Is there any doubt that if Japan had our handgun laws, and our handguns per capita, there would have been only 53 shootings in the whole country last year? That’s apparently not even deaths, just shootings.
In the US we average over 1,000 deaths per year by firearms just by accident.
We also have laws against certain drugs.
Britain, with its draconian laws, is flooded with guns, in the hands of the criminals. And, as one poster said, the UK is an island.
The war model for crime is wrong. Nationstates at war generally have convinced their soldiers that the outcome of the battle is more important than their lives. See V. Hanson on the subject. Criminals will not take a lethal risk to rob somebody when the result will be that they will not enjoy their gains, if there are gains which there probably are not if the perps die in the process. But soldiers make a calculated judgment–in battle, or in deciding to enlist–that a certain level of risk is justified and their gain will be a gain even if they die in its pursuit.
The economic model fits the issue of crime much better.
Japan is a strange culture. We’d have violent knifings–Britain is looking at knife control–or something else.
Somebody has lined up mass murders committed without guns, arson of a nightclub, for example, and made the point that they don’t get near the ink that incidents with far fewer deaths get if the incidents involve firearms.
“As for strcpy, he is still proceeding from the assumption that there are still easily distinguishable “easy” and “hard” targets out there. That’s still true today, when not enough Americans are armed to change that perception. I am specifically interested in what happens when everyone becomes a “hard” target.”
That’s silly – there will never be a case where everyone is a “hard” target (to use your phrasing). There are people who are incapable of doing it and many many who choose not too. It not a very useful thing to worry over, what if everyone all flushed their toilets at the same time? Does it matter – not anymore than “what if everyone was armed”. Having police at every corner keeping track of all movement including surveillance in our home, however that has nothing to do with the way our current police force acts and should be run, nor does not negate the need for their presence. And like worry what happens if everyone is armed it isn’t something that is going to occur so no real need to worry over it.
You can create a hypothetical situation where *anything* is bad, at one time we didn’t know how many would take the permits, how many would carry, and how they would react. There are decades of history with the laws now and those questions are answered – I’ve had mine now for 15 years and I wasn’t in the first group to get them nor were we the first state. None of those problems have occurred, so we can now move from anecdotal to real world evidence and the real world agrees with my take on it. The only thing left is hypothetical “what if’s” that completely contradict every single case it has been done, if that is all you can come up with as to why it is bad you *really* need to step back and review why you hold that belief.
On to someone else:
“It strikes me that if 30 people had died in Va. in a terrorist bombing, there would be a lot more respectful talk in this group about the victims, rather than blaming the survivors for not going all Chuck Norris on the guy.”
Yea, that’s what we are all doing – “its the victims fault!!!!lol!!!111!!!”. Way to go with the straw man.
You will note that I generally hold the same ideas for the 9/11 attacks – give the passengers the ability to stop a hijacking and I bet they will stop it. Imagine if the flight 93 people had more than just bum rushing the guys – they may still be alive. Please try and argue against what we are saying, not what you really want us to say.
The Unknown Blogger Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I think the problem is really a little of both – people with guns, perhaps? 🙂
Is there any doubt that if Japan had our handgun laws, and our handguns per capita, there would have been only 53 shootings in the whole country last year? That’s apparently not even deaths, just shootings.
Japan still had hara kiri incidents just a few decades ago. They get to channel a lot of their aggression into their economy, because America takes care of their strategic defense for them. Would have been, should have been. Your hypothetical made thing scenarios are as about as interesting as your attempts at smoke and mirrors.
The Reich Wing answer to all questions: More Jesus, More guns!
Realists prefer an imperfect soloution that can be implemented, over a perfect solution that is impossible.
Gun control only works if you can somehow eliminate not only all guns, but all ability to build guns and ammunition, from the entire population of the world. It simply will not work; that technological genie left its bottle centuries ago, and only genocide on a scale Stalin could only dream of could put it back in.
The imperfect, realistic solution is the Second Amendment. There will still be gun violence, but those who initiate it will seldom kill more than a few people before they are shot down themselves.
“only 53 shootings in the whole country last year?”
And those 53 folks are sure glad the Japanese gun laws protected them so well!!
Again…people who want to will find a way to get a killing instrument, whether it’s a knife, a strangling cord, or bare hands. You aren’t banning automobiles, and they kill 53,000 people a year in the US. Shall we ban alcohol again? It’s responsible for a lot of death and destruction. I wouldn’t mind, I don’t drink that much…but it worked out well the last time, didn’t it?
The problem is PEOPLE.
strcpy wrote:
“Way to go with the straw man…Please try and argue against what we are saying, not what you really want us to say.”
Strcpy, sorry to confuse you, but that wasn’t an argument (much less a “straw man”), merely an observation. See comment number 2, above, by Dave Moelling:
“I wonder if we will find there was the usual degree of passivity in the classrooms the gunman attacked. That is a class of 20-30 people hiding under desks. I intend to…tell my 15 year old daughter…that she is responsible for her own safety and that if there is no option to flee then she must defend herself and others by whatever means possible. It is not only the best chance to survive, but the only honorable one.
Later, harry replied:
“They were shot as if just waiting for their turn. As if self preservation was not an option.”
“Hiding under their desks.” “Dishonorable.” “No sense of self-preservation.” Did we hear anyone shame the passengers on the other planes on 9-11 for “just sitting in their seats”? That’s my point.
I also made the point that this group seems quite willing to hand over many constitutional rights to the government for the sake of the war on terror, but to infringe on the 2nd amendment in any way to prevent gun violence is out of the question.
Lifetime odds of an American dying from assualt by firearm: 1 in 314
Lifetime odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 88,000.
strcpy again:
“And those 53 folks are sure glad the Japanese gun laws protected them so well!!”
Probably about as happy as the 90 Americans who die from guns per day are that we have the NRA.
“The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.”
And what is the ratio of Negroes in New York to this in Tokyo? I would say, comparable.
Before any idiot tried to accuse me in racism, I explain: Japan is Japan, America is America. These populations are totally uncomparable – other race, culture, history and so on. What works in Japan will never work in America. It is impossible to disarm US, no gun control laws can accomplish it. So the only realistic policy is to adapt to this fact, and no-gun zones are clearly is a poor policy. It will attract criminals and psychos, embolden them, and deny law-abiding citizens tools of self-defence. Much better to have some Minitmen groups from students at the campus, armed and trained. It also will be some safeguard against possible terroristic attacks, like Beslan. Al-Qaeda already planning attacks on schools and colleges, and only organized armed civil defence can stop them.
“Probably about as happy as the 90 Americans who die from guns per day are that we have the NRA.”
Oooh…that’s a pretty suspect statistic. Where did you get it?
…and strcpy should not be tarred with my brush.
“Probably about as happy as the 90 Americans who die from guns per day are that we have the NRA.”
What pecent of these 90 Americans are attempted robbers, rapists, victims of inter-gang violence and other criminals, deserved to be killed? May be, a bigger number would be an improvement?
UB:
A little tricky, there, aren’t we, with statistics? Did you mean to confuse us all with this one:
“Suicide 16,869”
Do you seriously believe that those suicides would be alive today if guns weren’t around? Wouldn’t they have found something else, like a car, pills, jumping off a bridge, slitting the wrist, etc.?
And how about the 732 from “legal intervention,” as in criminals being shot? The actual “homicide” rate is around 12,000…still awful at 33 per day, but a lot of that is criminal on criminal, you know, gang stuff…
All of this is still less than the 145 per day killed in automobiles (almost as many as in 10 years of Vietnam, by the way…) and you’re not seriously suggesting banning automobiles, are you?
…and while we’re at it, let’s ban cancer!! It kills over 1500 per day in the US alone!
That’d be about as easy as getting rid of guns and autos….
vpc.orgOops, sorry about that Stumb.
The link is here. Apparently that inlcudes suicides, so if we just include deaths from homicide and accidents the number is about 35 a day.
Sergey, point taken, we don’t have to pick Japan, I was just quoting from the link I got.
But if we accept that the US has a more violent culture in general, how much sense does it make to allow people to walk around with concealed weapons? How do we know that only “the good guys” will do that? I doubt that homicidal (and suicidal) lunatics be deterred from shooting sprees after thinking that there may be someone packing on campus.
Yet it seems to me very likely that we would see many more cases of arguments escalating to gunfights, outweighing any deterrent benefit.
Apparently 48 states already have some form of concealed carry laws. These types of sprees seem to happen all too often, yet I dont recall any that have been stopped by a civilian. Anyone have any links?
Also I was wondering: Let’s say that someone does avail themselves of the CC law and intervenes with their gun to stop one of these incidents. In the process, they also kill a bystander. Can anyone point me to sources which tell how the legal system would handle that? Would they be facing a manslaughter charge?
relax Stumb, I’m not trying to confuse anyone, and I’m not trying to “ban handguns” either.
cbsnews.comUB:
Perhaps not precisely what you were looking for, as the individual was an off-duty policeman, but for all intents and purposes, being off-duty made him a “civilian”..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml
Realize also that in those states that have CC laws, permittees must pass training classes on how to shoot. That might result in fewer “innocent bystander” incidents than you envision. Even so, police have had such things happen as well.
Research has shown that criminals are deterred not by the severity of punishment, but by the certainty of punishment; that is, I won’t rob you if I know I’ll be caught and imprisoned. If criminals are uncertain that their acts will go unchallenged, i.e., if the certainty of their crime is not assured, they’ll be less likely to commit it. If they don’t know who’s packin’, they’re more likely to avoid the kind of public spree that you’re so worried about.
There will always be loonies. There will always be loonies who are capable of acquiring the means to kill. Depriving law-abiding citizens of the ability to counter such loonies is making them less safe, not more.
I actually used to be a gun-control advocate. I didn’t like them, saw no reason to have one, and thought getting rid of them was a good idea…until I realized that doing so just made the law-abiding citizen an easier target for the criminal.
Thanks for the link. It’s incredible that I don’t even remember hearing about this one. I guess this would count, but I have doubts that your average CC-er (?) is going to be as well trained as a police officer.
“If they don’t know who’s packin’, they’re more likely to avoid the kind of public spree that you’re so worried about.”
I’m not so sure about that. I imagine Utah must have some pretty liberal gun laws, but that didn’t seem to stop Sulejmen Talovic.
By the way, it’s not that I’m “so worried” about these things, it’s just a slow day at work…
“CC-er (?)”
Concealed Carrier
And as for gun laws “stopping” anybody…that’s the point–they don’t. DC had the most stringent gun laws in the country, and it still had some of the worst gun violence of any city. Even if we succeeded in banning guns in the US entirely, how hard would it be to get one in Mexico?
That old cliché, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is really true.
I know CC-er means “concealed carrier,” I was just questioning my rendering of it.
I also meant “liberal” gun laws in the classic sense of “Laissez-faire” liberal.
Pingback:Best Running Shoes High Arch
accessory jeep xj