Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Great, let's start the arm waving and hysterics; let's rush to sue...sue SOMEONE, for god's sake, because...well, that's just the American way! After all...it ain't the SHOOTERS fault....so it must be the University's fault! Someone's at fault! Someone must pay!

Hey, why not a class-action lawsuit against the gun makers? Or, perhaps, the parents who gave birth to the shooter? Or the girlfriend who jilted him? There's lots of people to sue...so sue them all!

As many folks have pointed out...a college campus teaming with armed, hungover college students isn't necessarily a safer campus. For a multitude of reasons.

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 07:04 AM

No, the manufacturers of the guns are not at fault, nor are the parents of the shooter (unless they aided and abetted the actual crime). The people at fault are the people who willfully disarmed those on campus who were legally entitled to carry firearms, and could have used them to minimize the carnage had they been allowed to have them on campus, all in the name of making people "feel" safe. Apparently, feelings are more important than reality to some people.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 17, 2007 07:07 AM

"a college campus teaming with armed, hungover college students isn't necessarily a safer campus. For a multitude of reasons."

No one is proposing to arm the campus with drunken strawmwen as you suggest.

Considering how much better behaved the CC-W community is than the general population, your argument does not hold much merit. You are projecting, you have no data to back up your assertion.

We have tried it your way, it did not work. We need more sheepdogs to protect the flock.

Rand, its VPI.

Perhaps you could contact Chris Hall. I am hoping he is ok.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 17, 2007 07:08 AM

To add:

These were engineering students, one of the campus demographics most likely to possess the acumen, money and desire to obtain a CC-W permit.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 17, 2007 07:10 AM

Saw this at Clayton Cramer's blog and thought it relevant ...

"[I]f someone commits mass murder with a weapon other than a gun, the national news media usually ignore it. For example, Hector Escudero started a fire in Puerto Rico in December 1987 as part of labor union activism, and killed 96 people. Julio Gonzalez threw $1 worth of gasoline into an illegal night club in New York City in April 1990 to get back at his girlfriend, and killed 87 people. These stories received almost no national news coverage at the time--while mass murders that were substantially smaller received vastly more coverage."

Don't see calls to license the purchase of gasoline, do you?

Posted by RKV at April 17, 2007 07:26 AM

Nonsense. As I and another poster pointed out in another thread (he did a much bettter job), an armed response to this incident by the students is an even worse catastrophe waiting to happen. A bunch of scared students with guns, trying to identify the shooter...or shooters. Any other person with a gun is the possible shooter, and so just to be safe, since you don't know who it is, you better take them out. Now, you've got people shooting at each other. Then the cops show up. Who is the shooter? EVERYONE is at risk.

"No one is proposing to arm the campus with drunken strawmwen as you suggest."

I throw the bullsh$t flag. YOU are proposing to arm the campus. Students are on campus. Students, like all college students everywhere, drink and do stupid things. Younger students in particular are no more responsible than any other subset of the population.

"Considering how much better behaved the CC-W community is than the general population, your argument does not hold much merit."

Since you are debating "data," can I have a cite for this, please? You know, a cite that isn't produced by the NRA?

"These were engineering students, one of the campus demographics most likely to possess the acumen, money and desire to obtain a CC-W permit."

Err, none of which is remotely relevant to the discipline to carry or use responsibly. "Acumen" notwithstanding. And since when did it cost more to be an engineering student than an English major at the same university? Maybe it's changed, but it certainly didn't when I was at university.

"We have tried it your way, it did not work. We need more sheepdogs to protect the flock."

Really? When? And since the Second Amendment guarantees your right to own a weapon, and it seems like a majority of Americans choose not to carry ( I live in Texas, and no one "I" know does...and a vast majority of my friends are engineers...that's just an aside), why are there fewer incidents of either armed violence, or defense, in my community? I'll tell you why: there are no, or very few weapons, and there are no, or very few problems. Is there a correlation there, or is it just coincidence?

Caveat: sh$t happens, unfortunately, like it did yesterday. However, I'm not convinced that a group of armed students, without the hindsight to know there was only one shooter, and not knowing who it was, would have made it a better outcome.

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 07:36 AM

"Since you are debating "data," can I have a cite for this, please? You know, a cite that isn't produced by the NRA?"

What is wrong with the NRA? Their data is quite good and sourced and cross referenced. If they are putting out false data, please cite it yourself. But I will give you some non-NRA data later when I have time.

"Really? When? And since the Second Amendment guarantees your right to own a weapon, and it seems like a majority of Americans choose not to carry ( I live in Texas, and no one "I" know does...and a vast majority of my friends are engineers...that's just an aside), why are there fewer incidents of either armed violence, or defense, in my community? I'll tell you why: there are no, or very few weapons, and there are no, or very few problems. Is there a correlation there, or is it just coincidence? "

I live in West Virginia. We are amred to the teeth, have one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of violence in the Country. Is there a correlation there, or is it just coincidence?

"I throw the bullsh$t flag. YOU are proposing to arm the campus. Students are on campus. Students, like all college students everywhere, drink and do stupid things. Younger students in particular are no more responsible than any other subset of the population."

I throw your strawman back at you covered in yourt bullshit. I nowhere proposed to arm the entire campus. I proposed to arm a select subset of the campus.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 17, 2007 07:45 AM

You probably also don't know anybody who voted for Bushitler.

I know plenty of people who have guns. Heck, I grew up with loaded rifles in my house. Guns aren't some magic sentient monsters.

Note what happened at UT a few decades ago in one of the previously "worst" shootings. Shooter gets in a good sniper position, starts killing people... so armed civilians start shooting back, keeping him under covering fire while cops and another civilian go up after him. One student or teacher with a gun could have made a lot of difference here.

And please spare me the "drunk, hungover student with a gun" thing. These are not children. Others younger than them are carrying fully automatic weapons while being shot at most days, while surrounded by innocents.

Posted by Big D at April 17, 2007 07:54 AM

"I live in West Virginia. We are amred to the teeth, have one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of violence in the Country. Is there a correlation there, or is it just coincidence?"

You're also below the US average in population density. Which is probablky a factor, since proximity seems to correlate with tension (big cities have more crime than rural areas). So, we have two opposite scenarios, mine (fewer weapons, fewer incidents), and yours (more weapons, fewer incidents). Which correlation can definitively be attributed to arming the population? If yoit can't be determined, then your argument doesn't necessarily hold water.

"I throw your strawman back at you covered in yourt bullshit. I nowhere proposed to arm the entire campus. I proposed to arm a select subset of the campus."

That's a difference without a distinction, I'm afraid. If the shootings had been in the liberal arts building, would you still be advocating arming only your "responsible" subset of the campus?

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 08:01 AM

"You probably also don't know anybody who voted for Bushitler."

Actually, I did. A vote I regret, to this day.

"I know plenty of people who have guns. Heck, I grew up with loaded rifles in my house. Guns aren't some magic sentient monsters."

So did I. So what? Do you have a point?

"Note what happened at UT a few decades ago in one of the previously "worst" shootings. Shooter gets in a good sniper position, starts killing people... so armed civilians start shooting back, keeping him under covering fire while cops and another civilian go up after him. "

One, an English professor, I'll point out. How appropos. Apparently, that "covering fire" did nothing. Whitman continued to fire. People still got shot. The fact that he killed fewer people is likely attributable to Darwinism: people stopped making themselves targets.

"One student or teacher with a gun could have made a lot of difference here."

Agreed. ONE student, or ONE teacher with a weapon could have made a difference. A HUNDRED students or teachers with weapons would have been a disaster.

Posted by at April 17, 2007 08:12 AM

that was me, sorry

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 08:13 AM

It's obvious that all the gun laws in the universe won't stop this stuff.

This shooter was a legal, verified, alien student who was NOT supposed to have a gun. But he got one anyway. The only way to keep anyone from having a gun is to destroy them all, worldwide. Something tells me that the "troops" in Darfur and Chechnya are going to reject that idea. If there is even one gun left working, someone will sell it eventually and somebody else will use it to commit a murder.

Not to belittle this situation, but back in the 60's Archie Bunker had a great line about guns. When the daughter character said,

"...but daddy, do you know how many people were killed by guns last year?"

He simply said,

"Would it make you feel better little girl, if they was pushed out a window?"

RKV hit it on the head, you can't stop crazy people set on mass murder and destruction.

Posted by Steve at April 17, 2007 08:18 AM

I still wonder where people are getting the idea that allowing guns on campus would somehow mean that students would be walking around with them on their person or in every dorm room at their ready disposal. Most college campuses that allow their students to have guns require that they be locked up in an armory or safe controlled by campus security or their equivalent. If someone was drunk and wanted to get stupid with a gun that they owned, they would likely have a difficult time getting access to that weapon on a college campus.

So, yes, the idea that allowing guns on campus would lead to a swarming mass of drunken shootouts is a rather preposterous strawman.

Posted by John Breen III at April 17, 2007 08:29 AM

"It's pretty overwhelming in favor of the former at this point."

Talk about ludicrous, and coming from someone who purports to be a left-brained type of guy. You have two data points (that you've cited, anyway). And the evidence for your position is "overwhelming"? A grand total of ONE datapoint that supports your hypothesis that allowing weapons would have changed the outcome (after all, you don't know that to be the case for VTU)?

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 08:35 AM

"I still wonder where people are getting the idea that allowing guns on campus would somehow mean that students would be walking around with them on their person or in every dorm room at their ready disposal. "

And if they weren't readily available, then they'd be functionally useless in the scenario we're talking about.

"Most college campuses that allow their students to have guns require that they be locked up in an armory or safe controlled by campus security or their equivalent."

And you think, with an unquantifiable threat at hand, that campus security is suddenly going to unlock the armory?

"So, yes, the idea that allowing guns on campus would lead to a swarming mass of drunken shootouts is a rather preposterous strawman."

Of course, no one suggested that, but nice try.

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 08:42 AM

Andy - The ASL incident is the best, if not the only, datapoint available (the Whitman/UT shooting provides roughly similar data). It supports Rand's hypothesis. Where is the incident of students killing one another in crossfire that supports yours? If there is one, great. If not, then we have one side with a hypothesis and data and one side with a hypothesis.

Posted by Jay Manifold at April 17, 2007 08:51 AM

Not to mention the side that double-posts comments. My apologies.

Posted by Jay Manifold at April 17, 2007 08:52 AM

"Talk about ludicrous, and coming from someone who purports to be a left-brained type of guy. You have two data points (that you've cited, anyway). And the evidence for your position is "overwhelming"?"

Two more data points than your wild west strawman I might add.

I have yet to hear a single story of CC-W holders killing each other or innocent by-standers in a crossfire. This is a myth and a strawman. If you have data to back it up, I would like to see it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 17, 2007 08:57 AM

"Andy - The ASL incident is the best, if not the only, datapoint available (the Whitman/UT shooting provides roughly similar data). It supports Rand's hypothesis. Where is the incident of students killing one another in crossfire that supports yours? If there is one, great. If not, then we have one side with a hypothesis and data and one side with a hypothesis."

Jay, I would suggest that Rand is comparing apples and oranges. The ASL shooter wasn't suicidal. The VT shooter obviously was, and probably didn't care whether he was going to get shot. A student or teacher (or plural) with a gun MAY have mitigated the damage, but may have only contributed to it. We'll never know, and I don't believe a prediction can accurately be made that arming the students (or some subset) would have had a positive impact. It's my opinion. YMMV.

That said: we could debate this forever. I've said my piece, provide my opinion, and in the interests of Rand's bandwidth, everyone's sanity, and my need to actually do some of which I get paid to do, I'll throw in the towel. Not ceding the point, mind you, but merely moving on to the next jousting opportunity.

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 09:05 AM

And if they weren't readily available, then they'd be functionally useless in the scenario we're talking about.

See also: UT/Charles Whitman.

And you think, with an unquantifiable threat at hand, that campus security is suddenly going to unlock the armory?

I never suggested that security would just unlock the armory and start handing out guns. But the thought that there were weapons available on campus to defend the campus could very well have been a deterrent to such abhorrent behaviour as was displayed yesterday.

"So, yes, the idea that allowing guns on campus would lead to a swarming mass of drunken shootouts is a rather preposterous strawman."

Of course, no one suggested that, but nice try.

Actually, and I quote: "As many folks have pointed out...a college campus teaming with armed, hungover college students isn't necessarily a safer campus. For a multitude of reasons.

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 07:04 AM"

True, you used "teaming" instead of "teeming", so perhaps you didn't really say that, but reading past the grammar/spelling mistakes, you sure seemed to suggest that.

Posted by John Breen III at April 17, 2007 09:08 AM

I think the first basic step would be to have better doors on the classrooms. Bullet proof would be nice since some reports had the guy shooting through the doors and injuring people. Easily closed and lockable would also ber nice as other stories had teachers blocking the door to save students.

Yeah you've got fire risks and costs associated with better doors, and the shooter could have waited until class was out and everyone was in the hallway, still it's a problem that could be worked while the gun issue is debated.

Personally I'd try to get teachers to carry. I can't think of a teacher shooting up the place, and there is one in every classrooms. It's a start if you're gonna talk carry concealed permits. Oh, and I could be wrong but I think the Israeli's have done this with a nice track record.

Posted by rjschwarz at April 17, 2007 09:21 AM

[sigh] ok, promise temporarily suspended.

""So, yes, the idea that allowing guns on campus would lead to a swarming mass of drunken shootouts is a rather preposterous strawman."

Of course, no one suggested that, but nice try.

Actually, and I quote: "As many folks have pointed out...a college campus teaming with armed, hungover college students isn't necessarily a safer campus. For a multitude of reasons."

Big difference in the two statementa, typo notwithstanding. Reading comprehension, my friend!

Posted by Andy at April 17, 2007 09:32 AM

One thing to point out here, is that if we had a zillion untrained students with guns, yes, we would have a problem. I keep hearing comments like Andy's:

Any other person with a gun is the possible shooter, and so just to be safe, since you don't know who it is, you better take them out.

That is an untrained response. Police routine deal with situations where multiple people have guns and where the criminal(s) cannot be easily determined. Yet they do so without shooting everyone with a gun. My take is that you can train to deal with situations like this and it is reasonable to require such training as part of the responsibility of carrying guns in public places.

This seems a reasonable compromise between the sides in this debate. Even if only 1% of the university population were carrying a handgun, that still would have helped in the Virginia Tech situation.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 17, 2007 10:19 AM

What if a percentage x of a fully armed populace lost their cool very badly at the slightest affront? So much so that their impulse to destroy ran way with them? This may be related to the stress level in a populace or sub-populace. A peaceful Vermont town and a congested city or big city subrub would likely have quite different values for x.

Let us also state up front that our objective is to minimize the loss of life due to gun related events so we don't have any confusion about the goal.

With this here is Toast's Axiom 1:

If x is high, then restricting the availability of guns is good. Essentially what this is doing is restricting the "moment of rage" and "accidental use" events.

On the other hand if x is very low, then it is better to have an armed populace which would readily address the emergence of the rare event such as "premeditated mass murder"

In the intermediate range, we will all argue about which is better, which is probably where we are at the moment.

I think the low x case is where Mike and supporters are right.

In general though I would have to agree with Andy. Also I'd much rather live in Vermont, which would mean that by my (;-) axiom, I should be armed.

One could derive the result that a low population density is more likely to support gun rights from this axiom and the additional assumptions on how x varies with population density or stress in everyday life. So this is another reason to curb breeding like rabbits. Further a smaller population leads to more room for wildlife which allows the thorough testing of these weapons.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 17, 2007 01:23 PM

an armed response to this incident by the students is an even worse catastrophe waiting to happen.

Right, it hasn't happened. There is plenty of examples of the alternatives, both unarmed response that is a catastrophe and armed response that is not a catastrophe.

This is simple logic.

Posted by Leland at April 17, 2007 02:59 PM

I tried to send Rand an email, but it bounced. Anyhow, here's my canned email that I've been sending out today.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I have heard from many of you throughout the last 24 hours. I'm sure I speak for the entire department, when I say that we thank you for thinking of us and for your many thoughtful
notes. It means a lot to us.

As far as I know there were no casualties from the department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering. We won't really know that until the names are released though. My son is a sophomore in
Engineering Science and Mechanics, which is the department that occupies most of Norris Hall. He is safe, but his undergraduate research advisor was one of the fatalities.

The departments of Engineering Science and Mechanics and Civil and Environmental Engineering lost three good men, and there are several folks in the hospital. The three fallen professors are Liviu Lebrescu, Kevin Granata, and G.V. Loganathan.

Liviu was an internationally known mechanician and was teaching a junior-level course on Solid Mechanics yesterday morning in Norris Hall. I did not know him well, but occasionally chatted with him about his home country of Romania.

Kevin was a young professor with a young family. His field was biomechanics, and my oldest son chose to major in ESM because he wanted to work in Kevin's lab. My son, Duncan, a sophomore, has worked in Kevin's biomechanics lab for the past year. I thoroughly enjoyed Duncan's stories of how Professor Granata was teaching him how
to program non-linear controllers for inverted pendula. I know Duncan will miss those lessons, and we will both miss Kevin.

G.V. was an award-winning professor of environmental engineering, whose expertise was in water resources. Most recently he won the university's prestigious Wine Award for excellence in undergraduate teaching.

Again, I thank you all for your kind messages.
I will let you know more when I know more. Please feel free to forward this email to friends and colleagues.

Sincerely,
Chris Hall
Professor and Department Head
Aerospace and Ocean Engineering

ps. "non-linear" had to be hyphenated because without the hyphen it got snared by the spam noose.

Posted by Chris Hall at April 17, 2007 03:09 PM

Professor Hall,

Good to hear that you're safe, and my condolences on the tragedy that your school has suffered.

p.s. It's most likely because "non-linear" contains the word "on-line" within it.

Posted by John Breen III at April 17, 2007 03:20 PM

Chris,

We are glad to hear you are ok. We are very sorry for the loss of and injury to your colleagues and students. They and their families will remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 17, 2007 03:32 PM

Rand: "But apparently, to people like this, making people "feel" safe is more important than actually making them safe."

Rand,
That's a comment straight out of Bizarro World. Human beings feel safer the more force is at their disposal, but some are rational enough to recognize that everyone having that force means they're in far greater danger. But in the mind of the right-wing imbecile, safety is defined as the proximity of power to the self, not the actual likelihood of being hurt or killed.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 17, 2007 04:32 PM

"That's a comment straight out of Bizarro World."

Apparently the world that is inhabited by one B.S. Gack, I am so tired of reading his words.

Posted by Fred Kiesche at April 17, 2007 05:51 PM

Fred: "Gack, I am so tired of reading his words."

Then I guess thinking about them would be a bridge too far.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 17, 2007 07:10 PM

"[I]f someone commits mass murder with a weapon other than a gun, the national news media usually ignore it..........Julio Gonzalez.........Hector Escudero"
Posted by RKV at April 17, 2007 07:26 AM

Possibly because it wasn't with a gun but also quite likely because they are Hispanic names. I know around here in Dallas shootouts at Hispanic night clubs happen all the time and rarely get mentioned. Hell, even little Hispanic kids playing in the driveway are run over and killed by a family member all the time and it rarely gets any attention. Unless the story somehow involves a blond headed little white girl with pigtails then the media really doesn't care.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 18, 2007 01:05 AM

"Guns aren't some magic sentient monsters."
Posted by Big D at April 17, 2007 07:54 AM

Amen brotha'. I know lots of friends and family that pack. I guess those that take care of their own stick to their own.

I had one friend that verbally aired his opinion against firearms. Coincidentally, he brought this up to me right at the moment we were riding in my car. I informed him I had a rifle in the trunk at which his eyes grew round and a terrifying look came over his face. He looked back like the weapon was going to come flying through the back seat and instantly explode. People who act so nervous about guns and with guns make me nervous and I just can't help to not trust them so much.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 18, 2007 01:15 AM

Just a brief note on drinking and college students: When I went back to school for my BS in Mech Eng a few years ago, I noted that most of my classmates were hungover/drunk at least one day of the week. Letting these people have guns on campus is insanity, pure and simple.

My father believes that alcohol and guns don't mix, but look at all the ads for alcohol in the gun mags. I stopped hunting a few years back because of all of the drunk hunters that were out in the woods, beer bottles and cans strewn all over the place, shooting at any sound they heard.
A friend who was in the 'Nam said that the last time he went hunting in the Adirondacks it was like the "good old days", with shotgun slugs whizzing all around. I own a few hundred acres of land in Northern NY and I no longer allow hunting on my land because of too many drunk or stoned "hunters" shooting at cows, horses, cars.
I used to be an NRA/2nd Amendment absolutist, but no longer. Too many people now own guns that shouldn't, and I just sent a check to the Brady people. Responsible people no longer have any need for guns, the lies of the NRA's well paid lobbyists not withstanding.

Posted by Don at April 18, 2007 03:17 AM

"an armed response to this incident by the students is an even worse catastrophe waiting to happen.

Right, it hasn't happened. There is plenty of examples of the alternatives, both unarmed response that is a catastrophe and armed response that is not a catastrophe.

This is simple logic."

Really. Well, then Leland, from those "plenty of examples" it should be fairly easy for you to point out just ONE incident (anywhere in the world) that supports your "logic." Where are the "plenty of examples" that demonstrate that a collective armed response saved the day? (note: I am arguing a specific scenario, please read the thread(s) before you start spouting off about "ASL" and so forth).

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 06:14 AM

Ok Andy, I'll play the game:

Pearl HS, Mississippi: Oct 1, 1997.

That's the third example given to you.

Now, give us one example where a response by armed citizens responding to a school shooting spree lead to the death of innocents beyond the original shooter or shooters?

Posted by Leland at April 18, 2007 06:56 AM

sorry, Leland, it doesn't match the scenario; again, please go back and read the argument I'm making. I've already acknowledged that a single teacher or student with a weapon may have (even probably could have) stopped the carnage (which is what happened in MS). Heck, I would SUPPORT arming the teachers, just like I support arming pilots. That MS shooter obviously wasn't suicidal either (suicidals aren't going to try to get away, and they're not going to drop their weapon when confronted by another weapon).

My argument, should you take the time to review it, is that allowing the student body to carry weapons is a bad idea, and that a collective response by a multiutude of armed students is potentially catastrophic.

Why? You have an unidentified shooter. Or shooters. Students are scared. To death. The shooter, or shooters (the students don't know. The police don't know) moves from classroom to classroom. If the shooter isn't taken out by the first group of armed student(s), they would probably pursue – into another classroom/hallway/library with armed students. Now, the second group of students, not knowing if the shooter is acting alone, sees some of the first students with guns. What is the natural reaction? Start shooting. Remember, these people are SCARED.

Law-enforcement hit-ratios are statistically low (at best, around 65% in daylight situations), and they decline as more officers get involved. And these are TRAINED personnel who practice REGULARLY.

Now, in the school, given the likelihood that the students aren't as proficient as LE personnel, you have probably 5 (or even more) out of every ten bullets going somewhere besides the intended target. If the target is the real threat, problem solved fairly quickly. If NOT.......well, you do the math.

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 07:37 AM

Andy said: ...they would probably pursue...

There's a wee bit of assumption. Maybe they'd call security. Maybe they'd just wet themselves in relief that the gunman is gone. You don't know. You're basing an argument on an assumption. Loose sand to base your structure on...

Posted by Mac at April 18, 2007 08:46 AM

"Andy said: ...they would probably pursue...

There's a wee bit of assumption. Maybe they'd call security. Maybe they'd just wet themselves in relief that the gunman is gone."

In which case, what good did having a weapon do them?

"You don't know. You're basing an argument on an assumption. Loose sand to base your structure on..."

Of course I am. That's the whole point of the exercise. Given that no such thing has occured, it's ALL speculation.

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 09:02 AM

Yes, that's the ASL scenario that you rejected for some other wandering excuse.

You still haven't provided a scenario backing your argument. If you go back to my original argument, you'll see I'm still waiting...

And I disagree with the "students are scared". This is based on what? The numerous cases of unarmed students that fleed the situation? Again, ASL is evidence that this is not the case. Indeed, there is various stories from Columbine to VTech of students not meerly submitting to the shooters, they just were not able to meet force with force.

Posted by Leland at April 18, 2007 10:21 AM

I beleive the basic premise is that criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed, n'est-ce pas? So-called "gun free zones" advertize that those therein are unarmed.

FYI, the 2002 Appalachian Law School shooter was stopped by an armed student, though the press went out of it's way to omit or minimize that fact.

Even if you think that guns on campus are a bad idea, which I do, it's irresponsible for administrations to put a spotlight on the issue and make their students easy targets.

Posted by Gunga at April 18, 2007 10:23 AM

"Yes, that's the ASL scenario that you rejected for some other wandering excuse.

Jesus f&king Christ, are you dense?

Since you apparently cannot understand what I am saying, let me boil it down for you:

1) one gun in a classroom, probably a good thing.

2) 15, 20 or 30 guns in a classroom, probably not a good thing.

ASL, shooter was identified and isolated (he wasn't moving around between groups of people with guns. Two guys identified him, went and got their guns, and then confronted him. Hooray! I never debated this scenario.

"You still haven't provided a scenario backing your argument. If you go back to my original argument, you'll see I'm still waiting..."

Because, as I've repeatedly stated, there ain't one. There isn't a scenario where the opposite has happened either, your refutations notwithstanding. Again: find me a situation, just ONE, where a classroom full of guns ended a shooting. HASN"T HAPPENED.

We're both speculating. I accept that. You need to understand that as well.

"And I disagree with the "students are scared". This is based on what? The numerous cases of unarmed students that fleed the situation?"

He/she who isn't, or claims not to be, scared in a combat situation (and that's what this is), is a liar or a moron. Soldiers, cops, students: it applies across the board. Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you're not scared.

You are presenting strawmen. I've said my piece (again).

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 11:06 AM

Andy, since you want to degrade to insults, I think my point is made to others. You have failed time and again to come up with an example to support your claim. Others have brought examples to support their claims. You have not.

Where is your example Andy? From my original post:
Right, it hasn't happened. There is plenty of examples of the alternatives, both unarmed response that is a catastrophe and armed response that is not a catastrophe.

Where is your example that an armed response by students has resulted in a major catastrophe?I'll even admit to unarmed responses that prevented a larger catastrophe. Please provide an example to support your arugment, or are you unable to do what you demand of others?

Andy: find me a situation, just ONE, where a classroom full of guns ended a shooting.

Besides you, Andy, who the hell is making this argument? I never made the argument. No one else has made that argument. So why are you whipping that strawman of yours? Can you provide an example of me making a claim that all students should be armed?

I seem to recall my comment in the very first post noted that arming students is not really a good idea based on high suicide rates among college students. So since you like challenges, can you find where anyone who posted in this thread made the claim that you are flogging.

Posted by Leland at April 18, 2007 12:23 PM

Since all I can expect from Andy is robotic like assaults on strawman. Here is the related part of my first comment from the first thread on the VTech issue:

As was said before, if the students could carry fire arms, they could have responded. However, before I necessarily agree that arming college students is a good thing; I would like to revisit the statistics in suicides among college students. Sure, high suicide rates can suggest a poor soul can find a way to kill themselves, but poor souls with a gun usually find a way to kill themselves and who ever drove them to suicide. Still, that number may be 2 or 3 instead of 32.

I don't see any argument supporting arming all students.

Posted by Leland at April 18, 2007 01:04 PM

"Andy, since you want to degrade to insults, I think my point is made to others."

You haven't made a point, Leland. You're re-hashing arguments already succinctly made by others. I've already responded to them. Go back and reread the thread. Let's move on.

You have failed time and again to come up with an example to support your claim. Others have brought examples to support their claims. You have not."

As I have REPEATEDLY said, there is none. It is only speculation. How many times do I have to repeat that for you to understand it?

There is also no counter example. I can't show you an example. Neither can you show me the counter example! Remember, we're speculating here. It's HYPOTHETICAL.

"I never made the argument."

I never said you did. I merely pointed out that my argument is against allowing unlimited number of guns on campus.

"No one else has made that argument. So why are you whipping that strawman of yours? Can you provide an example of me making a claim that all students should be armed?"

You just stepped into this debate. Others, including Rand, have supported allowing the students to be armed. "Allowing the students to be armed" covers the gamut: from one student, to all students.

I'm all for arming teachers. I'm arguing against allowing an unlimited number of guns in a classroom. I've given my reasons why. You don't have to like them. Let's move on.

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 01:04 PM

I can't think of ANY school of higher-education in the U.S. where the majority of the students (more than 50% up through ALL) would even QUALIFY for a CCW permit, let alone get one AND carry if they were allowed to have a gun on campus.

So the mere thought that allowing guns on campus would therefore lead to EVERY student carrying a gun is a specious strawman at best, and a downright preposterous logical fallacy at worst. Allowing something does not necessarily equate to nor lead to that thing being a blanket reality for all. After all, if it were, I would have been given a Porsche by now (not that I couldn't have one if I wanted, I just have my priorities straight at the moment).

And that strange leap of "logic" is my biggest problem with your position, Andy. Unless, of course, you have proof of such an event taking place in an organized society.

Even if you're all for arming teachers, that's still impossible with "gun-free" zones. It's also unlikely that a "teachers only" policy on a college campus would fly for very long, given that the VAST majority of students (not all... I wasn't when I started, and I'm sure some others on here weren't yet, either) are of the age of majority on a college campus, and some would (rightly) feel infantilized in the face of such a policy.

Posted by John Breen III at April 18, 2007 01:29 PM

Andy, next time you get in an argument, would you please make sure the other parties actually disagree with you before you potentially waste their time?

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 18, 2007 07:24 PM

Others, including Rand, have supported allowing the students to be armed. "Allowing the students to be armed" covers the gamut: from one student, to all students.

You continue to kick the stuffing out of a straw man.

My position, and that of others, is that those who are allowed to legally carry in the rest of the state of Virginia, should be allowed to do so on campus as well. You can continue in your delusion that everyone, let alone anyone, has put forth the proposition that all students be armed, but there's no evidence to support it in the record.

And we will continue to mock such a delusion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 18, 2007 07:29 PM

" the mere thought that allowing guns on campus would therefore lead to EVERY student carrying a gun is a specious strawman at best, and a downright preposterous logical fallacy at worst. "

No, but you couldn't prevent it, either. If all, or even half, or even a third, chose to carry, I believe it wouldn't necessarily result in a safer resolution of this scenario.

"And that strange leap of "logic" is my biggest problem with your position, Andy. Unless, of course, you have proof of such an event taking place in an organized society."

Which event do you refer to, John? My hypothetical scenario has NEVER happened, probably not even in disorganized societies. Neither has the counter example. So it's a wash; spceculation on everyone's part (as relates to my specific argument)

"Even if you're all for arming teachers, that's still impossible with "gun-free" zones. It's also unlikely that a "teachers only" policy on a college campus would fly for very long, given that the VAST majority of students (not all... I wasn't when I started, and I'm sure some others on here weren't yet, either) are of the age of majority on a college campus, and some would (rightly) feel infantilized in the face of such a policy."

I don't disagree with that. It's too bad there's no middle ground that allows for arming teachers. And as for responses by any student body, I'd suspect that it would likely depend on the campus; you're likely to see a much different response at Berkeley (maybe that's a poor example, they're pretty extreme Left) or UCLA, than say, at VMI.

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 08:05 PM

"You continue to kick the stuffing out of a straw man."

Only in your black and white world, Rand. Sorry to break it to you, but reality is colored in shades of grey.

"My position, and that of others, is that those who are allowed to legally carry in the rest of the state of Virginia, should be allowed to do so on campus as well. "

That may indeed be your position. But that's not what you said. You can split what hairs you have left all you want (I can't, because I don't have any to spare), but you referred specifically to students. I'll point it out to you, if you like.

"You can continue in your delusion that everyone, let alone anyone, has put forth the proposition that all students be armed, but there's no evidence to support it in the record."

I don't recall ever claiming that anyone advocated arming all students. I've used words like a "multitude," a "bunch", "awash," and the sort (relative to the number of students with guns). None if which mean, or even infer "all." If you, or anyone else, read that in to anything I wrote, then either I wrote it poorly, or your reading comprehension is not up to par.

Posted by Andy at April 18, 2007 08:31 PM

Only in your black and white world, Rand. Sorry to break it to you, but reality is colored in shades of grey.

Damn, if you truly believe that Andy, then why can't you get the difference between "All or nothing" vs Any. The former is black and white, the second is shades of grey. I've never said "all", I just disagree with nothing. In between all and nothing is a grey area called Any.

Please take Karl's advice, Andy.

Posted by Leland at April 19, 2007 04:55 AM

Also, much hay has been made of the "suicidal" nature of the killer in the VT shootings. My take is that several of the other examples given in this thread also had suicidal killers. After all, what outcome can you expect after shooting several people? My take is that there's no indication that the killer would act differently than the other shooters. He just never had a gun pointed directly at him early on when it would have made a difference. Even when someone wants to kill themselves, they can lose their nerve.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 19, 2007 05:10 AM

Good point Karl. When researching examples for my earlier responses, I found it difficult to find a scenario where an intended victim was able to stop the killer. The reason was that most killers saved a bullet for themselves. Without more time researching, I simply don't know how many times the killer waited until encountered a major obstacle, killed all the nearby victims (or intended victims), or simply had one round left.

Posted by Leland at April 19, 2007 07:03 AM

Post a comment