Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

[Meenah]

Re: Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

I think the 2nd ammendment is old, archaic, and needs to go. I think that the original intent of the second ammendment is being abused by groups such as the NRA to further their cause. I fundamentally disagree with the rationale of stopping guns with more guns. There need to be no guns. You are more likely to have a gun stolen from your home and used in the commission of a crime against you or someone else than to use it to protect yourself.

Cars are not the same things. Yes, they can cause harm, but it isn't their intended purpose, unlike a gun. A gun is meant to kill things. Why do we continue to rally for the use of such things?

Heidi, I completely agree!

Jane wrote:Tabula Rasa wrote:
And, it is a fallacy to say it's like the "OK Corral". Something you must understand is that violence is much less likely to happen when a potential murderer knows that they will be stopped before they can do much of their intended damage. It's just like how the presence of a police officer has the same effect. And, the example of Great Britain (removing guns from police officers) shows that it is the gun carried by the officer that causes this effect.

I would say people with "concealed" weapons would not present the deterent as an actual police officer. Therefore the idea of several "normal" students whipping out guns would most likely only add to the chaos.

ITA here too!

[Rapunzel]

Re: Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

And, it is a fallacy to say it's like the "OK Corral". Something you must understand is that violence is much less likely to happen when a potential murderer knows that they will be stopped before they can do much of their intended damage. It's just like how the presence of a police officer has the same effect. And, the example of Great Britain (removing guns from police officers) shows that it is the gun carried by the officer that causes this effect.

I would say people with "concealed" weapons would not present the deterent as an actual police officer. Therefore the idea of several "normal" students whipping out guns would most likely only add to the chaos.

Actually, if you live in a state such as Texas where many people have concealed carry permits it is common knowledge that the people around you are much more likely to be carrying weapons for self-defense. That is a deterrent - that knowledge - just as the knowledge that a police officer carries a weapon is a deterrent.

Again, it's not the badge that deters - it's the knowledge that others are carrying weapons that deters. And, in a state such as Texas you have that knowledge (that other people around you are carrying guns - even if you cannot see them). Indeed, one of the basic things you are taught when carrying a gun is that you only allow others to see it if you intend to use it.

It is psychological - and it's a psychological phenomenon well-known and documented.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

I think the 2nd ammendment is old, archaic, and needs to go. I think that the original intent of the second ammendment is being abused by groups such as the NRA to further their cause. I fundamentally disagree with the rationale of stopping guns with more guns. There need to be no guns. You are more likely to have a gun stolen from your home and used in the commission of a crime against you or someone else than to use it to protect yourself.

Cars are not the same things. Yes, they can cause harm, but it isn't their intended purpose, unlike a gun. A gun is meant to kill things. Why do we continue to rally for the use of such things?

And, where do you get that statistic (that guns are more likely to be stolen from you and used in a crime than in self defense)? The numbers I have seen point to an incredibly high number of people saved from death or serious injury because a gun was used in self-defense. - and that is just what has been reported.

This is also a very curious argument in that a crime committed will ALWAYS be reported - however, a crime that was thwarted may never be brought to light. How many statistics show that would-be attackers were scared off because a man or woman showed a gun? Well, that has happened twice in my own life - and I can say for a fact that neither incidence was reported nor made it to any statisticians table.

Thwarted or deterred crimes are not reported - because they are crimes that never happened. Therefore to say that crime statistics using guns are higher than statistics showing crimes were thwarted by guns is not a valid argument as the latter is severely underdocumented. It's like trying to compare the number of people who have gone to the emergency room for knife accidents with the number of people who have NOT gone to the emergency room because their knife accident didn't end up in an injury. Does not make sense.

The second ammendment is very logical, actually. It permits gun use for self-defense against criminals. It assumes that criminals have weapons. If you take away the second ammendment then you prevent people from defending themselves from criminals - particularly violent criminals. Why would you want to do that?

The idea that all guns are bad therefore we should ban all guns runs up against another basic problem - history has shown time and time again that if something is outright banned it will never, ever prevent criminals from owning it, selling it, and using it. The Prohibition ammendment is a prime example of this fact. In that example a Constitutional ammendment was passed banning alcohol use. Guess what? Alcohol creation, commerce, and use still flourished. In fact, Prohibition is credited with giving organized crime its true "jump" in power in America.

The same has been seen in modern examples with guns. In nations where guns have been banned out-right you see a marked jump in crime - especially violent crime. Criminals know that their targets will not be armed while the criminal can be armed if he breaks the law and buys a gun on the black market (and, being a criminal it's just another crime to purchase that gun on the black market).

If you ban guns all you do is take guns away from law-abiding citizens who would use them in self-defense (ie for legal purposes) while the criminals still have them - and always will.

There are two ways to stop violent crime: 1) By deterring the criminal via his knowledge or assumption that he will be stopped with deadly force if he threatens or uses deadly force himself (either by the intended victim or a bystander) or 2) By convincing violent criminals not to commit violence at all.

Now, if you have a firm, proven solution to #2 then you are officially amazing and I salute you.

Unfortunately we have yet to find something that actually results in method #2.

Which leaves method #1.

As far as cars are concerned:

Cars kill vast amounts of people - men, women, children - every year. They are a gruesome weapon when misused. And, they often are misused.

The arguments you see against guns - period - are the same arguments you can make against cars being legal - period.

Can be misused? Check
Stupid people sometimes get their hands on them? Check
Are used recklessly? Check
Are used illegally? Check
Need to be educated and have a license to operate them around the public? Check

We can dither around as to the intention of car manufacturers vs gun manufacturers but that is a purely philosophical discussion because the results are the same. In that area philosophy loses because the reality negates it.

Now, regarding doing away with an ammendment - a portion of the basic Bill of Rights and a culmination of centuries of increasing human rights - I don't believe I should give up any of my basic human rights. And, history has shown that giving up basic human rights (such as the right to self-defense) results in very bad things (higher violent crime being at the low end of the scale and genocide being at the high end).

This is a point where philosophy is supported by reality - the reality of the entire history of Mankind.

Re: Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

Actually, if you live in a state such as Texas where many people have concealed carry permits it is common knowledge that the people around you are much more likely to be carrying weapons for self-defense. That is a deterrent - that knowledge - just as the knowledge that a police officer carries a weapon is a deterrent.

Actually, all that does is make me a hell of a lot less likely to go to Texas.

[Deebs]

Re: Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

I'm not going down the gun legalization debate. My DH brought up a very interesting point. Many of our National Guardsmen and other military personnel who would normally be on campus are currently overseas. If this wasn't the case, would there have been fewer lives lost? The military folks we know would have at least tried to take the shooter down, regardless of whether or not they had a weapon on them. First of all, they are trained to react to gunfire and other violence. Also, I think they have more of a fight than flight response in these situations. We'll never know the answer to this, but it's an interesting thought.

[Meenah]

Re: Same Gun Dealer Sold to NIU and VT campus shooters

Tonight's nightline segment was on Texans and handguns, very frightening. I don't want to debate it, just an interesting program. I'm sure you can see it on abc.com.